Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 5. (Read 378991 times)

Today we have the mining relay network, the block is relayed in milliseconds. What you are saying is factually incorrect.

He might be talking about Andresen's work for the University of Massachusetts Amherst or Gravity Switch if they use the same languages in their project development as Bitcoin. I don't think he means actually working on Bitcoin unless he has some inside info from the cypherpunks mailing list or HashCash work that we don't know about. Andresen doesn't show up on the Bitcoin scene until 2010.

This is the data you are looking for -
https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522

here is the simulation test code-
https://gist.github.com/rustyrussell/9c3c4bf3127419bd3f1d



This is an example of a tx that can push validation times to their limit and potentially crash nodes--

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/bb41a757f405890fb0f5856228e23b715702d714d59bf2b1feb70d8b2b4e3e08


There are solutions to this problem and principally why core devs want to roll these out first ... before increasing the blocksize limit on the main tree.

I don't remember exactly, but just google it, and also another statistic by Mark in Montreal conference showing that even a 1MB block can take over 30s to verify on a mining node

I'd like to see that report. Got a link?

With only several thousand running full nodes now, it seems to me that 'average home computer' is not the limiting issue.

Well, _that_ is a rather interesting assertion. Do you have a citation to back it up?

Well, in addition to the maxblocksize increase, XT contains several other unrelated controversial changes.

From the beginning the block size limit works as a spam filter (even this year it successfully resisted the spam attack by coinwallet.eu during July and September). And now people realized it also can work as a means to prevent centralization (As long as blocks are small, average people with a little bit IT knowledge can run a full node in his home thus increase the level of decentralization)

This has nothing to do with transaction capacity, but a live or death question. If the blocks are huge and average people can not run a node, thus they all run on large data centers, then a couple of phone call to ISP could disable the bitcoin network. By making blocks small and portable, you can run it on almost any device thus it becomes unlikely you can disable bitcoin network unless you shutdown the whole internet

Mining nodes on the other hand can not be run by average home users, Satoshi also anticipated certain degree of mining centralization. This is also a potential risk but not a live and death problem

So, as long as average home users can run a full node, the block size is not the problem. But simulation by bitfury already indicated that we will have a severe performance problem with 4MB blocks on average home computer, so currently the only safe choice is 2MB, not 8MB promoted by XT

So cute...

I might ask you another question, who or what else should determine the properties of Bitcoin if not human beings? In the absence of sentient AI, it is left to human beings to decide on the rules of the protocol. Fortunately Bitcoin has incentive and governance mechanism build into the protocol to allow this process to happen in a much more fair and free fashion when compared to the state democracies that we are used to. This is a part of the genius behind the invention of Bitcoin, it has solve some of these age old problems like tyranny of the majority and volunteerism.

Bitcoin is also less likely to fall victim to populists politics considering that it is in effect ruled by the economic majority who are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin. Unlike our present political systems where often the incentives become perverted. If I had to describe what Bitcoin is in one word I would say that Bitcoin is freedom.

Miners can decide for themselves what transactions to include or not to include in the blocks they create, this has always been the case.

This is a longer term concern -- we're still in the bootstrapping phase so not immediately relevant, even with the upcoming halving. Ultimately miners will dictate fees (preferable IMO to block space scarcity forced by max block size), but that's another discussion.

What is bitcoin? Why should it's properties be determined by humans via populist means?

Veritas?

I wasn't, but now that I think of it, you could be on to something there.... *grabs tinhat*   

brg has made many infantile ad hom attacks on Mike Hearn, citing his previous work for Google as evidence that he is in some way a US gov. agent. I just thought it funny - ironic even - that the very company he schills for 24/7 is heavily funded by these same firms. 

Not having read much of this thread I dont want to go over things covered,but a major concern must be fees,do we raise fees or just let the Chinese miners dictate what they want for there work

Start from page 1

Slightly off topic but a bit of history the first bitcoin transaction ever   http://blockexplorer.com/b/170 the first address is Satoshi's the second Hal's

shouldn't blocks have variable size and it be declared at the beginning of the block, such as # of transactions?

It was thought of at the start,when satoshi left it in 2010 he decided then that by leaving it was fully decentralized and the first test would be the block size.Now if it comes out of this it will be a stronger currency if not a disaster in the making
Why are humans deciding things on the Blockchain it should be left to software and the nodes.I think the best guy to ask is Gavin he worked on the design and code back in 2007

Can someone explain to me how not raising the block size limit is a good thing? All transactions should be able to go thru in a semi-timely manner and if the limit is reached in a block then that transaction is just cancelled? That doesnt' make sense to me, I don't see a good reason NOT to switch to bitcoin XT. Secondly, why wasn't this thought of originally in the making of bitcoin? Seems odd.