I'm curious why Charlie Lee has not been able to knock some sense into Brian Armstrong.
Pointy Headed CEOs do not listen to their Dilberts and Wallys (IE coders/engineers).
Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 51. (Read 378992 times)
Pointy Headed CEOs do not listen to their Dilberts and Wallys (IE coders/engineers).
I'm curious why Charlie Lee has not been able to knock some sense into Brian Armstrong.
edit: actually I'm not.
edit: actually I'm not.
From the AMA with Charlie Lee (Works at Coinbase) and Bobby Lee (Works at BTCC)
Charlie:
Bobby:
Quote
Are you in agreement about block size proposals, or is there any sibling rivalry? 
(BIP101, yay or nay?)
Will you be attending the Scaling Bitcoin conference?
(BIP101, yay or nay?)Will you be attending the Scaling Bitcoin conference?
Charlie:
Quote
We are more or less in agreement about the block size proposal, but coming from a different angle. We both think that we need to be very conservative about the block size increase. I'm more concerned about the larger blocksize causing decreasing in security and decentralization. And Bobby is concerned about the blockchain bloat causing individuals to not able to run Bitcoin nodes.
We are both against BIP101, as we feel like it's way too aggressive and dangerous.
We will be at Scaling Bitcoin.
We are both against BIP101, as we feel like it's way too aggressive and dangerous.
We will be at Scaling Bitcoin.
Bobby:
Quote
If asked to choose, I would prefer BIP 100, and the main reason is that I think blocksize increases should be moderate and made with deliberate care and attention. It would be too aggressive to adhere to a fixed schedule of increase, given that network bandwidth does not improve as fast as storage capacity. If you think about it, block sizes affect two things: storage (the blockchain stored on your hard disk) and networking bandwidth (the sending around of blocks during confirmations). Historically, these two have both increased very fast, similar to Moore’s law, but the rates of increase has been dramatically different. So what will happen in 20 years? So we need to find the right tradeoff in deciding the block size.
I’m looking forward to attending Scaling Bitcoin in Hong Kong! I really wanted to attend the Montreal event, but couldn’t get away for that.
I’m looking forward to attending Scaling Bitcoin in Hong Kong! I really wanted to attend the Montreal event, but couldn’t get away for that.
Bigger blocks (with at least some reasonable upper bound) make spam attacks more expensive, as tx's drop out of the mempool and fees can be recycled continuously.
Not so much, in that the fee required to get into the mempool in the first place goes up as transactions are dropped out; at least with the limited mempool in 0.12. To the extent that a bigger block makes spam attacks more expensive it's only really through the action of making it much cheaper to inflict additional storage-in-perpetuity on the network. So far, the non-trivially funded spam attacks that we've seen have not been successful in driving the feel levels required to bypass them above negligible cents per transaction levels (e.g. significantly cheaper than what credit card networks charge merchants per transaction).... though obviously this has limits. Right now, measuring the differential time it takes for mining pools to switch the blocks they're working on vs block size suggests an effective transfer rate of 723kbit/sec (less shockingly slow when you consider how inefficient TCP is for bursty conditions across links with worldwide latency), This is the amount of time it took for a block to reach half the monitored public pool's stratum endpoints after reaching the first one vs blocksize: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/sp2.png (Matt more recently did a similar measurement of relay network behavior and reached a similar but somewhat lower throughput). If you take that offset (2.491s) and data rate, and drop it into formula for subsidy income loss cost for the last byte of a megabyte block, the break-even feerate is 0.00045054 BTC/KB. So that suggests that at least lower hashrate miners are accepting transactions at a price low enough to be a net-loss currently. (It may not be the case; e.g. if the low hashrate miners are all fast. and the high hashrate miners are all slow, or low hashrate doesn't process as many transactions; and the data is all over the map... etc.)
Is there more data behind the plot? It would be useful to look at the distribution and the performance for specific pools vs. the topology involved, including machines and link rates. (I can appreciate that some of this data may be proprietary or otherwise unavailable.)
As to the nexus between bandwidth and hash rate. There is no need for this. I can speak from personal experience as a small scale miner. Last summer I was solo mining with two S3s that I was still running despite the heat and managed to score a block on solo.ckpool.org. The 0.5% fee was well worth it for use of a high bandwidth connection, because the orphan risk out of my DSL based home office would have been unacceptable. (You might ask, why was I solo mining? That's a another question, but it certainly looked like some of the pools had a consistent run of bad luck indicating that something was seriously wrong.)
From a little watching of my connection activity, I observed that a lot of the upload bandwidth was loading older blocks. A limit on bandwidth provided for uploading older blocks would certainly help.
Implemented in Bitcoin Core git master a couple months ago, will be in 0.12; along with many other resource control tools. Though if widely used it will further congest getting blocks to begin with. It's a good trade-off, but not without costs. None of this is magic: cutting down this source of traffic or that is mostly just constant factor reductions. To operate the system needs a safety margin, and we're bumping up against actual limits.It's good that instrumentation and controls are coming. IMO they are a couple years late.
If done right, controls would not slow down getting current blocks. These should get priority because the nodes requesting them are supporting the network. If nodes coming back on line or, worse, initially loading, get worse service at times of peak network load this is perfectly reasonable, IMO. (But I don't have any data, so I am forced to speculate.) Initial loading should be only from well connected nodes that source historical data. There is no reason why the real-time network should be forced to do a job of bulk data transmission for free. If this is a problem, there is no reason why these nodes couldn't charge for their service. For example, AWS charges about $0.10 USD per Gigabyte. It would be entirely reasonable to charge newbies a fee to offset these real costs. Or a business can sell preloaded bitcoin disks, like the 21 Bitcoin Computer.
As to constant factors. They are easily dismissed by theoreticians. Practical people who design, deploy, manage and operate businesses that provide cloud computing services live or die by small percentage changes in constant factors. In this case, it appears that there are tremendous opportunities for two types of improvements here. First, in reducing the amount of data that an operational node needs to transmit and receive, and second in tuning the nodes and their networking environment to effectively utilize the available resources.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767
XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn
Quote
"Switching to BIP 101 or Bitcoin XT is a bad idea; we will never do that,” Chun reiterated his earlier position. “After a meeting with some other Chinese pools earlier this year, we proposed an 8-megabyte limit, because we thought Gavin's initial 20 megabyte proposal was too big for us. I always thought 2 megabytes would be better as a first step, but I did not want to offend Gavin with a 10 times smaller proposal. Gavin then answered us with BIP 101, which due to its steep growth curve is essentially 8 gigabytes, so it’s done. I don’t trust Gavin anymore – nor Hearn for that matter.”
XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn
1 MB rekt.
Chun, too, believes that raising the block-size limit is an urgent matter, explaining:
“I think it is urgent, because the transaction volume is increasing on the blockchain, and if the price rises in near future, it will push the transaction volume to be even higher. I think the max block size should be raised as soon as possible, but it should not be raised too much. Two megabytes is preferred as the first step.”
You'll get at least a doubled cap soonish. Not tonight dear, but 2016.
Inb4 "the conference is a 'fraud' that did not hold up to its 'promise' of raising teh blocksize!! blockstream core sensor ships & tyrannosaurus REKT our ph0rk wet dreams and rainbow pipes!!1"
My opinion is that the source and original code shouldn't be messed with... The only change that would be needed to make would be one that could solve the blocksize and bloating problem. But that, many other altcoins already solved....
People keep talking about the storage space, as if that were the main issue with larger blocks. I haven't been on top of the discussions lately, but I thought the main issue is the attack vectors that would be opened, such as withholding attacks becoming viable due to increased latency of block propagation.
@gmaxwell, Could you perhaps remind us, in summary, what the main problem(s) is (are) with increasing the max block size?
In your view, do you think it's possible/probable that Gavin and Hearn have been compromised in some way, working for a different agenda than that which they started out with?
@gmaxwell, Could you perhaps remind us, in summary, what the main problem(s) is (are) with increasing the max block size?
That does not mean I think the crowd will choose big blocks, it means that I think if bigger blocks are needed then I think that something will happen to ensure that bigger blocks happen.
This was one of the big fallacies involved in the "crash landing" spin by Gavin and Hearn; this notion that Bitcoin would willfully commit suicide. Cranking the scale ahead of addressing scaliablity is/was controversial (not just among the most technical, though it's nearly universal there); but if it were strongly _necessary_, and better than the harm of not; then it would no longer be. That we're not there now, shows it isn't. QED. And there is a tone of activity gone on to improve scalablity at all levels of the system, from micro optimizations, to protocol design.In your view, do you think it's possible/probable that Gavin and Hearn have been compromised in some way, working for a different agenda than that which they started out with?
I'd actually like to know the answer to that as well. What is the real problem and how likely is it?
Andresen hasn't changed at all. It's been obvious from the beginning that his primary motivation is power, money, control and then some more power. Everything he's done from the media spotlight to centralizing control of Bitcoin in the hands of the foundation has been aimed at that. Refuse to agree with him and prepare to be attacked. I guess no one can remember his behavior during the BIP16/17 arguments. He's a sad little man that controlled Bitcoin's direction for too long.
People keep talking about the storage space, as if that were the main issue with larger blocks. I haven't been on top of the discussions lately, but I thought the main issue is the attack vectors that would be opened, such as withholding attacks becoming viable due to increased latency of block propagation.
@gmaxwell, Could you perhaps remind us, in summary, what the main problem(s) is (are) with increasing the max block size?
In your view, do you think it's possible/probable that Gavin and Hearn have been compromised in some way, working for a different agenda than that which they started out with?
@gmaxwell, Could you perhaps remind us, in summary, what the main problem(s) is (are) with increasing the max block size?
That does not mean I think the crowd will choose big blocks, it means that I think if bigger blocks are needed then I think that something will happen to ensure that bigger blocks happen.
This was one of the big fallacies involved in the "crash landing" spin by Gavin and Hearn; this notion that Bitcoin would willfully commit suicide. Cranking the scale ahead of addressing scaliablity is/was controversial (not just among the most technical, though it's nearly universal there); but if it were strongly _necessary_, and better than the harm of not; then it would no longer be. That we're not there now, shows it isn't. QED. And there is a tone of activity gone on to improve scalablity at all levels of the system, from micro optimizations, to protocol design.In your view, do you think it's possible/probable that Gavin and Hearn have been compromised in some way, working for a different agenda than that which they started out with?
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767
XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn
Quote
"Switching to BIP 101 or Bitcoin XT is a bad idea; we will never do that,” Chun reiterated his earlier position. “After a meeting with some other Chinese pools earlier this year, we proposed an 8-megabyte limit, because we thought Gavin's initial 20 megabyte proposal was too big for us. I always thought 2 megabytes would be better as a first step, but I did not want to offend Gavin with a 10 times smaller proposal. Gavin then answered us with BIP 101, which due to its steep growth curve is essentially 8 gigabytes, so it’s done. I don’t trust Gavin anymore – nor Hearn for that matter.”
XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn
1 MB rekt.
Chun, too, believes that raising the block-size limit is an urgent matter, explaining:
“I think it is urgent, because the transaction volume is increasing on the blockchain, and if the price rises in near future, it will push the transaction volume to be even higher. I think the max block size should be raised as soon as possible, but it should not be raised too much. Two megabytes is preferred as the first step.”
You'll get at least a doubled cap soonish. Not tonight dear, but 2016.
We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.
Maybe you're not looking hard enough?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/
You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this"
I notice alot of people using this forum as a platform to berate it. I also notice that alot of people are using this forum as a platform to advertise alternative forums.
Kind of an inconsistency between what these two groups are saying and what they're doing: Why do they keep coming back here if bitcointalk.org is held in such contempt?
Meh, if only they would stick with their VERified Kingdom. There surely must be as much freedom as idiocy there.
As ICEBREAkER aptly predicted let's just say they are having their their own freedom of speech problems
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3uyyfx/i_didnt_think_this_day_would_come_but_ive_been/
The Gavinista shitlords didn't anticipate NotXT (despite my warning of weaponized version signals).
And they didn't anticipate NotGavinistas emulating their assclownery within the tight parameters of Poe's law, nor the chaos that would ensue from their being unable to tell genuine-but-dim friends from fake-but-clever foes.
Let's all brigade their rump subs and forums, acting really stupid (but not too stupid) by constantly reposting debunked FUD about RBF, CLTV, Peter (The) Todd, Blockstream, Theymos, and Sensor Ships. Then throw tantrums when our shitposts are moderated...
Oh wait, we're already doing that...
EDIT: ZOMG THE PRECIOUS 'FREE STOLFI' POST! ITS BEEN THREADLOCKED!!1! ZOMG SENSOR SHIPS SENSORING MUH SUB!!! WORSE THAN A POL POT-STALIN-MAO-SERPENTOR-HILLARY HYBRID1!!1
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3us1kl/free_jstolfi/
The vulgarian clowns and censorship-cheerleaders still believe that their agitation is a help to the BS-core development. But it isn't:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uw5tp/slush_pool_to_reenable_bip_101_bitcoin_mining/cxj0m7s
We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.
Maybe you're not looking hard enough?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/
You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this"
I notice alot of people using this forum as a platform to berate it. I also notice that alot of people are using this forum as a platform to advertise alternative forums.
Kind of an inconsistency between what these two groups are saying and what they're doing: Why do they keep coming back here if bitcointalk.org is held in such contempt?
Meh, if only they would stick with their VERified Kingdom. There surely must be as much freedom as idiocy there.
As ICEBREAkER aptly predicted let's just say they are having their their own freedom of speech problems
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3uyyfx/i_didnt_think_this_day_would_come_but_ive_been/
SPLITTER!!1
Yes, and some people (you and your friends from the Front National) like that censorship, while we don't.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767
XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn
It looks like there are individuals that still haven't completely lost their minds. Any small increment right now is much better than taking huge leaps now, or in the future. I do wonder what the conference in Hong Kong is going to 'conclude'. It is definitely going to be worth watching, and a lot of things can be learned from such an event. However, I doubt that XT propaganda folk is going to watch/care because Mike is not there. Due to the fact that Mike is not there, they're going to reject any analysis of BIP101 and claim that the evidence was false and whatnot (I've already read it somewhere). Just wait for it. For those that do not know, Mike refused to come probably because he's ashamed of his XT failure. Quote
"Switching to BIP 101 or Bitcoin XT is a bad idea; we will never do that,” Chun reiterated his earlier position. “After a meeting with some other Chinese pools earlier this year, we proposed an 8-megabyte limit, because we thought Gavin's initial 20 megabyte proposal was too big for us. I always thought 2 megabytes would be better as a first step, but I did not want to offend Gavin with a 10 times smaller proposal. Gavin then answered us with BIP 101, which due to its steep growth curve is essentially 8 gigabytes, so it’s done. I don’t trust Gavin anymore – nor Hearn for that matter.”
XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn
Also, Mike must be overbooked with R3 banking cartel projects!
Ps: the conference is about scaling bitcoin.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767
XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn
It looks like there are individuals that still haven't completely lost their minds. Any small increment right now is much better than taking huge leaps now, or in the future. I do wonder what the conference in Hong Kong is going to 'conclude'. It is definitely going to be worth watching, and a lot of things can be learned from such an event. However, I doubt that XT propaganda folk is going to watch/care because Mike is not there. Due to the fact that Mike is not there, they're going to reject any analysis of BIP101 and claim that the evidence was false and whatnot (I've already read it somewhere). Just wait for it. For those that do not know, Mike refused to come probably because he's ashamed of his XT failure. Quote
"Switching to BIP 101 or Bitcoin XT is a bad idea; we will never do that,” Chun reiterated his earlier position. “After a meeting with some other Chinese pools earlier this year, we proposed an 8-megabyte limit, because we thought Gavin's initial 20 megabyte proposal was too big for us. I always thought 2 megabytes would be better as a first step, but I did not want to offend Gavin with a 10 times smaller proposal. Gavin then answered us with BIP 101, which due to its steep growth curve is essentially 8 gigabytes, so it’s done. I don’t trust Gavin anymore – nor Hearn for that matter.”
XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767
XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn
Quote
"Switching to BIP 101 or Bitcoin XT is a bad idea; we will never do that,” Chun reiterated his earlier position. “After a meeting with some other Chinese pools earlier this year, we proposed an 8-megabyte limit, because we thought Gavin's initial 20 megabyte proposal was too big for us. I always thought 2 megabytes would be better as a first step, but I did not want to offend Gavin with a 10 times smaller proposal. Gavin then answered us with BIP 101, which due to its steep growth curve is essentially 8 gigabytes, so it’s done. I don’t trust Gavin anymore – nor Hearn for that matter.”
XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn
A webpage of 2Mb? Did gavin smoked something? I can't even think of a normal HTML/PHP page that is of 2Mb..... And i agree with what Nick Sza-toshi-bo told, because at the end, is what is going to happen with the increased block size
To answer your first question, you're right the average page is not 2MB, it is actually larger. 2099 KB to be precise.
http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png
Heh, OTOH there are people that actually care to bring bitcoin (news) to the poor african children.
Nevertheless the average web page size still was 2099 KB in May 2015.
Last available measurement report that in November 2015 the average web page size increased to 2219 KB.
(source: http://httparchive.org/interesting.php?a=All&l=Nov%2015%202015)
www.qntra.net -> 35 Kb page
http://smallseotools.com/website-page-size-checker/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
that was not my point, but whatever.
A webpage of 2Mb? Did gavin smoked something? I can't even think of a normal HTML/PHP page that is of 2Mb..... And i agree with what Nick Sza-toshi-bo told, because at the end, is what is going to happen with the increased block size
To answer your first question, you're right the average page is not 2MB, it is actually larger. 2099 KB to be precise.
http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png
Heh, OTOH there are people that actually care to bring bitcoin (news) to the poor african children.
Nevertheless the average web page size still was 2099 KB in May 2015.
Last available measurement report that in November 2015 the average web page size increased to 2219 KB.
(source: http://httparchive.org/interesting.php?a=All&l=Nov%2015%202015)
www.qntra.net -> 35 Kb page
http://smallseotools.com/website-page-size-checker/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
A webpage of 2Mb? Did gavin smoked something? I can't even think of a normal HTML/PHP page that is of 2Mb..... And i agree with what Nick Sza-toshi-bo told, because at the end, is what is going to happen with the increased block size
To answer your first question, you're right the average page is not 2MB, it is actually larger. 2099 KB to be precise.
http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png
Heh, OTOH there are people that actually care to bring bitcoin (news) to the poor african children.
Nevertheless the average web page size still was 2099 KB in May 2015.
Last available measurement report that in November 2015 the average web page size increased to 2219 KB.
(source: http://httparchive.org/interesting.php?a=All&l=Nov%2015%202015)
www.qntra.net -> 35 Kb page
http://smallseotools.com/website-page-size-checker/
Power to GPRS!
A webpage of 2Mb? Did gavin smoked something? I can't even think of a normal HTML/PHP page that is of 2Mb..... And i agree with what Nick Sza-toshi-bo told, because at the end, is what is going to happen with the increased block size
To answer your first question, you're right the average page is not 2MB, it is actually larger. 2099 KB to be precise.
http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png
Heh, OTOH there are people that actually care to bring bitcoin (news) to the poor african children.
Nevertheless the average web page size still was 2099 KB in May 2015.
Last available measurement report that in November 2015 the average web page size increased to 2219 KB.
(source: http://httparchive.org/interesting.php?a=All&l=Nov%2015%202015)
edit: add emph
A webpage of 2Mb? Did gavin smoked something? I can't even think of a normal HTML/PHP page that is of 2Mb..... And i agree with what Nick Sza-toshi-bo told, because at the end, is what is going to happen with the increased block size
To answer your first question, you're right the average page is not 2MB, it is actually larger. 2099 KB to be precise.
http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png
http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png
Heh, OTOH there are people that actually care to bring bitcoin (news) to the poor african children.
Quote
"It is a distinct point of pride that Qntra is ready to take Bitcoin news to the GPRS internet connection of Africa and the rest of the under served world."
Jump to: