Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2017, 07:23:40 PM
 News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 Home Help Search Donate Login Register
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
 1.  yes 2.  no

 Pages: 1 ... 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 [457] 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 ... 1558
 Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1997252 times)
Peter R
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1050

 July 03, 2014, 06:17:59 PM

but isn't the speed (7 tx/s) different than the block size limit (1MB/block)?

Sort of, but they are related.  The real limit is the 1 MB blocksize limit.  1 MB every 10 minutes is 10^6 bytes / (10 min x 60 sec/min) = 1,667 bytes per second and 1 MB every 8 minutes is 2,084 bytes per second.  The "seven transactions per second" concept apparently stems from the scalability wiki.  At 1,667 bytes/s, it implicitly assumes that each TX is about 240 bytes (or 300 bytes at 2,084 bytes/s).

The average TX in bytes is most certainly larger than both of these figures (although I don't have a reference on hand).  Simple 1-input/2-output TXs like this are 226 bytes.  Txs that have more inputs or more outputs, or more complex scripts, will be larger.  In other words, the network would likely hit the 1 MB/block bandwidth limit at less than seven transactions per second.

In any case, the bitcoin community seems to think of the limit as "seven transactions per second."  Although this is an approximation, I think it is useful nonetheless.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
1508786620
Hero Member

Offline

Posts: 1508786620

Ignore
 1508786620

1508786620
 Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
justusranvier
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1400

 July 03, 2014, 06:19:54 PM

here's my economic solution to ghash:  why doesn't someone just duplicate their 0 fee model along with mining contracts?  with time and future growth of Bitcoin, this should happen naturally as competitors "see" a successful model they want to get in on.  competitors may already be organizing as far as we know.  no need to panic.  others are also planning ways to further decentralization:
What you need to know about Ghash is they are just one part of a vertically-integrated operation.

BitFury is the manufacturer who builds the ASICs.
CEX is the retail side, selling shares of the hashing power and creating a commodity exchange for trading those shares.
Ghash.io is the pool where CEX points their hashing power. They constitute about half of the total Ghash.io network, with independent miners making up the rest.

The underlined portion is why the BitFury/CEX/Ghash conglomerate is doing better than everybody else. They get greater access to capital because they offer a commodity exchange which is  apparently what mining investors want.

The reason no one else does this is because the operators of CEX are in Ukraine, one of the few places where the SEC/CFTC can't easily get to them.
_mr_e
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 817

 July 03, 2014, 06:20:54 PM

actually illegal in many places of the world due to the trading platform and the contracts being deemed securities. This is likely why no one has shown up to complete with them yet.

well then, this should catch up with them too.

i'm not recommending anyone doing this but you could report them if you wanted to stop them from doing this.

The point being that they are actually being run by a far more powerful entity, one that is capable of breaking these sorts of rules with no repercussions. They may have not started off that way but let's face it, that area of the world is filled with corruption and who wouldn't want to get their paws all over the most powerful global currency ever invented? Normal miner incentives don't affect these sorts of players the same way.
cypherdoc
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764

 July 03, 2014, 06:43:31 PM

actually illegal in many places of the world due to the trading platform and the contracts being deemed securities. This is likely why no one has shown up to complete with them yet.

well then, this should catch up with them too.

i'm not recommending anyone doing this but you could report them if you wanted to stop them from doing this.

The point being that they are actually being run by a far more powerful entity, one that is capable of breaking these sorts of rules with no repercussions. They may have not started off that way but let's face it, that area of the world is filled with corruption and who wouldn't want to get their paws all over the most powerful global currency ever invented? Normal miner incentives don't affect these sorts of players the same way.

you may be right and i'm glad to see that solutions are being worked on as proposed in Hearn's blog post.  as long as these solutions stay away from the main core protocol.

iirc, Bitfury themselves pulled 1.5 PH/s from ghash during this issue so there are solutions being implemented as we speak. also Petamine voted to move to p2pool.  i may in fact move to p2pool as soon as some of the software issues get cleared up.
Peter R
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1050

 July 03, 2014, 06:44:45 PM

actually illegal in many places of the world due to the trading platform and the contracts being deemed securities. This is likely why no one has shown up to complete with them yet.

well then, this should catch up with them too.

i'm not recommending anyone doing this but you could report them if you wanted to stop them from doing this.

The point being that they are actually being run by a far more powerful entity, one that is capable of breaking these sorts of rules with no repercussions. They may have not started off that way but let's face it, that area of the world is filled with corruption and who wouldn't want to get their paws all over the most powerful global currency ever invented? Normal miner incentives don't affect these sorts of players the same way.

