Topic: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? - page 25. (Read 79954 times)

Doubling the block size (and propagation time) won't double your orphaning risk in most cases. It all depends on the block time. For example, if you increase the current block size from 1 to 2mb, your risk of orphaning would only be slightly higher as propagation time would remain well below the 10 minutes block time.

Neither the total fees nor the orphaning risk are proportional to block size (and propagation time).

You're welcome.

I'm not sure if I got everything right, so please correct me. Here's my take on the problem (off the top of my head):

- For small-sized blocks (like a few 10kb), connection latency is more important as a limiting factor than bandwidth. So, up to a certain block size, propagation time is sublinear to block size. Or more precisely, propagation time gets asymptotically linear with high block sizes.
- The transactions waiting in the mempool of a miner will usually come with different transaction fees (per byte).
- As a result, building a block with twice as many transactions (ordered by fee per byte, starting from the highest) won't give the miner twice the fees, but considerably less.
- Furthermore, getting more frequent but smaller fee rewards from mining blocks tends to be more profitable as you can reinvest the profits earlier (similar to compound interests). This effect is negligible for big mining farms, but can be important for low-scale miners with only a tiny fraction of the total hash power.
- For all these reasons, miners will have a clear incentive to build blocks as small as possible, or small enough so that bandwidth gets negligible as a limiting factor for propagation time.
- When some of the miners start building small blocks, your own incentive to build small blocks will be enforced due to the higher competition.
- The average block size will at any time converge to a (relatively low) value which gives the miners the highest transaction fees.
- Block size will eventually depend on the network's bandwidth and thus follow Nielsen's Law. However, it will be independent from demand!
- As long as demand exceeds supply, there will be a "healthy" fee market, though this market comes at the price of payment congestion and affects the overall throughput and usability of the network.
- If the demand falls below supply, users could set the fees arbitrarily low as the miners would still include the transactions in their (small) blocks, which results in a Tragedy of the Commons.
- Profitability of mining falls sharply and impairs the network's security due to the decreased hash rate. This also encourages centralization.

EDIT: I completely ommitted that doubling the block size won't double the orphaning risk (as long as the propagation time is significantly smaller than block time). So, my reasoning is not correct.

I saw that math problem within 1 minute. My followup was delayed because I was having a private chat with someone.

The problem I see with @Peter R's thesis is his equation for the miner's revenue is not relativistic. He talks about that equation at the 6:30min point in a video.

Compare his equation with my math explanation, and you see that Peter's conceptualization employs the average orphan rate for everyone when everyone chooses the same propagation time. The average orphan rate reflects the systemic waste of hashrate due to conflicts over which block to build the next block on. But the key point is that this waste is shared by all miners, so it isn't a cost because the difficulty readjusts commensurately, i.e. the overall profit in the system is determined by the difficulty relative to total block rewards. Peter's conceptual mistake is that it is the relative advantages that miners have over each other that determines relative profitability and this is why the cost of block space doesn't go to 0 when debasement rate goes to 0.

You see PoW is an entirely relative ecosystem and if a 51% attacker wants, he can set the profitability as high as the market will bear, because he can orphan all blocks that aren't his. And even a 33% selfish mining attacker can orphan all blocks that are not his more than 33% of the time (which is why selfish mining is a profitable strategy).

So the problem with Peter's conceptualization is it is the relative profitability between miners that matters. He tried to frame his math in terms of some absolute, which is why he math is broken which should have been obvious to him when the cost of disk space went to 0 with 0 debasement (which it doesn't in a correct model that understands that the cost of block space is only relativistic in terms of relative profitability of miners).

So that is why my math conceptualization is the correct one. And that is why there is a Tragedy-of-the-Commons and no fee market without a block size limit.

I have PM'ed @Peter R. He will remember me, @AnonyMint, as we had debates and discussions on these forums as far back as 2013.

I'm emaciated from the 60 days (thus far with another 112 days to go but 109 at half dose) of liver toxic, neurotoxic, ocular toxic antibiotics. Maybe later in 2017. I ran at noon 4 consecutive days this week, but only 6 miles total (that's pitiful). I'm not really feeling up for it yet. I am furiously trying to be more focused on production and less focused on marketing or communication right now. I desperately need production right now. I popped my head out of the sand temporarily to look at the developments with Steem/DPoS/Dan and also the RogerVer/Dash/BU/scalepocalypse/pricing predictions because I need to survive on my remaining 9 BTC until I can get a project launched. Worry is good thing, lighting a "be pragmatic" fire under my butt.

Vitalik seems to have a lock on the large head on stick figure persona (and no matter how stickly I am, my cranial disproportions will never compete).

@alkan, thanks for that. I hadn't bothered to even look at BU, so that is first time I've seen that white paper. I just got back from running an errand so I will read that paper and respond soon.

Peter R. Rizun has another video explanation (I believe he is the very smart @Peter R from our forum?)

Edit: I think I already see the math error in @Peter R's thesis, but wait let me study carefully to the end of the paper. The big hint is his cost of block space goes to 0 when debasement rate (misnomer when called "inflation rate") goes to 0. It is because his math is not properly relativistic (which is surprising given he claims he is a physicist).

There are solution that exists, in the things I posted from e lang, they already offert solution to have trust less decentralized network with crypto and there is no blockchain or pow/pos. They are making à system of decentralized e cash with it.

In theory the solutions exists, but the system with pow/pos is still the simplest, anyone can install and run a node relatively easily and the model of security is simpler in blockchain, but truly trustless decentralized system are already being worked on. And the theory is already there and according to them their code has already been audited and reviewed by independant groups.

How do you refute the proofs provided in the paper "A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a
Block Size Limit"?



See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eaMVWUXW8U

if bitcoin dies, beside we becoming poor and not being able to buy any other alts, it wouldnt matter cause all cryptos will die, there will be no trust for any other crypto if bitcoin dies, all alts will lose any network effect too.

so lets hope that bitcoin survives this otherwise we are indeed screwed.

there is an alt bubble, yes tempting to diversify in dash or eth or zec or.. any of the ones that are rising, but very easy to buy at the top of the pump

none of those alts solve the fundamental problems that bitcoin has so why whould i want to get on any other alt but hold btc?

this guys claims to have the be all end all of cryptos solving every posible problem seen in bitcoin and every other alt, i dont believe it. why should I anyway?

Can you tell us if and how you solved the issue of bribing users/nodes that contribute to the consensus in your model?

Theoretically, I can think of the following solutions to make bribing attacks hard:
a) Make the required bribe amounts very high by increasing the loss risks of the participating users
b) Increase the (absolute) number of users needed for majority control over consensus, so that the only way to bribe them would be to publicly announce the plot.
c) Higher incentives of building the "right" chain by paying increased rewards in case of a higher stale rate or lower overall participation in mining
d) Enforce block forks in case of an attack (e.g. by appying subjective block scoring rules) and let the social consensus select the right fork
e) As the colluding/participating nodes have to refrain from contributing to the right chain (otherwise they cannot build a longer alternative fork), make it so that they cannot actually prove that fact towards to the briber or create a situation where every node could plausible pretend having refrained from contributing to the canonical chain.

Well shit bitcoin is fucking crashing again. What are you going to do about the current situation? at this rate im not going to be able to buy a good chunk of your alt or any alt if I keep losing purchasing value.

I assume you also depend on your BTC holdings to fund stuff of your own so how are you managing this? We are at 950 and descending, I feel like selling but I feel like im going to sell right at the bottom and then be stuck with USDT. Then again, who is to say we don't keep descending into the abyss? Looks like Jihan is decided to go all in: It's either BUcoin or he dies with it. His ego is too big, same goes for Roger. This will not end well, this is clearly a war and things will be solved by aggressive approaches, both parties aren't going to sit down and end up to any agreements.
Im not sure if I should hold it out throughout the storm, be at USDT, or buy ETH or something else while the situation resolves.

Seeing the price crash this hard made me really pissed off. I thought things were solved after the BU bug since I expected everyone would lose faith on the BU team.
Im going to the gym to box a bit, too much adrenalin contained, FUCK!!!1. I would pay to crush Jihan Wu's little nerd skull. I worked so hard the pass months and my portfolio is going to shit as we speak.

Is your coin prone to such hard fork scenarios? what would happen if a big % of people is convinced to fork your project with different consensus rules and try to steal the name and so on?

Open source is critical for scaling the ecosystem.

Incorrect.

IPFS relies on Bitcoin for unalterable hashes of the data, i.e. there must be a blockchain to record the ordering of first claims to the hash of the data. And we all know that Bitcoin is not decentralized and is doomed.

The blockchain design is the key component. IPFS is just one of many protocols that will be built on top of my OpenShare blockchain. You've got to have the decentralized consensus for the blockchain fixed or nothing else is decentralized which relies on it. And no one has published a solution yet. I claim one though unpublished.

The other egregious flaw with IPFS is it provides no economic model for hosting the data. That is what my OpenShare also proposes to solve with the SHARE token and instant unlimited scaling microtransactions. These are hard technical problems that no one has solved decentralized. Lightning Networks for Bitcoin is not a design that maintains decentralization (and it has other problems I've enumerated else where).

---

You'll need a blockchain for any sort of ordered application such as SE, otherwise you will have only chaos.

If you are interested in building apps for the OpenShare project which I am spearheading (but still in a very nascent stage of pre-development) or otherwise being involved in the open source project, there will be Slack of some sort once I ("we") reach that stage. I just not quite prepared yet to unleash the open source avalanche, because I am head-in-the-sand on preliminary work (and 3 more doses away from cutting my daily doses of antibiotics in half, hoping I'll have even more energy soon).

