Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

oh yes, nice ramp!

[molecular]

oh yes, nice ramp!

wow!

[smooth]

good point, but: it's not just about the miners, is it? Nodes wont route double spends currently, right?

Right, but there is nothing that requires miners to get their transactions through the p2p, especially if the fee is unusually high.

In other words: why isn't double-spending unconfirmed transactions possible (easy) right now?

Because miners aren't hungry enough. They're mostly mining for block rewards.

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin needs to do an Uber and scoop up as many users as fast as possible round the world before gvts, regulators, and banks can stop it.  we may already be there fortunately but we do have a ways to go and it's clear that 1MB is an artificial cap on growth.

That's the biggest concern I have.

Bank-based Bitcoin competitors are not stopping to take a break and study issues - they are actively working to hire developers and build systems that can grow faster than Bitcoin.

Meanwhile, the anti-scaling crowd is telling us we need more time to study the scaling issues even though they've been saying that since the first time this issue came up in 2012.

Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.

Wait they're not? So what exactly is stopping some developers from coding the fork and releasing it?  Are people worried miners will attack and destroy it? That attack can't succeed in the long term. If the attack works once, you just fork again with a 1 line change to move the fork point forward. Miners are not going to keep wasting resources on that forever, once they see your fork isn't going away, they may see it as more profitable to mine on it honestly.

I'd run it, and I'd probably sell at least part of my stake in the 1mb fork.

problem with that is that it's tantamount to lack of advertising.  if you don't get a consensus, you risk large swaths of the community not even knowing about your fork and others advocating against it.  it would be ideal to get a consensus so that everyone knows and are all onboard to make the switch to the new code.  

most ppl don't really understand how Bitcoin works or the anything about the whole process of consensus or open source.  they'll get confused about what to do if there continues to be battling btwn information sources.  so yes, it's best to get a consensus if possible.

Problem is getting a decentralized consensus. Thank you Bitcoin. ^^

On a personal note, nullc & co may be biaised by their SC stuff, I dont see how these solutions would harm Bitcoin itself, on the contrary.
Otoh, Gavin being an MIT fellow now, I am more than ever concern that he may be biaised by the US Governement.
Besides i dont really appreciate his pushy attitude and I fail to agree with his arguments (ie. his childish blog points and "kudos"), which are anything but technical btw.
Not that i am an "anti" blocksize fork forever either.

Anyway im just a regular bitcoiner, hoping it all goes for the best greater good.

did you see my perspective on this?:

more Gavin:

http://gavinandresen.ninja/big-blocks-and-tor

I haven't read all his bog posts but he is showing signs of understand when it comes to engaging the community.

I can only imagine all these posts were written by taking feedback from lengthy consultations and he planned the release to capture all the fragmented interests in the Bitcoin community one buy one. Leaving specific interests to fight fires as he moves into virgin territory to start a new blaze.

I take my hat off to him he is creative and that's his biggest assets.

i put this video up last month where Gavin clearly telegraphs what is happening now.  he said he might have to throw his weight around which is what he is now doing.  and he has the credibility to do so.  but you have to back up around 2y to understand why he's doing this.  my conspiratorial mind says this is when gmax first hatched the idea of Blockstream and started working on gathering up most of the other core devs into the scheme.  since that time, nothing substantial has gotten done around the core protocol as solex pointed out above. i say it's b/c Blockstream stands to make billions if tx's are forced off MC to SC's.  it's also the time when gmax started hitting Reddit and the forum about the SC idea.  while Gavin has always been respectful and even slightly positive about SC's, i don't think he's fully on board with the idea and i've pointed out subtle examples of such.  and for good reasons as i, and you, have tried to articulate in many settings.  but my point is, this is the setting around which his blog posts are occurring;  it's now time to open up Bitcoin to the masses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

[justusranvier]

but you have to back up around 2y to understand why he's doing this.  my conspiratorial mind says this is when gmax first hatched the idea of Blockstream and started working on gathering up most of the other core devs into the scheme.  since that time, nothing substantial has gotten done around the core protocol as solex pointed out above.

That would explain why they were so furious when btcd launched as a credible competitor to Bitcoin Core and forced them to actually start developing again in order to keep up.

Just try mentioning something positive about btcd and/or its developers on /r/bitcoin and pay attention to the amount of bile and venom that will suddenly be unleashed on you by random low post-count accounts you've never interacted with before.

[jmw74]

Bitcoin needs to do an Uber and scoop up as many users as fast as possible round the world before gvts, regulators, and banks can stop it.  we may already be there fortunately but we do have a ways to go and it's clear that 1MB is an artificial cap on growth.

