Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

Cripplecoiners going down fast:

[–]blockchainwallet 27 points 6 hours ago

Hey all,

It's definitely important to keep the spotlight on this topic.

Blockchain.info is publicly in favor of larger blocks. We think Gavin's approach is diligent and reasonable.

https://twitter.com/onemorepeter/status/595676380320407553

Sincerely, The Blockchain.info Team

    permalink
    save
    report
    give gold
    reply

I would be worried to get support from the fuckups at blockchain.info 

[1713277633]

1713277633

[1713277633]

1713277633

[1713277633]

1713277633

[1713277633]

1713277633

[1713277633]

1713277633

[justusranvier]

it may even have been good.  except that it is encouraging this non-verification scheme for tx's which as you say, may be gamed and has contributed to quite a perversion in analyzing this particular attack and was never visualized in Satoshi's original ideas.

That isn't the problem.

The problem is that there is no way to tell an SPV client that the chain they are following because it has the most proof of work is actually invalid and should be rejected.

If that capability existed, then nobody would have to care whether or not miners choose to burn their own electricity mining invalid blocks or not.

This seems to happen frequently in Bitcoin where bad behaviour by party A can negatively effect party B, and so everybody focuses exclusively on preventing party A's bad behaviour instead of making the system more robust by removing party A's ability to negatively impact party B to solve all current and future problems.

I don't think I agree with the highlighted part.

The structure of the blockchain's proof-of-work on minimal sized headers is itself the mechanism SPV clients use to determine if a chain is valid. Yes they do not verify the chain's contents themselves. Instead they rely on the fact that producing a false longest chain is prohibitly expensive and thus very unlikely.

To effectively pull off a longest but invalid chain attack requires an attacker to spend more mining effort than the rest of the ecosystem, in order to produce a false chain that will never be acknowledged by the p2p network and can only be used to temporarily trick SPV users.

In short, proof of work on headers is itself a form of validation.

What you are describing is not a proof. At best, its a suggestion.

If a majority of miners are building an invalid chains accidentally or intentionally, the problem will get sorted out eventually but in principle there's no upper bound on how long that process will require.

On the other hands with some relatively simple new messages and protocol requirements the time required for SPV clients to get back on the valid chain can be reduced to the time needed to propagate a message across the network regardless of the hash power supporting the invalid chain.

[cypherdoc]

Cripplecoiners going down fast:

[–]blockchainwallet 27 points 6 hours ago

Hey all,

It's definitely important to keep the spotlight on this topic.

Blockchain.info is publicly in favor of larger blocks. We think Gavin's approach is diligent and reasonable.

https://twitter.com/onemorepeter/status/595676380320407553

Sincerely, The Blockchain.info Team

    permalink
    save
    report
    give gold
    reply

I would be worried to get support from the fuckups at blockchain.info 

everybody's an idiot to you, right?

[cypherdoc]

more trouble for iCEBLOW, brg444, tvbcof, MOA et al:

[–]statoshi 17 points 4 hours ago

It's messages encoded in the coinbase transaction signature scripts: https://twitter.com/Datavetaren/status/630821846749941760

There is no specification AFAIK.

It looks like 4 pools thus far.

    permalink
    embed
    save
    parent
    report
    give gold
    reply

[–]cypherdoc2 2 points 20 minutes ago

which 4?

    permalink
    embed
    save
    parent
    edit
    disable inbox replies
    delete
    reply

[–]statoshi 1 point 4 minutes ago

AntPool, KnC, BW, BTCChina

[laurentmt]

i'm not saying that the relay network has been bad for Bitcoin; it may even have been good.  except that it is encouraging this non-verification scheme

I'm not sure to understand your logic here.

by encouraging non verification of blocks simply to increase the speed of propagation of blocks thru the network increases the risk of forking, imo.

Where did you read that the relay network encourages mining pools to skip the verification of transactions ?  
Imho, knowing that the relay network doesn't verify transactions, a rational mining pool should feel strongly encouraged to verify transactions.

1 If this turns out to be frequent, the difficulty would adjust.
2 If there are no transactions, a block is really not needed.

1. Agreed
2. I'm not sure that users waiting for their N confirmations would agree with your point of view
   Anyway, I don't see this point as the most urgent issue and I guess there will be many others challenges to be solved before this one is considered as an urgent problem.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Over on reddit, it looks like Theymos is going to get a lesson in how censorship backfires.

Meanwhile, price stability turning back up again:



Still looking for either a big rally, with a new bubble run either then or later on. It would be epic if the blocksize increase is what precipitates it.

[cypherdoc]

i'm not saying that the relay network has been bad for Bitcoin; it may even have been good.  except that it is encouraging this non-verification scheme

I'm not sure to understand your logic here.

by encouraging non verification of blocks simply to increase the speed of propagation of blocks thru the network increases the risk of forking, imo.

Where did you read that the relay network encourages mining pools to skip the verification of transactions ?  
Imho, knowing that the relay network doesn't verify transactions, a rational mining pool should feel strongly encouraged to verify transactions.

1 If this turns out to be frequent, the difficulty would adjust.
2 If there are no transactions, a block is really not needed.

1. Agreed
2. I'm not sure that users waiting for their N confirmations would agree with your point of view
   Anyway, I don't see this point as the most urgent issue and I guess there will be many others challenges to be solved before this one is considered as an urgent problem.

isn't that the whole purpose of the relay network to relay the block solution with minimal verification a second time?:

"It exists as a way for pool operators (and all miners, though not hashers) to get their blocks relayed quickly across a separate network both as a backup to the P2P network and as a quicker way to get the latest blocks as it skips relaying transactions which have already been seen."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=766190.0

i guess it is a matter of idealism.  if verifying tx's twice in the network is your idea of a standard as it is done in the p2p network, then the relay network is taking a shortcut in this process.

[Peter R]

Over on reddit, it looks like Theymos is going to get a lesson in how censorship backfires.
...

Regarding the censored post about the 8 MB voting by 44% of the hash power:

...aaaaand now it's back after I messaged the mods, though I didn't get a response from them.
Edit: received a response:
"Just because an alt-coin is using the bitcoin blockchain to vote on something doesn't make it relevant to bitcoin."
To which I replied:
"Showing support for 8 MB blocks is orthogonal to showing support for Bitcoin XT... it could mean support for BIP 100 or BIP 101."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/ctzc766

[ssmc2]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

Note: This was previous posted and deleted, but has been revised to address some factual inaccuracies.
A lot people seem to be confused about exactly why the developers that are getting a paycheck from Blockstream - most of which you can find on this page - are all so vehemently opposed to any and all discussions about increasing the block size, even by a moderate amount, much less in a way that scales naturally over time in a way miners can influence.
As most regular readers will know, Blockstream received 21 million US of venture capital funding less than a year ago in order to develop sidechain/payment channel concepts for Bitcoin. Among other things, they have joined development on the Lightning Network - for example, Rusty Russel is a Blockstream employee who is a confirmed prototype LN developer.
Now, obviously it would be hard to attract $21M of funding unless you have a plan to make a profit on the development, and while they haven't published any business plan that I'm aware of, it is by now increasingly obvious how they are planning on obtaining this profit.
How the Lightning Network works
The paper presented for the Lightning Network is a whooping 59 pages, and as such, I expect that the actual number of people who have read it numbers in the dozens. There is a more succinct explanation here, but essentially (and highly simplified):
The system is trustless, and no node can run away with funds that haven't been agreed by both the sending and receiving parties, but in case one party misbehaves, funds will be locked down for a period of time until a set timeout occurs.
It is conceptually based on a hub-and-spokes model with large centralized "payment nodes" that numerous people and companies open payment channels with. Payment nodes can be interconnected, thus forming a chain of payment channels from the sender to the recipient.
To open a payment channel, a leaf node (end user) has to commit an "opening transaction" with a specific payment node (or any other leaf node) to the blockchain. The funds committed at this point is the largest amount that can be spend during the life of this payment channel, and every payment channel you open requires one such transaction.
When a payment channel has been opened, multiple transactions can be created and signed on the channel without being published to the blockchain, up to the amount of funds committed.
The funds in the opening transaction are locked to that specific payment channel. To make funds available again for either party, all the final transactions have to be committed to the blockchain, thus finalizing the BTC transfer (if any).
Centralization drivers
The Lightning Network, by design, consists of what is effectively one-way payment channels between two nodes. In order to avoid the need for end users having to open a large number of payment channels (and thus having to commit a large amount of funds for these), it is conceptually based around centralized "payment nodes". If a sender already has a payment channel open to such a payment node, and that payment node has direct payment channel open to the recipient, or can route a chain of payment channels through other payment nodes, the payment is essentially instant. If it's not, a new payment channel has to be created by committing (and waiting for) a blockchain transaction, which is not faster than making a direct transaction on the Bitcoin network.
As a number of blockchain transactions are required to create and subsequently close out a payment channel, and you have to lock down funds for each separate payment channel, most people would only want to have one or a handful of such channels open at any given time.
In other words, payment nodes will be subject to a massive network effect. The more people use it, the higher chance that an existing chain of payment channel can be found, which means that you get a low-fee, almost-instant transfer of coins, instead of an awkward wait for the blockchain to confirm the transaction.
Worse yet, as the signing keys need to be Internet-accessible for payment channels to work near-instantaneously, the payment hubs will require having the full balance that is committed to a payment channel in what is effectively a hot wallet. This will be a huge security risk for most people, further cementing the centralization of that network to those that can manage a highly secure infrastructure.
How Blockstream plans to profit
The essential question of "how can anyone profit from the Lightning Network" is easy: payment nodes will have the ability to charge fees for the payment channels that connect to them. Note that there will be very real costs in running a Lightning Node, both in terms of hardware and in the risk of having funds being locked down in payment channels (and subject to theft), so that by itself is fair enough.
Less connected nodes will a significant handicap and have to charge higher fees for two reasons: first, for the blockchain transactions required to establish their own payment channels to the better connected nodes, and second, because the better connected nodes will presumably charge fees for the less connected nodes to use their payment channels. This assumes that well-connected nodes will allow less-connected nodes to open payment channels at all, which they may opt not to do.
This means that the first mover advantage is incredibly significant in the establishment of this network. And Blockstream, as a significant developer, will obviously be perfectly situated to be the primary provider of this service, and collect all the fees this entails. Depending on the openness of the codebase and timeliness of its distribution, other players may or may not be able to compete, but this isn't known at this point.
How this relates to the block size
The reasons laid out above perfectly explain why these developers completely reject any notion of increasing the capacity of the base bitcoin network. They want a fee market to be established so that when the Lightning Network is ready to operate, there is a significant cost in placing a transaction on the blockchain. This, in turn, will encourage people to shift their transactions over to Lightning, which will allow the payment node operators rather than the miners to collect the fees in question.
Furthermore, the more expensive it is to place a transaction on the blockchain, the more advantageous payment channels will be, and the higher fee can be charged by the payment node operators. It also makes it more expensive to sustain multiple payment channels, which will further boost growth for already well-connected payment nodes.
The Lightning Network is a genuinely revolutionary invention that will allow Bitcoin to scale to a much higher degree than before for micro-transactions and frequent small purchases. However, it is important to keep the bias in mind when you read debates about the block size. It is essentially pointless to discuss it with many of the involved developers, as they have too great a stake seeing the block size remain where it is. The only way the block size will ever be increased is to outvote them and ignore their frequent demands for "consensus" (which will never be reached).
Blockstream developers frequently use the argument that a larger block size will increase centralization of the bitcoin network. This is somewhat hypocritical and disingenuous, as the Lightning Network by its very nature will be far more centralized than the core network with a larger block size will ever be.
tl;dr: Blockstream wants to choke transactions on the blockchain in order to spur adoption of sidechannels and the Lightning Network, where they will be perfectly situated to collect fees for providing that service.

[Odalv]

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.

But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

I think it is obvious that:
 a) without new technologies we will need 24 GB blocks.  ( 10 billion transactions per/day )
 b) current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not handle any time soon)
 c) with SC and LN bitcoin can stay decentralized and handle billions of TPS using small blocks  (maybe bigger than 1MB but we are far from reaching limits of 1 MB blocks)

[cypherdoc]

Over on reddit, it looks like Theymos is going to get a lesson in how censorship backfires.
...

Regarding the censored post about the 8 MB voting by 44% of the hash power:

...aaaaand now it's back after I messaged the mods, though I didn't get a response from them.
Edit: received a response:
"Just because an alt-coin is using the bitcoin blockchain to vote on something doesn't make it relevant to bitcoin."
To which I replied:
"Showing support for 8 MB blocks is orthogonal to showing support for Bitcoin XT... it could mean support for BIP 100 or BIP 101."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/ctzc766

such bullshit.

[justusranvier]

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.

But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

I think it is obvious that:
 a) without new technologies we will need 24 GB blocks.  ( 10 billion transactions per/day )
 b) current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not handle any time soon)
 c) with SC and LN bitcoin can stay decentralized and handle billions of TPS using small blocks  (maybe bigger than 1MB be we are far from reaching limits of 1 MB blocks)

it great that you think something is obvious.

If you'd like your thoughts to have any kind of value at all, why not show some work for b and c?

Bring some evidence to the table instead of just your feels.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

This really puts teeth on the Blockstream conflict-of-interest charge.

EDIT: I hope /u/raisethelimit can use this for fuel. The napkin drawing was pure genius and I've been thinking ever since then how I could make a prezi out of it. Here's the seed of one I whipped up in ten minutes. Feel free to make a copy and extend it without attribution. Maybe embed some videos into it, or whatever. This is more of a demonstration of concept for a prezi wiki argument structure.

https://prezi.com/ulbhiogkqr3f/httpswwwredditcomrbitcoincomments3gmkakthe_blockst/

[Peter R]

I think it is obvious that:
 a) without new technologies we will need 24 GB blocks.  ( 10 billion transactions per/day )

Agreed.

b) current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not handle any time soon)

The block size would grow slowly making this point largely irrelevant.  Assuming we experience near the maximum amount of growth permitted by BIP101 (Gavin's proposal), the max block size wouldn't even be 1 GB until until the year 2030.  

Current technology only needs to handle 8 MB blocks.  

c) with SC and LN bitcoin can stay decentralized and handle billions of TPS using small blocks  (maybe bigger than 1MB be we are far from reaching limits of 1 MB blocks)

SC and LN may be necessary with BIP101 anyways.  For example, we won't be able to support 1 billion TXs per day till 2037.  So SC and LN would be needed anyways should demand for TXs grow faster than what BIP101 allows.  

[Peter R]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

This really puts teeth on the Blockstream conflict-of-interest charge.

Is there some truth to these satires?





The thing is, though, that SC and LN might be very useful even with scaling according to BIP101.

[brg444]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

This really puts teeth on the Blockstream conflict-of-interest charge.

Blockstream was incorporated a full year before Lightning Network was introduced by independent developers. This is a load of BS and yet another attempt at vilifying respectable developers by the reddit mob.

[Odalv]

Current technology only needs to handle 8 MB blocks. 

Seems I agree with 1 small exception.  I do not think we need to handle 8 MB blocks now.
8MB block will reduce number of full nodes drastically. I'm sure some nodes can handle 8MB ... but how many will ?

[Peter R]

Today has been very strange.  It appears now that the reddit post proving censorship of the now "uncensored" reddit post (44% of hash power supports 8 MB) has itself been censored:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/

Can anyone find this one any longer (without just following the link)?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

My edit above may have been skipped. Time to bring out the big guns of visual argument. I admit this isn't much yet

https://prezi.com/ulbhiogkqr3f/httpswwwredditcomrbitcoincomments3gmkakthe_blockst/ (no point spreading this until it's more developed)

[justusranvier]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

This really puts teeth on the Blockstream conflict-of-interest charge.

Blockstream was incorporated a full year before Lightning Network was introduced by independent developers. This is a load of BS and yet another attempt at vilifying respectable developers by the reddit mob.

The idea that most transactions could be moved off the chain certainly existed before the public lightning announcement.

Adam Back was talking about sidechains at the 2013 San Jose conference.

Another forum member told me he was investigating micropayment channels for off chain transactions in May of 2014.

The date at which Lightning was publicly announced does not prove anything about what the Blockstream founders told their investors.