more fud and total bs. nothing is under attach. there is no problem. if the blocks start to get full capitalism will take over and those paying fees will go first. the other transactions are worthless and we dont need them included anyways.
So we will have Bitcoin only to the wealthier and push out all poor nations to altcoins, at least it is still better than fiat. 
Topic: Bitcoin under attack! (Read 1678 times)
Not so fast. A monetary system is a very valuable thing which provide a variety of means of exploit. This is why entities try to monopolize them.
Entities try to nibble around the edges with 'gift cards' and such, but so far those who own the dominant monetary solutions have defended the ones they own adequately. The primary tool they use are the state judicial and enforcement capabilities and they do this by lobbying, revolving door strategies, etc.
I foresee sidechains as a way for many entities to actually take control of operation of their own monetary systems and realize the benefits that doing so can achieve. To some extent these actors would need to transfer some of the benefits to the userbase in order to be competitive against one another.
I could imagine (and hope for) a situation where there would be, say, AmazonCoin, MyStateCoin, MyCityCoin, MyChurchCoin etc, etc. I think it possible that if the larger and more powerful entities saw a negative benefit balance between supporting the status quo and owning their own monetary solution they might drop support for the former. Such a thing would be pretty revolutionary. If it were an option in time for the next bail-out (or more likely, bail-in) I would not be surprised or saddened to see the Federal Reserve in my country become an extinct footnote in the history books.
So the idea of instead of having one currency but instead having company currencies is ideal to you? This seems like a total pain in the ass and if you keep your money in bitcoin you would constantly be converting to a new currency wherever you go.
Computers are good at such things, and one of the operating costs that an entity would take on would be performing such translations and they would be more-or-less invisible to the end-user. Indeed, most translations from one sidechain to another would probably not even hit the Bitcoin network. In most cases a sidechain would perform an actual Bitcoin operation on some daily (or more) schedule for major adjustments to their circulation. These types of operations are very cheap these days and crypto offers a lesser (or non-existent) exposure to counter-party risk and the ability to allow high degrees of transparency if their users demand it.
You cannot very well argue that Bitcoin is viable as a cost effective way to achieve transactions digitally and settlements in a sidechain network are either difficult for end-users (as an electronic cash equivalent) or higher costs. Just the opposite is in fact true.
The wild-card would be how much regulatory burden exists. This, in conjunction with exploitation by the monopolists, is the main thing driving up costs in our current environment. I hope that if Bitcoin can itself remain free, there will be pressure from would-be sidechain operators to make the state lay off to a reasonable degree. Especially if sidechains are proving valuable in other parts of the world and giving their users a competitive advantage.
Again, it is critical that Bitcoin remain free, and that can only happen if it can operate in extremely hostile environments. Even ones where all coroprate network providers are actively attacking it on mandate from a majority of nation states.
---
I did not take an interest in Bitcoin as some sort of half-baked PayPal replacement. My interest is predicated on it's potential to be truly revolutionary. I never felt that it had a very high probability of overcoming the resistance and attacks and I still do not, but I still think it has enough of a chance to work towards. I could see Hearn's XT attack coming since I took a position in 2011 and have spent the interceding years warning against it.
The reason to go about this is to avoid attacks on Bitcoin from Corporate goliath companies and get them to adopt this while everyone would be still able to switch into bitcoin.
I get it, I really do, but do you think there are enough tech engineers at these companies that aren't corrupt to competent enough to make these chains or there will contract companies that run these?
Also you seem very intelligent and well versed on this issue, may I ask your view point on the blockchain size? If my interpretation is correct there definitely needs to be some time for everything to start working out and a block increase to undoubtedly happen while this development happens.
more fud and total bs. nothing is under attach. there is no problem. if the blocks start to get full capitalism will take over and those paying fees will go first. the other transactions are worthless and we dont need them included anyways.
