here's Sergio Lerner agreeing with me on the futility of creating bloated blocks:
Most methods proposed to reduce the block propagation delay do it only
on the average case. Any kind of block compression relies on both
parties sharing some previous information. In the worse case it's true
that a miner can create and try to broadcast a block that takes too much
time to verify or bandwidth to transmit. This is currently true on the
Bitcoin network. Nevertheless there is no such incentive for miners,
since they will be shooting on their own foots. Peter Todd has argued
that the best strategy for miners is actually to reach 51% of the
network, but not more. In other words, to exclude the slowest 49%
percent. But this strategy of creating bloated blocks is too risky in
practice, and surely doomed to fail, as network conditions dynamically
change. Also it would be perceived as an attack to the network, and the
miner (if it is a public mining pool) would be probably blacklisted.
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07663.html
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 364. (Read 2032286 times)
can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago? how is it done?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3
As Odalv already said tx size can be really big. If you go over the 100KB a transaction
is considered non-standard though, see: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L603-L611
and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.h#L55-L56
Code:
// Extremely large transactions with lots of inputs can cost the network
// almost as much to process as they cost the sender in fees, because
// computing signature hashes is O(ninputs*txsize). Limiting transactions
// to MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE mitigates CPU exhaustion attacks.
unsigned int sz = tx.GetSerializeSize(SER_NETWORK, CTransaction::CURRENT_VERSION);
if (sz >= MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE) {
reason = "tx-size";
return false;
}
// almost as much to process as they cost the sender in fees, because
// computing signature hashes is O(ninputs*txsize). Limiting transactions
// to MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE mitigates CPU exhaustion attacks.
unsigned int sz = tx.GetSerializeSize(SER_NETWORK, CTransaction::CURRENT_VERSION);
if (sz >= MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE) {
reason = "tx-size";
return false;
}
Code:
/** The maximum size for transactions we're willing to relay/mine */
static const unsigned int MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE = 100000;
static const unsigned int MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE = 100000;
That said as long as you find a miner/poll that accept to include your tx
in the next block you're golden.
As soon as I have time I'll look for the actual txs that Peter Todd was referring to.
thanks for that. but even if a miner tries to incl a non std tx into his solved block, it's quite probable that the majority of nodes/miners still reject the block as a result, no?
...
Grandma and moma aren't you. And that is entire point of this drive to push Paypal, Circle, Coinbase, etc onto the masses.
If you are arguing the masses will have the slightest clue that they need to move their wallet because of some obscure Digital Kill Switch that doesn't affect them, then you are disingenuous and absurd.
So let's assume for a moment you have a functioning brain and you're right that the gvt teams up with all the banks and retail companies all within a giant cabal and the masses all are in Bitcoin.
They hit the dreaded Digital Kill Switch. What happens then?
Dissidents and competitors are targeted and eliminated (Digital Kill Switch one of the important tools of discipline on anyone who doesn't conform). The masses huddle into the NWO one world reserve currency and Global Technocracy fascist economy.
1984.
It is a slow burn eugenics paradigm to achieve Ted Turner's 500 million population goal.
you're a whack job.
Bitcoin vs Blockchain is still going at full swing in the mainstream press.
I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed.
He just failed to see Bitcoin's killer app, bitcoin the currency. Quote from: The Economist - Blockchain the next big thing - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21650295-or-it-next-big-thing?frsc=dg|d
Are blockchains here to stay, in one guise or another? Just because bitcoin didn’t succeed as a currency
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.
I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed.
Bitcoin vs Blockchain is still going at full swing in the mainstream press.
I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed.
Quote from: The Economist - Blockchain the next big thing - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21650295-or-it-next-big-thing?frsc=dg|d
Are blockchains here to stay, in one guise or another? Just because bitcoin didn’t succeed as a currency
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.
I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed.
Probably talking it down while he does the opposite and acquires.
Bitcoin vs Blockchain is still going at full swing in the mainstream press.
I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed.
Quote from: The Economist - Blockchain the next big thing - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21650295-or-it-next-big-thing?frsc=dg|d
Are blockchains here to stay, in one guise or another? Just because bitcoin didn’t succeed as a currency
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.
I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed.
yeah, i read that. Collison fail.
Bitcoin vs Blockchain is still going at full swing in the mainstream press.
I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed.
Quote from: The Economist - Blockchain the next big thing - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21650295-or-it-next-big-thing?frsc=dg|d
Are blockchains here to stay, in one guise or another? Just because bitcoin didn’t succeed as a currency
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.
I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed.
so sorry:
inca, I readily agreed with tvbcof's point because I recalled I had made the same point roughly about the time I started the thread Bitcoin adoption slowing; Coinbase...
If I remember correctly, my point was essentially that the Reed's or Metcalf's law network effects (i.e. potential interactions a.k.a. entropy) are highly diminished when the choices users can make have been predetermined for them to a great extent by a few behemoths. Even though those "laws" are an approximation of reality, I submit it is self-evident that exponentially greater entropy is created by a million diverse (free thinking) independent users versus a billion xerox copy users.
Thus to destroy Bitcoin all we (100,000 or million early adopter nerds) have to do is leave it.
If I remember correctly, my point was essentially that the Reed's or Metcalf's law network effects (i.e. potential interactions a.k.a. entropy) are highly diminished when the choices users can make have been predetermined for them to a great extent by a few behemoths. Even though those "laws" are an approximation of reality, I submit it is self-evident that exponentially greater entropy is created by a million diverse (free thinking) independent users versus a billion xerox copy users.
Thus to destroy Bitcoin all we (100,000 or million early adopter nerds) have to do is leave it.
I finally had a spare moment to contemplate the variables.
A key factor is the block size. If the block size is unlimited (and bandwidth is an insignificant cost), then unless miners have a monopoly they will accept transactions with fees as low as don't constitute a DoS attack, in order to maximize revenue.
In other words, they would have no pricing power at all (a Tragedy of the Commons) and the system would devolve into a partial-monopoly in order to gain pricing power.
A partial-monopoly in this case is enough % of the network hashrate to delay transactions (by that % of blocks) which do not include a sufficient fee.
If we limit block size, then the system doesn't scale.
If we let the Bitcoin foundation decide when to increase block size, then they control the economic market function, i.e. we've centralized Bitcoin.
Let us assume unlimited block size and partial-monopolies. Thus the transaction fee can always be forced higher in order to generate more revenue for the miners. Thus Bitcoin devolves (as coin rewards diminish) to a system that presents spenders with a choice between include a very high transaction fee or accept an ever increasing delay for confirmation. This will exacerbate as coin rewards diminish and volume of transactions increase.
If we instead assume limited block size, then the Bitcoin foundation will set the transaction fees, not the market.
Bitcoin is a broken design.
A key factor is the block size. If the block size is unlimited (and bandwidth is an insignificant cost), then unless miners have a monopoly they will accept transactions with fees as low as don't constitute a DoS attack, in order to maximize revenue.
In other words, they would have no pricing power at all (a Tragedy of the Commons) and the system would devolve into a partial-monopoly in order to gain pricing power.
A partial-monopoly in this case is enough % of the network hashrate to delay transactions (by that % of blocks) which do not include a sufficient fee.
If we limit block size, then the system doesn't scale.
If we let the Bitcoin foundation decide when to increase block size, then they control the economic market function, i.e. we've centralized Bitcoin.
Let us assume unlimited block size and partial-monopolies. Thus the transaction fee can always be forced higher in order to generate more revenue for the miners. Thus Bitcoin devolves (as coin rewards diminish) to a system that presents spenders with a choice between include a very high transaction fee or accept an ever increasing delay for confirmation. This will exacerbate as coin rewards diminish and volume of transactions increase.
If we instead assume limited block size, then the Bitcoin foundation will set the transaction fees, not the market.
Bitcoin is a broken design.
The value of the 'network effect' peaked some time time ago an it is now a distinct negative and a distinct threat to the system in my opinion. By now everyone who can make legitimate use of the system has heard about it. Most of the new-users are of the class who have no real chance of protecting themselves (even less than the historic dismal record that the userbase has demonstrated) and will thus induce even more nanny-systems to lend them a hand. These are inevitably bad for Bitcoin in a variety of ways (the most common one being that they are scams and/or even worse that the mainstream banking system in multiple important ways.)
Bitcoin will not really fill it's potential until sidechains are up-and-running. I just hope it lasts that long before it is destroyed from within. If so something else and probably something much better will take it's place though it would probably set certain things back by a few years. I hope(d) it would be Bitcoin since I still sit on a fair number of them and it would make my life easier.
Bitcoin will not really fill it's potential until sidechains are up-and-running. I just hope it lasts that long before it is destroyed from within. If so something else and probably something much better will take it's place though it would probably set certain things back by a few years. I hope(d) it would be Bitcoin since I still sit on a fair number of them and it would make my life easier.
I am not sure many people will agree with your assertions.
In fact most of the new users in the future will be using multi-sig technology with companies like coinbase or enjoying consumer protection with companies like circle without even realising it. They will use bitcoin like they use gmail. It isn't appropriate for members of the public to be playing with cold storage and dice or worrying about what a private key is or how to store it safely.
It might be worth remembering that bitcoin isn't a plaything entirely for superior beings like yourself. It is for everyone.
Okay I guess you convinced me. 
Mea culpa.
Mea culpa.
Sounds good to me. I would like to see the fee be around the equivalent of $10 per transaction. That is about what I set my client to pay and it's worth every penny to me. In a busy year I may do 10 native transactions or so. In a dry one (like 2015 so far) the number of transactions I perform drops to zero.
And destroy the use value and network effects of having millions of people transacting in Bitcoin, thus destroying your investment and store-of-value too.
Kudos.
P.S. I come back here to see if there are any serious (not useless noise) posts and the only one is from smooth. What else is new. Why he and I aren't working together is still a mystery to me.
The value of the 'network effect' peaked some time time ago an it is now a distinct negative and a distinct threat to the system in my opinion. By now everyone who can make legitimate use of the system has heard about it. Most of the new-users are of the class who have no real chance of protecting themselves (even less than the historic dismal record that the userbase has demonstrated) and will thus induce even more nanny-systems to lend them a hand. These are inevitably bad for Bitcoin in a variety of ways (the most common one being that they are scams and/or even worse that the mainstream banking system in multiple important ways.)
Bitcoin will not really fill it's potential until sidechains are up-and-running. I just hope it lasts that long before it is destroyed from within. If so something else and probably something much better will take it's place though it would probably set certain things back by a few years. I hope(d) it would be Bitcoin since I still sit on a fair number of them and it would make my life easier.
Sounds good to me. I would like to see the fee be around the equivalent of $10 per transaction. That is about what I set my client to pay and it's worth every penny to me. In a busy year I may do 10 native transactions or so. In a dry one (like 2015 so far) the number of transactions I perform drops to zero.
Trying to figure out why you would do this, even if you apparently almost never use Bitcoin.
I like to practice what I preach I suppose.
Sounds good to me. I would like to see the fee be around the equivalent of $10 per transaction. That is about what I set my client to pay and it's worth every penny to me. In a busy year I may do 10 native transactions or so. In a dry one (like 2015 so far) the number of transactions I perform drops to zero.
And destroy the use value and network effects of having millions of people transacting in Bitcoin, thus destroying your investment and store-of-value too.
Kudos.
P.S. I come back here to see if there are any serious (not useless noise) posts and the only one is from smooth. What else is new. Why he and I aren't working together is still a mystery to me.
Sounds good to me. I would like to see the fee be around the equivalent of $10 per transaction. That is about what I set my client to pay and it's worth every penny to me. In a busy year I may do 10 native transactions or so. In a dry one (like 2015 so far) the number of transactions I perform drops to zero.
Mike Hearns blogs post finally convinced me this was not such good idea. Crash landing
What not to do
One the one hand, yes: his blog post has instilled a sense of urgency and importance in me and I'm still for the 20 MB block size increase. On the other hand a part in me (a destructive part of my personality, I guess) wants to see what would actually happen and how bad things would crash and burn... the user/media reaction and all. It'd be exciting to watch, I'm sure and we could probably scoop up many more cheap coins.
Sounds good to me. I would like to see the fee be around the equivalent of $10 per transaction. That is about what I set my client to pay and it's worth every penny to me. In a busy year I may do 10 native transactions or so. In a dry one (like 2015 so far) the number of transactions I perform drops to zero.
Trying to figure out why you would do this, even if you apparently almost never use Bitcoin.
can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago? how is it done?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3
As Odalv already said tx size can be really big. If you go over the 100KB a transaction
is considered non-standard though, see: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L603-L611
and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.h#L55-L56
Code:
// Extremely large transactions with lots of inputs can cost the network
// almost as much to process as they cost the sender in fees, because
// computing signature hashes is O(ninputs*txsize). Limiting transactions
// to MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE mitigates CPU exhaustion attacks.
unsigned int sz = tx.GetSerializeSize(SER_NETWORK, CTransaction::CURRENT_VERSION);
if (sz >= MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE) {
reason = "tx-size";
return false;
}
// almost as much to process as they cost the sender in fees, because
// computing signature hashes is O(ninputs*txsize). Limiting transactions
// to MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE mitigates CPU exhaustion attacks.
unsigned int sz = tx.GetSerializeSize(SER_NETWORK, CTransaction::CURRENT_VERSION);
if (sz >= MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE) {
reason = "tx-size";
return false;
}
Code:
/** The maximum size for transactions we're willing to relay/mine */
static const unsigned int MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE = 100000;
static const unsigned int MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE = 100000;
That said as long as you find a miner/poll that accept to include your tx
in the next block you're golden.
As soon as I have time I'll look for the actual txs that Peter Todd was referring to.
That is, steer the herd to a mentality that Bitcoin is a drop-in replacement for every exchange currency and super secure and convenient and generally a panacea which will elevate all human problems.
---
you make it sound like convincing the whole world of something is easy
if that were the case we'd all be doing it already.Why limit the possibilities and use cases of the protocol?
Since I took the day off and spent most of it on bitcointalk I did run across Maxwell's critique of Mikes article on the tech board. It's worth a skim and should be active on that board and not terribly difficult to find for anyone who is interested.
i'll have a read
Jump to: