Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

564

Still no blocks though apparently. There needs to be statements from the pool operators telling miners how they are voting. Right now I think most are being neutral to not lose anyone (either way), but at some point miners will want to know what the pools plan to do so they can migrate to pools aligned with them.  

i've counted 3 pools so far.  it's early:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hbbxz/two_new_p2pools_you_can_join_mining_on_xt/

The reason P2Pool never took off is because it's performance and rewards are sub-optimal and pay out less than other pools (only slightly but it's been enough to keep P2Pool from having wide adoption. )

So far as I can tell none of the major pools have committed either way and no mined XT blocks have been found.

this is true.  but i'd argue, this is exactly what we want to see and represents creative destruction in process.

disadvantaged p2pools are seeing an opportunity to level the playing field by attracting pro-XT hashers over to their pools to gain marketshare.  if we are correctly surmising the "economic majority" favoring XT, then large traditional pools need to be concerned with this migration if it occurs.  they stand to lose hashers.  of course, the flipside is true as well, by declaring one's use of XT software, they too could lose pro-Core hashers.  i still think XT is on the right side of this ultimately though.

one other thing.  if hashers move to p2pool, what we'll get is increasing decentralization of mining, which would be a side effect of this split in ideology.  and not just by hashers moving away from larger pools but by adopting the p2pool concept in general.

that is a good thing.

I think what is more likely is a small percentage of miners move to p2pool for this issue and then a larger pool adopts XT to both stop the blead and to capture share. Then the dam breaks

yes, that is exactly what i was implying.

[1715013942]

1715013942

[1715013942]

1715013942

[1715013942]

1715013942

[1715013942]

1715013942

[jmw74]

The reason P2Pool never took off is because it's performance and rewards are sub-optimal and pay out less than other pools (only slightly but it's been enough to keep P2Pool from having wide adoption. )

So far as I can tell none of the major pools have committed either way and no mined XT blocks have been found.

I mined a bit on p2pool and I'm pretty sure this is not true.

The rewards on p2pool are exactly the same as any other pool. There's larger variance than some pools, but honestly I have no idea why this is such a huge concern. It's as if people are going to mine for 1 minute only, and they want their 1 minute's worth of reward and they're not prepared to wait longer than that for the variance to even out.

[Peter R]

Hey Guys,

I'm thinking it's time for me to leave /r/bitcoin (or at least begin making an exit).  There seem to be three good migration choices:

/r/bitcoin_uncensored        1,403 subscribers

/r/bitcoinxt                      2,390 subscribers
 
/r/btc                              625 subscribers

On a strictly "what is the best name?" basis, I prefer /r/btc.  Bitcoin_uncensored will come across as dramatic and childish when this ordeal blows over and bitcoinxt will appear too tightly-coupled to a particular implementation of bitcoin (the very problem we are trying to avoid). 

So, I think I prefer /r/btc; however, it has the smallest readership at the moment.  What are other peoples' thoughts?

I unsubscribed from /r/bitcoin and subscribed to all of the above. Not sure which is the right path, but they are all better than thermos' Stalinist utopia. 

use this:  https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3ha129/thoughts_on_normalizing_this_new_sub_and_killing/cu5ufhl

Awesome!  I didn't know you could do that.  For those that didn't follow the link, to create a "custom" reddit that shows the feeds more multiple subs, use:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin+BTC+bitcoinXT+bitcoin_uncensored

Then, just remember to hit the back button when you're done browsing a post.  Using this technique we can naturally decentralize the Bitcoin discussion on reddit yet still view the important submission on a single webpage. 

[justusranvier]

Picked a bad weekend to not check the forums.

[cypherdoc]

Hey Guys,

I'm thinking it's time for me to leave /r/bitcoin (or at least begin making an exit).  There seem to be three good migration choices:

/r/bitcoin_uncensored        1,403 subscribers

/r/bitcoinxt                      2,390 subscribers
 
/r/btc                              625 subscribers

On a strictly "what is the best name?" basis, I prefer /r/btc.  Bitcoin_uncensored will come across as dramatic and childish when this ordeal blows over and bitcoinxt will appear too tightly-coupled to a particular implementation of bitcoin (the very problem we are trying to avoid). 

