Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 145. (Read 2032248 times)

The more gmax patiently ELI5s basic Bitcoin 101 to Frap.doc, the more Frap.doc looks like a five year old.   

Doubtful.  Dr. Lowelife spends every waking moment on bitcointalk and reddit so it seems.  A malpractice suite which stuck is one hypothesis which springs to mind, and could explain an early and intense interest in asset protection.  A clinic full of subordinate eye frying minions would be another.  Neither these or countless others are really interesting enough for me to spend much time on, but perhaps others who are more into such things would ferret out this mystery.

Many of my co-workers kept a stock market ticker within easy visual reach and referred to them about 60 times per hour as they performed the tasks of the day.  That's fine for code monkeys, but for someone doing eye surgery with laser beams it's an entirely different ball of wax.

the spammers smell blood.  and the core devs do nothing:

Basic misunderstanding there--- Being a larger miner has two effects: One is throughput not latency related: Being larger creates a greater revenue stream which can be used to pay for better resources.   E.g. if the income levels support one i7 CPU per 10TH/s of mining, then a 10x larger pool can afford 10x more cpus to keep up with the overall throughput of the network, which they share perfectly (relay network is about latency not so much about throughput-- its at best a 2x throughput improvement, assuming you were bandwidth limited);    the other is latency related,   imagine you have a small amount of hashpower-- say 0.01% of the network-- and are a lightsecond away on the moon.  Any time there is a block race, you will lose because all of the earth is mining against you because they all heard your block 1+ seconds later.  Now imagine you have 60% of the hashpower on the moon, in that case you will usually win because even though the earth will be mining another chain, you have more hashpower. For latency, the size of miner matters a lot, and the size of the block only matters  to the extent that it adds delay.

When it comes to orphaning races miner sizes matters, in some amount that is related to the product of the size-of-the-miner and time it takes to validate a block.

Ouch,  the latency related issues issues are made much worse by smaller interblock gaps once they are 'too small' relative to the network radius. When a another block shows up on the network faster than you can communicate about your last you get orphaned.  And for throughput related bottlenecks it doesn't matter if X transactions come in the form of a 10mb block or 10 1mb blocks.

In other words, cypherdoc is clueless about how Bitcoin works.

Moar like the LeBron of Lasik, am I right?   

heh, this guys is not so out.
I predict he will come back very shortly, once it will be crystal clear that the EUsters wont be able to find any deal..
Could be president of the new Greek's central bank! ^^

i thought gmax et al said "large" blocks were going to collapse my nodes?

meanwhile, my full nodes sit here totally unstressed and under-utilized.  

 lots of short hair in Greece in the next few weeks.  


Haircuts all round https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2015/html/pr150706.en.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-06/it-begins-ecb-adjusts-greek-ela-haircuts-full-depositor-bail-sensitivity-analysis

No where near as serious as those who consider cypherdoc to be some sort of daddy figure.  There are probably vastly fewer who consider you to be 'the LeBron James of Bitcoin' than you and your attorney might imagine.  Probably there are a handful though which is pretty sad.

The LeBron assertion is hilariously funny though one way or another.  Whether it was you or your attorney who came up with that one, kudos for the comic relief.

oh my, ugly as hell:

stop equating Adam to Satoshi.  no contest.

you have a serious Daddy problem.

and you thought Bitcoin was volatile?  pfft.  peanuts to the stock mkt; huge opening gap down from last nights futures dump, all the way back up to retest the flat, followed by another huge dump down.  it will only get worse:

wow, Varoufakis out.  one less Bitcoin Bear; altho we still have lots of them roaming around here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/business/international/yanis-varoufakis-abruptly-resigns-as-greek-finance-minister.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Exactly this.  Intentionally or not, 1MB turned out to be a serendipitous choice.  Now it has ossified and is ready for the next layers to be built on its solid foundation.

I favor Adam Backamoto's extension block proposal.

The 1MB blocksize limit reminds me of the old 640k limit in DOS.

Rather than destroy Window's interoperability with the rich/valuable legacy of 8088 based software, that limit was extended via various hacks sublime software engineering.

Before resorting to the nuclear option of a contentious hard fork, we should attempt to achieve the desired result with soft forks.

Then why don't we decrease the blocktime from 10 min down to let's say 2 min. This way we can also have more transactions/second without touching the blocksize.

I've alternately nearly given up on Bitcoin multiple times over the last few years, and these periods coincide with the attacks on reasonable blocksize.

The 'trust everyone' idea of sidechains has given me new hope for Bitcoin in light of the fact that the lite and supportable nature necessary for a core solution has not yet been killed.  This makes for a situation where total shit-heads can own the 'reserve currency' and the world still have a scenario where the benefits can be used unencumbered by the masses.  Yes, the shit-heads may become even more rich, but they would and do do so anyway.   And yes, these large fish probably could game things, but the transparency inherent in Bitcoin allows end-users to migrate to solutions which take measures to avoid the manipulation.

since small pools can also connect to the relay network, and i assume they do, there is no reason to believe that large miners can attack small miners with large blocks.  in fact, we've seen the top 5 chinese miners deprecated due to the GFC making it clear they CANNOT perform this attack despite what several guys have FUD'd.

No.


how can that be?  mining pools all use a full node around which they coordinate their mining.  all full nodes are relatively in sync with their mempools which is the whole concept on which IBLT depends on. 

750 kB blocks are clearly being mined by miners who haven't changed the default.  in fact, i think the top 2 Chinese miners only recently changed their default to 1MB.

pt being, it's statistically unlikely that full blocks today represent the magical level of "large" blocks that Satoshi set 6 yrs ago.  the problems we are having with the forks are a result of the defensive tactics being taken from those full blocks.

have the Chinese miners given you a technical reason why they're SPV'ing?

Because it greatly reduces the time it takes to transmit blocks but does not completely eliminate it-- nothing can (due to the speed of light).  In particular, something I didn't know until my conversation with them on July 4th:  the nearest relay network hub to F2Pool is still 200ms away due to insane routing that sends traffic between some networks in china and singapore via the US (thanks NSA?).

No.

I don't know what you're talking about there.  AFAICT F2Pool would also consider e.g. 750k "large".

Do you mean why was 1MB selected as the particular hard limit in the protocol?   ::shrugs:: It happens to be the the highest value you could sync over a modem and stay up with the network (though not for mining, due to latency), though that could be by chance.

that's pretty sad but totally expected from you.

if you'll recall, it wasn't actually that long ago when i was of similar thought; doing nothing to the protocol.  ever.

but reading some of JR's stuff and thinking about the concept of digital gold, i think Bitcoin has to be reliably and cheaply accessible by everyone worldwide for maximum decentralization and value.  whether that's achievable via future tech improvements remains to be seen but we need to try.  otherwise, gold will continue to be used and valued by an outside large contingent that won't bother with Bitcoin and will even compete to a very large degree.