Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 382. (Read 2032266 times)

I'd like to know who is behind several of the sock puppet accounts on Reddit who are participating on the discussion.

Over the last year or so I've noticed some distinctive writing characteristics appear in threads about a few specific topics, and the distinctive characteristics are spread across multiple Reddit accounts.

Sometimes they accidentally give themselves away by using that distinctive style and then delete the post.

Fortunately I've taken to performing lots of screenshots so I catch most of them before they get deleted.

yeah, that is a revealing thread.  Raystonn is angry and i don't blame him.

the devs, all Blockstream except for Todd (who has for years been at odds with Gavin & just about every other core dev until now), are wanting to let the 1MB ceiling be hit to force up tx fees. as discussed here, i think that is a bad idea in that the Bitcoin user base is still tiny and immature.  this inconvenience and breakage of Bitcoin likely will cause even dedicated users, like Raystonn, to abandon Bitcoin for another altcoin as well as prevent any new users from adopting.  the key thing here is that none of the alternatives that they're suggesting are even close to primetime; SC's, Lightning, payment channels.  thus, they offer no immediately viable alternatives.

also, they're constructing a boogie man scenario whereby large miners might collude to fabricate spam-like "large" blocks that cause smaller miners to struggle processing it thus potentially driving them out of business.  i think that makes no sense at all.  in an open system such as we have, a miner doing this will be immediately detected.  if it's IP can be identified and the process itself causes any problem at all (debatable), that miner can be sealed off from the network if necessary.  but more fundamentally, i say they won't try that, at least on the consistently needed basis required to drive out competitors.  it's too risky and they stand to lose a ton of money trying this.  not only from detection but a game theoretic basis.  i foresee miners continuously doing a look back of maybe 1000 blocks or so measuring the avg size of blocks coming thru the network.  they will try to stick close to that size and continue to make them as small as possible so that when solved they can be propagated thru the network as fast as possible to capture the reward.  remember, the real prize right now is capturing those 25BTC so that is priority #1.  large blocks are the antithesis of this goal as their large block can be orphaned by latency not to mention dicking around with constructing such a large cumbersome block.  and even if they happen to get one largish block thru, they would have to be able to sustain such an attack for quite a long time to drive any competitors out of business.  an attacking large pool like this has no idea of the financial condition of any of their smaller competitors such as capitalization, access to ultra low electricity, business acumen of founders, and overall technical ability to counteract such a stupid attack.  a large pool miner will instead continue to take the honest route in constructing avg size blocks to go after the reward.  if they're 30% of the network, they know with certainty they will make 30% of the block rewards plus tx fees.  that is calculable and known and most importanty the safe thing to do.  attacking smaller miners, whom they know nothing about, is foolish and extraordinarily risky and most likely will fail and result in their own bankruptcy.

all the objections that i'm hearing from these guys are mostly political and economic, areas which i do not have confidence that they understand.  not to mention that almost all of them have an economic conflict of interest.

In todays reddit discussions, someone (Raystonn) promised to create a 20 MB "unfriendly" fork. Good idea I think, but, I might change it again and run an unlimited fork.

What would happen? If no increase is advised, it will  work as normal. If a larger block arrives, I would follow that, and if orphaned, I will revert. No hassle for me, I am not that dependent on being on the prime fork at any specific time. If a larger than 20 MB block arrives, I can handle that the same way.

If more people think like this, we could end up with unlimited size from gavins cutoff date.

A two year old discussion that went past me . So it is not obviously advantageous.

The version that that only allows adding additional outputs (and therefore inputs) has already been discussed for years and maybe implemented. So it is certainly possible (the original question).

Another possible approach is child-pays-for-parent. In this case you respend your change with a higher fee. The fee credit counts toward the entire tx chain, causing the parent be mined faster.

As I said before though, I consider all of these inevitable as mining continues to become more competitive (especially after 1+ more block halving). If you are relying on zero confirm transactions, you better have a plan for what you're going to do when they break.

interestingly, we're getting some whiffs of deflation in the futures markets tonite.  the invisible hand has about 6h to reverse this or there are going to be fireworks tomorrow.  get out the popcorn.

how about this?

pwuillie, gmax, luke, and corrallo are spreading Blockstream SC FUD.  what, they don't care if the protocol breaks at 1MB full blocks coming soon?  what a bunch of communists.

Anything that reduces any of the outputs of a transaction already broadcast through the network is by definition a double spend. This would essentially invalidate instant acknowledgement by the P2P network, and force everyone to wait for a block confirmation, crippling many services in the process.

To increase the fee, you have to either reduce an output or add an input. Reducing an output is not an option, so you'd have to add an input, which at that point is essentially a new transaction replacing the earlier. That is a big change from today's bitcoin IMHO.

First off, I think it's inevitable, as there is nothing that would make a miner want to not accept a higher fee.

That said, you can make a restricted version that doesn't allow reducing any outputs. You would have to add an additional input to pay the higher fee.

Gavin is spreading MIT/USG FUD.
why the hurry?
Especially when there is no consensus?

Bitcoin is certainly not going to dissapear anyway.. THAT is HIS FUD.

yep, all the Blockstream devs spreading their FUD.  and i'm in the thick of it.

Contrary to what the public may think, there is no consensus amongst the developers regarding Gavin Andresen’s proposal to increase the block size to 20mb (Thanks to Peter Todd who brought this up during his Bitdevs NYC talk which I attended).

The only devs that have come out in strong favor of this proposal is Gavin and Mike Hearn.

Skeptics of 20mb increase (Note that some people here do favor a block size increase, but none has strongly committed to 20 megabytes as the exact size nor its timing.)

Pieter Wuille
Current Affiliations: Blockstream
Bitcoin core: top 5 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Comments: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07466.html

Gregory Maxwell
Current Affiliations: Blockstream
Bitcoin core: top 20 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Comments: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090559/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqycy4h

Jeff Garzik
Current Affiliations: BitPay
Commit access: top 20 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Comments: https://twitter.com/anjiecast/status/595610865979629568
http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html

Matt Corallo
Current Affiliations: Blockstream
Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits
Comments: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090292/

Peter Todd
Current Affiliations: Viacoin,Dark Wallet, Coinkite, Smartwallet, Bitt
Bitcoin Core: top 20 core developer by # of commits
Comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34y9ws/it_must_be_done_but_is_not_a_panacea/cqza6rq?context=3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNL1a7aKThs

Luke Dashjr
Current Affiliations: Eligius Mining Pool
Bitcoin Core: top 10 core developer by # of commits
Comments: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34y48z/mike_hearn_the_capacity_cliff_and_why_we_cant_use/cqzadpn

Bryan Bishop
Current Affiliations: LedgerX
Bitcoin Core: various @ https://github.com/kanzure
Comments: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090516/



https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/354qbm/bitcoin_devs_do_not_have_consensus_on_blocksize/

in other words:

the blockchain - money and maybe more

I'm not sure. With replace by fee, you can change other things in the transactions (like outputs), no? This makes double-spending much easier. I'm not sure wether "increase fee" can even be done, since it also requires changes to the outputs (and maybe inputs).

I see replace-by-fee as a very bad idea currently.

Yep. If people understood this, we wouldn't have so many entrepreneurs and developers building castles in the air.

that is not bad.  not bad at all.  how about this:

"We will know if the blockchain is applicable to more than money only when after Bitcoin is well established as money".-majamalu

I'd put it this way: "We will know if the blockchain is applicable to more than money only when Bitcoin is well established as money".

Yes it is called replace by fee

With fees, I see no problem with the market sorting it out. Except - when someone wants to minimize the fees of his own transactions, some transactions will suddenly take forever to confirm. So a possibility to raise the fee on a nonconfirmed transaction would be great. Has anyone suggested that, or is it unpossible technically?

This is an example of what I was saying yesterday about core dev being too focused on the tech to see the big picture.
Matt suggests using the 1MB to apply upwards fee pressure. This is using a bit of software for something for which it was not intended. It is like using a hammer to fix a car engine. Mike Hearn has recently provided the missing piece of the puzzle of why Satoshi put the 1MB in place. It was for anti-spam when everyone who used Bitcoin needed to run a full node: a time when there were no lightweight wallets.

The idea which thezerg recently came up with is far superior to just leveraging the 1MB to force up fees (which won't work as people will start to abandon Bitcoin instead).


If core dev came up with a variation of this, e.g. based upon a function of the median aggregate block fee over the previous 2016 blocks for the "buying" of blockspace >1MB then perhaps their position could be taken more seriously.