So, I think I prefer /r/btc; however, it has the smallest readership at the moment.  What are other peoples' thoughts?

I unsubscribed from /r/bitcoin and subscribed to all of the above. Not sure which is the right path, but they are all better than thermos' Stalinist utopia. 

use this:  https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3ha129/thoughts_on_normalizing_this_new_sub_and_killing/cu5ufhl

Awesome!  I didn't know you could do that.  For those that didn't follow the link, to create a "custom" reddit that shows the feeds more multiple subs, use:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin+BTC+bitcoinXT+bitcoin_uncensored

Then, just remember to hit the back button when you're done browsing a post.  Using this technique we can naturally decentralize the Bitcoin discussion on reddit yet still view the important submission on a single webpage. 

furthermore, if you use Bacon Reader on Android, you can set up what's called "multireddit" which does the same thing; merges all subreddits you wish to follow into one.

[cypherdoc]

577

[awemany]

Hi folks,

as announced and also proposed by Peter__R around here, I created the draft what should become a BIP on Bitcoin/Core for a completely user-defined limit.

Note that I didn't ask Peter__R yet but put him into the document as an author - so do not take it as his endorsement!

The link to the PDF is here:

https://github.com/awemany/bslconfig/releases/download/first-draft/bslconfig.pdf

And here is the link to the github repo, feel free to fork it and make it better (for example, fix the language of this non-native English speaker):

https://github.com/awemany/bslconfig/

I am looking forward to any feedback on this!

EDIT: I am sorry, new to github 'releases'. Links should work now!

[domob]

We have been reminded, by the pretention nodes, that there is always a risk of a largeblock being orphaned, especially the first one, then the next one that is larger, and so on. Not only due to timing, verification of the block, the technical stuff, but also the willingness of others to build on it. In business, the risk transforms directly to cost.

After a block of 2MB for example, the risk is reduced for blocks up to and including that exact size. We will therefore in the future see step increases in the blocksize, with retraction in between due to the varying demand. The typical leg up, stability, another leg up pattern, all market based.

Yes, tip  toeing forward according to fundamentals, both technical and economic.

"Step increases" and "top toeing forward" won't help much here.  If the main concern is acceptance of the larger block (which I think it is and which you seem to imply with the reference to pretention nodes), then 1.001 MB and 8 MB blocks are, roughly speaking, "the same".  A node either accepts both (if it allows larger blocks) or it rejects both (if it does not).  So while I agree that miners may be reluctant to accept (and especially build on their own) large blocks, I don't think there is any particular reason to "tip toe forward" once they are on a chain that is invalid according to the old rules.  Unless, of course, verification and relaying timing is a concern.  But then the fork should actually have never been done in the first place and XT failed already during the planning stage.

[HeliKopterBen]

Hi folks,

as announced and also proposed by Peter__R around here, I created the draft what should become a BIP on Bitcoin/Core for a completely user-defined limit.

Note that I didn't ask Peter__R yet but put him into the document as an author - so do not take it as his endorsement!

The link to the PDF is here:

https://github.com/awemany/bslconfig/releases/download/first-draft/bslconfig.pdf

And here is the link to the github repo, feel free to fork it and make it better (for example, fix the language of this non-native English speaker):

https://github.com/awemany/bslconfig/

I am looking forward to any feedback on this!

EDIT: I am sorry, new to github 'releases'. Links should work now!

This is a great idea and further adds to decentralization.  However, I think you may run into a problem if you don't have a preset default.  Many non-technical users or users that have not followed the debate may not understand this setting or be fully aware of all of its implications.  If the user enters 1 mb as the limit while the network is producing >1mb blocks, then they run the risk of getting routed to a bad fork.  I would suggest having a default despite perception of bias, to protect users only.  Perhaps you could even have no limit as the default.

For example, you could have two radio buttons.  One with a default value and the caption "choose this setting if you don't fully understand the block size limit."  The other that enables a text box or drop-down menu that let's the user input the block size limit of their choosing with the caption "advanced - leave blank for no limit" - or something similar.

