Topic: ... - page 18. (Read 61003 times)

But that's possible, isn't it? I mean hashing rate is probabilistic.  If you take a narrow sample you can easily find boundary cases proliferate. But then if you take the sample as a whole, then the 'averages' will dominate. While your pool did well for that run of blocks, there had to be another n blocks where the difficulty was over 200%.

So its not random overall.  But any sample will appear to be.

Weren't you supposed to be some sort of a comp-sci professor?  I don't know how to be kind about it, but your students are getting screwed...your whole post is chock-full-o'-fail.

Note that to a satoshi-based cyrpto-currency solution the proper terminology is 'longest valid chain'.  Bloat-blocks or any other illegality is simply ignored.  It doens't matter if the chain stretches from here to China.  What this means is that Core would keep right on chunking away even if it got 1% of the hashing (excepting problems with difficulties and absent attacks.)

As for mining, I supposed and Meni Rosenfeld (who, unlike you, actually does understand Bitcoin and algorithms generally) confirmed that the mining effort will be primarily driven by the market value of the product.  I would add that when transaction fees become a factor (hopefully some time before the earth stops cooling on core) they would be added to 'market value.'  Thus, the trajectory of any XT-like alt forked off the Bitcoin blockchain would have to command a high market value relative to Bitcoin in order to attract mining.  It's actually no different than any other sha256 alt (if there are any which still survive.)

The best hope the XT attackers have would be to subsidize the shit out of XT (and probably attack Bitcoin as well) in order to try to get the flame started on mopping up sha256 hashes.  I hope like hell they do because I plan to split my coins and sell XT like hell when the opportunity arises.  With luck it IS the govt spooks who are behind XT and Gavin's various malfeasance because they have deep pockets to do this subsidization and it would be an opportunity to get some of my tax dollars back.

So you completely missed the entire point of what I said ... the issue is they are using a too low 75% ...

False.

Bitcoin mining is random statistics.
It's not 10 minutes per block, every block.

Edit: and to give an example:
My pool mined 17 blocks at under 30% difficulty - yep luck was on a roll when that happened.
At the time, if there was any voting happening, for that period of time my pool would have effectively voted at over 300% of it's hash power.

It is irrelevant which version of the software is being used (Core, XT, or other).  What happens after the first big block is mined depends only on how many miners accept big blocks.  ("Small block" = at most 1 MB; "big block" = more than 1 MB but not more than 8 MB.  See below for BIP100, BIP102, and other complications.)  Note that even the Core version is trivially patched to accept 8 MB blocks.

The chain will (theoretically) split once the first big block B(N) gets mined.  There will be a "big-block" branch that grows on top of that block, containg perhaps other big blocks; and a "small-block" branch that starts with an alternative small block C(N) with the same block number and contains only small blocks.

If, at that moment, more than 50% of the miners accept big blocks, the big-block branch (mined by them) will eventually grow faster than the small-block branch (mined by the rest of the miners).  The split will be permanent and the big-block branch will grow faster.

If, at that moment, less than 50% of the miners accept big blocks, the small-block branch will eventually grow longer.  Then the big-block miners will stop mining their branch, which will be orphaned, and they will start mining the small-block branch too.  If someone mines another big block, the chain will split again.  This situation will repeat over and over, as long as some miner happens to mine a big block.  There will be a single small-block chain with recurrent big-block side branches that are orphaned sooner or later.

Sane bitcoiners should want the first case to happen, and as cleanly as possible: namely, with almost all the miners accepting big blocks.  Then if someone mines a big block, the few stubborn miners who refuse to accept big blocks will be left mining a slow chain with a huge and growing backlog.   In this case, clients who accept big blocks will be fine, while clients who reject them will not be able to use bitcoin until they upgrade.

Blockstream fans who are not totally stupid will want the second case to happen, but also as cleanly as possible: namely, with almost all miners rejecting big blocks.  Then, if someone mines a big block, the few miners who accept it will waste time mining on top of it, only to have that branch orphaned right away.   In this case, all clients will be fine, except that clients who accept big blocks will see occasional big orphans.

Bitcoiners who are stupid, or are into financial sado-masochism (like those who are planning to sabotage the blockchain voting), will try to get some intermediate situation when the miners who accept bitcoin are neither the vast majority nor a small minority.  In this case, the situation will be highly confusing either to the clients who accept big blocks, or tho those who reject them, or possibly for both.

The competing BIPs with other notions of "big block" will make the situation more confusing.  Unless Jeff is into sado-masochism too, he should retract his "compromise" 2 MB proposal.  It is obvious by now that the Blockstream devs will never accept any compromise solution.

Not sure if you are being disingenuous or you really don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your stupid.
A few things:
1) blocks can be anywhere from a second to well over an hour, so no, your stats are only theoretical expectations.
2) XT being 75% doesn't mean it can't lose - there's a reason why core uses higher than 75% ...
3) 'XT' have stated they will use block markers to force people to stay on XT and not switch to Core, if however, Core is above 50% and gets ahead of XT, everyone on XT will be royally screwed
4) It only takes one 'XT only' block to be mined to keep everyone using XT off Core

but more importantly, XT wont happen.

Not sure if you are being disingenuous or you really don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

BIP101 activates *only* if XT has >75% of hashing power. So once a big block is mined then it doesn't matter if core ignores it, because core doesn't have the hash power to be able to orphan XT blocks by producing a longer chain.

At the point a big block is mined the probability of core being able to produce a longer chain quickly falls to zero. In the first 10 minutes there is a 25% chance, in 20 minutes 6% chance and so on... 1.5%, 0.4%,0.1%. After on hour of XT mining with 75% hashpower there is a 0.02% chance that core has a longer chain. Core is dead in an hour. Thats the real socio-economic incentive, regardless of how many anti-XTers try and claim there isn't one.

If XT doesn't have 75% of hashing power then BIP101 doesn't activate. So both XT and core both continue to mine small blocks and nothing changes.

The chart is quite correct.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010621.html

@kano
You should pay someone to write the code of the BIP100, because now there isn't.

Meanwhile

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12216919

A few have discussed flagging blocks with /BIP100/ in the last day or so
(yep my pool got one in the last day and flagged it also)

Results:

/BIP100/ already 10%

BIP101 ... about 1% after all this time

damn shame

It has become quite obvious to me that Bitcoin Core developers have an agenda to keep the block size small and support Blockstream. The bitcoin core members who support this likely have a lot of BTC and can afford to pay an exorbitant miner's fee to have their transactions acknowledged on the ledger while "bit-peasants" will be forced to do their transactions off-chain with the help of a Bitcoin Bank a.k.a. Blockstream which includes their KYC bullshit!

These "banks" will then start controlling the Bitcoin network and then, at their discretion, will begin to blacklist "undesirable" people from using the network. What happens when these "banks" start requesting that you file your bitcoin tax form? Or that non-US users are being limited or are not being accepted at this time? LOL...just check PayPal or Coinbase to get an idea.

In my opinion, Bitcoin XT is the future of Bitcoin!

Hey, if it confuses people, it'll work.

The e-mail thing brings up a really good point about why I feel as I do.

To answer your question, no.  After the 20,000 spams/day and I capitulated and just switched my MX over to Google.  Now they spy on everything anyone writes to me, what mailing lists I'm signed up for, etc.  They aggregate it with data they have about my searches, drive contents, etc, then sell this aggregated data to the highest bidder.  And it is a very strong bet that they hand it over to the government at least when they ask and probably when they do not.

I feel so strongly about keeping Bitcoin out of the clutches of the likes of Google because adding financial data to the mix gives them that much more power and me that much less privacy.

This more than anything is why I am so focused on keeping the blockchain small and widely distributed.  Using it as the foundatin of a subordinate chains ecosystem is the only practical way I can see for this to happen.

Yes, I'm sure that Google would run a sidechain if/when that ecosystem is developed, and yes, I'm sure I would use it for much or most of my activity.  But not all.  It would be at _my_ digression.  I would use other sidechains for other purposes when they are more suitable for the task at hand, and some sidechains would be purposely designed to be a black-hole to those who are nosy about my business and want to monetize my being.

Who's getting free shit?  MultiBit users?  From what I've seen of it, I got the distinct impression the developers of MultiBit don't allow users to send transactions without a fee.  Has this changed in newer versions?  People using other clients can send transactions without a fee, perhaps your vitriol is misplaced?  

^primates for free coins? lol

https://wadeawalker.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/euler-pic10-caveman.png?w=400&h=322

Well, I will say one thing for Blockstreamers, you certainly have the common touch. Good for you. 

If I can contribute to the preservation of the robustness of Bitcoin and get you to pay a fair rate for using it as a system with these properties, I perfectly happy to have you stick around.

If you are part of the 'Free Shit Nation' who demands some sort of entitlement on the basis of your having primate features, I'm happy to see you led away because you are one of the biggest problems Bitcoin has at the moment.

So in the space of a single post, it's gone from "MultiBitch-class users who add no value" who you'd happily see on a chain that you ideally want to see dead or dying, to finding "robust solutions which are tuned to their needs".  As usual, you're nothing if not consistent.  

It certainly sounds far more pleasant when you phrase it that way, but the overall message I'm still hearing from you is "GTFO my chain".  My message is "make me".  Oh wait, you can't.

Do you also send just one E-Mail a year since you don't want to exploit the nice people, who let you use their E-Mail-Servers?

I absolutely want the 'peasants' to have good solutions which isolate them from abuse by the established financial sector and their hired gun enforcers in the government.  I'm a peasant myself after all and only hold some BTC by happenstance (and because I've been studying the mainstream financial scam for years.)

I see distributed autonomous sidechains as the best way to both protect Bitcoin from subversion of various types AND to provide the peasants with robust solutions which are tuned to their needs.

I am completely practicing what I preach here by the way.  I use Bitcoin for only high value transactions which I've not done for over a year, and I pay currently 0.01 BTC as a fee since that was worth it for the service I get.  I am greatly looking forward to using various sidechains for various purposes in real-world-land.

See, I can never tell where you small-blockians actually stand on this one.  On the one hand some of you argue that even if the miners agree to the fork, it's only a "valid" fork if the "economic majority" agree, but then one of you goes and argues that SPV users (who will become an increasing majority over time) are a drain on the system and don't matter.  Which is it?  You sound like iCEBREAKER with his "peasants" comment.

The problem you have, is that Bitcoin has always been marketed as a a permissionless global payment network.  Most of the businesses who have invested in this permissionless global payments network (oddly enough) quite like the idea of having a permissionless global payment network.  Most of the users who signed up to the idea of a global permissionless payment network also want to have a global permissionless payment network.  The pressure is mounting for scalability.  Then you come along expecting to be able to tell them they can't use the blockchain for a global permissionless payment network because they "are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system".  Except you can't tell them they can't use it, because it's permissionless (did I mention that part?).  You can't physically stop them from using the blockchain.  The great unwashed are coming to clutter up your blockchain with their pesky cups of coffee and that prospect terrifies you.  So your only hope to protect your own personal vested interests is to try and price them out into third party payment channels by artificially limiting the number of transactions.

Am I close?