You said "that area of the world is filled with corruption and who wouldn't want to get their paws all over the most powerful global currency ever invented" but your logic applies to all areas of the world.  We're witnessing the same game theory playing out over and over, each time with higher and higher stakes.  If bitcoin continues to grow in importance, increasingly powerful entities will move into mining.  I find it very unlikely that they will all see eye to eye.  Which means the arms race will continue and the consensus mechanism will remain objective.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764

 July 03, 2014, 07:36:39 PM

but isn't the speed (7 tx/s) different than the block size limit (1MB/block)?

The block size determines the transactions per second. Allowing a larger block size means that more transactions can be included per block.

thx for making me review that. i was getting confused with data rates.  is there a maximum MB/s that constrains the network speed?

cypherdoc
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764

 July 03, 2014, 08:23:01 PM

"He added that since his government announced it is to set up a licensicng scheme/register, it has received a lot of interest from bitcoin companies across the world looking to relocate to the island."

http://www.coindesk.com/bitfin-day-one-circle-talks-p2p-payments-isle-man-details-bitcoin-plans/

i'm telling you; the first country to formally open up regulations (hands off) to Bitcoin is going to blow the doors off.

it's inevitable.
cypherdoc
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764

 July 03, 2014, 09:32:40 PM

bwahahaha!

justusranvier
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1400

 July 03, 2014, 09:39:09 PM

Speaking of BitFury, they are the real reason for the mining centralization uproar. The idea that Allaire/Hearn are concerned about decentralization is laughable. Seriously, a Goldman Sachs veteran and a Google veteran?

This is all a propaganda campaign necessitated by the fact that the single largest holder of hashing power is Russian, and all the hardware is manufactured in China.

They've successfully created a Pavlovian reaction associated with the word "decentralized" and now intend to use it to convince the community to switch over to a mining network more easily controlled by the vampire squid.
cypherdoc
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764

 July 03, 2014, 10:12:32 PM

"Testifying, Binney accused the NSA of having a "totalitarian mentality" and wanting "total information control" over citizens in breach of the US constitution. It was an approach that until now the public had only seen among dictators, he added."

"The NSA represented the "greatest threat" to American society since the US Civil War of the 19th century, Binney added."

http://www.dw.de/nsa-totalitarian-ex-staffer-tells-german-parliament/a-17757008
cypherdoc
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764

 July 03, 2014, 10:31:14 PM

FNG
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 588

 July 04, 2014, 01:34:06 AM

If you'd like to listen where he brought it up

http://www.brrmedia.com/event/124409/sp-ag-020714

He Chairs a committee at the BIS (Central Bank for Central Banks)
FNG
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 588

 July 04, 2014, 03:42:11 AM

Gold demand getting out of hand in India. CB going to dump some

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-03/india%E2%80%99s-central-bank-sell-gold-market-exchange-gold-bank-england
zeetubes
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 371

 July 04, 2014, 08:26:24 AM

I read a comment somewhere that perhaps the UK could use some extra gold and this helps them out more than it does India. maybe true.
NewLiberty
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1162

Gresham's Lawyer

 July 04, 2014, 09:22:45 AM

but isn't the speed (7 tx/s) different than the block size limit (1MB/block)?

Sort of, but they are related.  The real limit is the 1 MB blocksize limit.  1 MB every 10 minutes is 10^6 bytes / (10 min x 60 sec/min) = 1,667 bytes per second and 1 MB every 8 minutes is 2,084 bytes per second.  The "seven transactions per second" concept apparently stems from the scalability wiki.  At 1,667 bytes/s, it implicitly assumes that each TX is about 240 bytes (or 300 bytes at 2,084 bytes/s).

The average TX in bytes is most certainly larger than both of these figures (although I don't have a reference on hand).  Simple 1-input/2-output TXs like this are 226 bytes.  Txs that have more inputs or more outputs, or more complex scripts, will be larger.  In other words, the network would likely hit the 1 MB/block bandwidth limit at less than seven transactions per second.

In any case, the bitcoin community seems to think of the limit as "seven transactions per second."  Although this is an approximation, I think it is useful nonetheless.
Block interval tends less than 10 minutes, so 7/sec is pretty close to our average limit.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
NewLiberty
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1162

Gresham's Lawyer

 July 04, 2014, 09:32:55 AM

actually illegal in many places of the world due to the trading platform and the contracts being deemed securities. This is likely why no one has shown up to complete with them yet.

well then, this should catch up with them too.

i'm not recommending anyone doing this but you could report them if you wanted to stop them from doing this.