[awemany]

[...]
This is a great idea and further adds to decentralization.  However, I think you may run into a problem if you don't have a preset default.  Many non-technical users or users that have not followed the debate may not understand this setting or be fully aware of all of its implications.  If the user enters 1 mb as the limit while the network is producing >1mb blocks, then they run the risk of getting routed to a bad fork.  I would suggest having a default despite perception of bias, to protect users only.  Perhaps you could even have no limit as the default.

For example, you could have two radio buttons.  One with a default value and the caption "choose this setting if you don't fully understand the block size limit."  The other that enables a text box or drop-down menu that let's the user input the block size limit of their choosing with the caption "advanced - leave blank for no limit" - or something similar.

Thank you! I specifically worded it like I did because I think it only has a chance of adoption by staying as neutral as possible. Default == no limit won't fly with the Blockstreamers, but at least with the current edition, it should get them sweating for answers that do not eventually point to them being some bogus authorities.

And don't get me wrong: I agree on the issue of lack of user education. We need to make sure as the community then that new full node operators do not shoot themselves in the foot.

And, yes, personally if this ever gets accepted, I will argue for putting in a very high value (and maybe I should add a suggestion for a a 'max' setting?) with any new full node operator that I might interact with.

So, again, yes, I completely see your point, but I think this variant is the only one neutral enough to have a chance at acceptance or at least stirring things up. And before I get accused of being an agent of chaos by saying 'to stir things up': I mean it in the sense of furthering the blocksize discussion.

[Peter R]

We have been reminded, by the pretention nodes, that there is always a risk of a largeblock being orphaned, especially the first one, then the next one that is larger, and so on. Not only due to timing, verification of the block, the technical stuff, but also the willingness of others to build on it. In business, the risk transforms directly to cost.

After a block of 2MB for example, the risk is reduced for blocks up to and including that exact size. We will therefore in the future see step increases in the blocksize, with retraction in between due to the varying demand. The typical leg up, stability, another leg up pattern, all market based.

Yes, tip  toeing forward according to fundamentals, both technical and economic.

"Step increases" and "top toeing forward" won't help much here.  If the main concern is acceptance of the larger block (which I think it is and which you seem to imply with the reference to pretention nodes), then 1.001 MB and 8 MB blocks are, roughly speaking, "the same".  A node either accepts both (if it allows larger blocks) or it rejects both (if it does not).  So while I agree that miners may be reluctant to accept (and especially build on their own) large blocks, I don't think there is any particular reason to "tip toe forward" once they are on a chain that is invalid according to the old rules.  Unless, of course, verification and relaying timing is a concern.  But then the fork should actually have never been done in the first place and XT failed already during the planning stage.

I think Erdogan's insight into the game theory behind the block size limit was correct.

But to recognize his insight, I think we need to stop thinking in terms of "valid blocks" and start thinking in terms of "valid transactions."  All blocks that are composed exclusively of valid transactions are valid. 

Now instead of thinking that only Core and XT exist, imagine that there are dozens (and in the future possibly hundreds) of competing implementations of Bitcoin.  Each implementation has its own rules for what block size it will build upon.  From this viewpoint, the "effective limit" is the size of the largest block that's ever been included in the Blockchain.  If a miner wants to create a larger block (e.g., to collect more fees), then he has to weigh the chances that his block is orphaned with his desire to create a larger block.  If we imagine that the block size limit across the network forms some distribution as shown in the chart labelled "NEW THINKING" below, then, since the miner can't be 100% sure what this distribution is, it is rational for him to use the tip-toe method to minimize risk.



   

[smoothie]

577

what site are you getting these numbers from?

currently I see: 538 on https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Bitcoin%20XT:0.11.0/

[MarketNeutral]

Lest we forget, lead bitcoin devs Wladamir, Greg, and Pieter are opposed to GavinMikeCoin.

[smoothie]

We have been reminded, by the pretention nodes, that there is always a risk of a largeblock being orphaned, especially the first one, then the next one that is larger, and so on. Not only due to timing, verification of the block, the technical stuff, but also the willingness of others to build on it. In business, the risk transforms directly to cost.

