smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 12:48:48 AM |
|
"After 5 years is the 1MB hard-limit the best anti-DoS mechanism that Bitcoin dev can come up with?" Answer no, because the real anti-DoS protection comes from the consensus dust-limit and fee policy. False. The dust limit and fee policy are not part of the consensus code (which the 1 MB limit is). So the answer is in fact yes: There is no other anti-DoS mechanism in the consensus code after 5 years. Proposing to add one is one possibility. Have at it. consensus dust-limit and fee policy.
Policy which is observed by a super-majority of nodes is effectively a consensus. Also the message size limit is anti-DoS That's incorrect, and I think someone (Adam?) recently wrote up some good stuff about the role of "nodes" In order to matter, policies have to be enforced by either: 1. The node you are using, with respect to your own coins (your own node validates your coins, so you can't be fooled). Of course this only matters if others agree with you, or you have created an altcoin with a userbase of one (useless) 2. All nodes, or essentially all nodes. "A majority of nodes" accomplishes essentially nothing. That is the entire point of the bitcoin design ("majority of nodes" is not sybil-resistant).
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 04:07:28 AM |
|
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
Cconvert2G36
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 04:16:13 AM |
|
oh hai ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artsjournal.com%2Fengage%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FStrawMan.jpg&t=665&c=EyECRLO2RfiueA) Less than 3 tps isn't going to cut it on the main chain, even in the reasonably near future, let alone forever.
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 04:18:40 AM |
|
oh hai ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artsjournal.com%2Fengage%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FStrawMan.jpg&t=665&c=EyECRLO2RfiueA) Less than 3 tps isn't going to cut it on the main chain, even in the reasonably near future, let alone forever. Then you should tell your friend over there on reddit that he should cancel his order while there is still time ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
Cconvert2G36
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 04:21:29 AM Last edit: July 27, 2015, 04:37:01 AM by Cconvert2G36 |
|
oh hai ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artsjournal.com%2Fengage%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FStrawMan.jpg&t=665&c=EyECRLO2RfiueA) Less than 3 tps isn't going to cut it on the main chain, even in the reasonably near future, let alone forever. Then you should tell your friend over there on reddit that he should cancel his order while there is still time ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) If I used reddit I would. Even the 1MB foreva mantra leaves joe blow public with unreasonable hardware demands given enough time. Edit: For context, I think a fee market for block space is an absolute necessity... eventually. But not when we get 25 btc every ten minutes. At this point in the distribution curve, incentivizing more transactions and more use is paramount. And as long as my 5 year old amd machine can easily handle 2-8MB blocks, and we have a statement from major miners saying they can too, I'm for it.
|
|
|
|
Dusty
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 06:48:27 AM |
|
Nice!
BTW, were you the same Dusty that responded in Rusty Russell's last blog post?
Yes I am.
|
|
|
|
sickpig
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 11:13:59 AM |
|
if memory serves both Adam Back and Joseph Poon said that SC and LN respectively needed a bigger block in any case.
(I'm actually in a hurry as soon as I've time I'll post reference to the source)
There is a huge difference between "a bigger block" and proposing to scale block sizes upward to the moon in an attempt to meet the core scaling demands of the system that way. Sure there's a big difference and I was not endorsing any particular proposal on the table, be it BIP 100, 101, 102 you name it. I just wanted to make clear that all the parties (modulo MP) agree on the fact that in a way or another the 1MB max block size has to be changed.
|
Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 11:18:55 AM Last edit: July 27, 2015, 01:54:07 PM by cypherdoc |
|
Nice!
BTW, were you the same Dusty that responded in Rusty Russell's last blog post?
Yes I am. That was beautiful: putting Rusty in his place.
|
|
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 12:47:30 PM Last edit: July 27, 2015, 01:16:38 PM by Peter R |
|
At the request of Smoothie, here is an updated chart of the average block sizes. With the spam coming to an end, we've dropped out of the red-zone: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGn5brBt.gif&t=665&c=Iir8Z4ijKrFFgw) In other news, I'm presently in Paris and looking to meet up over coffee or wine with any nearby Bitcoiners. I'm meeting some people from Ledger Wallet on Tuesday at La Maison du Bitcoin, but if there's any readers/posters from Paris who'd like to chat bitcoin…send me a PM!
|
|
|
|
Torque
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3654
Merit: 5226
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 01:41:42 PM |
|
The Chinese average joes are so gullible. Did it never occur to them that Bejing and the PBOC took up sizable market positions years ago, engineered the recent market bubble, then dumped on the retail investors? So their Chinese gov't has no intention of doing anything except continuing to play the market right now, as they ARE the whale traders in their market right now.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 02:09:10 PM |
|
getting critical now. just broke near term support and approaching red line of death: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8kzsSpH.png&t=665&c=mdUCva6NmIr_Hg)
|
|
|
|
NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 03:33:46 PM |
|
Its almost as if they don't understand how much this market panic this state support causes. Especially given its temporary and sporadic nature, the pro move is to sell now and buy back after the even worse crash when it ends.
|
|
|
|
thezerg
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1010
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 04:29:57 PM |
|
Its almost as if they don't understand how much this market panic this state support causes. Especially given its temporary and sporadic nature, the pro move is to sell now and buy back after the even worse crash when it ends. I figure they know. Its just that some CP members got caught long... the small bump needed to liquidate is now complete and so down we go.
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 04:31:13 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
msin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1004
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 05:00:40 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 05:57:48 PM |
|
nice article: Letting the 1 trillion euro ($1.1 trillion) plus scheme to buy chiefly government bonds run longer could be better still, he suggested. "It may need to go beyond that," he said.the black hole of death.
|
|
|
|
Adrian-x
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 06:01:33 PM Last edit: July 27, 2015, 09:29:28 PM by Adrian-x |
|
Community and major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase
Hmmm where did that ever happen ![Huh](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/huh.gif) I sure hope by community and "major stakeholders" you are not referring to reddit and bitcointalk.org I know! It's only a valid vote if it's conducted under the rules as sanctioned by central control. Giveen our understand of the situation it could never happen. The major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase is just a prediction of the fork to a more distributed code base that supports the original vision of Bitcoin. It is yet to happen it's my opinion that it's a forgone conclusion, we'll have bigger blocks, the vote is just around the corner so you don't need to do much if you feel you have this one in the bag.
|
Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 06:09:55 PM |
|
this looks good: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyRjD3o2.png&t=665&c=0JyhsOvlPbDS4g)
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2015, 06:45:53 PM |
|
this looks good: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyRjD3o2.png&t=665&c=0JyhsOvlPbDS4g) i guess it was indeed good.
|
|
|
|
|