Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 06:17:11 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.
pro
anti
agnostic
DGAF

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 125 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154754 times)
hdbuck (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 08:10:03 AM
 #181

The more Agile MPcoin would (hopefully) survive.

I'm sorry, I'm kind of lost in this discussion, but what is MPcoin?

it would be the coins on the 1MB blockchain and as opposed to the 'gavincoin' from the forked 20MB blockchain.
(MP standing for Mircea Popescu.. - dam he must be so thrilled having the 'basic' bitcoin renamed after him XD)
1710829031
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710829031

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710829031
Reply with quote  #2

1710829031
Report to moderator
Every time a block is mined, a certain amount of BTC (called the subsidy) is created out of thin air and given to the miner. The subsidy halves every four years and will reach 0 in about 130 years.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1710829031
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710829031

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710829031
Reply with quote  #2

1710829031
Report to moderator
1710829031
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710829031

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710829031
Reply with quote  #2

1710829031
Report to moderator
1710829031
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710829031

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710829031
Reply with quote  #2

1710829031
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4564
Merit: 1276


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 08:32:04 AM
 #182

The more Agile MPcoin would (hopefully) survive.

I'm sorry, I'm kind of lost in this discussion, but what is MPcoin?

MP = Mircea Popescu.  Some Bulgarian or Romanian dude who's supposed to be rich.  You might remember his sock puppet thing here who had a female as a picture.  ~mpoe-pr IIRC.  Very caustic style (but usually quite amusing to those of us who appreciate such things.)

The guy is driving an effort to make very cheap nodes capable of running a version of Bitcoin that he likes.  Back in the 5.x timeframe.  The idea is that they could be handed out like candy and Bitcoin would go back to a situation where it was sort of a peer-2-peer solution (one of the mostly BS original sales pitches that is getting quite long-in-the-tooth.)  Frankly I think this is exactly the right direction to go.  If he can make a credible case that he can win a fork war I might even put some money on it since his end-goals and mine seem to align.

So, to answer your question as best I understand, 'mpcoin' would be just an older version of Bitcoin.  If there would be patches and tunings and such expected, I did not run across the suggestion in my skim of things.  I'm not sure where things stood with respect to p2sh and the BDB -> LevelDB switch and stuff at the 5.x version that the MP clan has wood for...and am to lazy to look it up at the moment.  Whether that version accepts and understands all transactions to the 'gavincoin' fork, or just accepts and does not understand them (or doesn't accept them) I do not know.  It would make a difference in some use-cases.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4564
Merit: 1276


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 08:39:58 AM
 #183

The more Agile MPcoin would (hopefully) survive.

I'm sorry, I'm kind of lost in this discussion, but what is MPcoin?

it would be the coins on the 1MB blockchain and as opposed to the 'gavincoin' from the forked 20MB blockchain.
(MP standing for Mircea Popescu.. - dam he must be so thrilled having the 'basic' bitcoin renamed after him XD)

My sense is that most things don't fall out of the sky and bop this guy on the head.  I'll bet that there was some engineering behind it so I'm not sure that 'thrilled' is a word which captures the emotion with precision.

I think that 'mpcoin' is a mistake from a PR point of view mainly because the guy bends over backward to be unlikable (and it is one of the admittedly numerous things he seems proficient at.)  Similarly, but for the opposite reason, 'gavincoin' would not be to top pick for the bloatchain fork.  Oh well.  I never did have much of a knack for marketing so maybe I'm wrong about this.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
CoinCidental
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000


Si vis pacem, para bellum


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 09:04:09 AM
 #184

is there anyone else in the btc foundation who oposes this change ?
id like to hear from the others what they think about it and not just gavins side of the story
hdbuck (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 09:05:44 AM
Last edit: February 02, 2015, 10:28:29 AM by hdbuck
 #185

The more Agile MPcoin would (hopefully) survive.

