Topic: Gavin coding SPV mining into Classic - page 2. (Read 2668 times)

maybe worth you telling that to Lauda, to debunk his validation time doomsday scenario of larger blocks

I don't think this is good at all... I guess we didn't learn much from the last time we forked after a little chaos in SPV mining and BIP66 activation.

Validating a block takes around 300ms on my pool.
My pool has the 2nd highest average block size.

The highest is solo.ckpool.org that also has this tiny time to validate blocks.

So anyone using some argument about why empty blocks are required clearly has no idea about the facts and about coding.

The pro empty block argument is FUD to cover crappy pool software and low quality coders.

This is precisely why we need *viable* altcoins. They would bring balance of power.

Users like us would use the coins that are in our best interest and miners would mine those coins because they would be the only coins with a block reward worth mining.

most are not backing gavin. most see the bigger picture that there cannot be only one implementation and that all implementations should have the same basic rules and have enough buffer to allow for growth and be able to cope with change. no matter who its by or for what purpose without having to cry to a dev leader for more buffer space

its never been about a power grab of gavin vs back. nor should it.
bitcoins vision is no one is in power. yet the doomsday scenarios of trying to say any coder thats not on blockstream payroll is bad.. is ultimately on the power play that only blockstream should rule.

my personal opinion is that 2mb+segwit should be the goal. and pools not leave themselves vulnerable by not hashing solutions while they validate a possible competitor solution. because not hashing can leave them at risk of receiving an endless download of fake blocks to cause pools to never mine a block due to endlessly validating fake blocks

Jeez how much longer until Classic is finally confined to the garbage bin? How & why are some of the community still pushing this crap & backing Gavin?

I left it out because Classic hasn't increased the blocksize limit to 2 MB. If they had, it would have forked already.

So yes, it is dishonest to say "it starts with" when that isn't true. It actually "starts with" other "features" (like hard-coded SPV mining) that have absolutely nothing to do with increasing the block size.

More importantly, there is really no question that Classic has been marketed by everyone involved as increasing the block size -- there has been virtually no discussion of anything else at all. Just as Bitcoin XT was. Do you recall how XT similarly had "features" coded into it that the community did not support?


Um, source?

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012492.html

He also clarified the very same day regarding the link you posted:


So either you need to "read more" or you're just being dishonest here.

On that note, Paul Sztorc has some enlightening thoughts on why having such code ready is very important:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012501.html

An emergency hard fork (as in 2013) is just that. There is no plan to activate this rule at halving, and Luke is not suggesting that. So stop spreading misinformation, please. And that fail of a quip you just made doesn't change the fact that your own thread shows that all of your assumptions about why the proposal is bad, were wrong.

Have a nice day

lol read more. he wants the code available in april. to be activated at the turn of the block 420,000 (when the reward halves) so that miners do not lose out instantly.

have a nice day

That doesn't support anything you said.


Are you not aware of the Hardfork Wishlist? It's been around since at least January 2012. The premise is that if bitcoin ever needs to hard fork, these are desired improvements that can only be implemented with a hard fork and therefore should be included. Luke's proposal has been on the Wishlist since at least January 2012. It's always been considered a bug to be fixed when possible. And he speaks of including it in a future proposed hard fork -- not a hard fork for the sake of implementing that bug fix alone --  as would be expected. The concept isn't controversial in the slightest (assuming sufficient testing). But feel free to explain how it is.

Also, you misunderstood regarding 3 months. He said it could be rolled into anything proposed around that time, because the code should be ready by then. He says nothing about the time period between consensus on rule activation and fork in regards to this proposal, though he is known to be conservative in that regard.

Your assumptions about Luke's proposal were also shown to be false: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1387549.0;all

Hmm... why would the chosen quote begin mid-sentence.  You conveniently cut the "It starts with" from that sentence.  Could it be that the entire paragraph goes a bit differently?


Gee. It sounds to me like they're doing exactly what they said they were going to do.

Actually there is no 2mb anymore: If the 2mb is accepted then you automatically go for a ...dynamic blocksize. The 2mb is just to lure in the trojan horse of dynamic blocksizes.

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

Phase 3 (Q3-Q4)

Make the block size limit dynamic

Note: This phase will only happen when miners & companies confirm Phase 2 successfully addressed their blocksize concerns.

blockstream just as shady.
did you know that a segwit+confidential payment codes while sticking to the 1mb maxblocksize limit actually has a real data value of 2.85mb thanks to the twisting of data. and allows for only a potential 3800 transactions.
whilst a simple 2mb maxblocksize allows a potential 4000tx for 2mb.

oh and here is a link to luke Jr wanting to throw in a difficulty twisting hard for with only a 3 month grace period (#GracePeriodHypocracy)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012489.html

enjoy.
it seems instead of thinking of a community effort where blockstream adds in the 2mb buffer to protect the community against possible consensus. you believe that blindly following them that delaying any release of code is good. that is not consensus, that is causing contention.

basically by not supplying the code they are the cause of the contention that they scream would be the result of no consensus.. yet if they release the code then everyone can have it and then there is no contention.

stop blindly following blockstream. put on your unbiased hat and think about the community as a whole not your favouritism towards one corporation.

there is no 2mb classic vs segwit blockstream debate.
there is only "when will 2mb+segwit be active" debate. (both features working together)

Don't confuse things: I am faithful to the protocol's consensus mechanism, NOT "a team." Core happens to be the only "team" that respects consensus in this debate.

