Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 20. (Read 2032266 times)

Ask Frap.doc to check your eyes, since you should be able to see this:

7-1/2% and climbing. 


In other news, the guy (/u/raisethelimit) who posted the cartoons of the thermos was apparently banned for 30 days for trolling: 



https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8tf2/uraisethelimit_was_banned_for_30_days_for_posting/

And the executives of any business which loses money by sticking their neck out in the first wave of XT acceptance are going to be sued into the ground by its furious shareholders.

Can you imagine explaining to your VC backers that you blew their investments in some extremely risky, easily avoided, political/ideological, e-peen measuring, nerd fight?  The corporate veil would be swiftly pierced and you would be sued personally.  You'd lose your house, and might even wind up in jail with roommates (ironically) nicknamed "Tiny" and "Little Bubba."

It costs them 1000 BTC because, according to the laws of statistics, they would have to attempt it 40 times before one "stuck."  On average, a 1 GB block (at 2 sec/MB) will be orphaned 39 out of 40 times.  Does that make sense?

This is still true with SPV mining.  Say the other miners receive the header for my spam block slightly before they received a smaller block in full.  As soon as they receive the smaller block in full, they'll switch to mining on this one because there's a 100% chance that that block is valid while my spam block is risky because it could include an invalid TX.  

Thank you Peter, it's always a great pleasure to read your posts.
But I just don't understand the cost of 1000 BTC for a 1 GB spam block. In my example a mining pool could create the spam on their own and include the transactions in their own block, thus mining their own transaction fees. This action should cost them almost nothing. (But when mining just on the block header works without any disadvantages, then this is anyway a non issue.)

fwiw sipa's proposal introduce a block size increase of ~18%/year starting from 2017.
this was based on a Rusty Russell's estimate (1). it's worth noting that such estimate has been raised to 30% recently (2).

(1) http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=551
(2) http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=493

439 Bitcoin XT nodes (supporting bigger blocks)     6404 Total nodes

Publishing a large block has a cost to the miner.  I tried to illustrate this effect in Fig. 8:



Even with a propagation impedance of 2 sec/MB (which I'm confident is faster than the present network average), it still costs 1,000 BTC to produce a single 1 GB spam block.  

Indeed, you get a small head start on the next block but it won't balance out the orphan cost.  Furthermore, other miners can SPV mine on your block header (while downloading and verifying the rest of the block) to take away this advantage.

Indeed. They will be making "A List' next....

Without a hard block cap, a pool could send millions of small transactions(spam - with a transaction fee too low for other pools) and mine it in their own block. Thus increasing the propagation time and having a small edge on their own mining for the next block. Just a thought, that came to my head a minute ago.

Could this really cause problems in that scenario ?

Something else: it's unbelievable how much they are censoring /bitcoin.

..and all pro XT and angry censorship postings are removed from the front of /r/bitcoin. Disgraceful.

It looks like my post has been removed from r/bitcoin (it had 172 up-votes in 8 hours).  It was near the top of the first page, and then 5 minutes later it was nowhere to be found.  

Both cartoons by /u/raisethelimit were removed too (and one was the second highest post).

Can you ask this guy to come over and discuss it directly? Thanks.

Increasing the limit does not mean that blocks will be that size immediately. He doesnt really define the scales he is talking about.

Satoshi's 1mb limit was an order of magnitude greater than the average block size of the time. 5 years later we are only getting near to it. Yet there has been no talk of security risk up to this?

Got to correct you there cypher.

--------------------

This whole debate hinges on what is acceptable main-chain scaling. Core Dev (especially BS) are gloomy about Satoshi's original VISA-scale main-chain volume projections. To an extent they have a point because it is only subsequent dev work which has made Satoshi's original code 100x more robust and more efficient, and it would have failed under today's volumes without all that improvement.

So they are focussed on 2nd-level solutions, and maybe the chance for profit has shifted that focus too far. There is no good reason why main-chain scaling cannot keep up with improvements in technology, which is what Gavin has effectively put a ceiling on with BIP 101. I suspect that another BIP will get adopted by both Core and XT which is more like Jeff's BIP 100 and works within the constraint of BIP 101. Gavin has said that he likes the idea of a belt-and-braces block size limit, i.e. a high, but steadily increasing hard-limit, and a lower dynamic limit. That dynamic limit could reflect incentives to reduce UTXOs.

When Gavin raised BIP 101 he made the promise not to commit it to Core using his own access without consensus. IMHO this constitutes a pact. It means that Core cannot commit a different BIP (like Pieter's) which has minimal main-chain scaling i.e. just 1.17MB by Jan 1st 2018. So Core are duty bound to only commit a BIP that has Gavin's approval as well as Jeff's.

So, as Core's node count diminishes, and miners shift UP, I expect a sensible dynamic BIP proposal from Core which works within BIP 101 and both BIPs get committed to Core and XT. The risk for Core is that the longer they delay with a sensible BIP allowing main-chain scaling the more likely that BIP 101 will stand alone and that it will get 90+% of the ecosystem, nodes and miners.

Also: https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633015499316551680

"A rapid block size increase is a huge security risk: a reckless act to be performing on a $4 billion system." -- Nick Szabo

This follows from the idea that, strictly speaking, there is no need for a hard block limit at all. There is enough information in the network ( difficulty, recent block sizes, number tx's, fee level, etc.) o be able to calculate an 'on the fly' block limit  that responds to changing needs in a manner not dissimilar to block difficulty.

Rising costs of creating a block ( increased difficulty) can be matched with revenue (fees, subsidy) while allowing for growth to support a greater tx throughput.

But for now, we are having enough difficulty trying to get some people to accept that we need a bigger block at all, so first steps first.

Nick Szabo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633011973634961408

"A much more reasonable block size proposal, following historical growth rates in a "limiting nutrient" resource: https://t.co/RRapcLSm6j"

i see sidecoins as inflationary.  the author can choose any issuance or inflation schedule he pleases to be backed by scBTC.  when viewed this way, the entire fiat money system could be viewed as a sidechain with USD as the sidecoin with gold backing at least before 1971.

The economics of 'speculation' in a full-peg environment are no different than people simply using native Bitcoin heavily.  People are perfectly free to speculate in native Bitcoin, and to date that is what has happened in the economy mostly I think.

You bloatcoiners may have plans to implement control measures in XT which preclude speculation as far as I know.  With the infrastructure needed for tainting, control of speculation would, in fact, be tenable.

edit: slight (between ngix gateway errors.)