Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 57. (Read 46564 times)

I'm assuming that by 'other' and those words theymos firstly because I've seen him use them. Remember, he is letting you discuss this in the forum that he manages (this is another XT thread).

Wrong. I'm open to discuss ideas that would benefit Bitcoin (e.g. IBLT, Lightning). I'm not open to potential takeovers between various groups and implementations. This does not benefit the protocol.

Majority; not everyone. Would you be more comfortable if all the Core developers were quickly reaching consensus among themselves especially in regards to their own proposals? Some have already been called out because of Blockstream even though it is pretty obvious that they don't share the same views.

Some people have been collaborating, but then other come along and use words like "populist", "coup", "hostile takeover", "contentious" and "altcoin".  It takes two sides to have a fight.  Perhaps if people were permitted to collaborate without being silenced or swept under the carpet, then more would be accomplished by now.



"I'm open to discussion, but only if you agree with everything I say"?  Just because something is deemed controversial by some, doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

@tl121 I agree, that wasn't the best way of putting it. But I wasn't talking about averages. That would make little sense, as you pointed out.


...eh? Good, so where does this holy consensus fit in then?

And by "holy" I mean "unassailable".

The number of blocks nodes received averages out to be approximately the number of blocks these nodes send. "Number of takeoffs approximately equals number of landings." If you have a well connected node with lots of bandwidth then it's possible you will send out more data than you receive, but that is unlikely to happen if you have limited bandwidth.  Thus the network average remains 1 to 1 (except for new nodes).

If a new node starts up then it will have to receive each block once.  If an incompetently run node keeps crashing and losing the entire block database and has no backup then this will happen multiple times.   This part of the problem can easily be fixed by nodes with limited upstream bandwidth deprioritizing transmission of older blocks during time of congestion. (One of many possible network optimizations that can and will appear should they be needed.)

Please read before posting next time. I said 'there will' not 'there is'. Segwit is not related to my arguement that hard forks might be necessary.

I'm aware of that and it isn't a bad thing IMO. I would be a bit suspicious if they were all agreeing pretty quickly on various matters.

Big miners just need a server located somewhere with high bandwidth connection to as much of the globe as possible. This server sends work (tiny amounts of data regardless of block size) to the their mine in the outback. Or they, or anyone else, can join a pool.


"[M]oved a bit"? Anyhew, this is roughly what I meant:

Good to see some of the maths behind this issue, this issue is made even more negligible considering that all of the smaller miners connect to larger public pools thereby negating any disadvantageous they might have otherwise had, since larger miners and pools operate at such a large scale that the increased cost of running a full node is also negligible for them in terms of mining. This is why I have always said that increasing the blocksize does not effect mining centralization whatsoever.

Is bitcoin dying^tm? How is it needed to add complexity and segregating^tm cryptographic signatures an improvement^tm? All this for what? Mass adoption^tm?

Ill informed spammers and corporate parasite sucking up sovereignty from bitcoin's protocol because #community #democracy?

I apologize then. I quickly jumped to conclusions for reasons that I'm not going to write here (because they are off-topic). However, it does apply to the countless amount of shills that have appeared for both sides (XT vs Core, BU vs Core, etc.). There are countless examples of this and I did not mean to directly name you. I do dislike your statement in regards to theymos and the moderators (including me) because it is false.

This is true, but talking nonsense is also redundant which results in time lost. I'm open to collaboration, but not manipulation and attempts to shift away users to controversial ideas (e.g. XT).

They could easily. There was a nice slide presented at the time of the first workshop that showed what a single 8 MB block could do.

I'm not unknown. I'm C.Bergmann, hero member, as long here as you, but I lost my account and my recovery-request was not answered. I'm well-known in german bitcoin community.  

Most time I enjoyed this forum and this community, if online or in real live, as a pleasure and a open-mindend community which is patient, intelligent, likes to discuss, critical against authorities, helpful, enthusiastic and shares high moral / political claims.

This thread - and especially your role in it - is a very bad example for the atmosphere in bitcointalk. But it is just disgusting and toxic and authorative. I don't know, if you are just a hater, who enjoys this, the boy who waited for others to fall so he could trample on them, or if you really fear the big-blockers are going to destroy bitcoin willingly with their lies.

Do you really think I'm the only one who asks: Why does he need to spread so much hate and toxicity? Why can't he speak with arguments instead of insults? Is this the way the future of bitcoin is decided? The way new approaches are presented? The reaction of the community to new ideas?

The fact is: if we stopp talking and discussing, everybody certainly looses.

Here's one of the small-blocker's argument regarding self-propagation as I understand it (I have not rigorously gone through the math myself):

Large miners and mining pools have an advantage because the "propagation time" to their own hash power is fast compared to the propagation time to the rest of the hash power.  Assuming worst case that their "self-propagation time" is zero, then larger miners and mining pools have two advantages:

1.  Advantage due to latency (does not depend on block size).  

Recent work by G. Andrew Stone, suggests that average network latency for the propagation of block solutions is approximately 10 seconds.  

This means that after a miner solves a block, he will have a 10 second "head start", meaning that he'll be hashing for

     10 sec / 600 sec = 1.7%

longer than the other miners.  This "advantage" occurs more frequently if you're a large miner or mining pool simply because you solve more blocks.  If h is the miner's hash power and H is the network's hash power, the total advantage is equal to

     1.7% h/H.

A miner with 20% of the network hash rate thus has a 1.7% x 20% = 0.34% advantage for winning the block reward.  This advantage does not depend on block size.  


2.  Advantage due to bandwidth (does depend on block size)

In the same paper, Andrew Stone also estimated the propagation impedance to be approximately 17 seconds / MB.  Since miners can SPV mine on just the block header, the propagation impedance only affects their ability to claim the fees in a block.  

Let's consider 2 MB blocks with 1 BTC in fees.  

It will take

     17 sec/MB   x   2 MB  = 34 sec

longer to propagate.  

This means that after a miner solves a block, he will have a 34 second "head start" on claiming the fees in the block, meaning that he'll be hashing on a non-empty block for

     34 sec / 600 sec = 5.7%

longer than the other miners.  By the same rationale as before, his advantage with respect to the fees is

     5.7% h/H.

A miner with 20% of the network hash rate thus has a 5.7% x 20% = 1.1% advantage for winning the fees.  Since the fees were esimated as 1 BTC, this is a 1.1% / 25 = 0.044% advantage overall.  


It seems to me that latency is more of an issue than the block size; however, both would appear to be negligible compared to things like the cost of electricity and availability of efficient hardware.    

Lauda, you are a burger eating monkey.  An obnoxious, shilling, troll.  I have rarely ever seen you contribute anything of value towards making progress.  Your entire existence here is predicated on misdirection, obstinency, and generally being an annoying ulcerous loser.

i.e hithertooo, forthwith, and with no further adieu or by your leave, I wave my wand, and...

Bada Boom!  Bada Bing! Ignoriamus!

What do you know.  It worked!  He's gone   Wooo Hoooooo!

I worry such a state could destroy or paralyze bitcoin. But I agree with you. If voting with the client is a sin, bitcoin's protection against malgovernance will have failed.


Maybe longterm bitcoin will be made more modular, so that only very few rules are consensus critical. In such a state it would be impossible for any party to change the 21M limit, which would be good for Bitcoin as a store of value.

You don't need evidence of nothing when unknown people pop up supporting various proposals. Those votes can't be verified thus shouldn't be counted nor do they matter for consensus. I'm not exposing anything, my position is more or less clear. On some points I support Core Developers and on some I don't. I would put more effort into arguing if I was able to come up with something better, but I'm not. I suggest that you adjust your pattern (more contributing, less complaining). We should be collaborating, not fighting.

Mining centralization already happened but small blockers are afraid that the geographic area or region with fastest internet speeds will become the only
place mining will be competitive if blocks get big.  But I'm not buying their argument.

As far as the numbers, there's 8 bits in one byte.  Therefore, a difference of 8 megabits in speed is one megabyte per second.
If block size is 8 MB, that's 8 seconds.  Yet it takes 10 minutes to solve a block so 8/600.

PROTO-COOL

You are the one calling people shills without evidence, you are only exposing yourself by doing this.

Three out of the five Core committers, did not even sign on to the Core road map. You do not even have developer consensus on this issue within Core, yet you claim to have consensus in the wider community. Since everyone that disagrees with you must be a shill right?

You are just another shill that was created in order to manipulate people. The staff does not have to agree with theymos and many do on different matters. IIRC it even says somewhere that we should not change our behavioral pattern just because we have become a part of the staff. Most of the negative energy is coming from the manipulators while the Core developers are working hard on improving Bitcoin. I can't say the same for you and your kind.

Both soft and hard forks are needed and can be quite useful. One day (and I hope not) there will be a urgent need for a hard fork or else Bitcoin dies.

The lines have not moved a bit? Are you even sure about that? The roadmap for 2016 was signed by several people.

---

---

The more people post similarly to this, the more you guys expose yourself. Keep it up.

I am adamant that it is a superior state to what we have now, if we cannot achieve such a state I would lose much of my interest in Bitcoin and I would consider the governance mechanism of Bitcoin to have failed, this is the first real test of this mechanism so the outcome is hard to know, since there is no historical precedent to this situation. This is a experiment in decentralized governance.

After all if we had to be reliant and dependent upon a centralized authority in the form of Core in order for Bitcoin to survive then this would defeat the very point of "trust" without centralized authority. I think that these alternative implementations will increase the blocksize limit more and faster then Core would.

However I do suspect that under a more decentralized model of governance that it could slow down development in other regards. Since implementations would need to negotiate any consensus critical changes with other implementations and the wider community more then they presently would. This could have the effect of slowing down development though it would also make development in Bitcoin more conservative, which I would actually consider a positive development.