There are many technical issues, so I'd rather not even respond to your Merkle tree point right now. Let's discuss in an appropriate technical setting.

Btw, that links to the Meta discussion area of StackExchange, but it appears they going to censor what I wrote there also:

---

And so that comment appeared to draw them into a little bit of ego chest thumping. Let the ass kicking begin by launching the actual decentralized paradigm.



As I told you all, I am not doing this just for money! It is a competition about ideas and what will make a better Internet.

We need to destroy and replace StackExchange by putting the functionality on a decentralized blockchain. This will be one of the apps I'd like to see created for the OpenShare blockchain technology I am now developing.


StackExchange deleted my answer above and they added the following protection to the answer:


That foolish Hitler moderator also deleted my comments. I had put the following comment below my answer after someone had downvoted it:


I also had comments on each of the other answers, such as on the most popular answer I wrote that putting a large amount of money in a bank account long-term was one of the stupidest things one could do because the government will be coming after all assets and bail-ins are very likely especially in the EU. On the answer about maxing out retirement plan contributions, I had commented saying that the governments would nationalize the retirement plan assets and that one should be taking early withdrawals asap. On the answer about how investment advisers follow a conservative portfolio to minimize downside risk, I said the coming crash of 35+ year sovereign bond bubble would cause one to lose all their assets by being conservative.

^^^ what you have is called "wageslave depression", it's very common and I have it too, including the "12 o'clock optimism" hoping for a better day.
It's cured by getting rich so you can be free, and as we all know, getting rich is next to impossible which reinforces the bad feeling.

I did PTH analysis back then, everything was fine. Never got CT scans, aren't those risky since they emit radiation? and where are you supposed to look? the entire body CT scanned doesnt sound nice. I'll get an ecography of the thyroid, that should be enough to discard anything in there. In any case I don't even want to hear the c word, fuck that shit. Im only 27, and right now im feeling great, once again, after my 1 hour walk + shower then dinner, it's always about the same hour when I feel good. Your problem was/is definitely more serious. I wonder how much of my symptoms are due me being trapped into my situation of being poor, having to work a shitty job with no prospects of anything else since I don't have any education since im shit at studying and so on. Environment can change physiology im sure about that. Some people deal with a life like this just fine but for me it's too brutal and just to think im going to be trapped in the rat race forever (since pensions are collapsing and they will just keep delaying retirement age).
If I was gifted in programing I would definitely have a more realistic shoot at getting wealthy and since I feel good at night I would be working and staying focused, but since I can't that's out of the question. The only edge I got over the average person is that im aware of the importance of decentralized technologies and how they will play a major key in the future, and I got a modest 2 figure BTC portfolio which I would like to invest in other cryptocurrencies since I doubt I'll ever make a million just sitting on those, the problem is... I still don't see a single alt worth gambling my BTC with.

I've been reading about zcash, I believe fungible currencies at a protocol level will be important. Bitcoin can never achieve 100% fungibility at a protocol level as far as I know. Problems: I don't see how it can scale, devs don't have any clear ideas too it seems. It would remain a niche currency, even slower than bitcoin, very demanding on the hardware (when you send a transaction the computer freezes for a while) and the paranoid in me doesn't trust the fancy ceremony to destroy the masterkey that the devs did. Also it's anybody's guess when this thing will bottom and the all time graph is going to look like dogshit pretty much for life due the initial insane prices, this has a psychological impact on market participants I claim.

Byteball: still learning but doing some interesting things and it's looking pretty healthy, maybe good entry point now at $50

ETH: can't trust this from a technical POV due events such as Vitalik crying on reddit about how he wanted to freeze all exchange during the DAO debacle. Who is to say this will not happen again? but what makes it attractive from an investor perspective is it's backed by all those big corporations, I think this is the "currency of the banks/system", there's probably whales that will not let it fail.

MAID: still waiting for David Irvine to deliver something solid

DASH: Roger Ver's latest pump and dump...

so yeah, I don't see anything clear so I would rather hold BTC. And with that being said, im looking forward to become a millionaire by investing in your coin in the near future.

In many ways the power centre of the world in returning to the East. But you are wrong about Hollywood and Netflix...seems to me Netflix is becoming the new Hollywood almost half the movies and TV i have watched in the last year have been netflix productions, they doing hollywood studios work but cheaper it seems. China is buying Hollywood, maybe too late. Still amazes me anyone actually pays for movies anymore.

Culture wise the west is going to have to accept the world is now flat.


I get you are thinking about social networking, kind of Kaokao talk framework where your coin can make payments? That's a big undertaking don't you think, I mean everyone wan't to be the next snapchat, Weechat. Its almost like catching lightening in a bottle to purposely try to make one of these?

Goodbye Netflix and here comes the Malaysian iFlix.

The ladies prefer the iFlix because it has the Korean dramas and Netflix doesn't. Netflix costs $7 monthly here in the Philippines and iFlix is half that price.

The West is dying. Even Hollywood is being replaced.