Erdogan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
|
|
August 16, 2015, 09:18:30 PM |
|
Can you ask this guy to come over and discuss it directly? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
|
August 16, 2015, 09:22:00 PM |
|
It looks like my post has been removed from r/bitcoin (it had 172 up-votes in 8 hours). It was near the top of the first page, and then 5 minutes later it was nowhere to be found. Both cartoons by /u/raisethelimit were removed too (and one was the second highest post).
|
|
|
|
inca
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 16, 2015, 09:36:28 PM |
|
..and all pro XT and angry censorship postings are removed from the front of /r/bitcoin. Disgraceful.
|
|
|
|
Wexlike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1473
Merit: 1086
|
|
August 16, 2015, 09:42:07 PM |
|
Increasing the limit does not mean that blocks will be that size immediately. He doesnt really define the scales he is talking about. Satoshi's 1mb limit was an order of magnitude greater than the average block size of the time. 5 years later we are only getting near to it. Yet there has been no talk of security risk up to this? Without a hard block cap, a pool could send millions of small transactions(spam - with a transaction fee too low for other pools) and mine it in their own block. Thus increasing the propagation time and having a small edge on their own mining for the next block. Just a thought, that came to my head a minute ago. Could this really cause problems in that scenario ? Something else: it's unbelievable how much they are censoring /bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
sAt0sHiFanClub
|
|
August 16, 2015, 09:49:56 PM |
|
..and all pro XT and angry censorship postings are removed from the front of /r/bitcoin. Disgraceful.
Indeed. They will be making "A List' next....
|
We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
|
August 16, 2015, 09:52:04 PM |
|
Without a hard block cap, a pool could send millions of small transactions(spam - with a transaction fee too low for other pools) and mine it in their own block. Thus increasing the propagation time and having a small edge on their own mining for the next block. Just a thought, that came to my head a minute ago.
Could this really cause problems in that scenario ?
Publishing a large block has a cost to the miner. I tried to illustrate this effect in Fig. 8:Even with a propagation impedance of 2 sec/MB (which I'm confident is faster than the present network average), it still costs 1,000 BTC to produce a single 1 GB spam block. Indeed, you get a small head start on the next block but it won't balance out the orphan cost. Furthermore, other miners can SPV mine on your block header (while downloading and verifying the rest of the block) to take away this advantage.
|
|
|
|
smoothie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
|
|
August 16, 2015, 09:56:33 PM |
|
439 Bitcoin XT nodes (supporting bigger blocks) 6404 Total nodes
|
███████████████████████████████████████
,╓p@@███████@╗╖, ,p████████████████████N, d█████████████████████████b d██████████████████████████████æ ,████²█████████████████████████████, ,█████ ╙████████████████████╨ █████y ██████ `████████████████` ██████ ║██████ Ñ███████████` ███████ ███████ ╩██████Ñ ███████ ███████ ▐▄ ²██╩ a▌ ███████ ╢██████ ▐▓█▄ ▄█▓▌ ███████ ██████ ▐▓▓▓▓▌, ▄█▓▓▓▌ ██████─ ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌ ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌ ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─ ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩ ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀ ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀` ²²² ███████████████████████████████████████
| . ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM My PGP fingerprint is A764D833. History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ . LEALANA BITCOIN GRIM REAPER SILVER COINS. |
|
|
|
sickpig
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
|
|
August 16, 2015, 10:07:17 PM |
|
fwiw sipa's proposal introduce a block size increase of ~18%/year starting from 2017. this was based on a Rusty Russell's estimate (1). it's worth noting that such estimate has been raised to 30% recently (2). (1) http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=551(2) http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=493
|
Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
|
|
|
Wexlike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1473
Merit: 1086
|
|
August 16, 2015, 10:11:01 PM |
|
Without a hard block cap, a pool could send millions of small transactions(spam - with a transaction fee too low for other pools) and mine it in their own block. Thus increasing the propagation time and having a small edge on their own mining for the next block. Just a thought, that came to my head a minute ago.
Could this really cause problems in that scenario ?
Publishing a large block has a cost to the miner. I tried to illustrate this effect in Fig. 8:*skip* Even with a propagation impedance of 2 sec/MB (which I'm confident is faster than the present network average), it still costs 1,000 BTC to produce a single 1 GB spam block. Indeed, you get a small head start on the next block but it won't balance out the orphan cost. Furthermore, other miners can SPV mine on your block header (while downloading and verifying the rest of the block) to take away this advantage. Thank you Peter, it's always a great pleasure to read your posts. But I just don't understand the cost of 1000 BTC for a 1 GB spam block. In my example a mining pool could create the spam on their own and include the transactions in their own block, thus mining their own transaction fees. This action should cost them almost nothing. (But when mining just on the block header works without any disadvantages, then this is anyway a non issue.)
|
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
|
August 16, 2015, 10:15:33 PM Last edit: August 16, 2015, 10:31:20 PM by Peter R |
|
Without a hard block cap, a pool could send millions of small transactions(spam - with a transaction fee too low for other pools) and mine it in their own block. Thus increasing the propagation time and having a small edge on their own mining for the next block. Just a thought, that came to my head a minute ago.
Could this really cause problems in that scenario ?
Publishing a large block has a cost to the miner. I tried to illustrate this effect in Fig. 8:*skip* Even with a propagation impedance of 2 sec/MB (which I'm confident is faster than the present network average), it still costs 1,000 BTC to produce a single 1 GB spam block. Indeed, you get a small head start on the next block but it won't balance out the orphan cost. Furthermore, other miners can SPV mine on your block header (while downloading and verifying the rest of the block) to take away this advantage. Thank you Peter, it's always a great pleasure to read your posts. But I just don't understand the cost of 1000 BTC for a 1 GB spam block. In my example a mining pool could create the spam on their own and include the transactions in their own block, thus mining their own transaction fees. This action should cost them almost nothing. (But when mining just on the block header works without any disadvantages, then this is anyway a non issue.) It costs them 1000 BTC because, according to the laws of statistics, they would have to attempt it 40 times before one "stuck." On average, a 1 GB block (at 2 sec/MB) will be orphaned 39 out of 40 times. Does that make sense? This is still true with SPV mining. Say the other miners receive the header for my spam block slightly before they received a smaller block in full. As soon as they receive the smaller block in full, they'll switch to mining on this one because there's a 100% chance that that block is valid while my spam block is risky because it could include an invalid TX.
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
August 16, 2015, 10:21:05 PM |
|
If the economy splits without full consensus in either direction, then this may happen: If that happens, trouble for those on the fork and any businesses/entities that forked over without full consensus. And the executives of any business which loses money by sticking their neck out in the first wave of XT acceptance are going to be sued into the ground by its furious shareholders. Can you imagine explaining to your VC backers that you blew their investments in some extremely risky, easily avoided, political/ideological, e-peen measuring, nerd fight? The corporate veil would be swiftly pierced and you would be sued personally. You'd lose your house, and might even wind up in jail with roommates (ironically) nicknamed "Tiny" and "Little Bubba."
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ 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
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
August 16, 2015, 10:24:53 PM |
|
I don't see anything that XT is doing other than allowing people a choice to switch their client to one that supports bigger blocks (and a few other minor things).
Ask Frap.doc to check your eyes, since you should be able to see this: Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin.
The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ 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
|
| | |
|
|
|
Wexlike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1473
Merit: 1086
|
|
August 16, 2015, 10:26:56 PM |
|
It costs them 1000 BTC because, according to the laws of statistics, they would have to attempt it 40 times before one "stuck." On average, a 1 GB block (at 2 sec/MB) will be orphaned 39 out of 40 times. Does that make sense?
This is still true with SPV mining. Say the other miners receive the header for my spam block slightly before they received a smaller block in full. As soon as they receive the smaller block in full, they'll switch to mining on this one [/i]because there's a 100% chance that that block is valid[/i] while my spam block is risky because it could include an invalid TX.
Thank you, that makes sense !
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
August 16, 2015, 10:31:48 PM |
|
Unbelievable. Did anyone in this environment ever destroy himself even faster than that Thermos?
Sorry, I've lost count. Which has been declared destroyed/dooomed/dead more times, Thermos or Bitcoin? If you don't like Thermos, why don't you fuck off his forum and sub, and go some place more welcoming of contentious/hostile/malicious/parasitic hard forks? I hear https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt is nice this time of year. It's not crowded either!
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ 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
|
| | |
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
August 16, 2015, 10:36:39 PM |
|
Without a hard block cap, a pool could send millions of small transactions(spam - with a transaction fee too low for other pools) and mine it in their own block. Thus increasing the propagation time and having a small edge on their own mining for the next block. Just a thought, that came to my head a minute ago.
Could this really cause problems in that scenario ?
Publishing a large block has a cost to the miner. I tried to illustrate this effect in Fig. 8:*skip* Even with a propagation impedance of 2 sec/MB (which I'm confident is faster than the present network average), it still costs 1,000 BTC to produce a single 1 GB spam block. Indeed, you get a small head start on the next block but it won't balance out the orphan cost. Furthermore, other miners can SPV mine on your block header (while downloading and verifying the rest of the block) to take away this advantage. Thank you Peter, it's always a great pleasure to read your posts. But I just don't understand the cost of 1000 BTC for a 1 GB spam block. In my example a mining pool could create the spam on their own and include the transactions in their own block, thus mining their own transaction fees. This action should cost them almost nothing. (But when mining just on the block header works without any disadvantages, then this is anyway a non issue.) It costs them 1000 BTC because, according to the laws of statistics, they would have to attempt it 40 times before one "stuck." On average, a 1 GB block (at 2 sec/MB) will be orphaned 39 out of 40 times. Does that make sense? This is still true with SPV mining. Say the other miners receive the header for my spam block slightly before they received a smaller block in full. As soon as they receive the smaller block in full, they'll switch to mining on this one because there's a 100% chance that that block is valid while my spam block is risky because it could include an invalid TX. I'm curious how this holds in a scenario where block propagation is constant because of inverted bloom filters?
|
"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
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
August 16, 2015, 10:37:38 PM |
|
XT is using the exact same chain/protocol as core aside from the future possibility of block size increase.
XT operates just like CORE as of right now.
You keep repeating that Big Lie, but it's simply not true. XT is every patch Mike Hearn ever had refused by NACKs in Core. Conspicuous by its absence from the README is that incoming clearnet connections will kick a Tor peer off.
So don't just trust the description of diffs.
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ 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
|
| | |
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
August 16, 2015, 10:42:20 PM |
|
I can understand that theymos is in a very difficult spot...
During the fall of the Berlin wall, there was a pivotal moment when the border guards finally recognised the futility of their duty, and allowed people through unchallenged.
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ 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
|
| | |
|
|
|
Erdogan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
|
|
August 16, 2015, 10:42:56 PM |
|
..and all pro XT and angry censorship postings are removed from the front of /r/bitcoin. Disgraceful.
again?
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
August 16, 2015, 10:43:50 PM |
|
Increasing the limit does not mean that blocks will be that size immediately. He doesnt really define the scales he is talking about. Satoshi's 1mb limit was an order of magnitude greater than the average block size of the time. 5 years later we are only getting near to it. Yet there has been no talk of security risk up to this? It doesn't take much brains to figure out why the speed of increase of avg block has accelerated from days where Bitcoin had 10,000 users and how it projects to pickup even more speed as adoption and awareness grows. "Supply creates its own demand"
|
"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
|
|
|
|