Topic: ... - page 16. (Read 61003 times)

1) It's easier to soft fork to a lower blocksize in the future if blocks are "too large" since it only requires miner support.
2) Really - you think that 8GB blocks in 20 years is obviously crazy? 1gbit bandwidth, although not widespread, is currently available today. It seems hardly unreasonable to think that technical advances in two decades are not going to be able to keep up. If we're wrong, refer to #1.

The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".

We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached ... I hope that this will happen soon.

Only gamblers would run XT marked mining operations without accepting larger blocks. I for one don't believe that a significant amount of hashing power will choose to risk the outcome of a contentious hard fork that they would clearly be responsible for by their deceiptful indication of larger block support. Not a likely scenario IMO.

He's clearly trolling and applying a twisted "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic.  He's been arguing that bitcoin is a scam and predicting his imminent disappearance for almost two years now, it's obvious he thinks that by pushing in favor of XT he's doing a service to his own beliefs/agenda.

For me Mr. Stolfi is the perfect contrarian indicator - it has been for years now.

No, it activates when >75% of the last 1000 blocks *say* they were mined by XT. That can happen with less than 75% of the hash power saying they are running XT, and you also can't assume that just a block was mined by XT just because it says it was. It is quite possible for me to mine blocks saying I'm willing to accept "big blocks" when I'm actually not.


From Bitcoin's point of view, XT's "big blocks" don't exist, so the question of whether or not it can orphan them is moot. Core will continue to work on the longest valid chain, and that doesn't include any chain with blocks greater than 1MB in it.


The longest valid chain accepted by Core *is* the longest valid chain, by definition. If 75% of the hash power wants to mine an incompatible fork of Bitcoin, that doesn't change this fact. But mining is expensive. Miners won't mine Mike's coin once they find they can't cover their expenses by selling them.


Litecoin forked from Bitcoin. Its chain grows 4 times faster than Bitcoin's. There's a 0% chance that Bitcoin can catch up with the length of Litecoin's chain. Nobody cares. Core ignores the Litecoin chain in the same way that it will ignore the XTcoin chain once XT's chain becomes incompatible with Bitcoin's.


You seem to be repeating yourself. See my first paragraph.


Not really. "the longest chain" is ambiguous. It should really be "the longest valid chain", and then you need to define which coin's concept of "validity" you're using. Every client follows the longest valid chain - that's precisely how they decide which chain to follow.

So assuming the question is "will my node follow the longest valid Bitcoin chain?", then the answer is "no" for XT once BIP101 is activated. At that point XT stops following the longest valid Bitcoin chain and starts following the longest valid XT chain, whereas the answer is "yes" for Bitcoin.

--


Why would the split be permanent? Miners are free to switch between chains at any point, and will mine whichever chain gives them the best payouts. If XTcoin is valued significantly below Bitcoin then miners will switch back to mining Bitcoin and the Bitcoin chain will catch and outgrow the XT chain.


Only from XT's point of view. From a Bitcoin user's point of view those orphaned blocks never existed.


Have you read BIP101? It proposes jumping the blocksize limit to 8 MB next year, and then doubling of the blocksize limit every 2 years, for 20 years. That gives us 8192 MB blocks in 21 years. And that's what the sane bitcoiners should want?


So there are only 3 categories:
* the 'sane' ones who want an 8 GB blocksize limit
* blockstream fans
* stupid and/or BDSM types

How about those who would prefer a more sensible raising of the blocksize limit once consensus has been reached, rather than this ham-fisted 8 GB blocksize limit nonsense?

Wrong. Bigger blocks benefits sidechains which is behind Blockstream's whole business plan

As a comp sci prof you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to bitcoin. Here is one example:


Also you are clearly wrong about the blockstream guys too with this quote:

They do understand bitcoin more than you will ever do, but the difference between them and Gavin is that they want to use the congestion to their advantage. You are really naive if you think that they don't understand stuff when it comes to bitcoin.

Try using some of that stats to show it correctly.
It's not the 'expected' value that's the issue ... it's the probabilities of the unexpected happening.
There was another post somewhere where someone seems to have completely lost the plot trying to do that.
I'll ask ooc if he would be nice enough to provide some valid statistics on the subject

Then you are a moron.
I have not said that I don't want bigger blocks.
I'm one of the people behind the addition of /BIP100/ in the block header since jgarzik didn't mention anything regarding that.

Well it's already well above 25% (roughly 50%40% now looking at the pools showing it) saying they want BIP100, not XT/BIP101 ... so it would be rather difficult to get another 75% on top of that
Though I guess your and XT's statistics can find a way to add 50%40% + 75% and get something valid
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC
... and if you are quick you'll see my pool there at the top showing BIP100 support

I fear nothing.

Go read BIP100, that is what is called decentralisation.

I've not argued about giving them the right to deceive - decentralisation certainly allows that.
They have that right and seem to be quite successful at deceiving people - case in point.
I'm simply saying that their changes promote centralisation.

Edit: it's close to 40%, not 50%

Heh, certainly was some time ago. More recently it's been Sergio Damian Lerner who has been pushing for reduced block times. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010012.html

His analysis on "ideal" confirmation times was what led Ethereum to have a ~ 15 second confirmation time.

A long ago discussion regarding reducing block times
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/suggested-major-change-to-bitcoin-51504

The developers at Blockstream have been busy actually scaling Bitcoin by process of making its code more efficient in various ways that doesn't include the lazy bloating solutions of bigger blocks. By the sound of it they have lately turned their focus toward block increase solutions but given that unlike Gavin or Mike they intend to test theirs rigorously it might take longer.

I think Adam wrote on Twitter or Reddit that we should expect significant progress to be presented at the upcoming Scaling Bitcoin workshop in Montreal. I'm talking about revised BIP1xx proposals, potentially a formal proposition of Greg Maxwell's flex cap idea and possibly new alternatives.

This stuff takes times and crying for urgency doesn't help in the process.

FUD FUD FUD

I haven't seen any proof of core devs sponsoring or condoning the censorship moderation.

You do understand there is a difference between "the Blockstream guys" and users against an irrational block increase?

Of course you do, you're just being your usual disingenuous self.

I'd also argue "the Blockstream guys" are more competent engineers than Gavin & Mike. They're the one who have been pushing the limits of innovation for the last few years while Gavin was twiddling thumbs in politics at the Bitcoin Foundation posing as "Chief Scientist".

Your "congestion" bs is just more fud which I won't bother to address as I'm quite obviously wasting my time.

One person suggested a different way out of the blocksize debate: cutting the interval between blocks in half to target 5 minutes instead of targeting 10. So you're doubling the effective transaction rate for the current blocksize limit. It was established at 10 minutes as a way to cut down on orphan blocks when mining, but maybe today it's too conservative; now the miners use a specially designed block relay network that's not part of Bitcoin Core, and I think the way that's changed things might justify it. Interested to hear opinions on this.

Not sure what happened to that proposal in the end though, I liked it as a different angle on the problem, but I guess it wasn't that popular. They should look at it anyway IMO

Personally I have no problem with Blockstream or their supposed innovation. I would welcome them with open arms. However bitcoin has a problem right now in terms of transaction delays and Blockstream is nowhere to be seen!

When is this great innovation coming? How much longer should bitcoiners wait for a solution to end these spam attacks and unnecessary transaction delays? Don't tell me shit about paying higher miners' fees as I started off in the faucet world like 50% of all newbies involved in Bitcoin today.

How is Blockstream going to facilitate an ever expanding list of faucets, PTCs, GPTs, HYIPS and Bit-Casinos?
These services are here to stay and they need a solution right now as transaction delays are greatly inconveniencing members of such services.

This is why we need to implement a bigger block-size limit in Core right now until Blockstream comes aboard to "save us" with their great innovation. If this isn't going to happen, then we need to go to XT who are actually providing that solution right now.

All I have to say is "Go Big or Get The Fuck Out!"

Why so polemic? Whether we should be coding a centralized blacklist into the protocol says nothing about Blockstream. And Blockstream has nothing to do with BIP 100, BIP 101, or BIP 102. So let's stick to the block size debate, rather than turning a legitimate criticism of XT into a polemic attack on Core.

So what does that say about asking us to TRUST Blockstream & their off-chain transactions?
Both Core & XT have valid arguments against each other...Core needs to increase the block-size in order to stay in this game and XT shouldn't be blacklisting shit!!!

At the end of the day, one issue immediately needs addressing and that is the block-size.

I concede that one can do quite well as an consultant without knowing jack-shit about the domain.  You just need to know a few buzzwords more than the principles.  A degree or two on your resume goes a long distance in running such scams.  Even if you run your client into the ground you just make sure that you get paid before this happens.  Such a thing is as common as not in high-tech-land, especially when it is awash in VC money.

I say you should go for it.

No, sorry to disappoint you, it doesn't threaten my sponsorship at all.  On the contrary, if I were to assimilate into the Borg I could perhaps make some good money on the side by consulting for bitcoin startups, like Antonopoulos at Neo & Bee; or for some cryptocoin "better than bitcoin", like Peter Todd at Viacoin.


I am not pushing for XT.  I am only pointing out that driving the network into congestion will render bitcoin unusable for the only purpose that it was designed for, and vulnerable to relatively cheap spam attacks.

The block size limit must be raised: that is just an obvious technical conclusion.  It doesn't matter which software is used, as long as it allows blocks to grow ahead of the the demand, and leaves enough spare capacity in the network to make spam attacks very expensive for the attacker.

(While I don't have particular admiration for Gavin and Mike, I do think that Blockstream are the bad guys in this war.  They have been using every dirty trick to preserve their control of the protocol -- from FUD, DDoS of XT sites, and censorship of /r/bitcoin, to posting anti-XT messages on /r/buttcoin while pretending to be legitimate buttcoiners.)

(Moreover, Gavin and Mike seem to be competent software engineers, whereas the Blockstream guys may be really unable to understand why congestion is bad, why the fee market will not work, and why LN will not be economically viable.  As Napoleon would say...)


Are you referring to the stock market?  Where did you get the idea that I "champion" derivatives and complicated financial instruments?  I dislike them for the same reason that i dislike bitcoin-as-investment: they are either gambling or swindles, depending on whether the losers understand what is going on or not.


Well, since my salary comes out of the sales tax of the State of São Paulo, I must admit that you got that part right.  


[/quote]

Mis-quote BTW.  But I'd happily take credit for the attributed as I find it amusing and fairly spot-on.