Regarding this alleged hard fork, link to the BIP? I'm fairly sure you're mischaracterizing, as usual.

No comments on the fact that Classic is selling itself as "a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB"....when things like SPV mining are being coded into the software? Seems pretty shady.

luke is proposing a hard fork.. to mess with the difficulty purely so his eligius pool can survive a few more weeks after the reward halving..
it might be worth to investigate blockstream just as much as any other bitcoin development group.

by the way there are 12 groups.. not two. so feel free to expand your mind, and to be less blindly faithful to one team

Luke and Sipa are not releasing a contentious hard fork. Gavin is.

And Classic is presenting that hard fork as "a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB." Is that really the case?

See https://bitcoinclassic.com/

Says it right on the front page. Further, Luke and Sipa can't just slip anything into Core anyway. Not at all. Core has a drawn-out code review process that prevents anything like that. Classic has only a few developers and no peer review. Big difference.

what else is luke Jr planning on slipping into core..
what else is Sipa planning on slipping into core..

its a bit of tit-for-tat

I agree with you, I don't blame Gavin, I see he realized how SPV mining actually is not that terrible for the network as evident from the start.

Hmm. Not sure about that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4apl97/gavins_head_first_mining_thoughts/d13nv7p

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4apl97/gavins_head_first_mining_thoughts/d12op9j

Now, if miners stop using that code --- and nothing in the node software can force them to do that AFAIK --- what kind of trade-off are we making? What are the risks?

Theoretically this would make attacks by a malicious pool more likely, to make attacks based on SPV-mining vulnerability less likely. That trade-off is only necessary because SPV-mining would be hard-coded into the software that all miners run, rather than a bad practice used by some miners --- and making the practice ubiquitous simply exacerbates the dangers that SPV-mining already poses. In other words, Gavin is hard-coding changes that improve orphan risk for miners at the direct cost of user security.

Is that really the best choice? And if so, let's get some more numbers and risk simulations rather than the usual on bitcointalk/reddit, which is to take Gavin's word that every change is both warranted and safe.

Why, I remember something like a year ago, Gavin made it seem like the world would end if we didn't increase the block size immediately. That simple fact should make everyone weary of his judgment and expertise, particularly when hard-coding bad miner practices into the protocol.

Side note: Wasn't Classic being passed off as nothing but a bump to 2MB, because of the controversial changes that were coded into XT? What else is Gavin planning on slipping in?

A couple thoughts on that, since it sounds like you are possibly being sarcastic.


That's not what the issue is, although I do think that Classic users find the practice upsetting when they realize it's happening.

you do realise that making "empty blocks" is not about making the average 10 minute block empty.
its about giving somthing to ASICS to work on during the minute or 2 that the pool server is validating a competitors previous block solution. and then when validated, the pool server sends the next cluster of unconfirmed transaction hash to the asics to fill the empty block with data.

its just by pure luck that some of the blocks are solved in a couple minutes and it has become visible.
which if blocks were solved in more then 2 minutes no one would know the difference..

the only issue is that sometimes the asics get lucky and have a solution in under 2 minutes before they get a chance to handle real data. which again is just luck. so chill out

atleast its better then making all the pools wait 2 minutes before doing anything, which would bring the average solution to more than 10 minutes and causing the difficulty to drop.

which if a pool server has to validate segwit+payment codes means pools are taking even longer to validate, causing again blocks to take longer until there is a viable solution. which again reduces the difficulty.

now imagine this:

if we had all pools waiting 4-8 minutes before actually hashing. with a lower difficulty. it only takes 1 pool with less hashpower to do an empty block to get a quick solution because they have a 4-8 minute headstart against the competitors.. which is another vector of the 51% attack theorum..

also add to the mix that a malicious pool sends out false blocks to waste competitors time making then validate a block for 2 minutes because they know by sending out false blocks delays the ethical competitors by 1-2 minutes per false block, ths a malicious pool can endlessly keep doing it for hours... sending  false blocks every 30 seconds so that competitors never even get to hash anything..  causing ethical miners to waste many many minutes validating and ultimately rejecting the false flag blocks, giving the malicious pool more of a head start.

its better that all pools follow the same rules where no one has an advantage by not leaving themselves open to abuse using delays... rather than hoping everyone delays their own efforts leaving a risk for abuse..on the pure hope and blind faith that no one malicious would try.

also remember.. hashing an empty block does NOT mean it will get solved in 1-2 minutes.. its just that sometimes they get lucky before they had a chance to fill blocks

id rather have 20 pools that occassionally got lucky then 20 pools that get delayed by 2minutes-2 hours due to a malicious attack vulnerability. and have only 1 pool solving blocks with malicious intent