After a block of 2MB for example, the risk is reduced for blocks up to and including that exact size. We will therefore in the future see step increases in the blocksize, with retraction in between due to the varying demand. The typical leg up, stability, another leg up pattern, all market based.

Yes, tip  toeing forward according to fundamentals, both technical and economic.

"Step increases" and "top toeing forward" won't help much here.  If the main concern is acceptance of the larger block (which I think it is and which you seem to imply with the reference to pretention nodes), then 1.001 MB and 8 MB blocks are, roughly speaking, "the same".  A node either accepts both (if it allows larger blocks) or it rejects both (if it does not).  So while I agree that miners may be reluctant to accept (and especially build on their own) large blocks, I don't think there is any particular reason to "tip toe forward" once they are on a chain that is invalid according to the old rules.  Unless, of course, verification and relaying timing is a concern.  But then the fork should actually have never been done in the first place and XT failed already during the planning stage.

I think Erdogan's insight into the game theory behind the block size limit was correct.

But to recognize his insight, I think we need to stop thinking in terms of "valid blocks" and start thinking in terms of "valid transactions."  All blocks that are composed exclusively of valid transactions are valid. 

Now instead of thinking that only Core and XT exist, imagine that there are dozens (and in the future possibly hundreds) of competing implementations of Bitcoin.  Each implementation has its own rules for what block size it will build upon.  From this viewpoint, the "effective limit" is the size of the largest block that's ever been included in the Blockchain.  If a miner wants to create a larger block (e.g., to collect more fees), then he has to weigh the chances that his block is orphaned with his desire to create a larger block.  If we imagine that the block size limit across the network forms some distribution as shown in the chart labelled "NEW THINKING" below, then, since the miner can't be 100% sure what this distribution is, it is rational for him to use the tip-toe method to minimize risk.



   

cost of mining a larger block = self regulating block sizes

[awemany]

[...]

Now instead of thinking that only Core and XT exist, imagine that there are dozens (and in the future possibly hundreds) of competing implementations of Bitcoin.  Each implementation has its own rules for what block size it will build upon.  From this viewpoint, the "effective limit" is the size of the largest block that's ever been included in the Blockchain.  If a miner wants to create a larger block (e.g., to collect more fees), then he has to weigh the chances that his block is orphaned with his desire to create a larger block.  If we imagine that the block size limit across the network forms some distribution as shown in the chart labelled "NEW THINKING" below, then, since the miner can't be 100% sure what this distribution is, it is rational for him to use the tip-toe method to minimize risk.

[...]
   

Fully agreed. To add to this: This situation exists even today with 1MB blocks. A node might only support 900kB blocks on average bandwidth- or cpu-wise (e.g. some old ARM board) and will drop off when the network actually moves to Mike's cliff hy saturating at 1MB.

Also: Maybe we should add it to the BIP draft even, or at least reference this?

That said:

Can I push my BIP proposal to reddit with you as the author in it? I don't want to cause any larger confusion and want your explicit permission first

[MarketNeutral]

So many newbies supporting XT. Imagine that. 

[brg444]

The 1MB'ers are happy watching that adoption isn't growing anymore. Stupidity at its best.

Stupidity is pretending that "adoption" and "growth" is all about users & transactions.

Probably one of your more stupid posts.

I'm glad you like it  

Your butthurt is expected of typical VC/startup braindamage that can't see beyond "MOAR USERS" "MOAR ADOPTION"!

[smoothie]

This is a special fork for those who do not agree with the blocksize scheduled increase as proposed by Gavin and Mike in their divisive altcoin fork, "Bitcoin XT".

This version can be used to protect the status quo until real technical consensus is formed about the blocksize.

This version is indistinguishable from Bitcoin XT 0.11A except that it will not actually hard fork to BIP101, yet appears on the p2p network as Bitcoin XT 0.11A replete with features, yet at a consensus level behaves just like Bitcoin Core 0.11. If it is used to mine, it will produce XT block versions without actually supporting >1MB blocks.

Running this version and/or mining with XT block versions will make it impossible for the Bitcoin XT network to detect the correct switchover and cause a premature fork of anyone foolish enough to support BIP101 without wide consensus from the technical community.

It prevents correct detection of Bitcoin XT adoption in the wild since usage will be known to have been tampered with and thus all statistical data gathered by getnodes can only be considered unreliable.

https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xt

Is there a way to distinguish this version vs the actual XT?

[brg444]

I think Erdogan's insight into the game theory behind the block size limit was correct.

But to recognize his insight, I think we need to stop thinking in terms of "valid blocks" and start thinking in terms of "valid transactions."  All blocks that are composed exclusively of valid transactions are valid. 

Now instead of thinking that only Core and XT exist, imagine that there are dozens (and in the future possibly hundreds) of competing implementations of Bitcoin.  Each implementation has its own rules for what block size it will build upon.  From this viewpoint, the "effective limit" is the size of the largest block that's ever been included in the Blockchain.  If a miner wants to create a larger block (e.g., to collect more fees), then he has to weigh the chances that his block is orphaned with his desire to create a larger block.  If we imagine that the block size limit across the network forms some distribution as shown in the chart labelled "NEW THINKING" below, then, since the miner can't be 100% sure what this distribution is, it is rational for him to use the tip-toe method to minimize risk.

I notice you did not reply or comment on my opinion of you guys solutions... Maybe you missed it, maybe you don't care to answer? Either way I'd be curious to better understand the logic behind your proposal.

Because if that's all this hinges on:

cost of mining a larger block = self regulating block sizes

We're in a world of problems.

VI. This is a clerical issue, because block propagation and other considerations incentivize miners to keep blocks small anyway. The 1MB is just a hard limit getting in the way of things, the marketplace of miners should be allowed to fix block size as it seems appropriate.

While this argument has been disingenuously brought by Gavin himself, the fact is that the proposed inverted bloom filters upgrade would allow all blocks to propagate in constant time, regardless of their size.

Some might still ask: why is that?

davout: gavinandresen: "oh, the IBLT stuff? yes, that’d make propagation O(1)" <<< so with that, there's no network bottleneck anymore, at least no real incentive for miners to keep blocks small, right?

gavinandresen:davout: Miners would only have the meta-incentive of “we can collectively maximize revenue if we make blocks THIS big”

Except miners are not a person. They are multiple, geographically diverse groups of interests each bounded by different resources, costs and infrastructure. I kind of happen to think that this is what is broken with the "nodes and miners should be able to decide on whatever block size they like" proposition. I can also see clear as day through the attempt of many here at rationalizing this behavior as "free-market decides best, how dare you propose centrally designed SPAM CONTROL."

The assumption you seem to make is that miners & nodes (through the magic of the "invisible hand" I suppose) will arrive at an equilibrium of decentralization in some kind of benevolent act "because incentives & game theory". If we consider that the argument about cost of creating large block is moot, the rational then becomes: miners will act in an altruistic way to conserve trust of the network.

These points are not very clear to me. I don't imagine a scenario where several resourceful corporations do not turn this into an arms race that few will be able to keep up with. We are now only beginning to see mining and network infrastructure enter professional stage. If the incentive to mine Bitcoin increases the seemingly amateur and small scale set ups should soon be erased off the network and replaced by massive datacenters that should outnumber any of these small players so as to make their "voice" in the balance exercise of decentralization vs. block size worthless.

You might imagine that as "bitcoiners" realize this issue they will "protest" but I suggest that by this point A. you will not be able to actually become aware of the problem and B. there will be nothing to do about it as the network will have become "captured" because of "network ossification" and the general laziness of the herd which will prefer comfort and stability over change and doubt.

[Peter R]

That said:

Can I push my BIP proposal to reddit with you as the author in it? I don't want to cause any larger confusion and want your explicit permission first

I just gave you permission via a Reddit PM subject to (1) putting me as second author to reflect the fact that you've contributed at this point more than I have, (2) making it clear that this is a WORKING DRAFT. This could be done with a sub-title on the first page, or a water-mark on every page.