Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 167.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: tvbcof on June 30, 2015, 02:02:56 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 01:56:06 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 30, 2015, 01:48:08 PM

Ever hear of Edward Snowden? Do you know what it means when someone in the 5-eyes says that they 'own the internet?'

As an infrastructure the global internet is no where nearly as robust as most people imagine. It can be much better, but there is little incentive and this is no accident. Most people cannot fathom designing in any other way but to maximize the capabilities granted by the owners of this resource and are dimly aware, if at all, how tenuous some of the capabilities are.

My sensibilities as an engineer and system designer had been to design for the worst plausible scenarios. In a great many cases this resulted in some wasted effort and some limitations. In a minority of cases it turned out that some of the worst fears were realized and my systems continued to perform to design. These minority of cases outweighed the majority by a mile. Part of the reason for this is that the super-systems did not become reliant on capabilities which the sub-systems were unable to deliver.

actually, i have. and he is precisely one of the reasons i think we're winning.

the NSA and 5 Eyes, i believe, are going to lose in the long run precisely b/c Snowden's leak shows they can't secure data. everyone knows this now which is why Google and Apple have started encrypting as default, much to the chagrin of the gvt. and this is happening all over the internet.

furthermore, with 21 Inc on the verge of releasing mini Asic chips that power devices, the chances for mass decentralization of Bitcoin goes up. also, the Internet has never had it's own monetary system or means of conveniently and cheaply paying one another in realtime. Bitcoin, for the first time in history, can provide that.

OK, let's try again. Ever heard of 'packet filtering?'

sure. and have you heard that despite the Great Firewall of China, ordinary Chinese citizens can still get through with a VPN or Tor?

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 01:59:12 PM

with RBF, does the sender have the ability to completely change the destination address back to himself?

What's your problem with that? It's his money until it's not.

Oh, Bitcoin is not a real-time system in spite of years of propaganda trying to make it so? How sad. I think I'm going to cry.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Erdogan on June 30, 2015, 01:55:44 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 10:06:19 AM

Quote from: _mr_e on June 30, 2015, 09:48:35 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 29, 2015, 02:13:02 PM

blocks full again with TPS unacceptably high --> unconf tx set ~ 3000, more than double normal. pools taking defensive action. when will Blockstream devs do something?:

Why do you call this "defensive" action?

when Chinese pools face a series of what they consider to be "large blocks", which in this case means full blocks as you can see from the data, they automatically switch to mining "header" blocks with 0 tx's during the time it takes to process all the tx's in the preceding large block. this is b/c large blocks take a bit more time to process and check all the signatures so the argument goes that they can't afford to waste that precious time so for defensive purposed they just go ahead and start hashing the next block with only the "header" that in this case contain no tx's that might have included an invalid input from the preceding large block.

How about: When they see a new block, they immediately start mining based on that, with an empty transaction list. When they have removed the transactions in the last block from their own list of transactions to include, they mine with the new list. If a block is found quickly, it will be the empty block, else it will be a block with the new list.

You can see that the zero transaction blocks always come a short time after the previous. But they should not need minutes to establish a new list, so I am not sure.

Maybe some miner can chime in and say what really is going on.

your first paragraph was correct.

i'm not sure why the 0 tx blocks come so fast after the previous block. i keep asking this.

it's the sigop checking of a large block, i believe, that takes the extra time.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 01:56:06 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 30, 2015, 01:48:08 PM

Ever hear of Edward Snowden? Do you know what it means when someone in the 5-eyes says that they 'own the internet?'

As an infrastructure the global internet is no where nearly as robust as most people imagine. It can be much better, but there is little incentive and this is no accident. Most people cannot fathom designing in any other way but to maximize the capabilities granted by the owners of this resource and are dimly aware, if at all, how tenuous some of the capabilities are.

My sensibilities as an engineer and system designer had been to design for the worst plausible scenarios. In a great many cases this resulted in some wasted effort and some limitations. In a minority of cases it turned out that some of the worst fears were realized and my systems continued to perform to design. These minority of cases outweighed the majority by a mile. Part of the reason for this is that the super-systems did not become reliant on capabilities which the sub-systems were unable to deliver.

actually, i have. and he is precisely one of the reasons i think we're winning.

the NSA and 5 Eyes, i believe, are going to lose in the long run precisely b/c Snowden's leak shows they can't secure data. everyone knows this now which is why Google and Apple have started encrypting as default, much to the chagrin of the gvt. and this is happening all over the internet.

furthermore, with 21 Inc on the verge of releasing mini Asic chips that power devices, the chances for mass decentralization of Bitcoin goes up. also, the Internet has never had it's own monetary system or means of conveniently and cheaply paying one another in realtime. Bitcoin, for the first time in history, can provide that.

OK, let's try again. Ever heard of 'packet filtering?'

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: lunarboy on June 30, 2015, 12:03:33 PM

Also ZH is practically pumping bitcoin these days Shocked

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-30/fiat-faith-falters-bitcoin-surges-12-post-greferendum

Hardly. Read the comments.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 01:59:12 PM

with RBF, does the sender have the ability to completely change the destination address back to himself?

Yes, in the case of full-RBF. No, in the case of FFS-RBF.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: rocks on June 30, 2015, 01:51:29 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 30, 2015, 01:17:10 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on June 30, 2015, 12:15:44 PM

Quote from: rocks on June 30, 2015, 12:24:52 AM

This is about right

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bka9i/upetertodd_is_trying_to_get_full_replacebyfee/csmxi6i

I think replace by fee is good. It is a way to unstick a transaction that is stuck with too low fee, when you are in a hurry. It does not change the protocol in any way, it is just the miner chooses the transaction with the higher fee, making the old one illegal. It does not fill up blocks, only the network.

On the other hand, I don't think it is critically important, necessary or even specially useful. I think the market will sort out fees, making normal high-paying transactions fill up only half the space available in blocks.

There are two versions of replace-by-fee: "first-seen safe" and "full." Peter Todd is pushing "full" replace-by-fee which breaks the security of zero-confirm transactions. When F2Pool added replace-by-fee, they initially used the full version, but then switched to the first-seen safe version when the recognized the problem.

Which version do you think is good? What does replace-by-fee do that child-pays-parent can't?

The replace-by-fee mechanism allows the sender to change a transaction and increase a fee, while the child-pays-parent mechanism allows a receiver to add a fee to an existing transaction.

And this is why RBF is completely contrary to the ethos of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was designed so that transactions can not be canceled and so that once a receiver takes control of BTC they have full control. The P2P network rejecting 2nd seen transactions is one aspect of that mechanism, the blockchain record is another.

RBF transfers power from the receiver and puts it back in the hands of the sender. With RBF after two people make an exchange, the sender now has the ability to reach into the receivers pocket and take the sent BTC back. This is horrifying and this is not Bitcoin. RBF complete destroys zero confirm transaction confidence, which the P2P network provides today.

with RBF, does the sender have the ability to completely change the destination address back to himself?

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: rocks on June 30, 2015, 01:51:29 PM

The replace-by-fee mechanism allows the sender to change a transaction and increase a fee, while the child-pays-parent mechanism allows a receiver to add a fee to an existing transaction.

In most cases (and all cases with a smart wallet), child-pays-parent allows both sender or receiver to add a fee to an existing transaction. The reason is that in most cases, a transaction contains an output that returns change to the sender. This means the sender can create a child transaction that re-spends this change output, thereby increasing the parent's effective fee.

Quote

And this is why RBF is completely contrary to the ethos of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was designed so that transactions can not be canceled and so that once a receiver takes control of BTC they have full control. The P2P network rejecting 2nd seen transactions is one aspect of that mechanism, the blockchain record is another.

Agreed.

Quote

RBF transfers power from the receiver and puts it back in the hands of the sender. With RBF after two people make an exchange, the sender now has the ability to reach into the receivers pocket and take the sent BTC back. This is horrifying.

In the case of non-FFS, I agree.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: tvbcof on June 30, 2015, 01:48:08 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 01:03:16 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 30, 2015, 12:58:44 PM

The only technically knowledgeable people who support this inane system design do so because they see clearly that it will consolidate the infrastructure into a form that is as easily controlled as fiat money is currently. To many many people, this consolidation of control is a good thing. Most people love Big Brother whether they realize it or not and have the reflexes trained to support him.

this is precisely why we disagree on everything. i believe that the internet can allow the ppl to take back control of their money as it should be. don't forget that central banks are still a relatively new concept in the modern age. with that, i mean, going back 100 yrs or so.

maybe it's naive, maybe not. but it certainly is worth the effort and risk to try. which is why i support lifting the block limit just to see what happens. i believe we will cope.

Ever hear of Edward Snowden?

actually, i have. and he is precisely one of the reasons i think we're winning.

the NSA and 5 Eyes, i believe, are going to lose in the long run precisely b/c Snowden's leak shows they can't secure data. everyone knows this now which is why Google and Apple have started encrypting as default, much to the chagrin of the gvt. and this is happening all over the internet.

furthermore, with 21 Inc on the verge of releasing mini Asic chips that power devices, the chances for mass decentralization of Bitcoin goes up. also, the Internet has never had it's own monetary system or means of conveniently and cheaply paying one another in realtime. Bitcoin, for the first time in history, can provide that.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 10:06:19 AM

Quote from: _mr_e on June 30, 2015, 09:48:35 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 29, 2015, 02:13:02 PM

blocks full again with TPS unacceptably high --> unconf tx set ~ 3000, more than double normal. pools taking defensive action. when will Blockstream devs do something?:

Why do you call this "defensive" action?

when Chinese pools face a series of what they consider to be "large blocks", which in this case means full blocks as you can see from the data, they automatically switch to mining "header" blocks with 0 tx's during the time it takes to process all the tx's in the preceding large block. this is b/c large blocks take a bit more time to process and check all the signatures so the argument goes that they can't afford to waste that precious time so for defensive purposed they just go ahead and start hashing the next block with only the "header" that in this case contain no tx's that might have included an invalid input from the preceding large block.

How about: When they see a new block, they immediately start mining based on that, with an empty transaction list. When they have removed the transactions in the last block from their own list of transactions to include, they mine with the new list. If a block is found quickly, it will be the empty block, else it will be a block with the new list.

You can see that the zero transaction blocks always come a short time after the previous. But they should not need minutes to establish a new list, so I am not sure.

Maybe some miner can chime in and say what really is going on.

rocks

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Peter R on June 30, 2015, 01:17:10 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on June 30, 2015, 12:15:44 PM

Quote from: rocks on June 30, 2015, 12:24:52 AM

This is about right

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bka9i/upetertodd_is_trying_to_get_full_replacebyfee/csmxi6i

I think replace by fee is good. It is a way to unstick a transaction that is stuck with too low fee, when you are in a hurry. It does not change the protocol in any way, it is just the miner chooses the transaction with the higher fee, making the old one illegal. It does not fill up blocks, only the network.

On the other hand, I don't think it is critically important, necessary or even specially useful. I think the market will sort out fees, making normal high-paying transactions fill up only half the space available in blocks.

There are two versions of replace-by-fee: "first-seen safe" and "full." Peter Todd is pushing "full" replace-by-fee which breaks the security of zero-confirm transactions. When F2Pool added replace-by-fee, they initially used the full version, but then switched to the first-seen safe version when the recognized the problem.

Which version do you think is good? What does replace-by-fee do that child-pays-parent can't?

The replace-by-fee mechanism allows the sender to change a transaction and increase a fee, while the child-pays-parent mechanism allows a receiver to add a fee to an existing transaction.

And this is why RBF is completely contrary to the ethos of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was designed so that transactions can not be canceled and so that once a receiver takes control of BTC they have full control. The P2P network rejecting 2nd seen transactions is one aspect of that mechanism, the blockchain record is another.

RBF transfers power from the receiver and puts it back in the hands of the sender. With RBF after two people make an exchange, the sender now has the ability to reach into the receivers pocket and take the sent BTC back. This is horrifying and this is not Bitcoin. RBF complete destroys zero confirm transaction confidence, which the P2P network provides today.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

how do u like dem apples?

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 01:03:16 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 30, 2015, 12:58:44 PM

The only technically knowledgeable people who support this inane system design do so because they see clearly that it will consolidate the infrastructure into a form that is as easily controlled as fiat money is currently. To many many people, this consolidation of control is a good thing. Most people love Big Brother whether they realize it or not and have the reflexes trained to support him.

this is precisely why we disagree on everything. i believe that the internet can allow the ppl to take back control of their money as it should be. don't forget that central banks are still a relatively new concept in the modern age. with that, i mean, going back 100 yrs or so.

maybe it's naive, maybe not. but it certainly is worth the effort and risk to try. which is why i support lifting the block limit just to see what happens. i believe we will cope.

Ever hear of Edward Snowden? Do you know what it means when someone in the 5-eyes says that they 'own the internet?'

As an infrastructure the global internet is no where nearly as robust as most people imagine. It can be much better, but there is little incentive and this is no accident. Most people cannot fathom designing in any other way but to maximize the capabilities granted by the owners of this resource and are dimly aware, if at all, how tenuous some of the capabilities are.

My sensibilities as an engineer and system designer had been to design for the worst plausible scenarios. In a great many cases this resulted in some wasted effort and some limitations. In a minority of cases it turned out that some of the worst fears were realized and my systems continued to perform to design. These minority of cases outweighed the majority by a mile. Part of the reason for this is that the super-systems did not become reliant on capabilities which the sub-systems were unable to deliver.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 30, 2015, 01:35:17 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 11:32:05 AM

remember that, if i'm right, and full blocks are indicating additional incremental demand due to currency crises, this is going to be a more regular thing. this is what we've theorized about for years. the network HAS to be ready if you want to Moon.

1MB isn't going to cut it. right now, unconf tx's are now up to 10000 with now >5TPS delays.

To be clear, I agree. Smoothly adjusting fees are another tool in the scaling toolbox, though, and should be ready for use as well. (Where we're going, a 8 or 20x increase all by itself might not cut it.)

i'm not sure i get that.

if you're saying where we're going is Moon, then how can a 1MB cap (assuming SC or LN take a year) even with wallet fee capability, result in a smoothly adjusting fee increase as we consistently hit the 1MB cap? if anything, it will go parabolic in a chaotic fashion and result in extremely poor user experience and subsequent rejection.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 11:32:05 AM

remember that, if i'm right, and full blocks are indicating additional incremental demand due to currency crises, this is going to be a more regular thing. this is what we've theorized about for years. the network HAS to be ready if you want to Moon.

1MB isn't going to cut it. right now, unconf tx's are now up to 10000 with now >5TPS delays.

To be clear, I agree. Smoothly adjusting fees are another tool in the scaling toolbox, though, and should be ready for use as well. Where we're going, a 8 or 20x increase all by itself might not cut it. I'm eyeing a 500x price increase for the next bubble (peak, crashing afterward to 5-10x lower: ~$10-20K/BTC), which will mean a pretty big increase in transaction volume and may overrun even the 20MB blocks if we don't even have a fee market up yet.

We need as many scaling solutions in place as possible to enable the next bull run.

The nice thing about this debate is it's incentivizing them all. I'm confident we'll have the blocksize cap increase, hopefully in advance and not as a reaction to a stalled rally, but also a lot of other things. It's worth pushing against the small-blockers not because they have any real power to stop the increase, but because it lights a fire under them to do their part in making those optimizations to try to prove we can get by with smaller blocks. It's a futile effort on their part, but it ends up helping with large blocks, too.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Go India!

https://twitter.com/unocoin/status/615866780905422848

more new users.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

we are consistently above the 2.3 TPS level that the Tradeblock ppl have defined as the level where the network experiences delays.

from Tradeblock:

(2): It appears transaction confirmation will begin to experience notable delays at roughly 2.3 TPS – the rate at which average transaction processing time begins to exceed 1 block.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Erdogan on June 30, 2015, 12:15:44 PM

Quote from: rocks on June 30, 2015, 12:24:52 AM

This is about right

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bka9i/upetertodd_is_trying_to_get_full_replacebyfee/csmxi6i

I think replace by fee is good. It is a way to unstick a transaction that is stuck with too low fee, when you are in a hurry. It does not change the protocol in any way, it is just the miner chooses the transaction with the higher fee, making the old one illegal. It does not fill up blocks, only the network.

On the other hand, I don't think it is critically important, necessary or even specially useful. I think the market will sort out fees, making normal high-paying transactions fill up only half the space available in blocks.

There are two versions of replace-by-fee: "first-seen safe" and "full." Peter Todd is pushing "full" replace-by-fee which breaks the security of zero-confirm transactions. When F2Pool added replace-by-fee, they initially used the full version, but then switched to the first-seen safe version when the recognized the problem.

Which version do you think is good? What does replace-by-fee do that child-pays-parent can't?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: tvbcof on June 30, 2015, 12:58:44 PM

The only technically knowledgeable people who support this inane system design do so because they see clearly that it will consolidate the infrastructure into a form that is as easily controlled as fiat money is currently. To many many people, this consolidation of control is a good thing. Most people love Big Brother whether they realize it or not and have the reflexes trained to support him.

this is precisely why we disagree on everything. i believe that the internet can allow the ppl to take back control of their money as it should be. don't forget that central banks are still a relatively new concept in the modern age. with that, i mean, going back 100 yrs or so.

maybe it's naive, maybe not. but it certainly is worth the effort and risk to try. which is why i support lifting the block limit just to see what happens. i believe we will cope.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 12:46:01 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 30, 2015, 12:32:54 PM

Fantastic! Some incentive to deal with memory exhaustion (which is hardly an unheard of problem in computer-land.)

If I were doing a system from scratch, one would have to do several things (with analogs taken from the real world.)

pay to get in (e.g., a ticket at the festival gate. Some sort of real infrastructure support as opposed to useless SPV wallet 'support'.)
pay to get in the queue (e.g., to get a _chance_ to buy your cheese-dog.)
pay at least enough for the raw materials an labor for your cheese-dog when you get through the queue.
periodically clense the queue of those who, for whatever reason, not making sufficient progress.

Of course if Bitcoin had been designed like that from the get-go, it would not have gotten to first base. It needed a pretty face to attract the following of Utopians such as fap.doc and the multitude of other mouth-breathers that got the system going.

Now we are at a point where there can safely be free cheese-dogs for all in the form of sidechains. That means that the backing store can safely eject the welfare bums and they won't starve to death. Very humanitarian.

you being a socialist, of course you come up with these bizarre conclusions that disadvantage the masses.

I very much want people to be able to use distributed crypto-currencies which is, I'm sure, left over from my socialist days.

As a practical matter, it is not necessary nor desirable to serve every hungry mouth with caviar on a silver platter (which they can take home and put in their own cabinet.) Even the most impractical of the socialist dreamers would never entertain an idea so stupid.

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 12:46:01 PM

the ideal situation would be that there is NO LIMIT. this would give miners the incentive to filter spam based on their own internal analyses that the core devs can't possibly ever factor in, and then construct block sizes accordingly with the assistance of user tx fee feedback. in other words, a free market that gets the core dev apparatchiks out of the way.

The only technically knowledgeable people who support this inane system design do so because they see clearly that it will consolidate the infrastructure into a form that is as easily controlled as fiat money is currently. To many many people, this consolidation of control is a good thing. Most people love Big Brother whether they realize it or not and have the reflexes trained to support him.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 167. (Read 2032248 times)