Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 367. (Read 2032266 times)

we have no proof that large pools are directly connected more so or to the disadvantage of small pools.  you haven't even given a definition of both.  but even assuming that they are, which i'm not, i've still given plenty of reasons why they shouldn't want to create attacking bloated blocks to try and torment smaller miners. 

If it is not, I mea culpa. I will need to go dig back into what I concluded about IBLT and I decided not to comment further on IBLT today so I don't say something stupid. I remember I saw a flaw that had to do with the assumption about small set differences and the proposed use of the invertible bloom filter or something like that. I forget exactly. Will dig in soon...

That does not particularly put my mind to rest.

I am concerned about 'consensus' being an AND operation involving protocol legality and political legality.

Implementationally, if unconfirmed transactions are time sequence ordered, it would be practical to build a work set as a checkmarked list of legal transactions in forming work units (to be distributed if one is running a pool or ground on if one is mining within one's own farm.)  This could be accomplished more efficiently if with an system like IBLT to communicate with a tainting authority.  The miner and the tainting authority would only need to communicate the out-of-bounds transactions and the count of these could be fairly small...at least initially...

I should think also that legal transactions which took some time to verify (within the taint authority's system) could be grouped as a initial chunk onto the next block.  A side-channel could transmit this list (for a fee) to miners who are clients.  With miners operating at the pleasure of the state and compelled to utilize the services of a chartered tainting authority in order to protect us and our children from ISIS and such, the tainting authority(s) with a charter should not lack for business.

What was the upthread name and link to Russel's (recently hired by Blockstream sheesh I can remember that but not the name) summary of the off-chain proposal ("lighting" something) for real-time transactions employing a payment channel (you dedicate some BTC to a particular recipient which you can dole out in real-time)?

Some real-time txs are micropayments and some micropayments are real-time, but not all real-time txs are micropayments and not all micropayments are real-time. Thus you are addressing an orthogonal need to scale the blockchain for higher tx volume.

Recall upthread one of my several reasons for stating that getblocktemplate will lose efficacy is because miners won't be able to process a million or billion txs per second.

What do you mean by point #3?

Afaics, it appears you are proposing to compress the UXTO, but you are not addressing the scaling problem. (Bounded) compression doesn't solve scaling (they are different complexity levels).

The only solution for microtxns that scales is to remove the UXTO entirely! (You've said you are not restricting me from mentioning my solution, so I mention it again!)


The solution is going to be so radically different, I don't think it is going to work as a side or merge-mined chain. But I reserve final judgment after working through all the finer details.

Can you explain why adding IBLT support would be a hard fork?

Indeed. But technically it won't work. I don't have time to go into that today, but I will soon. Even Gavin has admitted there are yet unresolved problems. I haven't been following it lately, so I will need to go and dig back into it. But again, not today. I am already behind schedule today.

And even if IBLT works, it can't address the Transaction Withholding Attack nor the point I made about getblocktemplate being impotent against the complacency of the masses.

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

P.S. afaik Gavin has never designed something significant for Bitcoin. All the major stuff was decided before Satoshi left. Correct me if I am mistaken.

as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.  

No man, I am certainly demanding nothing of you, and am the last to desire Communism.  This is a strategy to actually maximize your returns.  Look at current altcoins; if you or your investors poison your coin you'll get nothing.  If you do not poision it, you and a small number of people will be the first to mine the next new thing and you may actually get help implementing it -- help which seems to be needed because haven't you been talking about this for over a year now?


Please consider my possible reasons for "jealous veiled character assassination".  Look at my post history to see if I'm a troll.  I have none of these motivations.  Consider that you applied a pejorative -- a negative emotional reaction -- to the idea of narcissism, not me.  Consider that you always manage to get into these endless ad hominem postings, not me.   I'm actually trying to help you where I think you most need help; read some of those posts. How are you similar?  How are you different?

But that will be all I say or read on this subject; by the time I read this thread next these messages will be buried too deeply for me to see.

IBLT is pie-in-the-sky that won't work. I studied it. I elaborated somewhere. I will have to dig for it and refresh my memory.

I would phrase things "A spotlight has gone onto UTXO because they are bitcoins."  Nothing comes closer to an accurate explanation to what a bitcoin is in my opinion.

I would take issue with the idea that 'UTXOs are bloating.'  They are doing so to a much lesser degree than I would have imagined years ago.  The reason for this, I believe, is that off-chain work has come to the rescue (in the ugly form entities with counter-party risk for the most part and the associated thefts that come with such) and many many BTC are tucked away into deep storage as the equivalent of $100,000,000 bills UTXO-wise.  That is the genie which comes out of the bottle when you guys realize your dream of a one-size-fits-all everything-to-everyone exchange currency for the masses.  Not sure if you are still in that camp solex...you seem a little more bright or flexible or something than most here.

I can put your mind at rest there.
What you describe as "authorized" is really "50+% consensus", i.e. that an unconfirmed transaction is acceptable by the majority of nodes.
Consider the existing blockchain. It is full of confirmed tx which were accepted by at least 50+% of the hashing power. There were many orphan blocks which a minority of nodes might have accepted, but were discarded by the majority.

One of the powerful aspects of IBLT is that it creates consensus on unconfirmed tx. It makes the Bitcoin protocol function more closely to how all its users expect it to work.

Right now there are several thousand users who expect their transaction(s) to get confirmed in the next block, and thousands of nodes who have a very similar view of those transactions. Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.

So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.

There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.

That is why I only want to deal with 1 - 3 individual investors who are altruistic and want to get possibly rich on their investment.  


Interesting point. Don't you think it would be more fun to get rich at the same time of saving the world? Unrealistic maybe. I am evaluating.

I feel I am a person who could do much great things for the world with capital. I think the universe should entrust large capital with me. Perhaps I am mistaken. I am evaluating.


Fair enough. I won't mention my solution again then. No additional hints will be given then. Satisfied?


Obviously false. Please retract the emotional statement.


I did not say you are not intelligent enough. Your username rings a bell and I haven't looked, but I seem to recall you are person of significance in the development of Bitcoin (or Scala?). Perhaps I am mistaken. So far, your posts have been interesting to me and I am preparing to look at your latest idea and either mea culpa or refute it.


Perhaps because I like to see you get all ego twisted like this?

Naw. Rather I am trying to point out what is futile and get some interest to invest in my solution. Isn't that obvious enough?


I know some of them and they know I empathize with them. I can't empathize with those who haven't told me.

I only reacted with my personal plight due to the disingenuous attempts to character assassinate me when the antagonists had lost the logical point (or simply didn't pay attention because they wanted to attack me).

If the discussion stays on technicals and civility, then so do I.

I don't know what to do about the fact that you don't agree that I don't give my ideas away for free in every instance. I guess you demand I be a Communist. And I an reticent. I am evaluating what is the wisest way to proceed.


Well so we see that your entire post was a yet another jealous veiled character assassination against all those who are reticent to Communism and groupthink.

Kudos.   (wasting more of our time)

No actually.  trying to get seed capital and forming a startup is the wrong approach if you really want to make a difference.  Otherwise pressure for corporate profits will poison the coin.  And the ability of external entities to apply pressure to a corporate entity (see Ripple) could destroy it.  

Publish your insight for the rep, good jobs will follow.

Also if you aren't going to describe your ideas, don't gloat about them endlessly -- there is no information content in most of your posts.

Since you are not sharing your ideas and consider that we are not intelligent enough to contribute to them, I think you should ask yourself why you bother posting at all.  What do you get out of it?  Wouldn't your time would be better spent implementing your ideas?  You need help seeing yourself...

And finally, you might consider that many people here are fighting great hardship yet you will likely not know about it until you read their "so long and thanks for all the fish" post.  I am sorry that you do not have others, closer to you to share these troubles.  Today I heard a sermon about a guy who could wish for anything so he imagined a luxury mansion, cars, gourmet food and the like... and he ended up with what he wished for -- an empty house.  Maybe you should start by sharing here to fill that house.  Check out http://www.reddit.com/r/raisedbynarcissists/ it may help you.

I will reintroduce my point from 2013, that you all won't be mining in the future, because the cartels can (in the future) make mining unprofitable for you with the Transactions Withholding Attack. Many of you can't seem to grasp that attack properly, so I am not relying on that to make my argument below. Yet I maintain that the Transactions Withholding Attack is another future reason that Bitcoin mining will become entirely centralized by the banksters. Note the obvious that in the future all mining income will come from tx fees.