The point being that they are actually being run by a far more powerful entity, one that is capable of breaking these sorts of rules with no repercussions. They may have not started off that way but let's face it, that area of the world is filled with corruption and who wouldn't want to get their paws all over the most powerful global currency ever invented? Normal miner incentives don't affect these sorts of players the same way.

you may be right and i'm glad to see that solutions are being worked on as proposed in Hearn's blog post.  as long as these solutions stay away from the main core protocol.

iirc, Bitfury themselves pulled 1.5 PH/s from ghash during this issue so there are solutions being implemented as we speak. also Petamine voted to move to p2pool.  i may in fact move to p2pool as soon as some of the software issues get cleared up.

P2pool is a solution.
bitfury repointing isnt.

Control remains centralized, the repointing can be for as long as desired and then pointed elsewhere.  The control remains with the bitfury/cex/ghash Keiretsu

Repointing does hide the centralization though.  It relaxes folks.  Makes people think that all is well, when instead we are on the edge or over it, and can't even tell.

It also encourages folks to do nothing or even to join GHash because "look it isn't so bad now and they are protecting us".  It makes me wonder if sometimes people can't even hear their own thoughts with any critical review.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
kehtolo
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 706

 July 04, 2014, 09:48:39 AM

I really think there should be something done to limit pools to a Maximum of 20% - I've no idea how this would work, as I am ignorant of mining..
(i tried it out in the early days, but left it as my GPU wasn't suitable, couldn't afford a good one at the time)

Anyway.. perhaps even some sort of general agreement between the pools, or something in the protocol that won't recognise pools if they go over 25%
They get a warning at 20% and have time to take action to avoid reaching 25%
Or that pools won't accept extra hash if they reach 20%

Would be better for all.. At least i think it would but i'm sure there are issues that i'm not thinking about.

EDIT: There is nothing stopping an organisation having 2 pools at 20% = centralization by a different name, but at least there would be no danger of a 51% attack.

The next 24 hours are critical!
NewLiberty
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1162

Gresham's Lawyer

 July 04, 2014, 10:39:33 AM

I really think there should be something done to limit pools to a Maximum of 20% - I've no idea how this would work, as I am ignorant of mining..
(i tried it out in the early days, but left it as my GPU wasn't suitable, couldn't afford a good one at the time)

Anyway.. perhaps even some sort of general agreement between the pools, or something in the protocol that won't recognise pools if they go over 25%
They get a warning at 20% and have time to take action to avoid reaching 25%
Or that pools won't accept extra hash if they reach 20%

Would be better for all.. At least i think it would but i'm sure there are issues that i'm not thinking about.

EDIT: There is nothing stopping an organisation having 2 pools at 20% = centralization by a different name, but at least there would be no danger of a 51% attack.

This wouldn't be bitcoin.

Maybe an alt coin could do it.  We'd need to see it work for a significant amount of time.  Counter measures have counter-counter measures.

The way the percentage is measured is more or less, after the fact.
Its done by looking at who solved the blocks.  You are proposing a way of measuring the hash power that went into that solve other than just estimating based on time and averages, numbers of hashes submitted, etc.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
flipperfish
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 336

Dolphie Selfie

 July 04, 2014, 02:00:22 PM

but isn't the speed (7 tx/s) different than the block size limit (1MB/block)?
The block size determines the transactions per second. Allowing a larger block size means that more transactions can be included per block.
thx for making me review that. i was getting confused with data rates.  is there a maximum MB/s that constrains the network speed?

At least there is no hard limit. There seems to be a soft limit depending on the network bandwidth of single nodes, though. If a single node has not enough bandwidth to download the next block within 10 minutes, it can't catch up with the blockchain. E.g. a typical private residential internet connection has about 2 MB/s (?) receiving bandwidth. When blocksize is larger than 2 MB/s * 10 * 60 s = 1200 MB, home nodes can't download the blocks in time and will be left behind. Luckily it's the receiving speed that is relevant here, which is a lot faster than sending speed on the typical home internet line.

EDIT: There is nothing stopping an organisation having 2 pools at 20% = centralization by a different name, but at least there would be no danger of a 51% attack.

The danger of attacks possible by controling more than 50% of hash power are still there, even if a single organization decides to operate 2 pools. The organization simply has to coordinate the attacks across both its pools.
I think having one organization operating 2 pools is even worse than having one organization operating one pool. More so, if it's not known by the public, that both pools belong to the single organization. The real danger is hidden in this case, which is worse, than a danger the public knows about.
cypherdoc
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764

 July 04, 2014, 02:17:56 PM

The way the percentage is measured is more or less, after the fact.
Its done by looking at who solved the blocks.  You are proposing a way of measuring the hash power that went into that solve other than just estimating based on time and averages, numbers of have shes submitted, etc.

I thought it was measured  by who relayed the block?
 Pages: 1 ... 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 [457] 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 ... 1558
 « previous topic next topic »