So we will have Bitcoin only to the wealthier and push out all poor nations to altcoins, at least it is still better than fiat.everyone will still have access to the btc network especially full nodes where internet speed has not yet caught up to the rest of the world. maybe it wont be for daily spends like a cup of coffee. it was never designed for this anyways and not used for it now. 3rd world users will still be able to move their life savings as they wish. as a whole this will only benefit the overall value of bitcoin. gambling dust, spam and faucets do not belong on the network and only devalue the system as a whole.
I feel like this has to do with this spam experiment from this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-scaled-up-spam-experiment-spamtheblockchain-as-a-service-1075590 if at all. It could just be a spike in the highly variable and unpredictable nature of block sizes and transactions.
more fud and total bs. nothing is under attach. there is no problem. if the blocks start to get full capitalism will take over and those paying fees will go first. the other transactions are worthless and we dont need them included anyways.
A week ago, a group of volunteer researchers arranged "handle stress test" the network by "spam" chain of blocks of multiple transactions on the tiny amount, which resulted in over 8 hours each unit in the network has been completely filled, and a large number of transactions that did not fit in the blocks were unconfirmed.
Do you mean?
Do you mean?
Not so fast. A monetary system is a very valuable thing which provide a variety of means of exploit. This is why entities try to monopolize them.
Entities try to nibble around the edges with 'gift cards' and such, but so far those who own the dominant monetary solutions have defended the ones they own adequately. The primary tool they use are the state judicial and enforcement capabilities and they do this by lobbying, revolving door strategies, etc.
I foresee sidechains as a way for many entities to actually take control of operation of their own monetary systems and realize the benefits that doing so can achieve. To some extent these actors would need to transfer some of the benefits to the userbase in order to be competitive against one another.
I could imagine (and hope for) a situation where there would be, say, AmazonCoin, MyStateCoin, MyCityCoin, MyChurchCoin etc, etc. I think it possible that if the larger and more powerful entities saw a negative benefit balance between supporting the status quo and owning their own monetary solution they might drop support for the former. Such a thing would be pretty revolutionary. If it were an option in time for the next bail-out (or more likely, bail-in) I would not be surprised or saddened to see the Federal Reserve in my country become an extinct footnote in the history books.
So the idea of instead of having one currency but instead having company currencies is ideal to you? This seems like a total pain in the ass and if you keep your money in bitcoin you would constantly be converting to a new currency wherever you go.
Computers are good at such things, and one of the operating costs that an entity would take on would be performing such translations and they would be more-or-less invisible to the end-user. Indeed, most translations from one sidechain to another would probably not even hit the Bitcoin network. In most cases a sidechain would perform an actual Bitcoin operation on some daily (or more) schedule for major adjustments to their circulation. These types of operations are very cheap these days and crypto offers a lesser (or non-existent) exposure to counter-party risk and the ability to allow high degrees of transparency if their users demand it.
You cannot very well argue that Bitcoin is viable as a cost effective way to achieve transactions digitally and settlements in a sidechain network are either difficult for end-users (as an electronic cash equivalent) or higher costs. Just the opposite is in fact true.
The wild-card would be how much regulatory burden exists. This, in conjunction with exploitation by the monopolists, is the main thing driving up costs in our current environment. I hope that if Bitcoin can itself remain free, there will be pressure from would-be sidechain operators to make the state lay off to a reasonable degree. Especially if sidechains are proving valuable in other parts of the world and giving their users a competitive advantage.
Again, it is critical that Bitcoin remain free, and that can only happen if it can operate in extremely hostile environments. Even ones where all coroprate network providers are actively attacking it on mandate from a majority of nation states.
---
I did not take an interest in Bitcoin as some sort of half-baked PayPal replacement. My interest is predicated on it's potential to be truly revolutionary. I never felt that it had a very high probability of overcoming the resistance and attacks and I still do not, but I still think it has enough of a chance to work towards. I could see Hearn's XT attack coming since I took a position in 2011 and have spent the interceding years warning against it.
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
block size limit = 1 mb
300 kb to go
block size limit = 1 mb
300 kb to go
I am seeing an average of 500k. We are still a well below the 1M limit. Where's the attack you are talking about? Not sure why OP is using this thread title. If there is an attack, then we ought to take Gavin's proposition more seriously. We need to buy time to sort a more permanent solution.
