Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[tvbcof]

I don't know, but that alleged "vote" isn't reflected here:



The bleating Gavinistas' paeans to argumetum ad populum are getting very old and busted...

Hahahahaha.  The sad thing is that cypherdoc himself has like 5% 'distributed' among his far flung empire of hardware situated around the net.  No wonder the 'Show us your XT' thread has not been seen much these days.  I think XT has more shills on this forum than actual XT nodes.  FAIL!

On the other hand, as Hearn says, Bitcoin XT can run just fine with 5 copies of the blockchain worldwide.

[1714171084]

1714171084

[1714171084]

1714171084

[1714171084]

1714171084

[1714171084]

1714171084

[Adrian-x]

Community and major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase

Hmmm where did that ever happen  

I sure hope by community and "major stakeholders" you are not referring to reddit and bitcointalk.org

good to see we have made some ground and are all in agreement on the other half of the sentence.

....core devs who seem to be working for a company with a severe conflict of interest decide the opposite.

I think it was made quite clear by a few of their developers that sidechains would actually benefit from bigger blocks...

Yes, hence no one is supporting 1MB blocks forever.

[brg444]

Community and major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase

Hmmm where did that ever happen  

I sure hope by community and "major stakeholders" you are not referring to reddit and bitcointalk.org

good to see we have made some ground and are all in agreement on the other half of the sentence.

....core devs who seem to be working for a company with a severe conflict of interest decide the opposite.

I think it was made quite clear by a few of their developers that sidechains would actually benefit from bigger blocks...

Yes, hence no one is supporting 1MB blocks forever.

Hence, no conflict of interest.

[Adrian-x]

Community and major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase

Hmmm where did that ever happen  

I sure hope by community and "major stakeholders" you are not referring to reddit and bitcointalk.org

good to see we have made some ground and are all in agreement on the other half of the sentence.

....core devs who seem to be working for a company with a severe conflict of interest decide the opposite.

I think it was made quite clear by a few of their developers that sidechains would actually benefit from bigger blocks...

Yes, hence no one is supporting 1MB blocks forever.

Hence, no conflict of interest.

that's OK with me if you cant see it. I'm sure those devs will have a solution for greater transaction volume when they are ready.

[cypherdoc]

I don't know, but that alleged "vote" isn't reflected here:



The bleating Gavinistas' paeans to argumetum ad populum are getting very old and busted...

Hahahahaha.  The sad thing is that cypherdoc himself has like 5% 'distributed' among his far flung empire of hardware situated around the net.  No wonder the 'Show us your XT' thread has not been seen much these days.  I think XT has more shills on this forum than actual XT nodes.  FAIL!

On the other hand, as Hearn says, Bitcoin XT can run just fine with 5 copies of the blockchain worldwide.

i think the only revason we haven't seen any movement yet on XT is that Gavin is making one last attempt to work with Core dev.  if it doesn't work out then we'll have to see where he goes with the fork.  no one is suggesing Mike be lead core dev.  hence, the wait.

[cypherdoc]

Community and major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase

Hmmm where did that ever happen  

I sure hope by community and "major stakeholders" you are not referring to reddit and bitcointalk.org

good to see we have made some ground and are all in agreement on the other half of the sentence.

....core devs who seem to be working for a company with a severe conflict of interest decide the opposite.

I think it was made quite clear by a few of their developers that sidechains would actually benefit from bigger blocks...

i actually don't believe them given their extreme entrenchment of late.  i think they're just saying that as a hedge in case Gavin's fork is a huge success and they are forced to move, if allowed, to a bigger block chain.  then, they can just say they were for it all along. 

[iCEBREAKER]

Community and major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase

Hmmm where did that ever happen 

I sure hope by community and "major stakeholders" you are not referring to reddit and bitcointalk.org

good to see we have made some ground and are all in agreement on the other half of the sentence.

....core devs who seem to be working for a company with a severe conflict of interest decide the opposite.

I think it was made quite clear by a few of their developers that sidechains would actually benefit from bigger blocks...

Yes, hence no one is supporting 1MB blocks forever.

Hence, no conflict of interest.

Blockstream was created to scale Bitcoin to 1MB, and "eventually" beyond.

Not only no conflict, but indeed a confluence of interest.

[cypherdoc]

I really couldn't care less how Mycelium has been a MAJOR force in bringing Bitcoin to the noobs

See this is the problem. "Noobs" preferring user interface and "ease-of-use" in place of robust, well designed software and then crying when the software fails them because of faulty implementation.

I've never used it, but Frap.doc is apparently a devoted fan of Mycelium and utterly distraught over its recent glitch.

Expecting 100% uptime from such a service and freaking out and declaring Bitcoin dead over a little outage is a professional noob move only he has mastered.

Speaking of professional noob maneuvers:



#REKT, please call your office.  Dr. LeBron Bitcoin is on line 2...something about a "vast GavinCoiner majority?"   

when Mycelium, just a few days ago, invoked a fee bidding mechanism in their wallet, you were the first shill to jump up and down and scream "see fee mkt!"  now that they blow up, you throw them under the bus.  your sort of behavior is simply indicative of someone shilling for Blockstream while throwing shit all over the wall hoping something sticks.

[brg444]

I really couldn't care less how Mycelium has been a MAJOR force in bringing Bitcoin to the noobs

See this is the problem. "Noobs" preferring user interface and "ease-of-use" in place of robust, well designed software and then crying when the software fails them because of faulty implementation.

I've never used it, but Frap.doc is apparently a devoted fan of Mycelium and utterly distraught over its recent glitch.

Expecting 100% uptime from such a service and freaking out and declaring Bitcoin dead over a little outage is a professional noob move only he has mastered.

Speaking of professional noob maneuvers:



#REKT, please call your office.  Dr. LeBron Bitcoin is on line 2...something about a "vast GavinCoiner majority?"  

when Mycelium, just a few days ago, invoked a fee bidding mechanism in their wallet, you were the first shill to jump up and down and scream "see fee mkt!"  now that they blow up, you throw them under the bus.  your sort of behavior is simply indicative of someone shilling for Blockstream while throwing shit all over the wall hoping something sticks.

You do realise everything you describe here applies to you.

You are the exact representation of someone throwing shit at the wall hoping any causality or correlation you can pull out your ass and defend your position will stick. It is the same story over and over again, you did it with sidechains and now you are at it again regarding the blocksize.

Was Mycelium correct in their intention to invoke a fee bidding mechanism? Yes

Are they running their wallet behind an admitted faulty node implementation? Yes

[iCEBREAKER]

when Mycelium, just a few days ago, invoked a fee bidding mechanism in their wallet, you were the first shill to jump up and down and scream "see fee mkt!"  now that they blow up, you throw them under the bus.  your sort of behavior is simply indicative of someone shilling for Blockstream while throwing shit all over the wall hoping something sticks.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.  I didn't previously mention Mycelium, and I'm not throwing them under the bus now.  Rather, I said downtime for a service is to be expected, not used (as you have) to justify yet another breathless announcement of Bitcoin's imminent demise.

If anything, I was referring to PT's tweet about Ninki's "really awesome" fee-bumping full-RBF wallet.

[tvbcof]

I don't know, but that alleged "vote" isn't reflected here:



The bleating Gavinistas' paeans to argumetum ad populum are getting very old and busted...

Hahahahaha.  The sad thing is that cypherdoc himself has like 5% 'distributed' among his far flung empire of hardware situated around the net.  No wonder the 'Show us your XT' thread has not been seen much these days.  I think XT has more shills on this forum than actual XT nodes.  FAIL!

On the other hand, as Hearn says, Bitcoin XT can run just fine with 5 copies of the blockchain worldwide.

i think the only revason we haven't seen any movement yet on XT is that Gavin is making one last attempt to work with Core dev.  if it doesn't work out then we'll have to see where he goes with the fork.  no one is suggesing Mike be lead core dev.  hence, the wait.

So says Cypherdoc.  Generalissimo, Free Shit Army.

I thought I heard noise about the core devs taking away Gavin's alert key one of these releases.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that it was bad enough that they guy has not done much of anything worthwhile over the early part of his involvement in Bitcoin, but that there is utterly no point in having him around at all now that he as stopped doing anything at all except get in the way and attract fleas.  He is so irrelevant now that I'd be surprised if even Hearn would take him.

[brg444]

speaking of Mike Hearn

anyone caught that one the other day? 

http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=11-07-2015#1197442

Luke-Jr:(it's ironic but true that Mike Hearn has written two changes in Bitcoin Core, and both of them introduced serious bugs..)

this is the one you chose to place your faith in frap.doc ? 

[cypherdoc]

I really couldn't care less how Mycelium has been a MAJOR force in bringing Bitcoin to the noobs

See this is the problem. "Noobs" preferring user interface and "ease-of-use" in place of robust, well designed software and then crying when the software fails them because of faulty implementation.

I've never used it, but Frap.doc is apparently a devoted fan of Mycelium and utterly distraught over its recent glitch.

Expecting 100% uptime from such a service and freaking out and declaring Bitcoin dead over a little outage is a professional noob move only he has mastered.

Speaking of professional noob maneuvers:



#REKT, please call your office.  Dr. LeBron Bitcoin is on line 2...something about a "vast GavinCoiner majority?"  

when Mycelium, just a few days ago, invoked a fee bidding mechanism in their wallet, you were the first shill to jump up and down and scream "see fee mkt!"  now that they blow up, you throw them under the bus.  your sort of behavior is simply indicative of someone shilling for Blockstream while throwing shit all over the wall hoping something sticks.

You do realise everything you describe here applies to you.

You are the exact representation of someone throwing shit at the wall hoping any causality or correlation you can pull out your ass and defend your position will stick. It is the same story over and over again, you did it with sidechains and now you are at it again regarding the blocksize.

Was Mycelium correct in their intention to invoke a fee bidding mechanism? Yes

Are they running their wallet behind an admitted faulty node implementation? Yes

nice try noob.

you're another example of a shit thrower.  never provide any technical discussion or insight. 

in case you'd like to go back and review all my technical posts, including those in direct discussion with nullc, like with the UTXO and CNB stuff.  he actually tried to obfuscate and i've documented where he contradicts himself about UTXO being in RAM.  Peter R also proved with statistical significance my hunch that the defensive 0 tx blocks were indeed coming within a minute of full blocks.  it also appears i was right about those defensive blocks coming in the presence of bloated mempools.  i was in fact documenting these 0 tx blocks weeks before the spam attack as something strange happening.  i also think i'm right that the spammers are attacking as we've gotten close to filling blocks with real demand so as to disrupt new and existing users.  the attacks will continue to try and hinder that growth.  i've filled these pages with real technical and interpretive discussion about what's actually going on yet what do we get from idiots like you?  nothing.  nothing insightful except ad hominem attacks. 

brg444, you're useless.  admit it.  just like during the SC debate, you're contributing nothing.  nothing at all except trolling.

[cypherdoc]

speaking of Mike Hearn

anyone caught that one the other day?  

http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=11-07-2015#1197442

Luke-Jr:(it's ironic but true that Mike Hearn has written two changes in Bitcoin Core, and both of them introduced serious bugs..)

this is the one you chose to place your faith in frap.doc ?  

is that an MPEX channel?  figures you'd be caught hanging out there.  and what of LukeJr?  is he your hero now?  nobody takes him seriously.  i should've known.  he's way down the totem pole.

[brg444]

nice try noob.

you're another example of a shit thrower.  never provide any technical discussion or insight.  

in case you'd like to go back and review all my technical posts, including those in direct discussion with nullc, like with the UTXO and CNB stuff.  he actually tried to obfuscate and i've documented where he contradicts himself about UTXO being in RAM.  Peter R also proved with statistical significance my hunch that the defensive 0 tx blocks were indeed coming within a minute of full blocks.  it also appears i was right about those defensive blocks coming in the presence of bloated mempools.  i was in fact documenting these 0 tx blocks weeks before the spam attack as something strange happening.  i also think i'm right that the spammers are attacking as we've gotten close to filling blocks with real demand so as to disrupt new and existing users.  the attacks will continue to try and hinder that growth.  i've filled these pages with real technical and interpretive discussion about what's actually going on yet what do we get from idiots like you?  nothing.  nothing insightful except ad hominem attacks.  

brg444, you're useless.  admit it.  just like during the SC debate, you're contributing nothing.  nothing at all except trolling.

I have no interest in your little disputes and whether you are right or wrong on certain issues. As is often pointed out by icebreaker you are truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things so I couldn't careless about your infantile "battles".

I'm just here to point out how disingenuous you are whatever the debate is. And that is why, no one will ever take you seriously. We can see through you bs clear as day

[cypherdoc]

nice try noob.

you're another example of a shit thrower.  never provide any technical discussion or insight.  

in case you'd like to go back and review all my technical posts, including those in direct discussion with nullc, like with the UTXO and CNB stuff.  he actually tried to obfuscate and i've documented where he contradicts himself about UTXO being in RAM.  Peter R also proved with statistical significance my hunch that the defensive 0 tx blocks were indeed coming within a minute of full blocks.  it also appears i was right about those defensive blocks coming in the presence of bloated mempools.  i was in fact documenting these 0 tx blocks weeks before the spam attack as something strange happening.  i also think i'm right that the spammers are attacking as we've gotten close to filling blocks with real demand so as to disrupt new and existing users.  the attacks will continue to try and hinder that growth.  i've filled these pages with real technical and interpretive discussion about what's actually going on yet what do we get from idiots like you?  nothing.  nothing insightful except ad hominem attacks.  

brg444, you're useless.  admit it.  just like during the SC debate, you're contributing nothing.  nothing at all except trolling.

I have no interest in your little disputes and whether you are right or wrong on certain issues. As is often pointed out by icebreaker you are truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I'm just here to point out how disingenuous you are whatever the debate is. And that is why, no one takes you seriously.

no, they do in fact take me seriously.  why do you think this thread is so popular?  to be fair, i won't take all the credit b/c there are some truly brilliant ppl here like NL, Peter, rocks, zerg, solex, maja, Adrian, JR, Melbustus, Zara, Erdogan, ZB, etc (sorry if i missed some).  you take me seriously too.  otherwise, you wouldn't keep stopping by everyday and racking up all the views.  all you trolls like tvbcof, iCEBlow, MOA, all realize the importance of keeping me down as much as possible.  you guys LOVE this thread.  won't work though as this thread has survived 4 long yrs of trolls like you.  ALOT of ppl have flat out told me this thread is bitcointalk.  or what's left of it.  i actually think that's any overstatement as i find the forum to be extremely useful for all sorts of info.  but who am i to argue?

no brg444, you love me and this thread so keep pushing it up and racking up the views.  you HELP me.

[cypherdoc]

hey tvbcof & iCEBlow:

i bitch slap you selling:



and double bitch slap you shorting:



 

[iCEBREAKER]

in case you'd like to go back and review all my technical posts, including those in direct discussion with nullc, like with the UTXO and CNB stuff.  he actually tried to obfuscate and i've documented where he contradicts himself about UTXO being in RAM.  Peter R also proved with statistical significance my hunch that the defensive 0 tx blocks were indeed coming within a minute of full blocks.  it also appears i was right about those defensive blocks coming in the presence of bloated mempools.  i was in fact documenting these 0 tx blocks weeks before the spam attack as something strange happening.  i also think i'm right that the spammers are attacking as we've gotten close to filling blocks with real demand so as to disrupt new and existing users.  the attacks will continue to try and hinder that growth.  i've filled these pages with real technical and interpretive discussion about what's actually going on yet what do we get from idiots like you?  nothing.  nothing insightful except ad hominem attacks. 

Behold! Generalissmo LeBron Bitcoin of the First Free Shit Army's Gavinista Corp (Frappuccino Division).



Largely responsible for BitconSX's staggering 1.7% and falling network penetration rate.

Friend to all magical African boys.  Truly a legend in his own mind!

[solex]

And the hits keep coming for the dangerous experiment of maintaining artificially constrained blocks. From 2009-14 Bitcoin functioned with no effective block size limit and mining decentralization post-ASIC was improving. Now, in 2015, that this latent piece of software is allowed to take effect the unintended consequences rear up:
(my bold emphasis below)

(Updated:  I said 1/phi, I should have said 1 - 1/phi.  The attack works for any miners who controls more than 38% of hashing)

The so-called "stress test" was successful.  The attack it was testing is underway.  

Any miner who cotrols more than one minus 1/phi of the mining power, makes a profit while paying the fees it takes to maintain a permanent backlog of transactions, for as long as the blocks are more than half full of other transactions.

The mining-expenses market is unstable when there are enough legitimate transactions to fill more than half a block, because such a miner will reap more per yuan invested in mining power than any other miner.  This leads to a monopoly.

Well, crap.  I have done the math now.  

I know exactly what's happening.  It's a Golden Ratio Attack.  This is serious.  It ends with a mining monopoly.

What we have now is no longer a test.  The test was apparently successful.  What we have here is the new business model that was being tested.  

This backlog will probably be sustained FOREVER, because the people doing it make a profit by doing so.

The following assumes expenses roughly equal for miners relative to the amount of hashing power they control.  This is not exactly true, because a miner someplace where electricity is subsidized (like China) has substantially lower expenses.  In such a place the fraction of mining power required to make it profitable would be even less.

The *initial* "stress test" was a test to see whether the miner controlled sufficient hashing power to make a profit by doing this.  We can assume that test was successful, because now this miner is doing it.  Probably permanently.

The miner decides how much they want per transaction (anything that the traffic will bear, as long as it keeps blocks more than half full of real transactions), then keeps the backlog sufficiently full with bogus transactions to prevent any tx that pay less than that from going through.

Maintaining the backlog subsidizes other people's mining as well as their own, but means they don't need to compete with miners willing to process transactions for less money in fees because those miners aren't willing to process transactions for less fees when any transactions with more fees are available.

Let's work the math.  If 2/3 of the transactions actually processed are "real", then whoever is maintaining the backlog is paying the tx fees for 1/3 of every block. If this is someone with half the mining power then they get half of their third back, so their average cost per block is the fees for 1/6 of the block.  If we are talking about someone with half the mining power, their average return per block is 1/2 the fees for a block.  Because 1/2 is greater than 1/3, they are making a profit.  

The breakeven point for the biggest miner was when his fraction of the mining power plus the fraction of each block devoted to legitimate transactions was equal to one.  We can conclude that whoever is doing this, if he started the instant it was profitable, controlled 1 - 2/(1 + sqrt(5)) of the mining power at that time.  This happens to be one minus the inverse of the Golden Ratio.

It will continue to be in the financial best interests of any miner controlling more than 1 - 2/(1 + sqrt(5)) of the mining power for as long as blocks are more than half full with legitimate transactions.  

This does not affect, and is not influenced by revenue from block subsidies AT ALL.

All miners will see increased fee revenues in the competitive market.  They will respond to more revenue by  investing more in equipment.  Those miners are still competing fairly with each other, though they will make less on their investment than whoever's maintaining the backlog.  It is not in their best interests to add bogus transactions to the queue because with a smaller fraction than 38% of the mining power they would lose money on the fees they invest.

But any miner for whom this IS profitable, will make additional revenue that the fair market among miners does not.  What percentage more, depends on what fraction of the hashing power he controls. Any such miner is competing at an advantage and will eventually drive all other miners out of the market.

Miners for whom this is profitable must control at least 38% of the mining power.  Therefore there can be no more than two miners doing it at a profit.  And it's got positive feedback, so those two cannot compete fairly. Assuming there are two, the instant one of them has more hashing power than the other, he has a competitive advantage over the other (gets back as revenue a greater fraction of all fees spent) than the other miner) and will eventually drive him out of the market.

[iCEBREAKER]

And the hits keep coming for the dangerous experiment of maintaining artificially constrained blocks. From 2009-14 Bitcoin functioned with no effective block size limit and mining decentralization post-ASIC was improving. Now, in 2015, that this latent piece of software is allowed to take effect the unintended consequences rear up:
(my bold emphasis below)

The so-called "stress test" was successful.  The attack it was testing is underway.  

Any miner who cotrols more than one minus 1/phi of the mining power, makes a profit while paying the fees it takes to maintain a permanent backlog of transactions, for as long as the blocks are more than half full of other transactions.

The mining-expenses market is unstable when there are enough legitimate transactions to fill more than half a block, because such a miner will reap more per yuan invested in mining power than any other miner.  This leads to a monopoly.

Well, crap.  I have done the math now.  

I know exactly what's happening.  It's a Golden Ratio Attack.  This is serious.  It ends with a mining monopoly.

What we have now is no longer a test.  The test was apparently successful.  What we have here is the new business model that was being tested.  

Attacks are beneficial for antifragile systems.  Without adversity, they never grow stronger.

Perhaps this new Phi Attack will lead to economically balanced tx feeds, as Sunny King has implemented in Peercoin and Primecoin:

Since I mentioned the topic of transaction fees last week, l should mention the exact kind of simplification of fee policy in peercoin/primecoin. As I explained last week, blockchain technology is not well suited as an ultra high volume transaction processing system, thus we want to discourage tiny payments such as a fragment of cent, also known as 'dust' in bitcoin. Bitcoin charges additional fees for these dust transactions. In peercoin and primecoin, each transaction output must have a value at least 0.01. For the next release of peercoin, the output value can also be 0 to accommodate data transactions. But still, dust is not allowed, you either have an output value greater than or equal to 0.01 or a value of 0.

Another simplification is that we don't allow no-fee transactions, so the default 0.01 per KB fee is a requirement, not an option as in bitcoin. This eliminates the complication for user to understand the tradeoff between no-fee and quality of service.

Some might question the consistency of the approach as we move to allow data transaction in peercoin's next release. Data transaction is simply a mechanism to allow user to explicitly declare extra data in the transaction, otherwise user could still stuff data into transaction in obscure ways. In principle transaction fee is the only cost associated with blockchain space usage.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114994.msg11882960#msg11882960