At Visa scale (e.g. 8000 txs/sec) this is no problem. But at micropayments txs scale, i.e. billions of txs per second, the individual miners don't want to duplicate the connectivity and processing power infrastructure necessary to handle that volume of txs.

If the micropayments txs will be handled by an off-chain layer, then perhaps that aspect of my point does not apply. I will study more the off-chain proposals and get back to you this point.

I don't think IBLT can work (afair perhaps I explained my stance in my refutation of Peter Told at afair the Git hosted IBLT paper), but that is apparently OT the main point of discussion herein.

In any case, I have another argument against the intended efficacy of getblocktemplate. Again remember my concern is about a Digital Kill Switch, wherein rarely an individual's number has been shut off and they are not allowed to transaction (for political persecution or whatever), thus these will be rare occurences. So the pools can simply discard and ignore block solutions that insert such excluded transactions. Miners will have a difficult time winning political will over such rare instances. For example, if the miners move to another pool that has an established reputation of never doing this, the banksters can attack that pool by numerous means (e.g. shutting of their regulatory license, Meni's Share Withholding Attack, out-of-band social, political, and economic attacks, etc). Eventually the banksters can force you to their Sybil attacking pools (you never know which one is legit as they will change as soon as you try to Whack-A-Mole).

I am sorry. You can't win this political battle. Because the banksters will have the masses on their side. The masses are complacent and they will stick with what ever miners and pools that Amazon.com directs theirs their txs to.

You can not win this way. It is so obvious. Think it out. Even Satoshi said the mining would be controlled by corporations in the future.

A spotlight has gone onto the UTXO because it is bloating, e.g.


My bold emphasis.

Gavin has kicked over the card-table by writing his 20MB patch and going public with it. There is now a phenomenal amount of constructive debate going on in dev, particularly around ideas like leveraging an increased block limit for maintaining a cleaner utxo set and an improved fees market by paying for extra block space.
Interesting that the market is looking more bullish since Gavin's announcement than a long while previously.




Agreed, but the projection which Peter has is probably as good as any other fit. Some considerations:

The volatility in 7-day average block size has collapsed since 2010 and would imply a maturing process of the ecosystem. Arguably, the phase up to mid-2012 was primarily usage from "innovators" and since then "early adopters", which continues today. Projecting forward from mid-2012 data would seem more realistic for predicting the near future.

The "bump" from April 2012 to March 2013 is basically the effect of SatoshiDice which doubled the transaction loading until its owner (Eric Voorhees) modified it, and Core Dev changed dust thresholds.

Transaction size has doubled since 2012 from about 250 to 500 bytes (hence the oft-quoted max throughout of 7tps is more like 3tps), largely because of scripting and multisig. Without this the average block data would look more sigmoid. Adam Back suggests that off-chain tx is already 100x on-chain (e.g. including exchange volume etc), and he is probably right. Lighting Networks, Coinbase and the like, could eventually take so much off-chain volume that indeed, the 20MB may not be reached until well after 2021.

Not a waste of time, but it's true that the idea of sharding is about the first thing that pops into anyone's head since it is a go-to solution for such problems in many domains.  A problem with it as a solution to scaling problems of the block chain is that the UTXO set is real-time (whereas a block chain is batch mode) and one needs to keep a real-time eye on the stream in order to avoid being scammed (or suck it up and wait for a sufficient number of blocks to be cemented in by others.)  And, if one is already keeping an eye on a real-time stream one may as well retain the stream which gives one a whole blockchain anyway.

So-called 'treechains' seems to offer some possibility to do what I would conceptualize as 'longitudinal sharding'.  Using something like a btree logic to retain transaction chains in a longitudinal shard ('fiber'?) might be one something that could have worked and still allowed distributed system support.  That would have been interesting, but that bird had flown at the same time Satoshi made his announcement on the mailing list as I see it.

Subordinate chains (which was my word for sidechains from when I first got interested in 2011) seem to be a serviceable solution which solve the scaling problems in a very simple and effective manner.  A little crude-ish and thus not as sexy as treechains and like sharding, but that simplicity  in and of itself is confidence inspiring to me.  A very notable side benefit is the isolation from core Bitcoin which allows many different solutions to be tuned to many different problems.  Relatedly, it allows many more people and entities to become stakeholders in, and potential supporters of, Bitcoin's health.  I like that very much.

---

On a different topic (as cypherdoc says), the first thing I thought of when I read up on IBLT's is that they could be a marvelously efficient way to communicate info needed to ensure that transaction blocks were correctly formed in a number of ways.  One biggie would be that they contained only 'authorized' transactions and/or did not contain 'unauthorized' ones.  Such a thing would be necessary and necessarily efficient in order to implement whitelisting or blacklisting.  To this day I have seen nobody comment about this (potential) 'feature' of such a development.

I reiterate my upthread point that higher orphan rate favors larger pools because they will be better connected (don't forget the NSA has direct taps on major trunk lines and the high-speed traders on Wall Street have this superior connectivity too) and thus mine on orphaned chains less, thus have high profits for their miners, thus driving more miners to them and making the smaller pools go bankrupt. This is a variant of the selfish mining effect.

Thus I will repeat again that larger blocks = centralization.

I hope that is clear now, since apparently you didn't get it the first time and apparently ignored or didn't understand me?

(if you did ignore before, covering your ears won't help you)

My radical re-design totally eliminates the issue of orphans and the critical advantages of connectivity latency. It is a radical paradigm shift that solves the problem that Bitcoin was designed to be centralized and there is nothing you can do within Bitcoin's current design to stop that! (I will elaborate soon)


its a puzzle and you took the expected path into the maze and that is why you did not solve it. Epiphanies are like that. Yes I will have to elaborate but I am not going to give away such a valuable insight for free. I'd rather implement and profit. Wouldn't you?

You'd be crazy not to invest.

Yes it is a trick. The key insight is into how to make things orthogonal with a clever twist. I must admit, the more I think about it, the less obvious it is. I do have the antithetic weakness of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, "Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.".

For $10,000 investment and promise of secrecy, you can find out now.

Note my Bitmessage is not functioning on my new ISP, so anyone that wants to talk with me should PM me then we will go into encrypted webchat (very easy just load a webpage and chat).

I can't even afford the time (and expense) of travel to a first world country to get a proper MRI and have my blood work and panels properly monitored and interpreted. As I said, "my back is against the wall". I need to be very careful about minerals because I am dosing 50,000+ IU per day, thus I am at risk of kidney stones and permanent renal damage due to concentration of minerals in the kidneys. So I am drinking 2 - 3L of water a day to flush them out continuously. I am craving foods, so clearly my body wants to replenish. I am in a tropical country and eating natural whole foods too, so hopefully I'll be okay. I feel I've turned the corner. Today I am feeling very strong and want to get to the gym. I am feeling a slight lethargy today in my head, yet I also feel an energy reservoir that is ready to explode at the gym. For me, these are signs of my original self, so I am encouraged. Thanks again for the sentiments. We can stop this OT discussion now.

I believe I know how to solve that.  There are 3 innovations that form the core of a microtxn coin -- a problem I've been keen to solve because like I said years ago i think there are room 4 3 coins:
BTC: first mover for holding and large txns.
AnonCoin: maybe MRO
MicroCoin: undefined.

The 3 innovations are:
1. UTXO oriented protocol and storage.  (Merkle UTXO trees that I discussed previously)
2. UTXO size consolidation.  There are various approaches.  The previously mentioned idea for addtl fees if outputs > inputs is not quite there.  Better is addtl fee for every not-previously seen address and UTXO merkle is changed to be address-with-balance merkle tree.  Other ideas are to make address creation expensive (like vanity addresses) and address consolidation txn gets fee rebate.
3. Transformation of blockchain to scale.


And I think 2 more innovation might as well be thrown in.
4. A distributed trustless way to communicate price of coin against USD. (Solved)
5. A way to inject oracle data into the blockchain so scripting has value (easy)

Anyway hoping to lay out my microcoin in a doc soon but I can't wrap my head around how to play nice with bitcoin... sidechain altcoin etc... what would you guys do?

Yes, I was imagining using IBLT to maybe provide a mechanism to allow for some kind of parallelization of the nodes, so that each node only needs to contain a small chunk of the UTXO data.

I guess what I'm envisioning is a node structure where it might be possible to split up the work of maintaining the blockchain similar to how storj is fragmenting and distributing files.

Any proposed solutions I've seen so far to the scaling issue have been incremental at best, so I want to start spitballing some more "outside the box" crazy proposals, but I'm not a programmer so I only have a rudimentary idea of what's feasible.

Sorry if it's all just a waste of time.