Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 140. (Read 2032248 times)
hmm, i wonder if those 2 SPV blocks could cause a fork?
growth? what fricking growth?
copper:
Freeport:
BHP:
oil:
Chevron:
copper:
Freeport:
BHP:
oil:
Chevron:
if you're a goldbug, you have GOT to be concerned:
oh Lordy. trusty SLW off the cliff!:
I was chatting with Luke-jr last night on Reddit, Eligius mines lots of 0tx blocks he said they don't SPV mine so it's just Kano is saying, they are just slow to transition.
Why would a pool ever mine an empty block if they weren't SPV mining (at least for a short amount of time while they validate the previous block and before they re-assign the hashers a new non-empty block to work on)?
Personally, I find it difficult to communicate with Luke-Jr because he will often argue based on a technicality due to his own personal definitions of some word, rather than talking about the thing everyone is actually trying to talk about. It looks like he does this in other sub-reddits too, for example, he claims that the Pope is not the Pope.
a couple others do exactly that too.
I was chatting with Luke-jr last night on Reddit, Eligius mines lots of 0tx blocks he said they don't SPV mine so it's just Kano is saying, they are just slow to transition.
Why would a pool ever mine an empty block if they weren't SPV mining (at least for a short amount of time while they validate the previous block and before they re-assign the hashers a new non-empty block to work on)?
Personally, I find it difficult to communicate with Luke-Jr because he will often argue based on a technicality due to his own personal definitions of some word, rather than talking about the thing everyone is actually trying to talk about. It looks like he does this in other sub-reddits too, for example, he claims that the Pope is not the Pope.
I had to go back 500 days to get enough data for Eligius, but it looks like they have historically produced more empty blocks when the previous block was large, similar to F2Pool.
ok, i'm not getting the bolded part. this graph shows 37 MB worth of unconf tx's, no?:
No clue, no node I have access to is seeing that much-- they may have turned off the minfee rules (not unreasonable for a metrics thing)...Even given that, again, 37MB doesn't explain your swap.
yeah, i had noticed that. strange...
Maybe a bloated swap file is a surprise Easter egg 'feature' of XT nodes?
As I said weeks ago, good luck getting BTC core devs to help fix it when your Gavinsista troll fork goes haywire.
LOL (as usual.) I wonder if anyone has even build XT for themselves rather than simply running someone else's build.
Cypherdoc noticed significant swap usage but went on to state that his machine was woefully 'underutilized' anyway. Typical.
It's bizarre to me that RAM use is so low while swap is significant, but I'm not familiar with whatever tool it is that produces the GUI he screencap'd. I wonder if he'd just triggered some sort of preen operation or killed an auxiliary analysis process or something to try to produce numbers which he could pass off to the (even more) ignorant that his machine was running fine.
there's a real battle going on at Bitstamp. aren't they close to Greece? i wouldn't be too pessimistic.
Coz someone linked a post earlier in this thread ...
For pools that normally mine full blocks as well as uncommon empty blocks, the empty blocks are the work the pool sends every block change.
They are of the opinion that because Luke-jr's eloipool is shit slow at handling block changes, they should send out empty work first and then full work soon after it.
Obviously the empty work is mined for a small % of the average block change length so it would also mean that the miners finding block with the empty work would be a smaller % of all the blocks found by the pools that do this.
As I've explained in the empty blocks thread, when comparing eligius with it's empty block change work and my pool https://kano.is/ with our full block change work, my pool beats eligius on average sending out block change work.
During normal times when the relay is working and there isn't a massive spam test running, my pools beats eloipool >90% of the time with block changes.
For pools that normally mine full blocks as well as uncommon empty blocks, the empty blocks are the work the pool sends every block change.
They are of the opinion that because Luke-jr's eloipool is shit slow at handling block changes, they should send out empty work first and then full work soon after it.
Obviously the empty work is mined for a small % of the average block change length so it would also mean that the miners finding block with the empty work would be a smaller % of all the blocks found by the pools that do this.
As I've explained in the empty blocks thread, when comparing eligius with it's empty block change work and my pool https://kano.is/ with our full block change work, my pool beats eligius on average sending out block change work.
During normal times when the relay is working and there isn't a massive spam test running, my pools beats eloipool >90% of the time with block changes.
hey, the great kano. thx for the explanation.
why haven't i seen Eligius mining 0 tx blocks, or have i just missed it? so this SPV mining is not confined to China? i thought this was primarily an inferior connectivity issue behind the GFC? why haven't we seen it before with Eligius if this is his norm?
I was chatting with Luke-jr last night on Reddit, Eligius mines lots of 0tx blocks he said they don't SPV mine so it's just Kano is saying, they are just slow to transition.
Quote from: Luke-Jr
Eligius does not do any SPV mining. Empty blocks are generated only after the previous block has been fully verified, but before the next block's transaction set has been calculated.
back with a vengeance:
...
why haven't i seen Eligius mining 0 tx blocks, or have i just missed it? so this SPV mining is not confined to China? i thought this was primarily an inferior connectivity issue behind the GFC? why haven't we seen it before with Eligius if this is his norm?
They do >2% since they started according towhy haven't i seen Eligius mining 0 tx blocks, or have i just missed it? so this SPV mining is not confined to China? i thought this was primarily an inferior connectivity issue behind the GFC? why haven't we seen it before with Eligius if this is his norm?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11805900
I not sure how much verification eloipool does but it does enough to avoid the v2/v3 fork that happened so it's not completely without verification.
wouldn't it be enough to just ask Luke how much verification he does?
A good example of this in the "Empty Block" discussion is how people were saying they aren't confirming transactions.
His answer was that they are confirming transactions ... previous transactions.
So the statement needed to be "they aren't confirming new transactions" which of course is what was meant, but he decided to avoid the issue with a technicality
hey, since everybody and their mother now knows i'm an eye doc, how's your diabetic retinopathy? i was dying to ask you that 3 yr ago back in my cgminer days when you first revealed that. but that was before HF.
that's right up my alley you know. ...
why haven't i seen Eligius mining 0 tx blocks, or have i just missed it? so this SPV mining is not confined to China? i thought this was primarily an inferior connectivity issue behind the GFC? why haven't we seen it before with Eligius if this is his norm?
They do >2% since they started according towhy haven't i seen Eligius mining 0 tx blocks, or have i just missed it? so this SPV mining is not confined to China? i thought this was primarily an inferior connectivity issue behind the GFC? why haven't we seen it before with Eligius if this is his norm?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11805900
I not sure how much verification eloipool does but it does enough to avoid the v2/v3 fork that happened so it's not completely without verification.
wouldn't it be enough to just ask Luke how much verification he does?
A good example of this in the "Empty Block" discussion is how people were saying they aren't confirming transactions.
His answer was that they are confirming transactions ... previous transactions.
So the statement needed to be "they aren't confirming new transactions" which of course is what was meant, but he decided to avoid the issue with a technicality
does BCT allow stickies for this post?
...
why haven't i seen Eligius mining 0 tx blocks, or have i just missed it? so this SPV mining is not confined to China? i thought this was primarily an inferior connectivity issue behind the GFC? why haven't we seen it before with Eligius if this is his norm?
They do >2% since they started according towhy haven't i seen Eligius mining 0 tx blocks, or have i just missed it? so this SPV mining is not confined to China? i thought this was primarily an inferior connectivity issue behind the GFC? why haven't we seen it before with Eligius if this is his norm?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11805900
I not sure how much verification eloipool does but it does enough to avoid the v2/v3 fork that happened so it's not completely without verification.
wouldn't it be enough to just ask Luke how much verification he does?
A good example of this in the "Empty Block" discussion is how people were saying they aren't confirming transactions.
His answer was that they are confirming transactions ... previous transactions.
So the statement needed to be "they aren't confirming new transactions" which of course is what was meant, but he decided to avoid the issue with a technicality
You think that because you are blinded.
My well informed, prescient suggestion is wholeheartedly support the pegged side chain direction; otherwise prepare to exchange your BTC for another monetary unit or accept centralization.
My well informed, prescient suggestion is wholeheartedly support the pegged side chain direction; otherwise prepare to exchange your BTC for another monetary unit or accept centralization.
I've got to put this type of comment in the "give-up" file.
It would have merit if the following weren't the case:
x=Software & design optimizations. e.g. BitcoinCore is orders of magnitude faster in many respects than in 2009.
y=Moore's "Law" and Nielsen's "Law" and other relevant descriptions of the rate of improvement in computing technology
x*y > rate-of-growth-of-the-world-economy (here's a visual)
It is only a matter of time before Bitcoin can handle a large proportion of world transactions. The key thing is not to f*ck up the process in the meantime.
others think we should let destiny take the wheel.
I think this is the only viable option.
yes solex. i think this is the only way.
Quote from: domob
So you think that it would be best to simply put all that spam on the blockchain, and have everyone that ever wants to validate it go through that spam for eternity? Wouldn't it be better to simply let the network and miners adjust their fee policies instead as they see fit and make sure that the spam is not even mined unless they pay "enough" fees?
Who decides what enough fees is?
I think this whole blocksize debate comes down to ideology. It's not a technical decision. Some people think we need to keep 1 degree of freedom of control to shape Bitcoin "correctly," while others think we should let destiny take the wheel.
it certainly does.
you once described Bitcoin in a helpful way; it represents Hope.
i also happen to think it represents Sound Money. Bitcoin has become a public good which cannot be seen to be influenced by any group with a financial interest. it's the People's Money after all.
