Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 161. (Read 2032248 times)

Yes, excellent point.  Because there is not much AFAIK.  Really, the power is in the hands of the miners (mining pool operators), which is already ironically very centralized relative to nodes.  Off the top of my head, fewer nodes would make it easier mount a Sybil attack to isolate a node or SPV client and then feed it incorrect data.

If you are the engineer you claim to be you know damn well how easy it would be to hide Bitcoin txns from a DPI DSP engine inside a HTTP image request, an audio or video stream, or of course via an encrypted connection.

Please don't post arguments that you know are illogical but you think will convince others.  It does not further the discourse.

One of the things that's missing from the block size debate is a usable threat model that would allow us to make objective and rational risk assessments of the various threats loosely defined as "centralization".

Before we know how worried we should be about larger blocks (potentially) reducing the number of nodes, we need to know exactly how an attacker benefits from this situation and what kinds of mitigating factors and/or countermeasures are applicable to each attack.

I haven't heard any kind of analysis along those lines yet.

Handling larger blocks is fundamentally different than handling full blocks (which you dramatized as "a massive flood attack").

I was going to comment about that, but I decided to see who wouldn't figure it out for themselves.

What is the distinction between the two? There is one.

It's not zero fee if you are paying.

The Socialist is the one who tells us we can have everything we want for free. How has that worked out for Western civilization with socialism peaking every where with the sovereign debt collapses imminent with $200+ trillion of global debt.


And you want an unlimited block size  

Now let's say I like to attack the network and I pay someone with a lot of hashrate to flood the network with blocks of unlimited size with 0 fee txns.

It is sorely obvious that you have inadequate skills in computer science and game theory.

some of the spam going on now is trying to use 0 fee, which is filtered by just about all miners.

It is, only if and when another design that accomplishes decentralized consensus without that requirement is published and peer reviewed.

That is my point too.

I don't really agree because spam is so much in the eye of the beholder. The only objective definition of spam is transactions paying a low fee and that can (and will) be filtered.

Miners can't filter spam without also filtering valid transactions, because they are indistinguishable.

Users will not get turned away, because where there is a demand, innovators will spring to life to supply it—a.k.a. a free market—your jealously of innovators notwithstanding.

I remember one interview with an IT guy.  On 9/11 he was taking a comp day.  A weekend or two before the power had been mysteriously cut to his server room in one of the twin towers and he had spent some of his time bringing the machines back on-line.

He said that in the preceding weeks there was a noticeable amount of dust on the vents bringing air into the building.  I think it was he but am not sure who said that several weeks earlier the explosive sniffing dogs were removed from the lobby and also that on one of the vacant floors which he was near there was rumbling noises like large carts being moved around.  He imagined those things that construction debris are put in.

As with most such interviews I took the time to dig up, the person seemed to be quite credible.  Almost without exception these people who relate information or do work on the story claim that they only came forward because they don't wish to live in a society where the government makes policy based on false flag events and they hope their information will open people's eyes and change the course of our society for the better.  I can relate to this because if I were in such a situation that would be a motivating factor for me.  Conversely, I can really see no reason to invent or lie about such things.  Certainly nobody wins any popularity contests by being 'conspiracy theorists.'

Zero-confirmations don't work in a system that can't guarantee the mempool ends up in a block. Thus either Bitcoin has unlimited spam or it doesn't have zero-confirmations.

Yet another in a long list of reasons that PoW cryptocurrency is broken and can't be fixed without a radical redesign.

What is that again iCebreaker about my sanity?

If you are referring to the set of transactions kept around waiting to put them in a block, full nodes could set a hard memory limit and flush those with the lowest transaction fee per kb forcing them to be resent to the network periodically.

I've never really been one to tell people what to do, but I was still doubling down at the late 2011 bottom and was prepared to do so one more time.  I was liberal with in describing my activities and rationals.

A design which forces every consensus making node to approve every transaction is stoopid. Any half brained engineer could realize this if they spent some time thinking about the issues.

it was free of charge from me at the time, too.  altho i don't remember you saying much of anything.

I don't know what you told your subs, and never cared much.  You seem to have told everyone else to buy with both hands all the while the price was going from $1100 -> $200 or whatever.  I made it a point (and still do) to not sell under $600 and got some up in the 4-figure range.  If you were telling your subs to do as I did, great.  Maybe you were telling them buy Hashfast or whatever?  I was totally outside the loop on that one and to this day I don't even know what that is/was or that you were pumping it (if indeed you were.)  Whatever it was it doesn't sound like it worked out all that great.