I'm sorry, I'm kind of lost in this discussion, but what is MPcoin?

it would be the coins on the 1MB blockchain and as opposed to the 'gavincoin' from the forked 20MB blockchain.
(MP standing for Mircea Popescu.. - dam he must be so thrilled having the 'basic' bitcoin renamed after him XD)

My sense is that most things don't fall out of the sky and bop this guy on the head.  I'll bet that there was some engineering behind it so I'm not sure that 'thrilled' is a word which captures the emotion with precision.

I think that 'mpcoin' is a mistake from a PR point of view mainly because the guy bends over backward to be unlikable (and it is one of the admittedly numerous things he seems proficient at.)  Similarly, but for the opposite reason, 'gavincoin' would not be to top pick for the bloatchain fork.  Oh well.  I never did have much of a knack for marketing so maybe I'm wrong about this.



Not native english here so I used simplistic terms just to picture the irony/fun of the situation.

But eh my aim here is just to preserve and be cautious with my investment in Bitcoin. Hence not blindly jump in every new patch and fork..
BTW if one could make a step by step guide to prevent one's coin from getting into the forked 20MB blockchain, that'd be quite interesting.
Still got lot to learn..

Also, I used to read their logs on IRC, and there was a guy called 'pankkake' (also in btctalk) who seems to have vanished.
I think its because they disagreed regarding the fork thing, so if anyone could share the light on his views, that'd be interesting too since I used to value his thoughts.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4564
Merit: 1276


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 09:57:38 AM
 #186

...
But eh my aim here is just to preserve and be cautious with my investment in bitcoin. Hence not blindly jump in every new patch and fork..
BTW if one could make a step by step guide to prevent one's coin from getting into the forked 20MB blockchain, that'd be quite interesting.
Still got lot to learn..
...

I've got a rough idea, but no idea about the techniques.  I also have an out-standing question about the behavior of SPV clients like Multibit in some of these fork war scenarios.  No one has been inclined to comment.

I believe that the safest thing to do is to just sit on the sidelines and neither get rid of nor obtain Bitcoin if you are able to do this (e.g., you don't run a business which involves Bitcoin or whatever.)  If you wish to try to make some extra bucks then you would really have to understand things well and be paying attention...but what one person gains another loses so doing this may be closely related to theft.  Not sure yet.  It is unlikely that whatever fork survives (and I expect 'gavincoin' and 'mpcoin' to be just two of many vying for position) will not nuke value buried below the fork in the chain which makes sitting on your hands and waiting out the storm a pretty safe and low-overhead thing to do.

Some of the forks may eventually do a forced spend.  Of course you would just send money to yourself for the most part, but the transaction would be able to be re-played on other forks.  How big a deal that is is questionable because you would control the key to the receiving address.  If you have deeply buried coins then your spends should not contain any post-fork coinbase and be legal on most of the forks.  That gets back to my earlier musings about making cosmetic changes to legal/illegal address definitions.  In this way you could spend to a newly legal address, say, and the transaction could not be replayed on other forks.

Lots of this stuff is just theoretical and hand-waving on my part.  If/when a fork looks more eminent I'll be digging into it some more.  I've been concerned about the fork for a couple of years now, but it has come to naught so far.  But just the threat of it has been a force pushing me to draw down my stash when selling opportunities come about.  Seems that there is an up-swell in the Bitcoin Foundation interest in forking ASAP though.  It feels desperate and political more than technical to me.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
hdbuck (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 09:59:07 AM
 #187

good read there:

Quote
Economic Fallacies and the Block Size Limit, part 1: Scarcity
By Justus Ranvier from Bitcoinism link Jan 21, 2015

http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/961/2015/01/supply-demand.jpg

The average size of a block is approaching the 1 MB protocol limit for the first time in Bitcoin’s history, and not everybody agrees regarding what to do about it. Many objections to raising or removing the block size limit are based on misunderstandings about the nature of economic scarcity and operation of markets in general.


Production Quotas

As you may have heard, Bitcoin usage is growing. In every way, that graph represents the kind of healthy exponential adoption that we all want to see.

Unfortunately there’s a problem on the horizon which threatens to stop or even reverse Bitcoin adoption.

Several years ago, Satoshi added a protocol limit to the maximum size of a Bitcoin block. Prior to this change, there was no explicit limit, just an implicit 32 megabyte maximum message size. This limit was explained as a temporary anti-spam measure, and Satoshi said at the time that it could be raised when the network needed the additional capability.

The economic effect of having a maximum block size is that of a production quota. Production quotas are tools of economic central planning that either mandate or limit the amount of production of a good or service, as opposed to allowing the production rates to be governed by supply and demand.

Production quotas are inherently harmful to an economy, as shown in the 1920 essay, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” and so do not represent a sustainable long term strategy for allocating the supply of Bitcoin transactions.

From the time it was implemented until now, the harm caused by the block size limit has been hypothetical rather than real since there has not yet been enough demand for Bitcoin transactions to be hampered by the limit. For the last few years, the block size limit has been like a minimum wage law that forbids salaries lower than $0.01 per year. There is no market demand for salaries that low, and so such a minimum wage law might as well not exist – it has no effect on the economy. Likewise, the 1 MB block size limit has not yet had any effect on the Bitcoin economy since there has not yet been a market demand for more than 1 MB of transactions every 10 minutes.

Since its inception, Bitcoin has been operating as if there was no block size limit at all. If this limit is kept in place when the market demand for transactions rises above 1 MB/10 minutes, then suddenly Bitcoin will be in uncharted economic territory.

People will want to use Bitcoin, but they will be forbidden by protocol from doing so. No matter how much they are willing to pay, no matter how willing miners are to include their transactions in a block, no matter how willing the full node operators are to forward their transactions, they simply won’t be allowed to transact.

A block size limit that is low enough to have a real effect on actual block sizes is the ultimate blacklist.

 

The Alternative to Central Planning

The best alternative to a production quota on Bitcoin transactions is, like in any other situation of central planning, to allow the market to decide the optimum block size.

Nobody gives McDonalds a maximum number of Big Macs they are allowed to produce each day – their customers tell them how many they want to buy and McDonalds responds appropriately. At any given time, there exists a price at which the willingness of McDonalds to produce Big Macs is exactly equal to the willingness of their customers to buy them, and that determines the number that will be produced. The process of price discovery is an emergent property of the actions of millions of independent actors expressing their preferences in a competitive open market.

This is exactly how we want Bitcoin to behave. The Bitcoin network, like any other product or service in the economy, should change its production capability to respond to supply and demand.

It is not currently designed to do this, however, and one of the barriers preventing Bitcoin from being improved in this way is a series of economic fallacies or misconceptions that cause otherwise skilled people to distrust market-driven price discovery over central planning, or to assume that resource allocation in computer networks operates in a manner fundamentally different than resource allocation in any other part of the economy.

 

Objections to Market-Determined Block Sizes

“Transaction fees are too low and won’t rise unless space in a block is scarce. We need a block size limit to ensure block space scarcity and thus price transactions.”

This objection is based on a common misunderstanding of the word “scarcity” as it applies to economics.

In economic terms, something is scarce if people can’t have an infinite amount of it at a price of zero.

On the surface of the Earth, air is not scarce. It’s not scarce because every human can breathe as much as they are capable of breathing, without paying for the air, and there’s still enough to go around. Because everybody can consume as much as they are capable of without reducing anyone else’s ability to do the same, air does not require allocation. In practical terms, the amount of available air at a price of zero is infinite, therefore air is not scarce.

Almost everything else is scarce, certainly any services that require time and/or energy to produce.

The space in a block will always be scarce as long as our computers are still made of matter and still occupy space. Constructing a block isn’t free, storing a block isn’t free, and the bandwidth needed to transmit a block is not free.

There will always exist some cost to a miner to add a transaction to a block. That cost may be very small, but it will never be zero.

If transaction fees emerge from the operation of a competitive open market, then we would expect them to approach the marginal cost of production, plus a small profit margin.

“What if the the market-set block size is so big that only Google can afford to run full nodes?

This is a real problem that could emerge, and is actually the reason that the block size limit was enacted in the first place.

The reason this could happen is because of poor P2P network design: miners do not need to pay the cost of relaying blocks throughout the network, therefore this cost becomes an externality which is not reflected in their marginal cost of production.

The solution to this objection is a better P2P network design, not a production quota that limits the maximum transaction rate.

A description of how to build a better P2P network will be the subject of a future article.

“What if the market-set transaction fee doesn’t pay enough for a hash rate that protects the network for well-funded adversaries?”

If there is not enough market demand for Bitcoin transactions such to pay for sufficient hashing power to protect the network, then Bitcoin will fail.

This will happen with or without a block size limit.

Since its inception, Bitcoin has been on a collision course with extremely well funded, entitled, and politically powerful interests. Its only hope of surviving this collision is by attracting a very broad base of support.

Bitcoin needs millions, and then billions, of users who demand better money. The demand for Bitcoin must be strong enough that they will break the law if that’s what it takes to obtain it.

The above strategy isn’t particularly novel or extreme – this strategy has been employed in the conflict between peer-to-peer filesharing networks vs the copyright mafia, and more recently by ridesharing companies vs the taxi licensing cartels.

When a new technology has to compete against entrenched interests on a non-level political playing field, civil disobedience is a proven effective tactic.

We don’t yet know whether or not Bitcoin will gain enough of the right kind of support it needs to survive.

We can say, however, that arbitrarily rationing the transaction rate is counterproductive toward achieving that end.

“What if competition results in the profitability of mining being so low that it drives out smaller pools and Bitcoin mining converges to a monopoly?”

This objection is a restatement of the natural monopoly argument, and is in no way specific to Bitcoin.

Natural monopoly as an economic theory has been conclusively debunked, and the same principles that explain why natural monopolies do not emerge from free market forces in classically-cited industries apply equally well to Bitcoin mining.

Rather than repeat those arguments here, anyone who is concerned about natural monopolies should read The Myth of Natural Monopoly by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.

“If the market should set the block size, why shouldn’t it also set the block reward?”

This objection is based either on a fundamental misunderstanding on the nature of money, or else on the misconception that Bitcoin’s value is not derived from its monetary properties.

Exploring these misconceptions fully will be the subject of a future article.

This concludes part 1. Future articles in this series will address the subject of how to build economically-scalable P2P networks, and why the block reward is fundamentally different than the block size limit.
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007


1davout


View Profile WWW
February 02, 2015, 10:01:44 AM
 #188

What's the problem with paying 10 bucks instead of 10 cents to securely transfer a million dollars?

What's wrong?

Lets say those million dollar transactions are 250 bytes.  That is 4,000 of them in a 1MB block.

So $40,000 total reward to the miner -- about eight times current block reward.

BUT YOU ARE SECURING TRANSACTIONS WORTH SOMETHING LIKE 2,000 TIMES MORE VALUABLE THAN TODAY'S TRANSACTIONS (estimated average transaction USD value for today's average transaction is about $380). And I GUARANTEE that attackers would have a much easier time pulling off a double-spend of one million-dollar transaction than 1,000 $1,000 transactions.

The math for "large value transactions will generate enough fees to secure the chain" just doesn't work.
The math for "lots of small transactions will generate enough fees to secure the chain" might.

Also:

I still haven't heard a coherent argument on why large value transactions are necessarily also high-fee transactions.

I'd suggest you go research existing high-value-payment networks and see what typical fees are for multi-million dollar transactions. FEDWIRE is running at 6 transactions per second, average transaction value over $6million, with fees per transaction UNDER ONE DOLLAR.

Why? Because if you are giving somebody one million dollars for something, you almost certainly have built up real-world trust, and probably have a longstanding relationship, signed contracts, etc etc.

If you think Bitcoin is different, please explain the scenario where I send a stranger who I don't trust (so have to rely completely on the blockchain) $1million for something.

This argumentation hardly holds.

I can put as much hashpower on top of my transaction as I see fit, I just need to wait for the appropriate number of confirmations.
If my transaction is worth 1mn, the block reward is 40k, I just need to wait for 50 confirmations to put 2mn worth of fees on top of it, this is hardly rocket science...

You guarantee... What exactly?

But I mean if you're happy with Fedwire, what exactly is it you're doing here?

inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 501



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 10:47:01 AM
 #189

Coinjoin helps, but I have my doubts that it will ever be used for the majority of transactions. The only Bitcoin wallet that I am aware of that tries to use coinjoin by default is the highly experimental Darkwallet (not to be confused with Darkcoin


What isn't being focused upon is the benefits of increasing the privacy with higher transactions. It has already been pointed out that decentralized projects like lighthouse are being harmed by the 1MB limit and this similarly will effect other projects like open bazaar. Additionally, more transactions allow for coinshuffle and coinjoin more opportunity to have more benign transactions to mix with and protect the privacy of the users. I personally cannot wait to start selling all sorts of legal items on open bazaar and performing all sorts of legal transactions with dark wallet as a means to supporting peaceful but questionable (in some peoples eyes) transactions. This is the same reason individuals like Jacob Appelbaum want TOR to go mainstream so that sufficient bandwidth and users can give cover to whistle blowers and journalists.  

please explain

Of the active nodes in existence few if any of them would be effected by this hardfork(most users don't even know that they need to contact their ISP and unblock port 8333 which is blocked by default by almost every ISP) so the fears of centralization are exaggerated. What can we do to fight centralization?

1) Make more appliance like mining devices like water heaters /space heaters that use ASIC's to decentralize mining and empower the users
2) Just deploy more nodes that are dual function and allow the user to benefit by supporting the network. I.E.. a 5 dollar VPS to host their site, act as a TOR relay, and bitcoin node
3) Many mesh networks being developed look promising and will help decentralize bitcoin - https://mycelium.com/bitcoincard will function as a mesh network which could be used in conjunction with local nodes from merchants to act as full nodes and uplinks to the internet


hdbuck (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 10:59:58 AM
 #190

regarding this:

Also, I used to read their logs on IRC, and there was a guy called 'pankkake' (also in btctalk) who seems to have vanished.
I think its because they disagreed regarding the fork thing, so if anyone could share the light on his views, that'd be interesting too since I used to value his thoughts.


a little bit OT but this was a fun read: http://www.contravex.com/2014/11/04/lets-cut-to-the-chase-is-la-serenissima-a-cult/#comment-4569

Quote from: pankkake
#bitcoin-assets is not a cult, but it is full of cults (that might qualify as “cargo cults”).

Cults that are poorly informed. The systemd debate (by people who never wrote an init script in their lives), or the bitcoin version debate (as it turns out, even though it was abundantly repeated, those old versions aren’t used, and don’t even sync without exploding) are just examples. I am largely unaffected by both debates, I easily can chose between all of those (and am currently running the luke-jr antispam patch on my nodes).

I’m not sure how to interpret http://trilema.com/2014/the-usg-wasted-another-hundred-million-dollars-it-previously-stole-from-average-hard-working-us-citizens-nobody-cares/ but this certainly sounds cultish. I don’t care if it is true or not, and I didn’t partake in this bet for many reasons. But this sounds like altering reality when it doesn’t fit your way, the socialist specialty. And it smells of bagholding; I wonder what would happen if BTC falls gain, will the price be “wrong”?

I left because I realized challenging cults would be fruitless, so would arguing about why I left (amusingly, a circular argument that works). It just smells too much of circlejerks and (lately) bagholding. I cut my losses (mostly not-financial, though the last weeks I was staying only because I was waiting for someone to buy my way out of MPIF). And I should have kept my mouth shut.

I also sold a significant part of my bitcoins (I planned to write about it on my blog, but real life issues make it unlikely). Bitcoin is way too full of idiots and evil people. Even though #bitcoin-assets stands out, it doesn’t mean it’s always right because others suck. Conversely, it’s not because fiat sucks that Bitcoin will crush it; fiat will just crush itself and there’s no clear winner yet.

I also don’t see any opportunities arising. The “project” I had went nowhere, and when I see what happened with the others, I’m glad it died early (though it was actually MP who stopped responding first, go figure). And with the focus of the Bitcoin “community” on all the wrong things, it would probably never have worked anyway.
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 501



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 11:02:28 AM
 #191

Its from when the 250kb cap in the reference client was lifted (not a soft fork, my bad) and the arguments are still valid, Peter Todd describes the issue of propagation times leading to centralisation with larger blocks in the first post and its a lot easier to understand than most discussions on it.

The issue isn't as simple as 7tps v 140tps, if it was it would be a no brainer. 45000tps is possible if space was the only issue but network propagation already allow some degree of gaming by miners and raising to even 140tps makes it a much more serious issue.

Any more "for dummies" info on that would be appreciated, most I've read so far is way over my head.

Peter Todds concerns are valid and I would prefer discussing those specifics but just keep in mind that he is mainly focused on discussing the weaknesses of edge cases. Most mining is done in farms with sufficient bandwidth where an increase in blocksize doesn't effect network propagation and almost all the nodes are miners as well. The proposed changes may limit certain users in remote locations with limited bandwidth or people with really outdated equipment, no question, but for the majority propagation time within a 10 min window wouldn't be a problem.

My greater concern deals with Bitcoin over TOR but TOR needs a lot more bridges , relays and exit nodes with or without any changes to bitcoin so that is a whole other topic.

zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 668
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 11:33:41 AM
 #192

Anyone got any constructive arguments against? Bitching about capitalism and the size of Gavins brain doesn't count.

Have a read.
I did, thanks, and Gavin sounds smart and you sound like a jackass.
Eamorr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 11:35:10 AM
 #193

Sad to see the Bitcoin community go like this.
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 668
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 11:37:51 AM
 #194

Currently the fees are very, very, very far from being anywhere near of an amount sufficient to secure the network.
We're all having a free lunch right now, due to coins still being minted, but if that was to stop tomorrow, the network would be in an extremely shitty state.
It won't stop tomorrow dude, how much about bitcoin do you know?

You get fees up by allowing more fee paying transactions, not preventing them happening.  Imagine Apple selling $100k iPhones to 4,000 people.  Duh.
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 501



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 12:21:27 PM
 #195

Obviously if something as major as a hard fork was considered there's many other changes that should be considered at the same time, what other no-brainer changes would be likely?

libsecp256k1 would be a possible candidate and there are many more updates being worked on - http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/  

There are some good arguments against bundling many big changes in the same hard fork as well though :

1) Many of these features don't need a hardfork so why bother adding them at the same time
2) Bundling multiple changes which are unrelated lead to a political problem of not giving people a clear vote on what fork they prefer
3) problems, bugs, and consequences from a big change may be more difficult to diagnose or identify if many changes are done simultaneously

hdbuck (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 12:36:13 PM
 #196

...
But eh my aim here is just to preserve and be cautious with my investment in bitcoin. Hence not blindly jump in every new patch and fork..
BTW if one could make a step by step guide to prevent one's coin from getting into the forked 20MB blockchain, that'd be quite interesting.
Still got lot to learn..
...

I've got a rough idea, but no idea about the techniques.  I also have an out-standing question about the behavior of SPV clients like Multibit in some of these fork war scenarios.  No one has been inclined to comment.

I believe that the safest thing to do is to just sit on the sidelines and neither get rid of nor obtain Bitcoin if you are able to do this (e.g., you don't run a business which involves Bitcoin or whatever.)  If you wish to try to make some extra bucks then you would really have to understand things well and be paying attention...but what one person gains another loses so doing this may be closely related to theft.  Not sure yet.  It is unlikely that whatever fork survives (and I expect 'gavincoin' and 'mpcoin' to be just two of many vying for position) will not nuke value buried below the fork in the chain which makes sitting on your hands and waiting out the storm a pretty safe and low-overhead thing to do.

Some of the forks may eventually do a forced spend.  Of course you would just send money to yourself for the most part, but the transaction would be able to be re-played on other forks.  How big a deal that is is questionable because you would control the key to the receiving address.  If you have deeply buried coins then your spends should not contain any post-fork coinbase and be legal on most of the forks.  That gets back to my earlier musings about making cosmetic changes to legal/illegal address definitions.  In this way you could spend to a newly legal address, say, and the transaction could not be replayed on other forks.

Lots of this stuff is just theoretical and hand-waving on my part.  If/when a fork looks more eminent I'll be digging into it some more.  I've been concerned about the fork for a couple of years now, but it has come to naught so far.  But just the threat of it has been a force pushing me to draw down my stash when selling opportunities come about.  Seems that there is an up-swell in the Bitcoin Foundation interest in forking ASAP though.  It feels desperate and political more than technical to me.



alright TY Smiley

how to effectively "sit on the sidelines" is my main concern tho.

be sure to let me know when you dig a little deeper this matter, i'll probably tip for this stuff (and not that you seem to need tipping, but thats just my bitcoin spirit emerging).

edit: dam this subject is a bottomless pit. readings all over the place. Cheesy
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 12:38:43 PM
 #197

Currently the fees are very, very, very far from being anywhere near of an amount sufficient to secure the network.
We're all having a free lunch right now, due to coins still being minted, but if that was to stop tomorrow, the network would be in an extremely shitty state.
It won't stop tomorrow dude, how much about bitcoin do you know?

You get fees up by allowing more fee paying transactions, not preventing them happening.  Imagine Apple selling $100k iPhones to 4,000 people.  Duh.

Good analogy! Sounds better than mine.

davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007


1davout


View Profile WWW
February 02, 2015, 12:46:54 PM
 #198

It won't stop tomorrow dude, how much about bitcoin do you know?

Cute.


Imagine Apple selling $100k iPhones to 4,000 people.  Duh.

According to this braindamaged logic Airbus shouldn't be able to sell its A380s, they're 400mn a pop after all.


Quote
like supporting ed25519 which is orders of magnitude faster than ECDSA+secp256k1

Haha, sure, let's change the fucking curve while we're at it.
It's a no-brainer in the sense that only someone without a brain would opine.

CoinCidental
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000


Si vis pacem, para bellum


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 12:56:30 PM
 #199

this should be introduced at the same time as blockchain pruning if possible
nobody wants a blockchain thats growing by 1TB+ per year but we do need to fix the scalability
to handle a lot more transactions sooner or later but i dont know enough about the pros and cons
to decide whether it needs to be done right now or when it comes closer to  being  a problem

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
February 02, 2015, 01:44:23 PM
 #200

Obviously I don't see a way of pleasing the 'opposition' in this case, unless we leave the network as it is, with the current limitations?
Bitcoin is growing and will grow, the network will reach its capabilities. What do technicians usually do once the current capabilities are fulfilled?

Instead of 'don't do it', please propose a rather valid solution. I don't really care how it is addressed, as long as it gets addressed (with a good solution).
Not doing anything would be the most unfavorable decision, in my opinion.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 125 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!