Fakhoury
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1027
Permabull Bitcoin Investor
|
|
July 07, 2015, 07:17:30 PM |
|
Cypherdoc, what are the latest updates regarding the block size debate ?
|
Feb. 14, 2010: I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
July 07, 2015, 07:20:35 PM |
|
as you know, even Gavin talks about this memory problem from UTXO. and yes, i read the Reddit thread that resulted in which you participated and i'm aware that UTXO can be dynamically cached according to needs. http://gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhohGavin was insufficently precise. There is a reddit thread is full of people calling gavin a fool ( ) for saying "memory" when he should have been saying fast storage. https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/596710423094788097Why do you think it's prudent to argue this with me? Okay, lets take a bet. Since you're so confident; surely you'll grant me 1000:1 odds?-- I'll give my side away to a public cause. The question is "Is the entire UTXO set kept in ram in Bitcoin Core ever released?" I will bet 3 BTC and, with the 1000:1 odds, if you lose you'll pay 3000 BTC (which I will to the hashfast liquidators, to return it to the forum members that it was taken from; which will also save you some money in ongoing lawsuit against you). Sounds good? How will we adjudicate? If not, what is your counter-offer for the terms? i didn't say this full block spam attack we're undergoing wasn't affecting my node at_all. sure, i'm in swap, b/c of the huge #unconf tx's but it hasn't shut down or stressed my nodes to any degree. one of the arguments by Cripplecoiners was that these large block attacks would shut full nodes down from destabilization resulting in centralization. i'm not seeing that.
The highest number of unconfirmed transactions I've seen ever is about 8MB. Even if we assume the real max was 3x that this is not explaining your hundreds of megabytes of swap. We just had half the hashpower of the network mining without validating creating multiple large forks and large reorginizations, but you don't see any destabilization. Okay. Let me chime in hear quickly, because I think Greg and I are talking about slightly different things. My model was considering the time between the first moment that a pool could begin hashing on a blockheader, and when the previous block had been processed, a new non-empty block template constructed, and the hashers re-assigned to work on this non-empty block. It looks like this time, empirically, is 15 sec (F2Pool) and 30 sec (AntPool), based on these estimates. Here I suspect you're suffering from an excess of empiracisism without adequately devling into the mechenism. You can directly measure that time time from input to minable on an actual node under your control and will observe the time is hundreds of times faster than your estimate. Why? Miners don't magically know when their pool has new work, they'll get work in the first milliseconds and then grind on it some time before submitting returning work. Even if the pool long polls them, it takes time to replace work. So what I suspect you're actually measuring there is the latency of the mining process... which is consistent with what we've expirenced with P2Pool (5-20 second latencies from ASIC miners are common). I noted you posted a result of a classification, did you run the same data through a simple logistic regression with prior size as the treatment? The intercept in the model would be interesting. But indeed, these conversations have been conflating several seperate issues (latency vs throughput, etc.). Tricky to avoid that since they're all relevant. but you haven't verified that f2pool or Antpool has increased their minrelaytxfee have you to minimize their mempool?
I have, they'd previously cranked it down, and were producing small blocks and were flamed in public. They've since turned it back up. remember, this whole mempool discussion was based off you responding to Peter's mathematics post the other day where you argued that the block verification times were only 80ms for a 250 kB block b/c tx's had been pre-verified after being passed around to all nodes across the network and didn't require re-verification by miners on the relay network and was therefore a refutation of his hypothesis of increasing block verification times (16-37sec on avg) leading to SPV mining.
As PeterR points out, they only need to wait for verification to actually verify (which they're not doing today), though they may have to wait longer to include transactions---- though I point out thats not fundimental e.g. no matter how big the backlog is you can produce a template sufficient to completely fill a block while doing no more work than handling a mempool of twice the maximum block size. (by using a tiered mempool, though no one has bothered to implement this yet-- no one has even been complaining about how long createnewblock takes, due to the ability to produce empty blocks without skipping transactions). well, you did claim some of it was in RAM; https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35asg6/gavin_andresen_utxo_uhoh/cr2za45
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
July 07, 2015, 07:28:31 PM |
|
Cypherdoc, what are the latest updates regarding the block size debate ?
i'm not aware of any progress really. you can follow bitcoin-dev mailing list for the details but everything i've seen there hasn't shown much progress. may someone else who is really following it closely can comment.
|
|
|
|
pa
|
|
July 07, 2015, 07:38:59 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
stallion
|
|
July 07, 2015, 07:47:19 PM |
|
If we talk about fluctuation in the prices of gold , that has always happened in the economy . What hasn't happened is the people who are comfortable with Gold investing their bucks , into equity or Bitcoin , for that matter. Gold is the safe secure return ,and supports the traditional mindset. It needs to be changed.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
July 07, 2015, 08:06:27 PM |
|
If we talk about fluctuation in the prices of gold , that has always happened in the economy . What hasn't happened is the people who are comfortable with Gold investing their bucks , into equity or Bitcoin , for that matter. Gold is the safe secure return ,and supports the traditional mindset. It needs to be changed.
until or unless Bitcoin can manage to get into the hands of ppl worldwide, esp that African kid mining for gold, it won't become a digital gold.
|
|
|
|
|
Hueristic
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3976
Merit: 5390
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
|
|
July 07, 2015, 08:47:24 PM |
|
:really off topic but I so rarely can add to the discussions. Actually in order to address memory out of the address range of the cpu bus a "page swap" method was used which had been used on mainframes for many years, this was called expanded memory and was in 16k chunks which was very slow. with the 286 line extended memory was introduced and the cpu had to go into extended mode in order to access it. That of course if my memory serves me. You should maybe serve your memory some fish, so that it could serve you better. You've conflated several related concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_memoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_memoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode:OFF Topic still Yeah, those links verify what I said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600 and search for "ECS" (Extended Core Storage) Was this the first page swapping mainframe?
|
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
|
|
|
solex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1006
100 satoshis -> ISO code
|
|
July 07, 2015, 09:02:08 PM |
|
Eligius does not do any SPV mining. Empty blocks are generated only after the previous block has been fully verified, but before the next block's transaction set has been calculated.
It may come down to how you defined SPV mining I guess he is saying they try to mine on top of valid blocks and not empty ones.but if you get lucky you may have empty blocks in a row? Would that be SPV mining? Let's call it "empty block mining" instead. He's right that it's not strictly SPV mining if you've indeed verified the previous block, but I think people are interested in the behaviour of Miners in the time between when a miner could begin hashing on an empty block, and when the hashers are actually working on a new non-empty block. So then there's: (1) empty block mining (previous block verified but new transaction set not built). (2) empty block mining (previous block not verified). EDIT: it would be nice to make a diagram to visualize all the steps that take place in the mining process. Tier Nolan has provided a logical explanation of how SPV mining should be done, which of course is just part of the end-to-end process to cut over to a new working block. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1108668.msg11799081#msg11799081
|
|
|
|
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4270
Merit: 8770
|
|
July 07, 2015, 09:12:51 PM |
|
On the topic of block verification times, people on Reddit are saying this block (filled with one huge TX) took up to 25 seconds to verify:
yes, they're actually quoting pieter and I from #bitcoin-dev (telling the miner in advance that the transaction he was creating would take a _LONG_ time to verify). They created a huge non-standard 1MB transaction and part of the verification time is quadratic (in the number of inputs). It's actually possible to create a block that would take many minutes to verify, though not with standard transactions-- only something contrived.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
July 07, 2015, 09:52:26 PM Last edit: July 07, 2015, 10:05:54 PM by cypherdoc |
|
On the topic of block verification times, people on Reddit are saying this block (filled with one huge TX) took up to 25 seconds to verify:
yes, they're actually quoting pieter and I from #bitcoin-dev (telling the miner in advance that the transaction he was creating would take a _LONG_ time to verify). They created a huge non-standard 1MB transaction and part of the verification time is quadratic (in the number of inputs). It's actually possible to create a block that would take many minutes to verify, though not with standard transactions-- only something contrived. and these have to be self mined, correct?
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4732
Merit: 1277
|
|
July 07, 2015, 10:17:02 PM Last edit: July 08, 2015, 11:39:40 PM by tvbcof |
|
Clean and synched mempools makes for a cleaner blockchain, else garbage in - garbage out. Most mempools are synched because node owners don't usually mess with tx policy. They accept the defaults.
The blockchain itself constain substantial counter-eficidence. Any block over 750k is running with changed settings; as are a substantial chunk of the transactions. I think this is all well and good, but it's not the case that its all consistent. IBLT doesn't currently exist, and other mechenisms like the relay network protocol don't care about mempool synchronization levels.
IBLT does exist as it has been prototyped by Kalle and Rusty. It is just nowhere near ready for a pull request. It has never relayed a _single_ block, not in a lab, not anywhere. It does _not_ exist. It certantly can and will exist-- though it's not yet clear how useful it will be over the relay network-- Gavin, for example, doesn't believe it will be useful "until blocks are hundreds of megabytes". While you are bumming around here, Greg, perhaps you could comment on the first thing which hit me when I looked into IBLT. Nobody else has. The thought hit my partially because of who seemed to be promoting it. 1) w/ question Solex posits the 'garbage in/garbage out' principle which IBLT is supposed to be able to address by helping everyone's mempool be syncronized. It imediately struck me that some (if not most) people would consider blacklisted or non-whitelisted UTXOs as being 'garbage'. It struck me that IBLT could be used as an efficient way for miners to be sure that they had 'properly' cleared their transaction list of 'garbage' transactions so they didn't 'waste their time' mining the 'wrong' transactions. Has that danger/potential been explored by the techies? 2) w/o question From my time as a mechanic and having a life-long interest in mechanical things, I will state that for optimizing efficiency and power, tight tolerances and precision are the way to go. The trouble is that fairly small things that go wrong (say, a partial blockage of the radiator) can cause them to seize up. When I raced motorcycles, the high performance ones were expected to be re-built after each race and the performance decline if one did not do this, or if any little thing went wrong was very noticeable and always fatal if one was performing near the top of the field (I was not.) For rugged dependability one wants sloppy clearances, way over-designed parts, etc. They don't run efficiently, but a lot of time that does not matter. The most important thing is that the performance is predictable. Trying valiantly to achieve high precision synchronization of every miner's mempools in nearly real-time across a network which is (hopefully) deliberately distributed seems like a bad idea. Loose 'blocked' tolerances in transaction sequencing leaving construction completely up to individual miners just somehow 'feels' to me to be the way to go from a defensibly standpoint. (Of course I don't give two shits about 0-conf transactions and consider them a negative, so it's easier for me to feel this way.) But don't you think that I'm saying anything bad about it-- I'm not. Cypherdoc was arguing that mempools were (and had) to be the same, and cited IBLT as a reason---- but it cannot currently be a reason, because it doesn't exist. Be careful about assigning virtue to the common fate aspect of it-- as it can make censorship much worse. (OTOH, rusty's latest optimizations reduce the need for consistency; and my network block coding idea-- which is what insired IBLT, but is more complex-- basically eliminates consistency pressure entirely) ... Praise God!
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
July 07, 2015, 10:46:14 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Odalv
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 07, 2015, 10:49:25 PM |
|
On the topic of block verification times, people on Reddit are saying this block (filled with one huge TX) took up to 25 seconds to verify:
yes, they're actually quoting pieter and I from #bitcoin-dev (telling the miner in advance that the transaction he was creating would take a _LONG_ time to verify). They created a huge non-standard 1MB transaction and part of the verification time is quadratic (in the number of inputs). It's actually possible to create a block that would take many minutes to verify, though not with standard transactions-- only something contrived. and these have to be self mined, correct? I'm not sure everybody can broadcast transaction.
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
July 07, 2015, 10:55:17 PM |
|
hey, since everybody and their mother now knows i'm an eye doc, how's your diabetic retinopathy? i was dying to ask you that 3 yr ago back in my cgminer days when you first revealed that. but that was before HF. that's right up my alley you know. Well, after lots of laser shots each visit (I'm pretty sure the total was 100 or more) I stopped going (about 2 years ago?) Yeah I should get around to going back again when I can afford it (before I go blind)
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4732
Merit: 1277
|
|
July 07, 2015, 11:07:37 PM |
|
hey, since everybody and their mother now knows i'm an eye doc, how's your diabetic retinopathy? i was dying to ask you that 3 yr ago back in my cgminer days when you first revealed that. but that was before HF. that's right up my alley you know. Well, after lots of laser shots each visit (I'm pretty sure the total was 100 or more) I stopped going (about 2 years ago?) Yeah I should get around to going back again when I can afford it (before I go blind) As best I can tell, about 50% of doctors are pure scammers and shills for the pharma (and related) medical/industrial complex. Another 40% are clueless mainstreamers who simply regurgitate talking points from the pharma sponsored medical curriculum. The other 10% are good scientists and honorable people who see through all the crap. In the U.S., at least, I think that the whole field of medicine has moved to be mostly a system of wealth distribution and 'social justice.' I swear to God I think that there are genuine efforts to make people sick as much as the other way around. As far as I can see, someone who acts as their own attorney does indeed have fool for a client. Not so with medicine. In the few times when it has actually mattered I've gotten vastly better results by doing my own analysis and research. There are a few exceptions but not all that many.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
July 07, 2015, 11:09:27 PM |
|
On the topic of block verification times, people on Reddit are saying this block (filled with one huge TX) took up to 25 seconds to verify:
yes, they're actually quoting pieter and I from #bitcoin-dev (telling the miner in advance that the transaction he was creating would take a _LONG_ time to verify). They created a huge non-standard 1MB transaction and part of the verification time is quadratic (in the number of inputs). It's actually possible to create a block that would take many minutes to verify, though not with standard transactions-- only something contrived. and these have to be self mined, correct? I'm not sure everybody can broadcast transaction. that's the pt. someone over on Reddit is screaming that this 1MB single tx block is affirmation that bigger blocks is a BAD idea and they're extrapolating to a 20MB tx block as an example. 2 points. first f2pool wasn't performing an attack with this tx; it was actually helping the network by reducing the UTXO set by consolidating all those small inputs. second, only a miner can execute a non-std tx of this size. there is a 100kB max tx size in the IsStandard patch rules (credit nullc) that all propagated tx must adhere to to be a "std tx". otherwise full nodes won't propagate them. in other words, a typical gvt or bank spammer can't shove out into the network a huge 20MB non std tx except if it is a miner who self constructs this tx and self mines it.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
July 07, 2015, 11:14:38 PM |
|
hey, since everybody and their mother now knows i'm an eye doc, how's your diabetic retinopathy? i was dying to ask you that 3 yr ago back in my cgminer days when you first revealed that. but that was before HF. that's right up my alley you know. Well, after lots of laser shots each visit (I'm pretty sure the total was 100 or more) I stopped going (about 2 years ago?) Yeah I should get around to going back again when I can afford it (before I go blind) clinically significant diabetic macular edema is not a good thing. you need to tighten those blood sugar levels. yes, laser and occasionally intravitreal injections of Avastin can be helpful. good luck.
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4732
Merit: 1277
|
|
July 07, 2015, 11:21:03 PM |
|
hey, since everybody and their mother now knows i'm an eye doc, how's your diabetic retinopathy? i was dying to ask you that 3 yr ago back in my cgminer days when you first revealed that. but that was before HF. that's right up my alley you know. Well, after lots of laser shots each visit (I'm pretty sure the total was 100 or more) I stopped going (about 2 years ago?) Yeah I should get around to going back again when I can afford it (before I go blind) clinically significant diabetic macular edema is not a good thing. you need to tighten those blood sugar levels. yes, laser and occasionally intravitreal injections of Avastin can be helpful. good luck. " Swear to God; Hope to Die; Stick a needle in my eye."
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
|