Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[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]

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!

[cypherdoc]

great Reddit thread about how the network of full nodes is VERY capable of handling much more than the FUD 2-3TPS being pushed.  it looks like it can handle anywhere from 221-442TPS at peak.  no wonder my full nodes have been sitting around unstressed and underutilized:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3cgyiv/new_transaction_record_442_txs_the_nodes_endured/

[cypherdoc]

there's alot more going on than what meets the eye:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3cgft7/largest_transaction_ever_mined_999657_kb_consumes/csvbtp4

take it from an eye doctor.

[Odalv]

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]

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]

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.

[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?

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]

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]

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."

[lunarboy]

great Reddit thread about how the network of full nodes is VERY capable of handling much more than the FUD 2-3TPS being pushed.  it looks like it can handle anywhere from 221-442TPS at peak.  no wonder my full nodes have been sitting around unstressed and underutilized:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3cgyiv/new_transaction_record_442_txs_the_nodes_endured/

Yeah these three buried posts cleared a few things up

Tardigrade1 8 points 2 hours ago*

Well, not entirely true. There is more to processing a transaction than propagating and storing it. But now that discussion has proven wrong and confirming that the only problem is the blocksize. There is no reason not to upgrade from a node/network perspective.

Before these spam attacks there was definitly discussion about if the nodes could handle the large volume of tx/s spamming them. This has now gone.

 

[–]awemany 11 points an hour ago*

This is a very good point. What you are basically saying is this, if I understand you correctly - please correct me if I am wrong:

The Bitcoin network got indeed 442tx/s for a short while, filling up mempools.

That means that nodes processed and validated 442tx/s for a while. They only didn't write them to the block chain, to disk as valid blocks, because enforced protocol rules right now prevent that.

The only reason the average actual rate didn't go up to 442tx/s is because the hard blocksize limit prevents blocks from being that large.

Note that without IBLT being implemented yet, you'd have to cut the effective transaction rate in half. Mined blocks would about contain the same number of transactions that get put into the network.

But this still means that the current, as-is Bitcoin network can handle 221 tx/s for a short period of time.

I think it is thus very safe to assume it can handle at least a tenth of that (to play it extra safe) continuously.

That would be 22.1tx/s. ~7MB blocks.

Lets please remove the damn limit now.

[–]Tardigrade1 12 points an hour ago

Yes precisely. This spam-attack has been far more interesting than people here realize. What we learnt was that a very high rate of transactions can still successfully propagate across the world, from node to node. Then they just wait to be included in the block.

[cypherdoc]

great Reddit thread about how the network of full nodes is VERY capable of handling much more than the FUD 2-3TPS being pushed.  it looks like it can handle anywhere from 221-442TPS at peak.  no wonder my full nodes have been sitting around unstressed and underutilized:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3cgyiv/new_transaction_record_442_txs_the_nodes_endured/

Yeah these three buried posts cleared a few things up

Tardigrade1 8 points 2 hours ago*

Well, not entirely true. There is more to processing a transaction than propagating and storing it. But now that discussion has proven wrong and confirming that the only problem is the blocksize. There is no reason not to upgrade from a node/network perspective.

Before these spam attacks there was definitly discussion about if the nodes could handle the large volume of tx/s spamming them. This has now gone.

 

[–]awemany 11 points an hour ago*

This is a very good point. What you are basically saying is this, if I understand you correctly - please correct me if I am wrong:

The Bitcoin network got indeed 442tx/s for a short while, filling up mempools.

That means that nodes processed and validated 442tx/s for a while. They only didn't write them to the block chain, to disk as valid blocks, because enforced protocol rules right now prevent that.

The only reason the average actual rate didn't go up to 442tx/s is because the hard blocksize limit prevents blocks from being that large.

Note that without IBLT being implemented yet, you'd have to cut the effective transaction rate in half. Mined blocks would about contain the same number of transactions that get put into the network.

But this still means that the current, as-is Bitcoin network can handle 221 tx/s for a short period of time.

I think it is thus very safe to assume it can handle at least a tenth of that (to play it extra safe) continuously.

That would be 22.1tx/s. ~7MB blocks.

Lets please remove the damn limit now.

[–]Tardigrade1 12 points an hour ago

Yes precisely. This spam-attack has been far more interesting than people here realize. What we learnt was that a very high rate of transactions can still successfully propagate across the world, from node to node. Then they just wait to be included in the block.

M_O_A is making an ass of himself throughout that thread.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

kano, change your diet. Research the Paleo diet. Start with some Google searches:

"Why is wheat bad"

"Why are night shades bad"

"Why is corn bad"

"Why is pasteurized milk bad"

"Why are nuts bad"

Then start fermenting cabbage or some food and eating it daily, along with your Paleo diet, because good bacteria appears to be one of the keys.

Also drastically increase your exercise.

Also consider a fecal transplant.

I am only eating sweet "potato" alias camote for carbohydrates. I am eating mostly chicken soup with cabbage and small mackerel-like fish fried whole (head and tail, crunchy). I eat green leafy vegetables with every meal.

[TPTB_need_war]

great Reddit thread about how the network of full nodes is VERY capable of handling much more than the FUD 2-3TPS being pushed.  it looks like it can handle anywhere from 221-442TPS at peak.  no wonder my full nodes have been sitting around unstressed and underutilized:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3cgyiv/new_transaction_record_442_txs_the_nodes_endured/

The capability to propagate and verify transactions to some radius of the network is not a proof that propagating larger blocks won't centralize. If you don't understand why, then you should not be commenting profusely on the block size issue.

Again I am not fighting you. Just saying.

[TPTB_need_war]

I suppose you're thinking of 21 Inc's plan for zombie miners?

Somewhat. I'm simply thinking that a large number of smaller miners (whether of the variety envisioned by 21 Inc or otherwise) has an advantage because none of them particularly care about variance or actually prefer it, both for lottery reasons and because in general increased variance is a good way to reduce effective transaction costs.

And you Sir are getting dangerously close to my design. But I did give you a strong hint when I said those who transact should be the miners. But you've got a long way to go from that observation to what I have designed. There are some clever twists still.

[cypherdoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3chtdp/the_blocksize_cap_is_basically_worthless_for/

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

You can both just not waste your time, because I will eliminate mempools from PoW consensus.

[BitcoinIsLiberty]

Would it work to create a sidechain with a mix of crypto algorithms that bitcoin uses and offer faster/larger blocks blocks and pegged 1:1 with bitcoin. Then as people use the sidechain, hardware is created that verifies the bitcoin chain and mines on the sidechain?

[brg444]

china markets getting wrekt againn  

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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.

kano, change your diet. Research the Paleo diet. Start with some Google searches:

"Why is wheat bad"

"Why are night shades bad"

"Why is corn bad"

"Why is pasteurized milk bad"

"Why are nuts bad"

Then start fermenting cabbage or some food and eating it daily, along with your Paleo diet, because good bacteria appears to be one of the keys.

Also drastically increase your exercise.

Also consider a fecal transplant.

I am only eating sweet "potato" alias camote for carbohydrates. I am eating mostly chicken soup with cabbage and small mackerel-like fish fried whole (head and tail, crunchy). I eat green leafy vegetables with every meal.

Glad to see this. Besides the other health benefits, the psychobiotic effects of changing diet and microbe populations can be dramatic. Another easy and cheap thing to ferment is cucumber (skinned and pureed, put in a jar with loose lid for 2-4 days with water on top, usually no salt needed). Used to be just about everything was fermented, many of our bodies' functions are outsourced to cooperative bacteria that we've co-evolved with.

/OT