That's the biggest concern I have.

Bank-based Bitcoin competitors are not stopping to take a break and study issues - they are actively working to hire developers and build systems that can grow faster than Bitcoin.

Meanwhile, the anti-scaling crowd is telling us we need more time to study the scaling issues even though they've been saying that since the first time this issue came up in 2012.

Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.

Wait they're not? So what exactly is stopping some developers from coding the fork and releasing it?  Are people worried miners will attack and destroy it? That attack can't succeed in the long term. If the attack works once, you just fork again with a 1 line change to move the fork point forward. Miners are not going to keep wasting resources on that forever, once they see your fork isn't going away, they may see it as more profitable to mine on it honestly.

I'd run it, and I'd probably sell at least part of my stake in the 1mb fork.

problem with that is that it's tantamount to lack of advertising.  if you don't get a consensus, you risk large swaths of the community not even knowing about your fork and others advocating against it.  it would be ideal to get a consensus so that everyone knows and are all onboard to make the switch to the new code. 

most ppl don't really understand how Bitcoin works or the anything about the whole process of consensus or open source.  they'll get confused about what to do if there continues to be battling btwn information sources.  so yes, it's best to get a consensus if possible.

Gavin's already started coding a possible fork, you're telling me he's not well known enough in the community to get any backing? He may not go that route for political reasons, but anyone could build his code and run it.

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin needs to do an Uber and scoop up as many users as fast as possible round the world before gvts, regulators, and banks can stop it.  we may already be there fortunately but we do have a ways to go and it's clear that 1MB is an artificial cap on growth.

That's the biggest concern I have.

Bank-based Bitcoin competitors are not stopping to take a break and study issues - they are actively working to hire developers and build systems that can grow faster than Bitcoin.

Meanwhile, the anti-scaling crowd is telling us we need more time to study the scaling issues even though they've been saying that since the first time this issue came up in 2012.

Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.

Wait they're not? So what exactly is stopping some developers from coding the fork and releasing it?  Are people worried miners will attack and destroy it? That attack can't succeed in the long term. If the attack works once, you just fork again with a 1 line change to move the fork point forward. Miners are not going to keep wasting resources on that forever, once they see your fork isn't going away, they may see it as more profitable to mine on it honestly.

I'd run it, and I'd probably sell at least part of my stake in the 1mb fork.

problem with that is that it's tantamount to lack of advertising.  if you don't get a consensus, you risk large swaths of the community not even knowing about your fork and others advocating against it.  it would be ideal to get a consensus so that everyone knows and are all onboard to make the switch to the new code. 

most ppl don't really understand how Bitcoin works or the anything about the whole process of consensus or open source.  they'll get confused about what to do if there continues to be battling btwn information sources.  so yes, it's best to get a consensus if possible.

Gavin's already started coding a possible fork, you're telling me he's not well known enough in the community to get any backing? He may not go that route for political reasons, but anyone could build his code and run it.

no, i didn't say that.  he does have the credibility to obtain backing for his fork.  that is what will probably happen.  i just said that in the ideal situation, consensus would be achieved.  i don't think it's too late for that b/c in my opinion, the Blockstream devs have already lost.  if they persist in obstructionist behavior, they'll probably get replaced.

[Adrian-x]

If there is one silver lining to the block size increase arguments, it is that it shows how difficult it is to get a majority of participants in a decentralized system to agree to anything. Overall this is a good thing, since the default is to keep bitcoin the way it is which makes it harder to push in regulatory changes that are against it's purpose.

Also music to my ears, a similar sentiment expressed here. The block size discussion/debate/fight is beautiful

But Blockstream do have an ace up there sleeve, their solution can be implemented with a soft fork and all they need to do is to sway miners by offering them more income to merge mine sidechains, that is a change to the intensive structure that secures Bitcoin.


@ hdbuck, that change in incentives is a treat to Bitcoins long term security it can become destructive for the network at about the time block rewards no longer provide the dominant source of mining income.
 

[cypherdoc]

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

[Adrian-x]

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

I guess people can do what they like with their money, were there any complaints? couldn't be a very long book.

[cypherdoc]

Mike Hearn's with too much logic:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

[cypherdoc]

Mike Hearn's with too much logic:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

How do you think ordinary Bitcoin users would react on hearing of crashing nodes, a swelling transaction backlog, a sudden spike in double spending, skyrocketing fees … and all of it because of an entirely predictable event with an incredibly simple fix?

They would conclude that the Bitcoin developer community was incompetent. That would make the news.

well, if this happens we know exactly who to blame.  here's looking at you ....

[sickpig]

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

Is this a consequence of p2sh?

Yes, it is.

They used the 520 byte of the redeemScript to "inject" suitably padded text for easy recovery with strings(1) (i.e. strings -n 20).

[Meuh6879]

How do you think ordinary Bitcoin users would react on hearing of crashing nodes, a swelling transaction backlog, a sudden spike in double spending, skyrocketing fees … and all of it because of an entirely predictable event with an incredibly simple fix?

They would conclude that the Bitcoin developer community was incompetent. That would make the news.

P2P don't react per futur anticipation ... that why P2P survive from 17 years now (in file sharing).
They see ... and ... they make correction.

We don't play like FED or BOJ or BCE ... with god prediction.
We wait ... see ... and make correction.

Like normal people.

[cypherdoc]

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

Is this a consequence of p2sh?

Yes, it is.

They used the 520 byte of the redeemScript to "inject" suitably padded text for easy recovery with strings(1) (i.e. strings -n 20).

"inject" suitably padded text for easy recovery with strings(1) (i.e. strings -n 20).

can you explain this a bit more and did this bloat the p2sh tx markedly?  if it is such an effective attack, why aren't we seeing a whole slew of these occurring?

[cypherdoc]

How do you think ordinary Bitcoin users would react on hearing of crashing nodes, a swelling transaction backlog, a sudden spike in double spending, skyrocketing fees … and all of it because of an entirely predictable event with an incredibly simple fix?

They would conclude that the Bitcoin developer community was incompetent. That would make the news.

P2P don't react per futur anticipation ... that why P2P survive from 17 years now (in file sharing).
They see ... and ... they make correction.

We don't play like FED or BOJ or BCE ... with god prediction.
We wait ... see ... and make correction.

Like normal people.

normal ppl plan ahead too.

bit torrent can afford to take a wait and see attitude b/c it "only" involves sharing files, usually music, and is used by a small niche community.  p2p has never before dealt with the network of money which depends largely on "confidence".  Bitcoin can't afford to allow itself to be taken down only to get up again in a repetitive process.  i'd argue that the community wants to spread Bitcoin far and wide to replace one of the biggest problems in the world today; fiat money.  that can only happen with a growing level of confidence in a system that doesn't break down repetitively from choke points.  

that type of strategy could set us back a hundred years.

[HeliKopterBen]

Besides i dont really appreciate his pushy attitude and I fail to agree with his arguments (ie. his childish blog points and "kudos"), which are anything but technical btw.
Not that i am an "anti" blocksize fork forever either.
Anyway im just a regular bitcoiner, hoping it all goes for the best greater good.

IMO he is not being pushy enough.  A lot can happen in the next 10 months.  Tx rates could easily double, which would bump right up against the 1mb limit.  Forget a 3x, 5x, or 10x increase. 

Most likely there will be plenty of room for the block size increase AND secondary layer scaling solutions. 

[solex]

Alan Reiner (Armory lead developer) weighs in and clearly shows that he understands the Big Picture.
What he writes deserves to be memorialized here as it is pertinent to the whole spirit of "Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP"

Quoted text below

This *is* urgent and needs to be handled right now, and I believe Gavin
has the best approach to this.  I have heard Gavin's talks on increasing
the block size, and the two most persuasive points to me were:

(1) Blocks are essentially nearing "full" now.  And by "full" he means
that the reliability of the network (from the average user perspective)
is about to be impacted in a very negative way (I believe it was due to
the inconsistent time between blocks).  I think Gavin said that his
simulations showed 400 kB - 600 kB worth of transactions per 10 min
(approx 3-4 tps) is where things start to behave poorly for certain
classes of transactions.  In other words, we're very close to the
effective limit in terms of maintaining the current "standard of
living", and with a year needed to raise the block time this actually is
urgent.

(2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually
really a bad idea.  It's really bad while Bitcoin is still growing, and
relying on fee pressure at 1 MB severely impacts attractiveness and
adoption potential of Bitcoin (due to high fees and unreliability).  But
more importantly, it ignores the fact that for a 7 tps is pathetic for a
global transaction system.  It is a couple orders of magnitude too low
for any meaningful commercial activity to occur.  If we continue with a
cap of 7 tps forever, Bitcoin *will* fail.  Or at best, it will fail to
be useful for the vast majority of the world (which probably leads to
failure).  We shouldn't be talking about fee pressure until we hit 700
tps, which is probably still too low.

You can argue that side chains and payment channels could alleviate
this.  But how far off are they?  We're going to hit effective 1MB
limits long before we can leverage those in a meaningful way.  Even if
everyone used them, getting a billion people onto the system just can't
happen even at 1 transaction per year per person to get into a payment
channel or move money between side chains.

We get asked all the time by corporate clients about scalability.  A
limit of 7 tps makes them uncomfortable that they are going to invest
all this time into a system that has no chance of handling the economic
activity that they expect it handle.  We always assure them that 7 tps
is not the final answer.

Satoshi didn't believe 1 MB blocks were the correct answer.  I
personally think this is critical to Bitcoin's long term future.   And
I'm not sure what else Gavin could've done to push this along in a
meaninful way.

-Alan

[rocks]

Added some diagrams which should greatly enhance understanding of the protocol:

https://github.com/justusranvier/rfc/blob/payment_code/bips/bip-pc01.mediawiki

Thanks for the diagrams, they were helpful.

Quick question. If I understand the notification transaction correctly, in order to maintain privacy on future payments, payments to the notification address can not be associated with Bob's payment code, and so Bob has to make sure that payments to this notification address are never associated with him. And if they were then the privacy is lost.  

If this is the case (and I may be wrong) I was wondering about potential attacks here. For example are timing attacks possible? i.e. imagine the situation where a government agency monitoring the internet knows that Alice intended to initiate a payment to Bob for an online purchase at exactly 8:52pm.

Both Alice's and Bob's payment codes are known since they are public and in addition the time frame of the notification transaction is also known. Couldn't such an agency then look for all transactions in that specific time frame that might be a notification transaction and try them until finding one that matches? Does such an attack gain information for Eve, or are there reasons this isn't possible or useful?

[cypherdoc]

Alan Reiner (Armory lead developer) weighs in and clearly shows that he understands the Big Picture.
What he writes deserves to be memorialized here as it is pertinent to the whole spirit of "Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP"

Quoted text below

This *is* urgent and needs to be handled right now, and I believe Gavin
has the best approach to this.  I have heard Gavin's talks on increasing
the block size, and the two most persuasive points to me were:

(1) Blocks are essentially nearing "full" now.  And by "full" he means
that the reliability of the network (from the average user perspective)
is about to be impacted in a very negative way (I believe it was due to
the inconsistent time between blocks).  I think Gavin said that his
simulations showed 400 kB - 600 kB worth of transactions per 10 min
(approx 3-4 tps) is where things start to behave poorly for certain
classes of transactions.  In other words, we're very close to the
effective limit in terms of maintaining the current "standard of
living", and with a year needed to raise the block time this actually is
urgent.

(2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually
really a bad idea.  It's really bad while Bitcoin is still growing, and
relying on fee pressure at 1 MB severely impacts attractiveness and
adoption potential of Bitcoin (due to high fees and unreliability).  But
more importantly, it ignores the fact that for a 7 tps is pathetic for a
global transaction system.  It is a couple orders of magnitude too low
for any meaningful commercial activity to occur.  If we continue with a
cap of 7 tps forever, Bitcoin *will* fail.  Or at best, it will fail to
be useful for the vast majority of the world (which probably leads to
failure).  We shouldn't be talking about fee pressure until we hit 700
tps, which is probably still too low.

You can argue that side chains and payment channels could alleviate
this.  But how far off are they?  We're going to hit effective 1MB
limits long before we can leverage those in a meaningful way.  Even if
everyone used them, getting a billion people onto the system just can't
happen even at 1 transaction per year per person to get into a payment
channel or move money between side chains.

We get asked all the time by corporate clients about scalability.  A
limit of 7 tps makes them uncomfortable that they are going to invest
all this time into a system that has no chance of handling the economic
activity that they expect it handle.  We always assure them that 7 tps
is not the final answer.

Satoshi didn't believe 1 MB blocks were the correct answer.  I
personally think this is critical to Bitcoin's long term future.   And
I'm not sure what else Gavin could've done to push this along in a
meaninful way.

-Alan

wow, thanks so much for this.  there are no other Bitcoin devs i trust more than Alan & Gavin.  he's helped me immensely over the years as i was one of the only two to donate $500 (top level) to his initial Armory crowdfunding campaign what, 3-4 yrs ago now?  for that, i got an Armory USB stick, a teeshirt, a coupla bitcoins (i think), & most importantly his old laptop with a sticker on the back with his name and phone #'s, lol.  i'm quite sure he forgot to remove them and i've only ever used the # twice  he's taught me alot about crypto.  i've tried to tailor back my contact with him in the last year or so as i know he is way busier than ever and has grown in stature so it didn't even occur to me to ask his opinion on this matter.  best thing about him is he's a great guy.  i'm so glad you did and hearing his response is reassuring to me that i am pushing the right direction.  thanks again.