...
why haven't i seen Eligius mining 0 tx blocks, or have i just missed it? so this SPV mining is not confined to China? i thought this was primarily an inferior connectivity issue behind the GFC? why haven't we seen it before with Eligius if this is his norm?
They do >2% since they started according towhy haven't i seen Eligius mining 0 tx blocks, or have i just missed it? so this SPV mining is not confined to China? i thought this was primarily an inferior connectivity issue behind the GFC? why haven't we seen it before with Eligius if this is his norm?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11805900
I not sure how much verification eloipool does but it does enough to avoid the v2/v3 fork that happened so it's not completely without verification.
wouldn't it be enough to just ask Luke how much verification he does?
...
why haven't i seen Eligius mining 0 tx blocks, or have i just missed it? so this SPV mining is not confined to China? i thought this was primarily an inferior connectivity issue behind the GFC? why haven't we seen it before with Eligius if this is his norm?
They do >2% since they started according towhy haven't i seen Eligius mining 0 tx blocks, or have i just missed it? so this SPV mining is not confined to China? i thought this was primarily an inferior connectivity issue behind the GFC? why haven't we seen it before with Eligius if this is his norm?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11805900
I not sure how much verification eloipool does but it does enough to avoid the v2/v3 fork that happened so it's not completely without verification.
look at what we're facing with this latest spam attack. note the little blip back on May 29 which was Stress Test 1. Stress Test 2 is the blip in the middle with the huge spikes of the last couple of days on the far right. this looks to me to be the work of a non-economic spammer looking to disrupt new and existing users via stuck tx's which coincides with the Grexit and trouble in general in the traditional fiat markets. they want to discourage adoption of Bitcoin. the fastest way to eliminate this attack on users is to lift the block size limit to alleviate the congestion and increase the expense of the spam:
So you think that it would be best to simply put all that spam on the blockchain, and have everyone that ever wants to validate it go through that spam for eternity? Wouldn't it be better to simply let the network and miners adjust their fee policies instead as they see fit and make sure that the spam is not even mined unless they pay "enough" fees?
the problem with the latter approach is that you are going to kill new user growth as well as adversely affect existing user experience. as solex said earlier, even $0.14 is too much.
it would be better to eliminate the block cap and eliminate the spammers ability to effect the users at_all. this would allow new user growth to square the value of the network according to Metcalfe's Law.
furthermore, the resulting user growth should inc tx's and inc merchants ALL of which should jack the price way high. then, we all might be able to afford a full node.
by lifting the cap, the spammers no longer have a well defined block cap target and attacks would become dramatically more expensive. also, gmax taught us that with minfee fine tuning on the part of the miners, they have the ability to defend themselves and the network from bloated 0confs sets which can help control memory overloads. even full nodes have the capacity to do this if they want.
furthermore, it gets core dev out of the business of picking winners and losers; a position they should want to give up for the good of Bitcoin and to minimize the pressure and spotlight. let the miners and users work out the fee market.
Coz someone linked a post earlier in this thread ...
For pools that normally mine full blocks as well as uncommon empty blocks, the empty blocks are the work the pool sends every block change.
They are of the opinion that because Luke-jr's eloipool is shit slow at handling block changes, they should send out empty work first and then full work soon after it.
Obviously the empty work is mined for a small % of the average block change length so it would also mean that the miners finding block with the empty work would be a smaller % of all the blocks found by the pools that do this.
As I've explained in the empty blocks thread, when comparing eligius with it's empty block change work and my pool https://kano.is/ with our full block change work, my pool beats eligius on average sending out block change work.
During normal times when the relay is working and there isn't a massive spam test running, my pools beats eloipool >90% of the time with block changes.
For pools that normally mine full blocks as well as uncommon empty blocks, the empty blocks are the work the pool sends every block change.
They are of the opinion that because Luke-jr's eloipool is shit slow at handling block changes, they should send out empty work first and then full work soon after it.
Obviously the empty work is mined for a small % of the average block change length so it would also mean that the miners finding block with the empty work would be a smaller % of all the blocks found by the pools that do this.
As I've explained in the empty blocks thread, when comparing eligius with it's empty block change work and my pool https://kano.is/ with our full block change work, my pool beats eligius on average sending out block change work.
During normal times when the relay is working and there isn't a massive spam test running, my pools beats eloipool >90% of the time with block changes.
hey, the great kano. thx for the explanation.
why haven't i seen Eligius mining 0 tx blocks, or have i just missed it? so this SPV mining is not confined to China? i thought this was primarily an inferior connectivity issue behind the GFC? why haven't we seen it before with Eligius if this is his norm?
Jump to: