Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 49. (Read 2032247 times)
Big middle finger to iCEBLOW, brg444, tvbcof, and MOA:
It appears now that the reddit post proving censorship of the now "uncensored" reddit post (44% of hash power supports 8 MB) has itself been censored:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/
Quote
Just to clear things up, that thread wasn't removed by a moderator, I removed it to address some factual inaccuracies and add some additional sources. It is now reposted.
So much for thermos being the "epitome of authoritarianism" and ready to start "book burnings."
If you and the toxic Redditards (eg Frap.doc) could learn the diff between moderation and censorship, that would be great.
XTnodes = 3%
Wow, very disruption. Such revolutionary!
this sounds exactly like something i'd say:
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean
And if this is true Blockstream is making a HUGE mistake. I don't think many people are doing multiple txns per day, every day right now. I don't even think many people do 1 txn per week. I doubt that people will be willing to sequester coins into the LN for significant periods (no I have no facts to back up this intuition).
So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).
Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable. Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).
So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today. And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.
it was never about practicality or common sense. let alone fairness.
it was about greed.
this sounds exactly like something i'd say:
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean
And if this is true Blockstream is making a HUGE mistake. I don't think many people are doing multiple txns per day, every day right now. I don't even think many people do 1 txn per week. I doubt that people will be willing to sequester coins into the LN for significant periods (no I have no facts to back up this intuition).
So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).
Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable. Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).
So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today. And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.
It is resolved. We won. The devil lost.
2 1/2 yrs later after my newsletter post on this:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/silicon-valley-going-wall-street-171001127.html
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/silicon-valley-going-wall-street-171001127.html
I'm a bit shocked that no one is talking about this idea.
It would greatly increase the security (and hence the value) of SPV clients and allow far greater scaling with almost no sacrifice in security.
A pessimistic explanation would be that maybe nobody actually wants solutions to any of Bitcoin's problems. They just want to have problems to point to as excuses for furthering one agenda or another. It would greatly increase the security (and hence the value) of SPV clients and allow far greater scaling with almost no sacrifice in security.
I question the need for new messages to help SPV clients find the right path because 1) they seem exploitable to me and 2) all they need is the header chain to find the right path and headers are already short and fast to transmit. Waiting for x blocks again seems to protect them if you assume a majority of well connected miners.
This is a far weaker security model that what is achievable.If you can point a way to exploit this technique, I'd appreciate having it pointed out:
https://gist.github.com/justusranvier/451616fa4697b5f25f60
I guess I'm just expressing the opinion that the current header based proof if work mechanism is working fine so far and is difficult to exploit. I'll take a look when I have time (but you're a smart guy so I'm sure the solution is strong). Its just that in this instance I'm not sure we have a problem yet, and I'm starting to take a if its not broke why fix it view largely out of fear that an unneeded change might have adverse unknown consequences (but maybe we will someday and so its very useful to have solutions ready)
market responding well to the arrival of XT! iCEBLOW & co is going to get blown away:
I question the need for new messages to help SPV clients find the right path because 1) they seem exploitable to me and 2) all they need is the header chain to find the right path and headers are already short and fast to transmit. Waiting for x blocks again seems to protect them if you assume a majority of well connected miners.
This is a far weaker security model that what is achievable.If you can point a way to exploit this technique, I'd appreciate having it pointed out:
https://gist.github.com/justusranvier/451616fa4697b5f25f60
I'm a bit shocked that no one is talking about this idea.
It would greatly increase the security (and hence the value) of SPV clients and allow far greater scaling with almost no sacrifice in security.
Have you guys seen this, a DAC gambling/prediction engine built on top of Ethereum
http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/11/augur-gambling-prediction-ethereum
I think this is the first example of a true DAC out in the wild that I've seen. Bitcoin still hasn't even gotten started yet.
Edit: the reason folks are solid libertarians but most of them still don't get bitcoin.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/11/augur-gambling-prediction-ethereum
I think this is the first example of a true DAC out in the wild that I've seen. Bitcoin still hasn't even gotten started yet.
Edit: the reason folks are solid libertarians but most of them still don't get bitcoin.
going UP:
I question the need for new messages to help SPV clients find the right path because 1) they seem exploitable to me and 2) all they need is the header chain to find the right path and headers are already short and fast to transmit. Waiting for x blocks again seems to protect them if you assume a majority of well connected miners.
This is a far weaker security model that what is achievable.If you can point a way to exploit this technique, I'd appreciate having it pointed out:
https://gist.github.com/justusranvier/451616fa4697b5f25f60
Maybe I'm missing something, please correct me if I'm wrong.
In the event of an empty mempool (and with a 0 btc subsidy), for a miner to obtain a profit would be necesary to wait until enough new fee paying transactions enter into the mempool, otherwise keep mining at a loss.
Isn't this the same as saying
"In order for a transaction to be added to the blockchain, a sufficient fee must be provided"
In the event of an empty mempool (and with a 0 btc subsidy), for a miner to obtain a profit would be necesary to wait until enough new fee paying transactions enter into the mempool, otherwise keep mining at a loss.
Isn't this the same as saying
"In order for a transaction to be added to the blockchain, a sufficient fee must be provided"
It's a matter of whether we're talking about the fee per transactions, or the total fees that a miner can claim when he builds a block. In the case where R->0, you could post a TX with a generous fee1 but it still won't make sense for a miner to attempt to mine a block just for you. You'd need to wait until others have broadcast similarly fee paying transactions, in order to push the block size into the "profitable" zone in Mengerian's graph:
1There would be some fee that you could pay to get your TX mined, but it would be vastly more costly than waiting for other fee-paying transactions to begin re-filling the miners' mempools.
The above discussion relates to Bitcoin in a relatively mature state, well up the S-curve. Even a negligible subsidy changes the dynamic from a zero subsidy, and the $ value of BTC might be so high that incentive to mine an empty block remains for several decades. Consider the current situation with low oil prices, many producers remain pumping at a loss while they wait for an upturn because selling at any reasonable price mitigates their fixed cost overheads.
Further, I don't think that the mempool will be emptied as standard, because it implies near 100% synchronization and there will be differences at the margins: new tx arriving and old tx expiring. One of the beauties of IBLT is that it will always allow for some out-of-band tx, which mitigates the risk of the centralised censorship inherent in "all nodes agreeing all unconfirmed tx" in advance of selection for block templates.
BloatChain is impasse. It is a situation in which no progress is possible. Increasing blocksize to 24 GB is like trying to build a ladder from the earth to the moon.
Well you have 16 years to come up with better scaling solutions and prevent 24gb blocks from happening. Unless better solutions are ready to go, then we will have no choice but to allow the blocksize limit to increase every 2 years.
i think this is a turning point.
yes quote me on this.
The losses of nodes over the past 2 months (from the previous ATH) have been gained back and then some in 3 days time.
Like technical analysis on markets this too is in a sense, a "market".
ATH is a clear sign of things to come.
I'll be switching over to XT today as well.
yes quote me on this.
The losses of nodes over the past 2 months (from the previous ATH) have been gained back and then some in 3 days time.
Like technical analysis on markets this too is in a sense, a "market".
ATH is a clear sign of things to come.
I'll be switching over to XT today as well.
it may even have been good. except that it is encouraging this non-verification scheme for tx's which as you say, may be gamed and has contributed to quite a perversion in analyzing this particular attack and was never visualized in Satoshi's original ideas.
That isn't the problem.The problem is that there is no way to tell an SPV client that the chain they are following because it has the most proof of work is actually invalid and should be rejected.
If that capability existed, then nobody would have to care whether or not miners choose to burn their own electricity mining invalid blocks or not.
This seems to happen frequently in Bitcoin where bad behaviour by party A can negatively effect party B, and so everybody focuses exclusively on preventing party A's bad behaviour instead of making the system more robust by removing party A's ability to negatively impact party B to solve all current and future problems.
I don't think I agree with the highlighted part.
The structure of the blockchain's proof-of-work on minimal sized headers is itself the mechanism SPV clients use to determine if a chain is valid. Yes they do not verify the chain's contents themselves. Instead they rely on the fact that producing a false longest chain is prohibitly expensive and thus very unlikely.
To effectively pull off a longest but invalid chain attack requires an attacker to spend more mining effort than the rest of the ecosystem, in order to produce a false chain that will never be acknowledged by the p2p network and can only be used to temporarily trick SPV users.
In short, proof of work on headers is itself a form of validation.
If a majority of miners are building an invalid chains accidentally or intentionally, the problem will get sorted out eventually but in principle there's no upper bound on how long that process will require.
On the other hands with some relatively simple new messages and protocol requirements the time required for SPV clients to get back on the valid chain can be reduced to the time needed to propagate a message across the network regardless of the hash power supporting the invalid chain.
The odds of miners building accidentally on a false chain seem low. By definition they have to be able to download a block in less than 10 min (otherwise they couldn't keep up with the transactions themselves).
Yes they might build on a false chain for a short period of time if blocks are randomly found fast, but the statistics works out that this won't last long and waiting x blocks solves the issue. You're better than me at the math but I'd bet that 6ish confirmations works out to good enough.
If a majority of miners are intentionally doing this, then we have a 51% attack underway and lots of assumptions break down.
I question the need for new messages to help SPV clients find the right path because 1) they seem exploitable to me and 2) all they need is the header chain to find the right path and headers are already short and fast to transmit. Waiting for x blocks again seems to protect them if you assume a majority of well connected miners.
BloatChain is impasse. It is a situation in which no progress is possible. Increasing blocksize to 24 GB is like trying to build a ladder from the earth to the moon.
It shouldn't go that far at the present state of hardware and networking. Remove the chains, and we will see what the right size is.
I'll really not waste my time to prove obvious. :-) .. this mean I'll not print you book in leather with golden letters.
"Current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not any time soon)" :-)
You must not understand what proof means."Current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not any time soon)" :-)
The problem with your statement is that you've expressed it in terms of an unsolvable problem, which is begging the question.
Processing 24 GB of data in a 10 minute period is possible with technology that exists today. It does not require faster-than-light communication, or violating mass/energy conservation, or solving the halting problem, or anything else that's actually impossible.
Perhaps what you actually mean is that handing a 24 GB every 10 minutes would be expensive using existing technology. Perhaps even so expensive as to cost more than Bitcoin users would be willing to pay.
Expressed in those terms, you have a statement that can actually be rationally evaluated.
You'd need to establish how much it would cost to pay for the hardware and operating expenses to operate a 24 GB/10 minute network, and then estimate how much the users would be willing to pay per-transaction. If the estimated costs exceed the estimated budged, then you'd be correct to say that the network would probably be too expensive to operate.
Of course, once you've phrased the problem in a manner that allows for potential solutions, then it becomes possible to talk about productive things like, "what steps could we take to reduce the cost of operating the network?"
On the other hand, if you phrased your "obvious truth" in a form of an unsolvable problem deliberately because you have a preference for the problem remaining unsolved, then keep doing what you're doing.
BloatChain is impasse. It is a situation in which no progress is possible. Increasing blocksize to 24 GB is like trying to build a ladder from the earth to the moon.
Jump to: