Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009538.html

Jeff Garzik jgarzik at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 22:30:59 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
Next message: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Short Term Use Addresses for Scalability
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

....

So I respectfully disagree with "core devs don't control the network" and
"core devs control the network" both.

There are checks-and-balances that make the system work.  Consensus is most
strongly measured by user actions after software release.  If the
developers fail to reflect user consensus, the network will let us know.

Jeff knows damn well he doesn't have network consensus

edit: but yes, this is basically what is going to happen.

[1714130718]

1714130718

[1714130718]

1714130718

[1714130718]

1714130718

[cypherdoc]

gmax thrown under the bus with lotsa upvotes:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e8a4v/jeff_g_throwing_the_hammer_down_today_on_devlist/ctckf5l

[Adrian-x]

interesting.  looks like GavinMike are going to pull the trigger soon:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e64dk/time_to_end_bitcoin_reliance_on_core_and_end_this/ctce5cu?context=3

^ Confirmed.

LOL, the Gavinistas are furiously scribbling their little manifesto.  This gonna be good.  

Exactly like the Peoples' Front of Judea (or was it the Judean Peoples' Front?)

"What have the core devs ever done for us?"

I'm grateful to the developers, but this is not about them, I'm also happy that not everyone at central control is part of the heard, everything in this post is good news. if you read that tweet again, it looks like a critique of the mainstream circle jerk.

[iCEBREAKER]

LOL, the Gavinistas are furiously scribbling their little manifesto.  This gonna be good.  

Exactly like the Peoples' Front of Judea (or was it the Judean Peoples' Front?)

"What have the core devs ever done for us?"

I'm grateful to the developers, but this is not about them, I'm also happy that not everyone at central control is part of the heard, everything in this post is good news. if you read that tweet again, it looks like a critique of the mainstream circle jerk.

Ah, but BitcoinSX is about the developers.  Specifically, SX's lack of them and predictable GFY response from Team Core when larger blocks break something Gavin failed to account for (like upstream bandwidth being ~order-of-magnitude less than down, or catastrophic consensus failure).

[cypherdoc]

LOL, the Gavinistas are furiously scribbling their little manifesto.  This gonna be good.  

Exactly like the Peoples' Front of Judea (or was it the Judean Peoples' Front?)

"What have the core devs ever done for us?"

I'm grateful to the developers, but this is not about them, I'm also happy that not everyone at central control is part of the heard, everything in this post is good news. if you read that tweet again, it looks like a critique of the mainstream circle jerk.

Ah, but BitcoinSX is about the developers.  Specifically, SX's lack of them and predictable GFY response from Team Core when larger blocks break something Gavin failed to account for (like upstream bandwidth being ~order-of-magnitude less than down, or catastrophic consensus failure).

XT could be an interesting pseudo-test of the thought experiment i've made a coupla times about perhaps Bitcoin needing nothing more than a big enough block size increase with built in upgrades from now until eternity.  or at least until an emergency patch is needed for an extraordinary event. 

[NewLiberty]

Multiple groups coding to the protocol is likely to be a good development for Bitcoin...  Unless it turns into some red vs blue turf battle, which is a big risk with all the xxxJ personalities.

[Torque]

"What have the core devs ever done for us?"

It doesn't matter.

At all.

This isn't academia - there is no tenure in Bitcoin.

Their position is contingent every single day on their continuing ability to produce new value.

They can choose to embrace that reality, or they can choose to pout about it. Bitcoin will be fine with or without them.

well put JR.  i hadn't even thought about it that way.

and what we absolutely don't want is core dev thinking that Bitcoin "owes them" something.

you do know that also goes for Satoshi and Gavin ?

Yep, but how to get rid of the "bad actor" core devs that are now clearly trying to push their own agendas and self interests?  Why are they now 'indoctrinated' and unfire-able?  Even Hitler could be said to have added value.

Satoshi clearly didn't have a plan to manage the core devs, or even a code of conduct as it seems.  We need a Bitcoin-equivalent Hippocratic Oath for the core devs, as well as a way to tell them to buzz off.  Maybe the Foundation can get to work on that.  

[Wexlike]

Satoshi clearly didn't have a plan to manage the core devs, or even a code of conduct as it seems.  We need a Bitcoin-equivalent Hippocratic Oath for the core devs, as well as a way to tell them to buzz off.  Maybe the Foundation can get to work on that.  

They signed the Hippocratic Oath equivalent when they joined Blockstream - at least that is what was presented in the media, that they would never hurt bitcoin because of their work contracts.

[cypherdoc]

$DJT doing the next roll:

[cypherdoc]

Satoshi clearly didn't have a plan to manage the core devs, or even a code of conduct as it seems.  We need a Bitcoin-equivalent Hippocratic Oath for the core devs, as well as a way to tell them to buzz off.  Maybe the Foundation can get to work on that.  

They signed the Hippocratic Oath equivalent when they joined Blockstream - at least that is what was presented in the media, that they would never hurt bitcoin because of their work contracts.

how effective do you expect them to be when they depend on self determination?  how much does money & stock options affect their decision making?  what does talking with your VC investors everyday do to one's view of the world?  since bigger blocks is a no brainer even for SC's & LN, why the delay/stalling?

[ssmc2]

I wonder if the continuing GLD downtrend (with no near or medium-term end in sight) will spur some goldbugs to jump into BTC as they see it rise while their beloved PM falls. Could be one of the many contributing factors in the inevitable coming BULL run.

[cypherdoc]

these are really bad signs for the economy in general:

[cypherdoc]

all of them have that sick top left to bottom right long term year chart...

[cypherdoc]

I wonder if the continuing GLD downtrend (with no near or medium-term end in sight) will spur some goldbugs to jump into BTC as they see it rise while their beloved PM falls. Could be one of the many contributing factors in the inevitable coming BULL run.

you mean this POS?  well yeah, that's the whole thrust of this thread for 4y running...:

[cypherdoc]

Satoshi clearly didn't have a plan to manage the core devs, or even a code of conduct as it seems.  We need a Bitcoin-equivalent Hippocratic Oath for the core devs, as well as a way to tell them to buzz off.  Maybe the Foundation can get to work on that.  

They signed the Hippocratic Oath equivalent when they joined Blockstream - at least that is what was presented in the media, that they would never hurt bitcoin because of their work contracts.

how effective do you expect them to be when they depend on self determination?  how much does money & stock options affect their decision making?  what does talking with your VC investors everyday do to one's view of the world?  since bigger blocks is a no brainer even for SC's & LN, why the delay/stalling?

and yeah, i asked these very questions a year ago well before the block size debate was a "thing".

[cypherdoc]

this is an awesome quote:

The technology will be “of fundamental importance to Wall Street,” Nasdaq Chief Executive Officer Bob Greifeld said during a phone interview Thursday. “The benefits to the industry are immense and cannot be ignored.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-23/nasdaq-expects-to-be-first-exchange-to-use-bitcoin-technology

you know they're going to want cheap tx fees don't you?

[brg444]

this is an awesome quote:

The technology will be “of fundamental importance to Wall Street,” Nasdaq Chief Executive Officer Bob Greifeld said during a phone interview Thursday. “The benefits to the industry are immense and cannot be ignored.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-23/nasdaq-expects-to-be-first-exchange-to-use-bitcoin-technology

you know they're going to want cheap tx fees don't you?

It reeks of desperation when you are spinning every story, news and thoughts of yours in some low-level childish "diss".

It'd be nice if this news could get us out of this price funk though!

[cypherdoc]

BlockCypher on board with bigger blocks.  their analysis corresponds with everything i've been saying (& concepts elucidated by awemany) in this thread about the attack:

Large mempools are awful

The truth is that “the” mempool is a misnomer; every miner and node has its own mempool, with different sizes, policies, and rules. Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Large mempools — relative to block size — are very bad.
Miners and nodes bore the cost

What most don’t realize is the attack was on the miners and nodes validating transactions. When a transaction has been received and validated by the network (but NOT INCLUDED in a block), the cost has already been incurred by the network in sending, validating, and relaying the transactions.
What Next?

Adapt. Upward fee pressure may be inevitable, but it’s important to note that this attack scales linearly with block size. If we had 8MB block size limits, for example, and assuming prior 1–2tps, then the attacker’s transactions would fill 7.5MB of extra transactions instead of 500KB, a full 15x more expensive, on the order of ~$60,000 a day. Still too cheap, but a higher price tag for a prospective malcontent.

https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/a-bitcoin-spam-attack-post-mortem-s-la-ying-alive-654e914edcf4

[brg444]

BlockCypher on board with bigger blocks.  their analysis corresponds with everything i've been saying (& concepts elucidated by awemany) in this thread about the attack:

Large mempools are awful

The truth is that “the” mempool is a misnomer; every miner and node has its own mempool, with different sizes, policies, and rules. Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Large mempools — relative to block size — are very bad.
Miners and nodes bore the cost

What most don’t realize is the attack was on the miners and nodes validating transactions. When a transaction has been received and validated by the network (but NOT INCLUDED in a block), the cost has already been incurred by the network in sending, validating, and relaying the transactions.
What Next?

Adapt. Upward fee pressure may be inevitable, but it’s important to note that this attack scales linearly with block size. If we had 8MB block size limits, for example, and assuming prior 1–2tps, then the attacker’s transactions would fill 7.5MB of extra transactions instead of 500KB, a full 15x more expensive, on the order of ~$60,000 a day. Still too cheap, but a higher price tag for a prospective malcontent.

https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/a-bitcoin-spam-attack-post-mortem-s-la-ying-alive-654e914edcf4

Hmmm sorry but that's mischaracterizing the idea behind this article. They are in fact very neutral and make no mention of a preferred position on the matter.

Seems clear the culprit in this whole saga of "network disruption" was misconfigured architecture and apparently inadequate mempool implementations.

Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Evidently the core parameters were not optimized, something they suggest the core devs should concentrate and focus on maybe even before we think about block size. (I am aware there is already progress made toward alleviating this problem)

[cypherdoc]

mining centralization?  what mining centralization?: