Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 212. (Read 2032248 times)

legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
June 20, 2015, 09:16:38 PM

I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way.


according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. 

you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning.

Not necessarily. It could be more of a gradual process of spam being accepted into a system that isn't well protected against spam. The miners who are better equipped to produce somewhat larger blocks produce them (by including lower value, lower fee transactions aka spam), which puts more of a strain on smaller miners who drop out. As smaller miners drop out, the average block size then increases, which puts even more strain on the slightly-less-small miners, who then drop out, repeating the process.

The end result is larger spammier blocks, and less broad participation in mining.

The fact remains that as I said there is no more of a mechanism to control spam other than a block size limit than there was when satoshi added the block limit, and I don't really see how spam is 20x8x less of a problem or potential problem now. I'd support a smaller increase though, since I do see technological progress as having reduced the threat of spam by a smaller factor.

Longer term I see the 8 MB and auto doubling every two years as even worse than 20 MB. There is no rational basis to believe with high confidence that gigabyte blocks would be acceptable in 15 years.

if you are not claiming any relative connectivity advantage of a large vs small miner, why does a large block filled with spam cause a small miner to choke anymore than another large miner?

and if ANY miner, large or small, receives a large block that requires extra processing time, he can immediately resort to the defensive mechanism of hashing an empty block header until he finishes processing the large block.  then he goes back to hashing a normal block with tx's.  we saw this exact behavior in the Stress Test.

The issue is not necessarily large or small as much as it is connectivity to a majority or near-majority of the hash rate.

tvbcof, I agree with you that two days isn't out of the question for critical and high-value transactions, but Bitcoin main chain handles those perfectly well too, without the added cost and delay, and without security compromises. The competitive advantage of involving a sidechain specifically for critical or high value transactions is nil or negative.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
June 20, 2015, 09:06:07 PM

Quote
What network effects are lost when the pegged side chain is denominated in BTC and can be spent back to the Bitcoin Core blockchain at any time?

They can't. They can only be spent to a recipient on the same chain, or by using a redeem transaction (very slow and expensive), or by way of a cross-chain swap, which adds a third party intermediary (someone who wants sidechain coins at the same instant that you want main chain coins). That added complexity and cost will discourage moving coins to a sidechain in the first place, especially for casual use, and especially if there is ever more than one side chain (many people all picking different chains just adds even more overhead to all of them and is even more likely to be nonsense in practice)

From a usability point of view (ignoring differences in the strength of the pegging mechanism itself), this is equivalent to the various coins that are currently pegged/deonominated in USD. They have zero network effect with USD or with each other, and are mostly if not entirely all useless.


All hogwash.

Firstly the 'slowness' is exactly what appeals to me for critical and high value transactions.  Something burried several days into a blockchain gives me great confidence.  And most attacks on the blockchain will be discovered by that time making it exceedingly unlikely that I'll be suckered by a transaction failure.

Secondly, two days is hardly 'slow' by the standards of the modern finanicail system, especially when high-value and complex transactions are involved.

Thirdly, taking a position in a sidecoin is as easy as doing any other Bitcoin transaction and would be something I would do irregularly.  e.g., I might buy a years worth of micro-tip sidecoins.  It's hardly a disaster to wait a few days for such a transaction.  People who are so impatient or hand-to-mouth indigent that this is an actual problem don't really need a high-powered system like Bitcoin and should just choose a sidechain which is designed to meet their needs better.

Fourthly, if I can go directly sidecoin to sidecoin, fantastic.  It both saves me the fees which _should_ be associated with a transaction as powerful as a (well distributed) Bitcoin network one, and it saves load on the backing network as well.  win/win.

Fifthly, computers are really good at hiding the 'complexity' of going between sidechains, and you can see the tools that the Blockstream guys are working on are designed to make most of it risk free to the user.  All kinds of intermediary exchanges will pop up to make things trivial for the unsophisticated userbase.  With a decent set of tools these outfits will have a difficult time ripping people off and hiding their activities (unless for some reason they wish to and that is a good tip-off to stay away from them.)

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
June 20, 2015, 09:01:48 PM

I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way.


according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. 

you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning.

Not necessarily. It could be more of a gradual process of spam being accepted into a system that isn't well protected against spam. The miners who are better equipped to produce somewhat larger blocks produce them (by including lower value, lower fee transactions aka spam), which puts more of a strain on smaller miners who drop out. As smaller miners drop out, the average block size then increases, which puts even more strain on the slightly-less-small miners, who then drop out, repeating the process.

The end result is larger spammier blocks, and less broad participation in mining.

The fact remains that as I said there is no more of a mechanism to control spam other than a block size limit than there was when satoshi added the block limit, and I don't really see how spam is 20x8x less of a problem or potential problem now. I'd support a smaller increase though, since I do see technological progress as having reduced the threat of spam by a smaller factor.

Longer term I see the 8 MB and auto doubling every two years as even worse than 20 MB. There is no rational basis to believe with high confidence that gigabyte blocks would be acceptable in 15 years.

if you are not claiming any relative connectivity advantage of a large vs small miner, why does a large block filled with spam cause a small miner to choke anymore than another large miner?

and if ANY miner, large or small, receives a large block that requires extra processing time, he can immediately resort to the defensive mechanism of hashing an empty block header until he finishes processing the large block.  then he goes back to hashing a normal block with tx's.  we saw this exact behavior in the Stress Test.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
June 20, 2015, 09:00:55 PM
You continue to assume that merged mining is necessary and I don't make that assumption because I know something which hasn't been revealed to you yet. Even without my secrets, there are other ways to do consensus that can't be 50% attacked.

1) PoS

2) A cartel of trusted servers such as Coinbase, Paypal, Facebook, Circle, Bitpay, etc.. Maybe not trusted by you, but trusted by the masses who use their services and don't give a fuck how it is done technically.

I find 1 and 2 uninteresting. If you want to recreate a centralized banking system using inferior technology, go right ahead. I have no doubt the masses will like that though, since they like centralized banking just fine.

You are missing the most salient point. The difference is it is pegged to BTC thus free to access all of Bitcoin's network effects AND speculation fever. So there is a carrot that isn't available in a fiat bank account.

Wow smooth it is like you suddenly lost your former astute self. You been smoking pot again? (seriously I have no idea if smooth has ever inhaled, lol)

Of the methods proposed by Blockstream, merged mining is the only one that is conceivably decentralized, except that it isn't either.

If you have a third way you aren't disclosing, we can't discuss it, so it is pointless to keep bringing it up. Vaporware is also uninteresting.

Vaporware is quite interesting to those designing and investing in it. I have reason to believe they are lurking.

What network effects are lost when the pegged side chain is denominated in BTC and can be spent back to the Bitcoin Core blockchain at any time?

They can't. They can only be spent to a recipient on the same chain, or by using a redeem transaction (very slow and expensive), or by way of a cross-chain swap, which adds a third party intermediary (someone who wants sidechain coins at the same instant that you want main chain coins).

Sounds like all the bases are covered then. I think you've made no point. Sounds like normal finance to me, e.g. using a credit card instead of cash.

Who said Core will have the most transaction volume? There is tension in Core between TPS and scaling. That entropy has to go some where.

That added complexity and cost will discourage moving coins to a sidechain in the first place, especially for casual use, and especially if there is ever more than one side chain (many people all picking different chains just adds even more overhead to all of them and is even more likely to be nonsense in practice)

I don't see any substantiation of this FUD. For one, a few dominant side chains might emerge. Secondly don't underestimate the desire of finance for leverage and gaming opportunities.

(ignoring differences in the strength of the pegging mechanism itself)

We wouldn't be discussing the same thing any more.

Make it a pegged BTC side chain or go extinct.

In the long run we're all dead. In the short run, pegged sidechains don't even exist. In the middle, we'll see.

Those with vision get an early mover advantage.

Btw, I heard that is why only in the Philippines are the police the first ones on the crime scene and in fact rumor is they are so prescient they are on the scene before the crime is committed.  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
June 20, 2015, 08:43:02 PM
You continue to assume that merged mining is necessary and I don't make that assumption because I know something which hasn't been revealed to you yet. Even without my secrets, there are other ways to do consensus that can't be 50% attacked.

1) PoS

2) A cartel of trusted servers such as Coinbase, Paypal, Facebook, Circle, Bitpay, etc.. Maybe not trusted by you, but trusted by the masses who use their services and don't give a fuck how it is done technically.

I find 1 and 2 uninteresting. If you want to recreate a centralized banking system using inferior technology, go right ahead. I have no doubt the masses will like that though, since they like centralized banking just fine.

Of the methods proposed by Blockstream, merged mining is the only one that is conceivably decentralized, except that it isn't either.

If you have a third way you aren't disclosing, we can't discuss it, so it is pointless to keep bringing it up. Vaporware is also uninteresting.

Quote
What network effects are lost when the pegged side chain is denominated in BTC and can be spent back to the Bitcoin Core blockchain at any time?

They can't. They can only be spent to a recipient on the same chain, or by using a redeem transaction (very slow and expensive), or by way of a cross-chain swap, which adds a third party intermediary (someone who wants sidechain coins at the same instant that you want main chain coins). That added complexity and cost will discourage moving coins to a sidechain in the first place, especially for casual use, and especially if there is ever more than one side chain (many people all picking different chains just adds even more overhead to all of them and is even more likely to be nonsense in practice)

From a usability point of view (ignoring differences in the strength of the pegging mechanism itself), this is equivalent to the various coins that are currently pegged/deonominated in USD. They have zero network effect with USD or with each other, and are mostly if not entirely all useless.

Quote
Make it a pegged BTC side chain or go extinct.

In the long run we're all dead. In the short run, pegged sidechains don't even exist. In the middle, we'll see.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
June 20, 2015, 08:31:31 PM
I think you are making a catastrophic mistake to ignore them. I hope your view doesn't represent Monero's position?

Nobody is ignoring them. I just think they won't really have much relevance, or if they do they will destabilize the greater Bitcoin system. But I doubt the latter because the obstacles of relying on far weaker security such as merged mining, ...

You continue to assume that merged mining is necessary and I don't make that assumption because I know something which hasn't been revealed to you yet. Even without my secrets, there are other ways to do consensus that can't be 50% attacked.

1) PoS

2) A cartel of trusted servers such as Coinbase, Paypal, Facebook, Circle, Bitpay, etc.. Maybe not trusted by you, but trusted by the masses who use their services and don't give a fuck how it is done technically.

...along with giving up most of Bitcoin's network effect, are simply too great. The vast majority will just stick with vanilla Bitcoin, which will force the rest to do the same.

What network effects are lost when the pegged side chain is denominated in BTC and can be spent back to the Bitcoin Core blockchain at any time? Long-term divergence of BTC value for pegged chains that deviate from the 1-to-1 peg doesn't matter in the short-term wherein stampedes of change take place, e.g have you never heard of fractional reserve banking and how the masses trust it to be fully backed?

The masses will stick with Coinbase, Circle, etc and the decision will be made for them.

Also there are certain features you can't get in Core, such as anonymity that are really needed. And if the controlling group of a new altcoin needed to store $10 million from an ICO in an anonymous unit, do you think it would be wise for the controlling group to store it in XMR which has insufficient liquidity and higher volatility? What if you XMR whales sell as that group is buying? Much better to put BTC peg on side chain and store the ICO proceeds there.

I been trying to convince you core Monero devs to make the anonymity more reliable, and so some ICO funds could be stored in XMR but I can't tell if you guys are rushing to fix the anonymity or not.

Monero is a piece of software and doesn't have a position, but if against all odds sidechains become widely used the equivalent functionality will likely be added to Monero, and then Bitcoin can become a sidechain to Monero (no, I'm not kidding).

You are delusional.

Monero has one chance. Make it a pegged BTC side chain or go extinct. I am trying to help you.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
June 20, 2015, 07:45:01 PM
I hope the core Bitcoin devs are reading this, so they will get an idea of who in this thread is on their level. Someone should send this post to Blockstream, so they can see they win with huge blocks or with small blocks. It doesn't matter. The only future is pegged side chains (for those of you so dumb upthread to claim that pegged side chains don't matter  Roll Eyes).


Excellent and timely post by Kondrad!  Impressive--I recall he also posted a comprehensive article on sidechains, shortly after the Blockstream white paper was published.  

I was going to ask for a link to his analysis of side chains, until I read that myopic "analysis" on the block size limit.

Challenged minds require 30 pages of obfuscation in eloquisms to avoid proceeding directly to the point, because they don't have a lucid generative essence map in their mind.

Eloquisms

Posted by TheFascistMind on Mon 2 Nov 2009 - 13:17
Elegant or novel ways to say something.

Next time you do not understand something, try asking with inverted grammar to illustrate your point humorously...

"Yoda Master tells understands he you not, {something} can be
how, you clarify please asks he to."

The main and long-term salient reason transaction fees have much correlation to the number of confirmations is because different miners would have different costs and absent a block size limit the ones with lower costs would include transactions with lower fees.

One implication is that to do fast micropayments on block chain (thus small nominal transaction fees), would be forced to a pegged side chain that excluded the diverse miners who are causing that variability — aka centralization.

(The huge block variance that Cypherdolt pleads for will kill the decentralized micropayments goal he claims  Roll Eyes)

Also that author completely ignores the centralization impacts widely variable block sizes have on centralization due to bandwidth, propagation, orphan rate (or IBLT which is also centralization).

In short this n00b and anyone who thought his anal-sis was "excellent" should STFU.

Even if you argue the other possible outcome which is centralization of mining will be good for reducing variance of block sizes, you are still admitting the Bitcoin is headed for centralization of mining with larger block size limits by some means of squeezing out smaller miners.

But I also acknowledge, even if you restricted the block size, you would end up with centralization, because the rising transaction fees would send transactions off chain (to centralized pegged side chains; or proprietary off chain, e.g. cartel of Coinbase, Paypal, etc). Thus as I wrote upthread, until someone invents a better model for the block chain which can scale, then centralization is inherent with scaling.

Those who can’t build, talk

I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way.

That is closer to a correct view, but still myopic.

Not necessarily. It could be more of a gradual process of spam being accepted into a system that isn't well protected against spam. The miners who are better equipped to produce somewhat larger blocks produce them (by including lower value, lower fee transactions aka spam), which puts more of a strain on smaller miners who drop out. As smaller miners drop out, the average block size then increases, which puts even more strain on the slightly-less-small miners, who then drop out, repeating the process.

The end result is larger spammier blocks, and less broad participation in mining.

The fact remains that as I said there is no more of a mechanism to control spam other than a block size limit than there was when satoshi added the block limit, and I don't really see how spam is 20x8x less of a problem or potential problem now. I'd support a smaller increase though, since I do see technological progress as having reduced the threat of spam by a smaller factor.

Longer term I see the 8 MB and auto doubling every two years as even worse than 20 MB. There is no rational basis to believe with high confidence that gigabyte blocks would be acceptable in 15 years.

Even closer, but still it is not just a "spam" issue.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
June 20, 2015, 07:37:59 PM
New poll above.

please vote.

I updated my poll correspondingly.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up-noonoopol-1091654

As they say in Chicago: "Vote early and vote often!"

legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
June 20, 2015, 07:03:21 PM

I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way.


according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. 

you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning.

Not necessarily. It could be more of a gradual process of spam being accepted into a system that isn't well protected against spam. The miners who are better equipped to produce somewhat larger blocks produce them (by including lower value, lower fee transactions aka spam), which puts more of a strain on smaller miners who drop out. As smaller miners drop out, the average block size then increases, which puts even more strain on the slightly-less-small miners, who then drop out, repeating the process.

The end result is larger spammier blocks, and less broad participation in mining.

The fact remains that as I said there is no more of a mechanism to control spam other than a block size limit than there was when satoshi added the block limit, and I don't really see how spam is 20x8x less of a problem or potential problem now. I'd support a smaller increase though, since I do see technological progress as having reduced the threat of spam by a smaller factor.

Longer term I see the 8 MB and auto doubling every two years as even worse than 20 MB. There is no rational basis to believe with high confidence that gigabyte blocks would be acceptable in 15 years.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
June 20, 2015, 07:02:12 PM
It would be great if you'd be specific that the proposal is about increasing the block size limit, which is only indirectly and occasionally related to the actual size of mined blocks.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
June 20, 2015, 06:59:13 PM
New poll above.

please vote.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
June 20, 2015, 06:34:12 PM

Excellent and timely post by Kondrad!  Impressive--I recall he also posted a comprehensive article on sidechains, shortly after the Blockstream white paper was published.  

https://twitter.com/KonradSGraf/status/612347123732992000
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
June 20, 2015, 06:30:23 PM

Excellent and timely post by Kondrad!  Impressive--I recall he also posted a comprehensive article on sidechains, shortly after the Blockstream white paper was published.  

yeah, it's a killer and extremely bad news for the 1MB folk.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
June 20, 2015, 06:29:02 PM

Excellent and timely post by Kondrad!  Impressive--I recall he also posted a comprehensive article on sidechains, shortly after the Blockstream white paper was published.  
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
June 20, 2015, 06:28:02 PM

I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way.


according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. 

you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning.  given that the top 5 Chinese miners have already told us they are stuck behind the GFC with poor connectivity, i'm not sure how they do this mythical attack.  trying to tap into the relay network apparently doesn't help. they've already told us flat out that 8MB is the max they can handle at this point and Gavin has demonstrated he is a mature negotiator and conceded this metric to them unlike the Blockstream ppl who always just say "NO".

if a user wants to spam 8MB worth of stress tx's it will cost them 8x as much as today.  expensive?  maybe, maybe not.  but at least they will be paying good fees to miners who will be happy with that.  the real question is can they sustain that spam for any length of time.  we'll just have to see.  then the question is why hasn't anybody done that yet?  i think it's also important to note that if someone tries this attack, it's reasonable to expect that miners and other users will react.  either by jacking tx fees even exorbitantly higher or blocking the offending ip address.  point being, no one is just going to stand aside and watch a spammer destroy the network.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
June 20, 2015, 06:02:52 PM

I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
June 20, 2015, 05:46:16 PM
XT nodes now 147

if someone can provide an easy Ubuntu tute to switch from Core to XT that would be great.

Code:
make install

HTH.

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
June 20, 2015, 05:15:12 PM
XT nodes now 147

if someone can provide an easy Ubuntu tute to switch from Core to XT that would be great.
Jump to: