Topic: bitcoin "unlimited" seeks review - page 11. (Read 16106 times)

So what happens if I left my node at 1MB +10% user threshold and a 1.2MB block comes - does my node reject it?

How will the network not split into a myriad little shards which diverge following accidental and/or intentional double-spends without manual human coordination?

Adam

From what I understand, BU moves the block size limit from consensus rules to a node policy rule. Instead of having the limit hard coded in, the user chooses their own block size limit. Also if a BU node detects a blockchain that has a higher block size (up to a certain user configurable threshold), after that chain is a number of blocks deep (user configurable), then it will switch to use that blockchain and set its block size limit higher.

If you can stay on topic as I suggested: "To make progress on review it would be helpful to separate technical from political opinions." I dont see a problem. People have been discussing bitcoin NG ideas on here for years.

Are you able to explain what BU is and how you think it works?  I gave some reviewer questions in the OP.

Adam

Here are some links from kanzure on IRC (Aquentys started a discussion but wanted to continue on a forum for persistence):


Adam

Agree I was kind of hoping Aquentys would be able to explain what it is and how they think it works.  It saves time reviewing when people take the time to explain their assumptions.

Adam

We shouldn't assume the Core developers or anyone else is immune from review and I believe there is always something to learn my looking over other implementations. I think it is both extremely healthy for there to be multiple implementations in our ecosystem with different project maintainers and for them to both collaborate and review each others work. We should support Core, BU , libbitcoin , and others with testing.


To add to the discussion Gavin represents a qualified outside developer that conducted a very brief review of the code and this was his response-

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/i-really-want-to-like-bitcoin-unlimited.684/


More review of both core and BU is recommended and encouraged.

i feel a little bit sarcasm  ?

i hope this thread will not waste too much dev-time for nothing in the end. PR is necessary but time is limited too.

The idea was to have some technical focussed constructive discourse and this is a more neutral forum and also where more Bitcoin experts hang out.

Adam

If you want info about Bitcoin Unlimited you should check out their forum (https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/). Most of their discussions is there, including technical and not.

The proposers of bitcoin unlimited said they would like to get some review which seems reasonable, if others would like to help.

The proposal seems at first skim to be a copy of a few existing technologies from Bitcoin's roadmap and were first proposed by Greg Maxwell and others*: weak-blocks & network-compression/IBLT to reduce orphan risk, and flexcap (or a variant of it perhaps).

Perhaps they could start by explaining what it is & how it works.  This might include unimplemented ideas, and a summary of what the code currently for download on the manifesto page does.

To review it will be clearer if you state your assumptions, and claimed benefits, and why you think those benefits hold.  (Bear in mind if input assumptions are theoretical and known to not hold in practice, while that can be fine for theoretical results, it will be difficult to use the resulting conclusions in a real system).  Particularly claimed compatibilities with Bitcoin and how the dynamic block-size game-theory is expected to work and remain secure with SPV mining, selfish-mining, block-withholding and fair (progress-free) mining could also use explaining.

I suggest the sensible thing is if there is something new or insightful, that Bitcoin consider adopting the technology and the BU proponents get behind that.

Maintaining a new coin is a rather complex undertaking and screwing up, as something like 40% of projects that have tried it have done, is very expensive of other peoples money.

To make progress on review it would be helpful to separate technical from political opinions.

Adam

* some citations seem to be notably missing, I trust this is unintentional.