Same here, 500k on avarage. Maybe he saw a spike to 700k and got nervous? Probably nothing to see here, but still a bigger limit wouldnt be bad in my opinion.
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
block size limit = 1 mb
300 kb to go
block size limit = 1 mb
300 kb to go
I am seeing an average of 500k. We are still a well below the 1M limit. Where's the attack you are talking about? Not sure why OP is using this thread title. If there is an attack, then we ought to take Gavin's proposition more seriously. We need to buy time to sort a more permanent solution.
What will happen once we reach 1MB average block size? How is the progress going for Gavin?
The issue is getting merchants to accept a sidechain and standardizing a side chain, and then when stores accept only sidechain A and you only have B you have to convert back to bitcoin and wait through the block queue (if the blocksize doesn't increase) then convert to Sidechain A to be able to spend there which could take forever. Sidechains aren't a short term solution to the blocksize, the idea of converting a million merchants to use a standard sidechain while we are having a hard time getting everyone on board with classic bitcoin seems like one damn stretch, especially if they want to turn it to fiat it will take an extra step and possibly have more volatility.
Not so fast. A monetary system is a very valuable thing which provide a variety of means of exploit. This is why entities try to monopolize them.
Entities try to nibble around the edges with 'gift cards' and such, but so far those who own the dominant monetary solutions have defended the ones they own adequately. The primary tool they use are the state judicial and enforcement capabilities and they do this by lobbying, revolving door strategies, etc.
I foresee sidechains as a way for many entities to actually take control of operation of their own monetary systems and realize the benefits that doing so can achieve. To some extent these actors would need to transfer some of the benefits to the userbase in order to be competitive against one another.
I could imagine (and hope for) a situation where there would be, say, AmazonCoin, MyStateCoin, MyCityCoin, MyChurchCoin etc, etc. I think it possible that if the larger and more powerful entities saw a negative benefit balance between supporting the status quo and owning their own monetary solution they might drop support for the former. Such a thing would be pretty revolutionary. If it were an option in time for the next bail-out (or more likely, bail-in) I would not be surprised or saddened to see the Federal Reserve in my country become an extinct footnote in the history books.
Did Mike really claim that they'll push the block increase update to XT withing a week? I'm probably missing something, here. Why was the Reddit post you linked removed LaudaM? Care to shed some light onto this?
-snip-
Looks to me like it will be rolling out into it's doom as it should. The main reason to roll it out would be to create a period of of instability and fear which would make people feel that Bitcoin is not a viable option for wealth protection. I'll expect it to be scheduled (or re-scheduled) for economic problems in fiat-land.
As long as a new REAL full node can be brought to life with a laptop HDD or thumb drive, and the data load of the Bitcoin network can be steganographically transmitted Bitcoin will be very difficult to kill (and thus the value within the Bitcoin blockchain will remain solid.) I believe that the most viable attacks will be on these two aspects. If I were charged with killing the system I would do so by bloating it to expose various weaknesses in it's shell.
I personally would expect and be comfortable with losing whatever value I entrusted to a sidechain under an attack scenario. That is why I am fairly ambivalent to risks on those.
Another problem is that people need to be educated. Look what Amph has posted from his "logical" point of view, and the answer from bryant.coleman. (Update: Looks like you've already answered him)Looks to me like it will be rolling out into it's doom as it should. The main reason to roll it out would be to create a period of of instability and fear which would make people feel that Bitcoin is not a viable option for wealth protection. I'll expect it to be scheduled (or re-scheduled) for economic problems in fiat-land.
As long as a new REAL full node can be brought to life with a laptop HDD or thumb drive, and the data load of the Bitcoin network can be steganographically transmitted Bitcoin will be very difficult to kill (and thus the value within the Bitcoin blockchain will remain solid.) I believe that the most viable attacks will be on these two aspects. If I were charged with killing the system I would do so by bloating it to expose various weaknesses in it's shell.
I personally would expect and be comfortable with losing whatever value I entrusted to a sidechain under an attack scenario. That is why I am fairly ambivalent to risks on those.
People want to send transactions without including fees, and they should be put into the queue. Complains from such people should be disregarded.
Since we are already on this topic, you should look for information here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/394fn1/mike_hearn_in_about_1_week_bitcoin_xt_will/
They are claiming that "people" are actually asking them to make this move, like it needs to happen. It either isn't true or people with limited knowledge are requesting this.
Interesting. You might be onto something there, although this just confirms that we can not scale by infinitely scale by increasing the block size over and over again. Even if we only stick to 20 MB blocks, and they are full (in this scenario), the blockchain would grow by 80+ GB per month!
wait through the block queue
There won't be a block queue, thus your whole post is invalid. From a logical point of view, a queue list will be created, with those transactions, that were left out, to be introduced in the next second and so on, but this will lead to a queue position that, will get bigger everytime this happen
That will be really bad for the widespread adoption of Bitcoin. Already people are complaining that the confirmation time is too long (and right now, it is around 5 to 30 minutes). And imagine what will happen, when it get stretched to 1 hour, or even 2 hours. I think we should seriously consider supporting Gavin's proposal.
Bitcoin never was and never will be suitable for real-time purchases without being augmented by off-chain solutions of some sort (sidechains or otherwise.) It's simply not in the design and it will never be competitive in this role. That's just the way it is, and trying to change things by a simplistic setting like max block size cannot solve the problem. It can, however, cause bloat which will open up a variety of chinks in the armor, and I think it a very strong hypothesis that that is the primary driving force behind XT and the bloatchain folk's activities.
From a logical point of view, a queue list will be created, with those transactions, that were left out, to be introduced in the next second and so on, but this will lead to a queue position that, will get bigger everytime this happen
That will be really bad for the widespread adoption of Bitcoin. Already people are complaining that the confirmation time is too long (and right now, it is around 5 to 30 minutes). And imagine what will happen, when it get stretched to 1 hour, or even 2 hours. I think we should seriously consider supporting Gavin's proposal.
Essentially you're saying that micro transactions should be on the sidechain(s) only correct? If this is the case then I have to agree.
Correct.
However, I do not think that a 1MB limit will be enough even for only bigger transactions in the future. Although this really depends on the adoption of Bitcoin in the coming years.
20 MB blocks (4 or 8 is okay) are way too much,
20 MB blocks (4 or 8 is okay) are way too much,
This addresses the 'problem' in only a minor way. A small integer multiple. A system of sidechains holds the promise to address the bloat problem by orders of magnitude.
I'll agree that 1MB may eventually be to tight for even reasonable settlement activity in support of an efficient sidechains ecosystem, but that is a ways out. If/when this proves to be the case and it is VERY clear that native Bitcoin is unencumbered and unthreatened by attacks such as the blacklisting/fungibility attacks I mentioned, I'll be quite in favor of it. I suspect that many others will be as well and 'consensus' will not be all that difficult to achieve.
however it looks like XT will be rolling out in the coming week(s).
Looks to me like it will be rolling out into it's doom as it should. The main reason to roll it out would be to create a period of of instability and fear which would make people feel that Bitcoin is not a viable option for wealth protection. I'll expect it to be scheduled (or re-scheduled) for economic problems in fiat-land.
As I've mentioned in another post, increasing the block size for any other reason(s) than buying time for side chains or other technology would be a mistake. If Bitcoin was only processing the amount of transactions that Visa does during peak times (45 000 tps), we would need 400 Petabytes per year. In other words 400 million Gigabytes. The blockchain even needs to be pruned as it is now (~40GB) !
As long as a new REAL full node can be brought to life with a laptop HDD or thumb drive, and the data load of the Bitcoin network can be steganographically transmitted Bitcoin will be very difficult to kill (and thus the value within the Bitcoin blockchain will remain solid.) I believe that the most viable attacks will be on these two aspects. If I were charged with killing the system I would do so by bloating it to expose various weaknesses in it's shell.
I personally would expect and be comfortable with losing whatever value I entrusted to a sidechain under an attack scenario. That is why I am fairly ambivalent to risks on those.
What in God's green earth is difficult to understand about this!?!
I make one peg operation on the global blockchain to put some value on a sidechain then do 10,000 micro-tips for the year. The load of these inconsequential transactions impacts a chain that I don't care about and which does not threaten the global backing system which I (and every other person and sub-system) relies on for significant value storage and transactions.
Being lite and tight, the global backing system (Bitcoin) can hide out in various nooks and crannies of the global internet and (hopefully) evade even the most dedicated attacks by those who it threatens.
This is so common-sense from a system analysis and engineering point of view that for a long time I attributed malice to those who claim to not understand it.
I know how sidechains work. I was referring to your other post:I make one peg operation on the global blockchain to put some value on a sidechain then do 10,000 micro-tips for the year. The load of these inconsequential transactions impacts a chain that I don't care about and which does not threaten the global backing system which I (and every other person and sub-system) relies on for significant value storage and transactions.
Being lite and tight, the global backing system (Bitcoin) can hide out in various nooks and crannies of the global internet and (hopefully) evade even the most dedicated attacks by those who it threatens.
This is so common-sense from a system analysis and engineering point of view that for a long time I attributed malice to those who claim to not understand it.
Quote
Yeah, 'under attack' by people who, in an expression of monumental ignorance, think that using one of the most powerful financial settlement systems ever devised makes sense as a means of buying their morning coffee. The level of ignorant self-centeredness necessary to think that some trivial and inconsequential bit of financial activity deserves to become a permanent part of the ledger that everyone supports and carries along forevermore is stunning.
Essentially you're saying that micro transactions should be on the sidechain(s) only correct? If this is the case then I have to agree.However, I do not think that a 1MB limit will be enough even for only bigger transactions in the future. Although this really depends on the adoption of Bitcoin in the coming years.
20 MB blocks (4 or 8 is okay) are way too much, however it looks like XT will be rolling out in the coming week(s).
As I've mentioned in another post, increasing the block size for any other reason(s) than buying time for side chains or other technology would be a mistake. If Bitcoin was only processing the amount of transactions that Visa does during peak times (45 000 tps), we would need 400 Petabytes per year. In other words 400 million Gigabytes. The blockchain even needs to be pruned as it is now (~40GB) !
I already pay somewhere in the range of a $10/transaction fee when I use Bitcoin in native P2P form just so I can practice what I preach. It is much less than I pay for an international bank wire and vastly faster and has proven more reliable as well. In short, it's one hell of a deal for me.
I've looked forward for literally years to a point when I could peg portions of my stash to a sidechain and feel comfortable to use it for buying trinkets, doing micro-tips, etc. Now it looks like sidechains are actually going to happen, and in time for Bitcoin to be rescued from the bloaters who seek to destroy it. These fuckheads have to bloat and popularize Bitcoin as a pre-requisite to collapsing it through fungibility attacks (implemented as blacklisting.)
I've looked forward for literally years to a point when I could peg portions of my stash to a sidechain and feel comfortable to use it for buying trinkets, doing micro-tips, etc. Now it looks like sidechains are actually going to happen, and in time for Bitcoin to be rescued from the bloaters who seek to destroy it. These fuckheads have to bloat and popularize Bitcoin as a pre-requisite to collapsing it through fungibility attacks (implemented as blacklisting.)
I have problems understanding your stance towards the matter. You've mentioned that Bitcoin shouldn't be used for things such as buying coffee but you're comfortable with e.g. micro-tips using sidechains?
What in God's green earth is difficult to understand about this!?!
I make one peg operation on the global blockchain to put some value on a sidechain then do 10,000 micro-tips for the year. The load of these inconsequential transactions impacts a chain that I don't care about and which does not threaten the global backing system which I (and every other person and sub-system) relies on for significant value storage and transactions.
Being lite and tight, the global backing system (Bitcoin) can hide out in various nooks and crannies of the global internet and (hopefully) evade even the most dedicated attacks by those who it threatens.
This is so common-sense from a system analysis and engineering point of view that for a long time I attributed malice to those who claim to not understand it.
How away we are from this ? How come I never heard about those informations 
Then I guess we should simply follow Gavin for the block size increase so we buy more time . I don't think Bitcoin need this now ... It can be pretty bad (depends what's gonna happen)
How about reading and doing research rather than spamming for your signature campaign? Then I guess we should simply follow Gavin for the block size increase so we buy more time . I don't think Bitcoin need this now ... It can be pretty bad (depends what's gonna happen)
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&daysAverageString=100
We aren't even averaging 0.4MB blocks yet. Someone is filling the blocks to maybe force the network to decide on the block size debate.
https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/397ds9/are_blocks_full/
However, this does no actual damage and you can make your transactions process by including a higher fee.
I already pay somewhere in the range of a $10/transaction fee when I use Bitcoin in native P2P form just so I can practice what I preach. It is much less than I pay for an international bank wire and vastly faster and has proven more reliable as well. In short, it's one hell of a deal for me.
I've looked forward for literally years to a point when I could peg portions of my stash to a sidechain and feel comfortable to use it for buying trinkets, doing micro-tips, etc. Now it looks like sidechains are actually going to happen, and in time for Bitcoin to be rescued from the bloaters who seek to destroy it. These fuckheads have to bloat and popularize Bitcoin as a pre-requisite to collapsing it through fungibility attacks (implemented as blacklisting.)
I have problems understanding your stance towards the matter. You've mentioned that Bitcoin shouldn't be used for things such as buying coffee but you're comfortable with e.g. micro-tips using sidechains? I've looked forward for literally years to a point when I could peg portions of my stash to a sidechain and feel comfortable to use it for buying trinkets, doing micro-tips, etc. Now it looks like sidechains are actually going to happen, and in time for Bitcoin to be rescued from the bloaters who seek to destroy it. These fuckheads have to bloat and popularize Bitcoin as a pre-requisite to collapsing it through fungibility attacks (implemented as blacklisting.)
Yeah, 'under attack' by people who, in an expression of monumental ignorance, think that using one of the most powerful financial settlement systems ever devised makes sense as a means of buying their morning coffee. The level of ignorant self-centeredness necessary to think that some trivial and inconsequential bit of financial activity deserves to become a permanent part of the ledger that everyone supports and carries along forevermore is stunning.
Obviously logic is not going to break this cycle of delusion. Finally bumping up into the 1MB limit is necessary and way overdue.
I'm not going to be a jackass and pretend that I know Satoshi's thoughts and motivations, but I will observe that his 1 MB 'temporary hack' had the result of ensuring that we hit this moment in history at a time when the entire un-pruned and verifiable blockchain could still be packed around on a single and affordable storage device. If he/they foresaw this when making certain decisions I would not be surprised.
Obviously logic is not going to break this cycle of delusion. Finally bumping up into the 1MB limit is necessary and way overdue.
I'm not going to be a jackass and pretend that I know Satoshi's thoughts and motivations, but I will observe that his 1 MB 'temporary hack' had the result of ensuring that we hit this moment in history at a time when the entire un-pruned and verifiable blockchain could still be packed around on a single and affordable storage device. If he/they foresaw this when making certain decisions I would not be surprised.
Sounds like you'd support higher fees more than a hard fork...
I've always said BTC should become like gold an an altcoin or side chain should become the "spending" currency.
I already pay somewhere in the range of a $10/transaction fee when I use Bitcoin in native P2P form just so I can practice what I preach. It is much less than I pay for an international bank wire and vastly faster and has proven more reliable as well. In short, it's one hell of a deal for me.
I've looked forward for literally years to a point when I could peg portions of my stash to a sidechain and feel comfortable to use it for buying trinkets, doing micro-tips, etc. Now it looks like sidechains are actually going to happen, and in time for Bitcoin to be rescued from the bloaters who seek to destroy it. These fuckheads have to bloat and popularize Bitcoin as a pre-requisite to collapsing it through fungibility attacks (implemented as blacklisting.)
Jump to: