Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 176.

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Although I'm opposed to the current proposals for block size increase, I'm not opposed to the idea entirely, and I'm optimistic that a compromise can be reached.

Quote from: Odalv on June 28, 2015, 04:17:24 PM

Supply is halving every 4 years. And I think that doubling block size every 4 years is enough to compensate.

Thanks Odalv, this is perhaps the simplest and most reasonable proposal I've heard on the subject, though I disagree with the following:

Quote from: Odalv on June 28, 2015, 05:04:48 PM

And maybe it would be fine to double block size in the middle of halving period.

It may be only semantic, but I think the doubling of the block size should happen in tandem with the halving of the reward. It makes for a kind of trade off, trade half the disbursement awards for potentially double the transaction rewards.

The important thing here is that the much slower rate of increase should keep the security profile of the network intact, and increasing to 2mb in 2016 and 4mb in 2020 etc. should enforce an acceptable level of scarcity while allowing the network to grow.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

ooh, looky here, Dow futures:

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 01:21:01 PM

Quote from: shmadz on June 28, 2015, 11:19:04 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 10:57:23 AM

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?

If the price does not rise, there's no extra security needed to protect the system... Why pay more to defend a system that's not increasing in value? We see this market force in action right now as the low prices have caused the global hash rate to stagnate.

My long term plan is that users will be willing to pay increasing fees due to scarcity of embedding information in the most secure ledger on the planet. When you propose changes to a system that may have an effect on the security profile of such a system, you should expect serious opposition.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on June 28, 2015, 07:05:50 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 28, 2015, 05:31:18 PM

A large miner only needs a hash of the transactions in order to mine remotely, so it could delegate the censorship of transactions to some other entity (e.g. IBLT), thus effectively censorship of transactions is under control of an entity that is aggregating hashrate (nodes).

You're describing a mining pool, and disparate miners connect via stratum to the pool, which administers the mining node. Nothing new here with larger maxblocksize.

Nothing new by forcing more miners to pools with sufficient connectivity Huh

Nothing new by enabling those with more connectivity to harness higher revenue per block and to block propagation (orphan rate) attacks on the less well connected nodes Huh

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on June 28, 2015, 07:05:50 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 28, 2015, 05:31:18 PM

Whereas, a smaller independent miner that refuses to delegate and be permanently sited so that it can't be easily regulated by TPTB, will need to have enough ephemeral bandwidth to see every transaction across the P2P network. For example, I can still obtain an unregistered, wireless connection to the internet here in my location with a prepaid 3G USB dongle, but if I site any where but a few special locations then I will often see the bandwidth drop down to 28.8K baud.

I throw 'baud' in there to remind youngsters that maybe somebody in this world still uses an analog audible spectrum telephone (or HAM radio?) modem.

Small time miners solo mining via 3G dongle, 28.8k baud modems, and HAM radios? Are you serious? Are you describing your, as yet unreleased, superproject? You're not describing post 2011 Bitcoin.

Hand waving about TPTB shutting down/censoring bitcoin on a global scale because of bigger blocks is hyperbolic.

Go ahead. I am quite happy if you centralize Bitcoin Core. PLEASE MAKE MY DAY (and fatten my wallet by a few $million at least).

Cconvert2G36

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 28, 2015, 05:31:18 PM

A large miner only needs a hash of the transactions in order to mine remotely, so it could delegate the censorship of transactions to some other entity (e.g. IBLT), thus effectively censorship of transactions is under control of an entity that is aggregating hashrate (nodes).

You're describing a mining pool, and disparate miners connect via stratum to the pool, which administers the mining node. Nothing new here with larger maxblocksize.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 28, 2015, 05:31:18 PM

Whereas, a smaller independent miner that refuses to delegate and be permanently sited so that it can't be easily regulated by TPTB, will need to have enough ephemeral bandwidth to see every transaction across the P2P network. For example, I can still obtain an unregistered, wireless connection to the internet here in my location with a prepaid 3G USB dongle, but if I site any where but a few special locations then I will often see the bandwidth drop down to 28.8K baud.

I throw 'baud' in there to remind youngsters that maybe somebody in this world still uses an analog audible spectrum telephone (or HAM radio?) modem.

Small time miners solo mining via 3G dongle, 28.8k baud modems, and HAM radios? Are you serious? Are you describing your, as yet unreleased, superproject? You're not describing post 2011 Bitcoin.

Hand waving about TPTB shutting down/censoring bitcoin on a global scale because of bigger blocks is hyperbolic.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Erdogan on June 28, 2015, 06:49:57 PM

Gold up

Gold and BTC doing the summer bounce exactly as I told you all they would.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 28, 2015, 02:29:16 PM

Meanwhile... A money pit called Ethereum.

Interestingly I guess I stumbled onto the solution to Ethereum's key intractable, scaling problem, which is how to get consensus on a script without forcing every miner to verify the script.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Gold up

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: tvbcof on June 28, 2015, 06:13:58 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 28, 2015, 05:47:01 PM

...
Blockstream can't enforce a monopoly on SC experimentation. ...

I would be shocked if they did. Beyond that, I would be surprised and disappointed if they did not fairly actively encourage and facilitate others to do so. It strikes me as a strategic blunder to do otherwise.

I assume Blockstream's income will come from consulting and or taking positions in SCs that generate dividends or such (they will sort of be in the driver's seat to copy experimentations into a sanctioned SC). Or perhaps a fee to federated servers.

I speculate TPTB wanted SCs as an alternative mechanism to create a bloatchain (which they can dump the masses on via their control of Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, Zuckerbook, etc) should they not be able to push it through Core. Thinking they could then deprecate Core by 51% attacking it after the mass move to the SC. I believe TPTB thinktanks miscalculated because they thought no one could solve the 51% attack vector. I think the gestation period since 2009 was to see if anyone could solve that 51% attack issue, before they decided to go all in with vulture capital (but they didn't factor in that I was late to the Bitcon scene Wink

). Any way, that is wild speculation on my part.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 28, 2015, 05:47:01 PM

...
Blockstream can't enforce a monopoly on SC experimentation. ...

I would be shocked if they did. Beyond that, I would be surprised and disappointed if they did not fairly actively encourage and facilitate others to do so. It strikes me as a strategic blunder to do otherwise.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 28, 2015, 03:25:19 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on June 28, 2015, 03:23:02 PM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 28, 2015, 03:10:02 PM

^ Time to post this again: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/

This would be the final arbiter.

But, like the fork in 2013, I think miners would solve it before trading on classic vs new began.

Yup. It's the silent ace up investors' sleeves that prevents any funny business by the miners, devs, or other stakeholders.

This is incomplete logic thus illogical.

The essay forgets:

1. A 51% attack can enforce a protocol, but not including minority blocks in the longest chain. I already obliterated rocks' argument upthread that anyone could prove this is happening and thus get the masses to act on it by pulling their mining nodes (the masses don't mine). There is no way to prove that a minority chain is the honest one when it comes to censoring transactions.

2. Mining income is not the only potential profit motive from some entity aggregating hashrate for the purposes of censoring transactions.

3. Asymmetries in the impacts on profitability of different classifications of miners due to protocol changes, potentially change the dynamics in ways that the author's simpleton analysis miss.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 02:50:35 PM

Quote from: thezerg on June 28, 2015, 02:31:08 PM

And if ppl do move to blockstream "sponsored" chains I question the legal/political ramifications of blockchains that have a big corporate target to aim at for censorship, identity tracking ,etc.

I've been meaning to mention this scenario.

Big corporate consults with Blockstream to construct a proprietary corporate SC with a significant innovation that Bitcoin proper definitely would want to incorporate. Before any of this success is known to the market, corporate forces Blockstream to sign a non-compete.

With Bitcoin Core still controlled by these devs, said innovation can't get back ported to Bitcoin Core because it continually gets blocked by non consensus. A hard fork introduced by anonymous dev can't get off the ground for the same reasons XT might not get off the ground.

What then?

Blockstream can't enforce a monopoly on SC experimentation. Once they put the federated servers on the live Core chain, then any one can create a SC, which is not a hard fork. BTC HODLers don't need to move en masse in order to make the SC viable, for as long as someone solves the resistance to 51% attack for lightly adopted SCs. I believe I may have that solution in hand; others may as well.

If Blockstream unnecessarily delays the switch over to live, then another group could possibly supercede them. They need to keep moving at maximum, safe speed.

Quote from: thezerg on June 28, 2015, 02:31:08 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 28, 2015, 06:23:18 AM

Blockstream (i.e. the Core devs) are planning to unleash the freedom for anyone to innovate on BTC pegged value, which is precisely what you are clamoring for.

But its pretty disingenuous to deliberately hamstring Bitcoin thereby forcing users into their solution.

I suggested to them both in public and in private (with no confirmation from them) that they stop arguing in public so they don't get labeled as the boogeymen. Instead let Bitards break Bitcon and they should continue coding so we will all have a place to run to (hopefully before it is too late). They could use political proxies as Gavinmike are ostensibly relying on Cypherdorc. Btw, I have no affiliation in this debate. I am interested to test my logic here.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on June 28, 2015, 03:52:25 PM

Miners create the blocks, so I'm not sure what decentralizing away from miners would even mean. If you mean that smaller miners are dependent on, or even supported by, 1MB blocks, I disagree. It may even be the opposite, smaller mining operations may have access to better bandwidth and speed vs remote industrial mining farms in rural china.

Economies of scale encourage, especially since the arrival of ASICs, the relative centralization of mining. This was not a surprise and was predicted from the very beginning. IMO maxblocksize has almost nothing to do with it.

You show that you don't have the slightest clue what Peter R's definition of decentralization really means. Distributed hashrate node != decentralized entity.

A large miner only needs a hash of the transactions in order to mine remotely, so it could delegate the censorship of transactions to some other entity (e.g. IBLT), thus effectively censorship of transactions is under control of an entity that is aggregating hashrate (nodes).

Whereas, a smaller independent miner that refuses to delegate and be permanently sited so that it can't be easily regulated by TPTB, will need to have enough ephemeral bandwidth to see every transaction across the P2P network. For example, I can still obtain an unregistered, wireless connection to the internet here in my location with a prepaid 3G USB dongle, but if I site any where but a few special locations then I will often see the bandwidth drop down to 28.8K baud.

I throw 'baud' in there to remind youngsters that maybe somebody in this world still uses an analog audible spectrum telephone (or HAM radio?) modem.

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 04:02:10 PM

What a great point.

Yet another blunder on your part.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hdbuck on June 28, 2015, 05:19:06 PM

Quote from: Odalv on June 28, 2015, 05:04:48 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 04:27:11 PM

Quote from: Odalv on June 28, 2015, 04:17:24 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 10:57:23 AM

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving. you must supplement that income by onboarding as many tx paying fees into the main Bitcoin blockchain if you want to survive long term. offboarding those tx paying fees into centralized services like Coinbase or Bitpay will not help you. what this means is that you indirectly need to grow the userbase that generates these tx paying fees.

you have no choice but to increase block size limits, and soon, otherwise unconfirmed tx's and unaffordable tx fees will drive new and even existing users away and you will forever be dependent on a small community of geeks and developers for business profits. not a sustainable situation.

Supply is halving every 4 years. And I think that doubling block size every 4 years is enough to compensate.

Sounds symmetric.

And maybe it would be fine to double block size in the middle of halving period.

2012 halving supply
2014 doubling block size
2016 halving supply
2018 doubling block size
... and so on :-)

...raising 21M bitcoin limit..

...and removing SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 from protocol...

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Odalv on June 28, 2015, 05:04:48 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 04:27:11 PM

Quote from: Odalv on June 28, 2015, 04:17:24 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 10:57:23 AM

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving. you must supplement that income by onboarding as many tx paying fees into the main Bitcoin blockchain if you want to survive long term. offboarding those tx paying fees into centralized services like Coinbase or Bitpay will not help you. what this means is that you indirectly need to grow the userbase that generates these tx paying fees.

you have no choice but to increase block size limits, and soon, otherwise unconfirmed tx's and unaffordable tx fees will drive new and even existing users away and you will forever be dependent on a small community of geeks and developers for business profits. not a sustainable situation.

Supply is halving every 4 years. And I think that doubling block size every 4 years is enough to compensate.

Sounds symmetric.

And maybe it would be fine to double block size in the middle of halving period.

2012 halving supply
2014 doubling block size
2016 halving supply
2018 doubling block size
... and so on :-)

...raising 21M bitcoin limit..

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 04:27:11 PM

Quote from: Odalv on June 28, 2015, 04:17:24 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 10:57:23 AM

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving. you must supplement that income by onboarding as many tx paying fees into the main Bitcoin blockchain if you want to survive long term. offboarding those tx paying fees into centralized services like Coinbase or Bitpay will not help you. what this means is that you indirectly need to grow the userbase that generates these tx paying fees.

you have no choice but to increase block size limits, and soon, otherwise unconfirmed tx's and unaffordable tx fees will drive new and even existing users away and you will forever be dependent on a small community of geeks and developers for business profits. not a sustainable situation.

Supply is halving every 4 years. And I think that doubling block size every 4 years is enough to compensate.

Sounds symmetric.

And maybe it would be fine to double block size in the middle of halving period.

2012 halving supply
2014 doubling block size
2016 halving supply
2018 doubling block size
... and so on :-)

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Odalv on June 28, 2015, 04:17:24 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 10:57:23 AM

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving. you must supplement that income by onboarding as many tx paying fees into the main Bitcoin blockchain if you want to survive long term. offboarding those tx paying fees into centralized services like Coinbase or Bitpay will not help you. what this means is that you indirectly need to grow the userbase that generates these tx paying fees.

you have no choice but to increase block size limits, and soon, otherwise unconfirmed tx's and unaffordable tx fees will drive new and even existing users away and you will forever be dependent on a small community of geeks and developers for business profits. not a sustainable situation.

Supply is halving every 4 years. And I think that doubling block size every 4 years is enough to compensate.

Sounds symmetric.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 10:57:23 AM

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving. you must supplement that income by onboarding as many tx paying fees into the main Bitcoin blockchain if you want to survive long term. offboarding those tx paying fees into centralized services like Coinbase or Bitpay will not help you. what this means is that you indirectly need to grow the userbase that generates these tx paying fees.

you have no choice but to increase block size limits, and soon, otherwise unconfirmed tx's and unaffordable tx fees will drive new and even existing users away and you will forever be dependent on a small community of geeks and developers for business profits. not a sustainable situation.

Supply is halving every 4 years. And I think that doubling block size every 4 years is enough to compensate.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on June 28, 2015, 03:52:25 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 28, 2015, 03:28:52 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on June 28, 2015, 03:08:12 PM

Again, I'm for an increase to the limit, and I think miners acting rationally would be too. They would do it because of their own self interest though, not because a poll of reddit users wanted them to.

Are you sure miners acting rationally wouldn't consider the block limit as 1 dimension of the potential way to increase transaction capacity? The real question isn't "how/when/to what do we increase the block size", it's "how do we increase transaction capacity in a way that maintains a healthy market for hashes". Anything that centralises towards the miners, or amongst the miners, is bad for the eco system as a whole. BIP 101 would create a trend toward both.

Miners create the blocks, so I'm not sure what decentralizing away from miners would even mean. If you mean that smaller miners are dependent on, or even supported by, 1MB blocks, I disagree. It may even be the opposite, smaller mining operations may have access to better bandwidth and speed vs remote industrial mining farms in rural china.

Economies of scale encourage, especially since the arrival of ASICs, the relative centralization of mining. This was not a surprise and was predicted from the very beginning. IMO maxblocksize has almost nothing to do with it.

Sorry, no, I didn't mean any of that. By "centralising towards miners" I mean miners being the majority/only nodes (which we already have to an extent), and by "centralising amongst miners", I mean large miners consolidating market share (which we also already have to a.... well you've already acknowledged it). BIP 101 accelerates both trends.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on June 28, 2015, 03:08:12 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 28, 2015, 02:37:59 PM

I don't see you as an enemy. I just acknowledged that it is great you want an increase.

I simply asked you why we should ignore, right now, a vast majority of the community who wants to see an increase built in now so that we can be ready come January?

I refuse to argue on behalf of a point I didn't make. Cool

Although, now that you mention it... what if a vast majority of the community (ill defined), wanted to increase the block reward? If the "community" = mining nodes and full nodes, this is exactly how changes happen. A majority of hashing power and servicing nodes become a dominant fork, and the losers either join them or have an altcoin with an impossible difficulty.

The mining incentive structure is built in, and not terribly reliant on the general user community's opinion. Larger blocks servicing increased tx volume and their accompanying fees is good for miners (to the point of being limited by hardware and bandwidth capacity). Altering the block reward, would probably nuke the coin's value, so there is a sort of MAD incentive against it.

Again, I'm for an increase to the limit, and I think miners acting rationally would be too. They would do it because of their own self interest though, not because a poll of reddit users wanted them to.

This argument has come up many times in the last week especially since Matonis brought it up despite him not understanding what's going on.

It won't ever happen because the idea has never even come up and not been contested or challenged. Reason being, everyone is here in the first place, whether they know it or not, because the supply is fixed and no one wants to change it, let alone a majority.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 176. (Read 2032248 times)