Bitcoin Forum
November 14, 2019, 02:28:15 PM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
   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 61 62 63 ... 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154234 times)
a fool and his money ...
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 103


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 09:42:14 PM
 #241

lol. This shit is out of hand:

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-elite-meet-secret-island-bilderberg-style-retreat/
1573741695
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573741695

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573741695
Reply with quote  #2

1573741695
Report to moderator
The Bitcoin Forum is turning 10 years old! Join the community in sharing and exploring the notable posts made over the years.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3024
Merit: 1051


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 09:42:47 PM
 #242

...
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. ...


Huh?  None of the handful of consumer-land ISP's I've had since 2011 blocked incoming high ports by default.  Sounds to me like you are confused about the difference between 'contacting your ISP' and 'logging in to your router'.  Or you signed up for some kind of nanny-help-me add-on from your ISP.


Of course many ISPs block out outgoing 8333 by default . Why do you think we see all these threads where people complain that they are getting only 8 incoming connections on their bitcoin QT wallet?

If and ISP blocked a particular port, one would get zero connections on it.

It would not surprise me at all to have a max cons set by and ISP.  That would explain the why one has difficulty.  Each connection uses network resources in a router (yours and your ISP's respectively.)

This is what drives me nuts about ignorant people making simplistic calculations of capability based on the download speeds (which are artifacts of a marketing department usually anyway.)  Ya, you might be able to get some decent percentage of a pipe in use but only by using multiple streams, and that is particularly the case with TCP on a wan.  Anyone who has tried to SCP a large file can tell you this.  Nobody is going to be thrilled about Joe Sixpack using a thousand sockets, and crappy consumer grade routers will have difficulty.  Probably max-cons is set by the ISP to throttle those trying to do torrents.  Same trick here.  This certainly illustrates the point I'm making about being at the mercy of network infrastructure providers.

Why do we average less than 7k nodes worldwide at any given time? https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/

IIRC it's even less than that by now.  Anyway, I don't have to guess about why this is.  It's obviously because for some bizarre reason Satoshi didn't choose to reward transfer nodes in his implementation.  Why I have no idea.  It's one of the strongest observations supporting the hypothesis that Bitcoin was designed to fail (or at least become centralized and under control.)  Not that I believe this to be true, but it is one of the many hypothesis that I continue to hold open.  Probably he just ran out of time and patience.  If he was ignornant enough to not forsee the difficulties with the block size hard-fork then he may also have imagined that transfer node rewards were something that could be tacked on later.


bambou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 09:50:03 PM
 #243


I don't get it, why do they have to act like the very same people we are trying to escape from?

What's with the mimetic twatery? Isnt bitcoin a public ledger?


Non inultus premor
zimmah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1005



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 09:52:06 PM
 #244

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.

Comparing the price of an Airbus with an iPhone? What the hell man.

Do you even realize what the production cost of an airplane is?

a fool and his money ...
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 103


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 09:54:30 PM
 #245


I don't get it, why do they have to act like the very same people we are trying to escape from?

What's with the mimetic twatery? Isnt bitcoin a public ledger?



Bitcoin is at this point a monumental failure. Time to start ignoring it and support some alternative cryptocurrencies.
Try to avoid and support exchanges that also avoid it. Buying btc just means you feeding those elitist suckers your money.


This is bitcoin now:
Eamorr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 10:14:25 PM
 #246

Heartbreaking to see things go like this.

We're far abstracted away from our origins.

The infighting and bickering is pathetic to witness. I can only imagine what onlookers and potential newcomers think of it all.

Sad.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3024
Merit: 1051


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 10:23:03 PM
 #247

Heartbreaking to see things go like this.

We're far abstracted away from our origins.

The infighting and bickering is pathetic to witness. I can only imagine what onlookers and potential newcomers think of it all.

Sad.

"We ain't all Baptists here sonny."

Really though, how odd to find strongly opinionated people in something as benign and wholesome as the Bitcoin ecosystem.  Who would have guessed?


bambou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 10:23:49 PM
 #248

this is where it gets tricky:


Admittedly I do not know who a lot about Bruce Fenton, I know he ran for election for the Bitcoin foundation, but I noticed something that is somewhat concerning.

I've been doing some digging into this website satoshiroundtable.org for fun. The whois information for it shows:

Code:
Tech Name:Bruce Fenton
Tech Organization:AF
Tech Street: 167 Washington Street
Tech City:Norwell
Tech State/Province:Massachusetts
Tech Postal Code:02061
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.6173814907
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email:domainadmin@fdvt.com

The WHOIS information for fdvt has the same address:

Code:
Tech Organization: FDVT
Tech Street: 167 Washington Street
Tech City: Norwell
Tech State/Province: MA
Tech Postal Code: 02061
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.7819824911
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext.:
Tech Email: domainadmin@fdvt.com

Now for the weird/conspiracy bit, check out the website http://fdvt.com

Quote
FDVT was founded in 1985.  We provide solutions to help understand changes in our world.  Specifically we provide IT consulting, Internet consulting, social media consulting, security and economic advisory consulting.

Customers of FDVT include:

US Army
US Navy
US Coast Guard
US Air Force
US Postal Service
US Postal Inspector Service
FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
IRS - Internal Revue Service
DEA - Drug Enforcement Agency
Veterans Administration
City Of New York and New York Police Department (NYPD)
Eastern Bank
TCF Bank
Bank of America

Why does this company FDVT has some connection to the Satoshi Roundtable? This is concerning.


USGov is so broke it can only afford cheap french tour vacations.. Grin


Non inultus premor
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3024
Merit: 1051


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 10:43:43 PM
 #249

...
Noticed the same with the ISP's, Ireland's really lax on internet rights and there's lots of weird stuff going on, outages followed by slowdowns on certain sites, everything loading fine except images taking ages, that kind of thing. Obvious what's going on, lots of sites seem to be going offline lately, nothing big but a lot crypto related.

Have to get back onto my ISP again now, hadn't realised they'd blocked 8333 again. Second time they've done that, will have to route out to a VPS. That's what the dumbasses don't get, that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger.

Bingo!  The biggest favor TPTB could do right now would be to fuck with us.  Maybe we have some sympathizers there in Ireland?

You don't capture and kill something be marching right up with a big stick or waiting for it to crawl into your mouth unless you are stupid like an amphibian or amoeba.  You come in downwind using all available cover then choose the timing with as much precision as possible for the final lunge.  That's why felines are still with us.  Another strategy is to run the prey to exhaustion.  There is a pretty strong theory that this was a method employed by some of our immediate ancestors (since a very few human groups still do it and humans are actually pretty good at long distance running by the standards of the animal kingdom) but it's pretty labor intensive and exhausting and usually doesn't work.  Try the cat strategy first.


Quantus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 883
Merit: 1004



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 10:45:50 PM
 #250

anti-fork

Reason:

centralization of the network caused by bloat. Planning and decision-making that control that network would become even more vulnerable to attack. 
Once done it can't be undone. The risk of spam filling up blocks is real. In 10 or 20 years will need the incentives from transactions for the miners.

And most important of all; consensus is everything! I will not be forking with the rest of you. I won't be alone.

(I am a 1MB block supporter who thinks all users should be using Full-Node clients)
Avoid the XT shills, they only want to destroy bitcoin, their hubris and greed will destroy us.
Know your adversary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 10:48:49 PM
 #251

This user is currently ignored.

We could try a proof of troll system, keep randomly saying the same thing over and over and every time a new variation is found its a new block. Save the end of the world prophesies for the speculation subforum please.

Noticed the same with the ISP's, Ireland's really lax on internet rights and there's lots of weird stuff going on, outages followed by slowdowns on certain sites, everything loading fine except images taking ages, that kind of thing. Obvious what's going on, lots of sites seem to be going offline lately, nothing big but a lot crypto related.

Have to get back onto my ISP again now, hadn't realised they'd blocked 8333 again. Second time they've done that, will have to route out to a VPS. That's what the dumbasses don't get, that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger.

Many ISPs, used advanced filtering products to protect their network and clients like http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/security/security-monitoring-analysis-response-system/index.html , so even if they aren't overtly blocking TCP on port 8333 but their firewalls and filters are because it is detecting a suspicious transfer.

You can test for 8333 being opened here - http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/open-ports/ and if you don't have more than 8 connection in bitcoin QT you are not accepting any incoming connections on port 8333.

Sometimes its a local firewall blocking you or you need to either allow UPnP or port forward to get QT functioning as a full node but in many other cases its the ISP themselves.

Regardless of the exact specifics with each case, most users aren't acting as a full node and the numbers back my claim. The average user isn't going to call their ISP , or create a forwarding rule in their router and make sure their firewall is configured properly.

2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1032



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 10:50:51 PM
 #252

I'm just quoting two examples of building conspiracy theories on the lack of understanding of the ISP technology.

If and ISP blocked a particular port, one would get zero connections on it.

It would not surprise me at all to have a max cons set by and ISP.  That would explain the why one has difficulty.  Each connection uses network resources in a router (yours and your ISP's respectively.)

This is what drives me nuts about ignorant people making simplistic calculations of capability based on the download speeds (which are artifacts of a marketing department usually anyway.)  Ya, you might be able to get some decent percentage of a pipe in use but only by using multiple streams, and that is particularly the case with TCP on a wan.  Anyone who has tried to SCP a large file can tell you this.  Nobody is going to be thrilled about Joe Sixpack using a thousand sockets, and crappy consumer grade routers will have difficulty.  Probably max-cons is set by the ISP to throttle those trying to do torrents.  Same trick here.  This certainly illustrates the point I'm making about being at the mercy of network infrastructure providers.

Why do we average less than 7k nodes worldwide at any given time? https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/

IIRC it's even less than that by now.  Anyway, I don't have to guess about why this is.  It's obviously because for some bizarre reason Satoshi didn't choose to reward transfer nodes in his implementation.  Why I have no idea.  It's one of the strongest observations supporting the hypothesis that Bitcoin was designed to fail (or at least become centralized and under control.)  Not that I believe this to be true, but it is one of the many hypothesis that I continue to hold open.  Probably he just ran out of time and patience.  If he was ignornant enough to not forsee the difficulties with the block size hard-fork then he may also have imagined that transfer node rewards were something that could be tacked on later.


This user is currently ignored.

Save the end of the world prophesies for the speculation subforum please.

We could try a proof of troll system, keep randomly saying the same thing over and over and every time a new variation is found its a new block Smiley

Noticed the same with the ISP's, Ireland's really lax on internet rights and there's lots of weird stuff going on, outages followed by slowdowns on certain sites, everything loading fine except images taking ages, that kind of thing. Obvious what's going on, lots of sites seem to be going offline lately, nothing big but a lot crypto related.

Have to get back onto my ISP again now, hadn't realised they'd blocked 8333 again. Second time they've done that, will have to tunnel out to a VPS. That's what the dumbasses don't get, that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger.

Anyone can name an ISP that blocks outgoing TCP/IP connections to port 8333? And where such a block isn't a voluntary one (some sort "Internet safety" option) and the unblocking isn't a self-service "turn it off" checkbox?

How about incoming TCP/IP connections to port 8333?  And where such a block can be lifted and isn't a technical restriction stemming from the use of CG-NAT or DS-Lite?

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
runpaint
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 10:53:28 PM
 #253

Why do we average less than 7k nodes worldwide at any given time? https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/


Maybe you're right about port 8333, the map doesn't show my residential Bitcoin Core or the one at work on a commercial ISP.  There are none anywhere near my city.

GoldenCryptoCommod.com
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 1214


First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 10:56:25 PM
 #254

anti-fork

Reason:

centralization of the network caused by bloat. Planning and decision-making that control that network would become even more vulnerable to attack. 
Once done it can't be undone. The risk of spam filling up blocks is real. In 10 or 20 years will need the incentives from transactions for the miners.

And most important of all; consensus is everything! I will not be forking with the rest of you. I won't be alone.

What?!?! This is the dumbest thing ever so

1: It's going to cause bloat to allow blocks larger in size?
2: It's going to cause centralization how? That the blocks are ABLE to get to 20mb if there are enough people out there using Bitcoin
3: You rather not fork and join a minority that would cause a huge hit to Bitcoin in the hopes of what a dual chain that would kill the ease?

Seriously it's stupid.

Don't fork fine, your just hurting the network as a whole if it goes through and you dig your head in the sand.

Atruk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 10:56:36 PM
 #255

My understanding was that the 1MB limit was only ever a temporary measure to limit spam when there wasn't much real transaction volume.  Pretty sad if this ends up holding Bitcoin back.  Guess altcoins will be the future then.

so do i understad right: Bitcoin is over - one way or another?

No matter which side wins the argument, bitcoin is done and will cease to exist?

Well you'd think people could just learn to use Electrum or similar, rather than downloading the whole blockchain.

If you want any sort of privacy at all with Electrum you need to run your own private electrum server somewhere, which of course requires its own full node running under the electrum server software and another large database on top of it.

This is a very reasonable solution for running a wallet on a portable machine which you tether to a more "solid" base for blockchain information. The thing is running electrum the right way involves having a full node somewhere.

inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 11:01:01 PM
 #256


Anyone can name an ISP that blocks outgoing TCP/IP connections to port 8333? And where such a block isn't a voluntary one (some sort "Internet safety" option) and the unblocking isn't a self-service "turn it off" checkbox?

How about incoming TCP/IP connections to port 8333?  And where such a block can be lifted and isn't a technical restriction stemming from the use of CG-NAT or DS-Lite?


I can only talk about what I have personally tested:
Cabletica, ICE, Kolbi, Claro, Moviestar all need to be called and asked to open this port.
I have to call to open many ports blocked by default for BTC or other uses like CCTV.

I also see many other posts around the world making the same complaints.

Atruk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 11:07:48 PM
 #257

I've noticed certain repeating characteristic in the writing of many members of this forum: they construct grammatically correct sentences but absolutely disregard the underlying semantics: incoming vs. outgoing, local vs. remote, source vs. destination, etc. Here in regards to TCP/IP ports, but I observed that in regards to pretty much any technical issue.

It reminds me of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad , but doesn't go as far in the unintelligibility. It is more akin to somebody just memorizing sentences and phrases without any sort of comprehension, something that actors have to do well.

What would be the real underlying psychological mechanism at work here? Conformism? Or maybe there is a physiological explanation, like some sort of milder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korsakoff%27s_syndrome ?

I'm really puzzled, because I've noticed this also in some very visible and high-level people, eg. core developers talking about the hardware design instead of the software design.


This is a very important point.

Quote
mircea_popescu: it was highlighted by intel about two weeks ago, and we're generally tracing it to philippines "top quality" content farms working for a number of (mostly ct and wash based) pr firms.
mircea_popescu: wasn't goping to say anything, but since it's public now..

2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1032



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 11:17:03 PM
 #258

I can only talk about what I have personally tested:
Cabletica, ICE, Kolbi, Claro, Moviestar all need to be called and asked to open this port.
I have to call to open many ports blocked by default for BTC or other uses like CCTV.

I also see many other posts around the world making the same complaints.
Eh, all in Costa Rica and seemingly none of them have support for English-speaking customers. This isn't a representative sample of the worldwide Internet. And by a margin so wide that it makes your statement laughable.

From my experience trying to support the use of Bittorrent (both commercially and individually) and various RPC stacks (commercial support for home workers) I can say that the "complaints" don't equal the real ISP problems. Only somewhere between 1% and 5% are the real provider-caused blocking/interference/mishandling. The remaining 95% to 99% is on the customer-caused misconfiguration or hardware/software faults.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 11:19:59 PM
Last edit: February 02, 2015, 11:36:57 PM by inBitweTrust
 #259

I can only talk about what I have personally tested:
Cabletica, ICE, Kolbi, Claro, Moviestar all need to be called and asked to open this port.
I have to call to open many ports blocked by default for BTC or other uses like CCTV.

I also see many other posts around the world making the same complaints.
Eh, all in Costa Rica and seemingly none of them have support for English-speaking customers. This isn't a representative sample of the worldwide Internet. And by a margin so wide that it makes your statement laughable.

From my experience trying to support the use of Bittorrent (both commercially and individually) and various RPC stacks (commercial support for home workers) I can say that the "complaints" don't equal the real ISP problems. Only somewhere between 1% and 5% are the real provider-caused blocking/interference/mishandling. The remaining 95% to 99% is on the customer-caused misconfiguration or hardware/software faults.


If you bothered to read my post:

Many ISPs, used advanced filtering products to protect their network and clients like http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/security/security-monitoring-analysis-response-system/index.html , so even if they aren't overtly blocking TCP on port 8333 but their firewalls and filters are because it is detecting a suspicious transfer.

You can test for 8333 being opened here - http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/open-ports/ and if you don't have more than 8 connection in bitcoin QT you are not accepting any incoming connections on port 8333.

Sometimes its a local firewall blocking you or you need to either allow UPnP or port forward to get QT functioning as a full node but in many other cases its the ISP themselves.

Regardless of the exact specifics with each case, most users aren't acting as a full node and the numbers back my claim. The average user isn't going to call their ISP , or create a forwarding rule in their router and make sure their firewall is configured properly.


The whole point was forking to a 20MB block limit will have an insignificant effect upon node count because almost all of those nodes are miners to begin with. It is foolish to expect most users to be able to unblock port 8333 like I have whether by doing so through a local router and/or contacting their ISP.


P.s.... in case anyone is interested this country will also block certain sites depending upon the content. Usually gun related sites that deal specifically with purchasing weapons from what I have seen. Arms have to be purchased through TOR or a VPN.

2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1032



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 11:25:01 PM
 #260


This is a very important point.

Quote
mircea_popescu: it was highlighted by intel about two weeks ago, and we're generally tracing it to philippines "top quality" content farms working for a number of (mostly ct and wash based) pr firms.
mircea_popescu: wasn't goping to say anything, but since it's public now..


I don't really understand your (nor Mircea's) point. Are you trying to say that some overt Bitcoin supporters are plants from PR companies doing positive astroturfing/Bitcoin brand amplification? Not just the standard negative trolling of style similar to the Something Awful?

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
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 61 62 63 ... 131 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!