cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 02:46:24 PM Last edit: July 09, 2015, 02:59:02 PM by cypherdoc |
|
Jeff Garzik has just posted 2 pull requests for bitcoin core on github: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6405Remove TX priority and free transaction area from mempool, block creator.https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6402 Floating network relay fee increase, if memory pool grows too large.the latter will introduce, if merged, "a relay fee that adjusts to floods which cause the memory pool to grow too large". It seems that core devs start becoming aware of the lack of of economic incentives for services provided by full nodes. i hate to bring up an analogy from medicine since it may not be appropriate but i'll try nonetheless. one of the greatest things i learned during my internship btwn med school and residency in eyes, is that too much intervention can cause problems for patients. every 3 mo i'd rotate onto a new ward with responsibilities for about a couple of dozen gorked out patients. i say gorked out b/c invariably all of them had at least a dozen meds onboard for a variety of reasons most of which had to do with sedation, pain, or anti-anxiety. problem was, these meds unbeknownst to their previous physicians were preventing these ppl from getting better. this was a repeating problem. so the first thing i would do would be to cocentrate on stripping off as many of these unnecessary meds as possible. much to everyone's amazement, these pts would perk up, turn around and start walking again, interacting with staff, feeling better, be more alert, and generally just get better to the pt i could discharge them. and this experience happened over and over for me. twas a great personal accomplishment for me and one i will never forget; don't over do it. pt being, i still think the block size cap is the fundamental problem here. more rules and limits that core dev piles on simply complicates the code and makes it more complex. if anything, we should be stripping off rules and limits so that the free mkt can come to bear on many of these problems we are currently seeing. the miners and users are perfectly capable of regulating the size of blocks and fees on their own. if we lift the cap, the spam can actually help the network. as long as spammers have to pay fees any spam attempts will line the pockets of miners and go back to growing the hashrate. that would be a good thing and the last thing the spammers want to do. no doubt they will try at first so we should expect even greater higher level attacks initially but in the long run, they will die off. that's b/c their real objective is to disrupt new user growth which w/o a cap will be short circuited. any further spam then will just help the tx mkt to grow, miners to profit, and yes, full nodes will eventually develop their own fee mkt too. yes, full node capacities will have to grow but that should be viewed as a good thing b/c on the other end that will mean that miners are prospering (which is ok Greg) and user growth will be skyrocketing along with the price. more merchants will come on board with new user growth and they will want and probably have a fiduciary responsibility to run their own full nodes which will add to network capacity. so strip off rules and limits within reason, not add, and let BitcoinRun!
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 03:01:29 PM |
|
So miners are filtering out the spam? What are they filtering for? good question. how do they distinguish? like i said above, w/o a block size cap, spam fees can actually pay to help grow the network and user base long term before it dies off.
|
|
|
|
inca
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 03:05:50 PM |
|
There is quite the rumpus over on reddit over the blocksize debate. Reading this thread is a sea of calm reason in comparison.
Perhaps you could do a poll cypherdoc ..
EDIT: which is simply for / against blocksize scaling..
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 03:26:39 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 04:10:06 PM |
|
That's a good thing, because it ensures the economic crisis is over and Chinese companies will have plenty of capital to fund an explosion of bandwidth to homes. Meanwhile, back in the real world... ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCdtGIwd.png&t=665&c=zj_bZtjbw81CKA)
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 04:27:40 PM |
|
That's a good thing, because it ensures the economic crisis is over and Chinese companies will have plenty of capital to fund an explosion of bandwidth to homes. Meanwhile, back in the real world... I just want to highlight the comments here from bitcoin-dev today, which seem to indicate that these spamming attacks would have been 5.5x more expensive if a dust threshold software change had not been made. Perhaps there are deeper insights someone else has on this...? 16:53 wangchun why can those spam get confirmed. 0.00001 BTC vout below dust threshold right? 16:54 phantomcircuit wangchun, iirc the dust threshold is 546 satoshis 16:54 wangchun not 5460 satoshis? changed? 16:54 aschildbach wangchun: Yes it was cut by 10 a few months ago.
i don't think it really matters, does it? since most of the mined blocks are filled with real demand trying to get into blocks with or without spamming, Unfortunately, the majority in the blocks I checked earlier today have been the DOS attack-- e.g. transactions tracable from outputs of this transaction https://blockchain.info/tx/3bad15167c60de483cd32cb990d1e46f0a0d8ab380e3fc1cace01afc9c1bb5af and a few others. ... though the attack style has been shifting to evade filtering by miners. The change mentioned in the chat above is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3305 (you might find the comments there interesting), it's one of Mikes couple contributions to Bitcoin Core.
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 04:33:23 PM |
|
Don't worry. According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide. Is he right or wrong about that? Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity?
|
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 04:41:16 PM |
|
Don't worry. According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide. Is he right or wrong about that? Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity?1. Does the network still provide strong double-spend protection? 2. Can users freely * publish valid transactions to the Blockchain (censorship resistance)? *That is, subject only to marginal transaction fees.
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4676
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 04:41:25 PM |
|
Don't worry. According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide. Is he right or wrong about that? Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity? He's 100% right about that. Bitcoin could probably survive with a single blockchain much like the federal reserve maintains one source of truth. The statement is enlightening because it demonstrates the stark differences of Bitcoin in our world that different people have. Like you and I for instance from everything I can see. If one sees tainting as a good an necessary thing, and understands the communications optimizations which are possible between large and well funded business entities, then a small integer number of existing blockchains makes all the sense in the world.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 04:49:37 PM Last edit: July 09, 2015, 05:09:18 PM by Peter R |
|
The statement is enlightening because it demonstrates the stark differences of Bitcoin in our world that different people have.
Frankly, I think the only thing it demonstrates is your paranoia. What matters is whether the Bitcoin network functions according to its promises of (1) double-spend protection and (2) censorship resistance. The architecture of the network doesn't matter so long as those two promises are kept. You could argue that with only four to six copies of the Blockchain worldwide, that there is a greater chance that these promises will be broken (and I would tend to agree), but I see that as a different debate.
|
|
|
|
kazuki49
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 05:26:32 PM |
|
I don't see a problem with looking at the issues surrounding Bitcoin (the network, protocol, ecosystem, etc) in shades of grey, as opposed to black and white. The network may function exactly the same (black or white) with three independent miners or three thousand independent miners, but it's clear to me which side of that scale (grey) I would rather be on.
I think it's all part of the same debate (keeping promises and the chances of those promises being broken). (I don't really like to use the word "promises" either, as I'm not sure any have ever been made.)
Perhaps I'm paranoid as well, or maybe I'm missing your point entirely? I don't really have time to mull this over at the moment.
There are many shades of grey in Bitcoin as it has no fungibility and can't really protect transactions against miners censoring it.
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4676
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 05:26:46 PM |
|
The statement is enlightening because it demonstrates the stark differences of Bitcoin in our world that different people have.
Frankly, I think the only thing it demonstrates is your paranoia. What matters is whether the Bitcoin network functions according to its promises of (1) double-spend protection and (2) censorship resistance. The architecture of the network doesn't matter so long as those two promises are kept. You could argue that with only four to six copies of the Blockchain worldwide, that there is a greater chance that these promises will be broken, but I see that as a different debate. One need not be excessively paranoid to suspect that censorship will closely match what governments wish it to when a system is completely under the wing of a handful of huge corporations which operate completely at the pleasure of the government (which they, at best, play some role in molding.) As Peter Todd mentions in his conversations with these people, it is perfectly obvious to this group that censorship is a no-brainer and the only logical way the system can work. Similarly, one need be more of a historian than a paranoid freak to suspect that governments will formulate policies which protect systems which empower them and their sponsors. I will not be using Bitcoin if/when it relies on the kindness of governments for it's function and thus their protection will not be of benefit to me. To me, 'the architecture of the network' not only matters but it is the most critical aspect of Bitcoin and the aspect which will define whether it has a chance of keeping the two promises you mention or not. As an exercise for the interested reader, one might consider Mike Hearn's statement that 'there is no difference between confiscating someones money and keeping them from spending it for 20 years' via mining consolidation and censorship with his statement about a small integer number of copies of the blockchain worldwide supporting a perfectly workable system. It ought to be abundantly clear where HE is wishing to go with this thing, and one might consider this before dedicating ones efforts toward projects aimed at bloating the system as quickly as possible and at all costs (very much including power-grab 'benevolent dictator' style forks and internecine warfare which is almost certain to collapse the ecosystem of it's initial form.)
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 05:36:32 PM |
|
The statement is enlightening because it demonstrates the stark differences of Bitcoin in our world that different people have.
Frankly, I think the only thing it demonstrates is your paranoia. What matters is whether the Bitcoin network functions according to its promises of (1) double-spend protection and (2) censorship resistance. The architecture of the network doesn't matter so long as those two promises are kept. You could argue that with only four to six copies of the Blockchain worldwide, that there is a greater chance that these promises will be broken (and I would tend to agree), but I see that as a different debate. You've posted something similar to this earlier in the thread. I can't really find the words to express it at the moment, but something about this bothers me. I'll try my best to get some kind of point across: I don't see a problem with looking at the issues surrounding Bitcoin (the network, protocol, ecosystem, etc) in shades of grey, as opposed to black and white. The network may function exactly the same (black or white) with three independent miners or three thousand independent miners, but it's clear to me which side of that scale (grey) I would rather be on. I think it's all part of the same debate (keeping promises and the chances of those promises being broken). (I don't really like to use the word "promises" either, as I'm not sure any have ever been made.) Perhaps I'm paranoid as well, or maybe I'm missing your point entirely? I don't really have time to mull this over at the moment. That's a fair comment and I think I see your point. Smooth made a similar comment perhaps a week ago now when I was trying to argue that "centralized" and "decentralized" were absolute adjectives. I guess I'm just trying to find a way to "break down" the problem into pieces, hoping that it will help us to see things more clearly. That's why I'm looking at it as two pieces (A) Is the network preventing double spends and is the network censorship resistant? (B) What are the chances of it staying that way?
|
|
|
|
thezerg
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1010
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 05:44:58 PM |
|
Don't worry. According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide. Is he right or wrong about that? Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity? Who cares? Before you ask that question you need to show reasonable likelihood that increasing the block size to 8MB will drop the number of full nodes to 4 or 6. Frankly, I think that a dramatic reduction of nodes is more likely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement network than if the block size is increased to 8MB. NOBODY will be interested in holding the data if they can't use the network, so the only full nodes will be those sponsored by the payment aggregators. These aggregators are also perfect locations for governments to apply identity and green address pressure, destroying fungibility.
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 05:51:55 PM Last edit: July 09, 2015, 06:42:32 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Soon you'll see that nearly the entire discussion has been rendered an irrelevant pita.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 05:52:22 PM |
|
Don't worry. According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide. Is he right or wrong about that? Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity? Who cares? Before you ask that question you need to show reasonable likelihood that increasing the block size to 8MB will drop the number of full nodes to 4 or 6. Frankly, I think that a dramatic reduction of nodes is more likely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement network than if the block size is increased to 8MB. NOBODY will be interested in holding the data if they can't use the network, so the only full nodes will be those sponsored by the payment aggregators. These aggregators are also perfect locations for governments to apply identity and green address pressure, destroying fungibility. i'd agree with this. altho i'd like to see the block cap removed altogether, certainly i'd go with Gavin's 8MB BIP101 proposal short term to ease into the long term goal. i'm sure this interim solution would make many more ppl happy.
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 06:19:09 PM |
|
Who cares? I care because there's an appalling lack of rigour going around and it's not helpful. 1. Does the network still provide strong double-spend protection?
2. Can users freely* publish valid transactions to the Blockchain (censorship resistance)?
*That is, subject only to marginal transaction fees.
I think that's a good start. The question can then be translated to "what are the minimum requirements needed to prevent double spending and censorship?" I suspect the answer in terms of the number of world-wide copies of the blockchain needed has a lower bound of 1, depending on our ability to create efficient fraud proofs and to implement better privacy behaviour in wallets.
|
|
|
|
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 06:20:55 PM |
|
Jeff Garzik has just posted 2 pull requests for bitcoin core on github: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6405Remove TX priority and free transaction area from mempool, block creator.https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6402 Floating network relay fee increase, if memory pool grows too large.the latter will introduce, if merged, "a relay fee that adjusts to floods which cause the memory pool to grow too large". It seems that core devs start becoming aware of the lack of of economic incentives for services provided by full nodes. i hate to bring up an analogy from medicine since it may not be appropriate but i'll try nonetheless. one of the greatest things i learned during my internship btwn med school and residency in eyes, is that too much intervention can cause problems for patients. every 3 mo i'd rotate onto a new ward with responsibilities for about a couple of dozen gorked out patients. i say gorked out b/c invariably all of them had at least a dozen meds onboard for a variety of reasons most of which had to do with sedation, pain, or anti-anxiety. problem was, these meds unbeknownst to their previous physicians were preventing these ppl from getting better. this was a repeating problem. so the first thing i would do would be to cocentrate on stripping off as many of these unnecessary meds as possible. much to everyone's amazement, these pts would perk up, turn around and start walking again, interacting with staff, feeling better, be more alert, and generally just get better to the pt i could discharge them. and this experience happened over and over for me. twas a great personal accomplishment for me and one i will never forget; don't over do it. pt being, i still think the block size cap is the fundamental problem here. more rules and limits that core dev piles on simply complicates the code and makes it more complex. if anything, we should be stripping off rules and limits so that the free mkt can come to bear on many of these problems we are currently seeing. the miners and users are perfectly capable of regulating the size of blocks and fees on their own. if we lift the cap, the spam can actually help the network. as long as spammers have to pay fees any spam attempts will line the pockets of miners and go back to growing the hashrate. that would be a good thing and the last thing the spammers want to do. no doubt they will try at first so we should expect even greater higher level attacks initially but in the long run, they will die off. that's b/c their real objective is to disrupt new user growth which w/o a cap will be short circuited. any further spam then will just help the tx mkt to grow, miners to profit, and yes, full nodes will eventually develop their own fee mkt too. yes, full node capacities will have to grow but that should be viewed as a good thing b/c on the other end that will mean that miners are prospering (which is ok Greg) and user growth will be skyrocketing along with the price. more merchants will come on board with new user growth and they will want and probably have a fiduciary responsibility to run their own full nodes which will add to network capacity. so strip off rules and limits within reason, not add, and let BitcoinRun! Yup, the parallels between economics and biology are striking. Introduce an arbitrary sacred cow "fix" (like the blocksize limit) into the mix, then all the machinery necessary to support it becomes a sacred cow as well. It takes a paradigm shift and a bit of a leap of faith to break out of that vicious cycle.
|
|
|
|
Odalv
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 06:30:53 PM |
|
Who cares? I care because there's an appalling lack of rigour going around and it's not helpful. 1. Does the network still provide strong double-spend protection?
2. Can users freely* publish valid transactions to the Blockchain (censorship resistance)?
*That is, subject only to marginal transaction fees.
I think that's a good start. The question can then be translated to "what are the minimum requirements needed to prevent double spending and censorship?" I suspect the answer in terms of the number of world-wide copies of the blockchain needed has a lower bound of 1, depending on our ability to create efficient fraud proofs and to implement better privacy behaviour in wallets. With single node or 6 nodes we do not need POW. We already had this centralized services. ... but they are all down.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 09, 2015, 06:35:57 PM |
|
Jeff Garzik has just posted 2 pull requests for bitcoin core on github: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6405Remove TX priority and free transaction area from mempool, block creator.https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6402 Floating network relay fee increase, if memory pool grows too large.the latter will introduce, if merged, "a relay fee that adjusts to floods which cause the memory pool to grow too large". It seems that core devs start becoming aware of the lack of of economic incentives for services provided by full nodes. i hate to bring up an analogy from medicine since it may not be appropriate but i'll try nonetheless. one of the greatest things i learned during my internship btwn med school and residency in eyes, is that too much intervention can cause problems for patients. every 3 mo i'd rotate onto a new ward with responsibilities for about a couple of dozen gorked out patients. i say gorked out b/c invariably all of them had at least a dozen meds onboard for a variety of reasons most of which had to do with sedation, pain, or anti-anxiety. problem was, these meds unbeknownst to their previous physicians were preventing these ppl from getting better. this was a repeating problem. so the first thing i would do would be to cocentrate on stripping off as many of these unnecessary meds as possible. much to everyone's amazement, these pts would perk up, turn around and start walking again, interacting with staff, feeling better, be more alert, and generally just get better to the pt i could discharge them. and this experience happened over and over for me. twas a great personal accomplishment for me and one i will never forget; don't over do it. pt being, i still think the block size cap is the fundamental problem here. more rules and limits that core dev piles on simply complicates the code and makes it more complex. if anything, we should be stripping off rules and limits so that the free mkt can come to bear on many of these problems we are currently seeing. the miners and users are perfectly capable of regulating the size of blocks and fees on their own. if we lift the cap, the spam can actually help the network. as long as spammers have to pay fees any spam attempts will line the pockets of miners and go back to growing the hashrate. that would be a good thing and the last thing the spammers want to do. no doubt they will try at first so we should expect even greater higher level attacks initially but in the long run, they will die off. that's b/c their real objective is to disrupt new user growth which w/o a cap will be short circuited. any further spam then will just help the tx mkt to grow, miners to profit, and yes, full nodes will eventually develop their own fee mkt too. yes, full node capacities will have to grow but that should be viewed as a good thing b/c on the other end that will mean that miners are prospering (which is ok Greg) and user growth will be skyrocketing along with the price. more merchants will come on board with new user growth and they will want and probably have a fiduciary responsibility to run their own full nodes which will add to network capacity. so strip off rules and limits within reason, not add, and let BitcoinRun! Yup, the parallels between economics and biology are striking. Introduce an arbitrary sacred cow "fix" (like the blocksize limit) into the mix, then all the machinery necessary to support it becomes a sacred cow as well. It takes a paradigm shift and a bit of a leap of faith to break out of that vicious cycle. thx for taking the time to read that and understand it. if you look at everyone's own personal work around that we are now seeing come forth in this light, it soon becomes clear how complex and gorked out the system could become as a result. Bitcoin's beauty is that it is relatively simple in it's function and why i favor simple solutions.
|
|
|
|
|