Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 68. (Read 2032247 times)

threatening  indeed

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool

The ideal was P2Pool mining by ~every wallet user.  The reality fell short of that.  Orphan blocks are killing p2pool, and bloated Gavinblocks may be the last nail in its coffin.

Thank you to everyone for your acknowledgement of my paper--it is satisfying to see something you've worked hard on begin to make an impact in the discussion!  Like I said earlier, it was really just a formalization of some of the ideas we've been discussing here over the past months.    

I'm very happy with how the paper was received.  Between public and private comments (and Peter Todd calling it pseudo science) several aspects of the paper were challenged, and now I'm further convinced that the model and results are both useful and valid.  I think the most accurate criticism of the paper was that I should have spent more effort discussing the inter/intra communication issues (the "you don't orphan you're own block" point).¹ Hopefully, I'll have time to work on this in the fall.  

I exchanged emails with Greg Maxwell over several aspects of the paper that he questioned.  One point he did make, that I admit is valid but do not personally see as an issue, is that the most profitable "configuration" according to the results from the paper is a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power (which would be centralizing).  This would minimize the propagation impedance.  While I agree that this is true, it seems like just another way of looking at the 51% problem.  We already know that if one entity controls a huge amount of hash power they can do nasty things and gain certain advantages.  But it would be nice to find a way to explain why this shouldn't happen with more rigour than the "game theory" or "anti-fragile" fallback positions…


The experiment with the $10 bounties produced a mixed result.  On the one hand, I think it got people who normally wouldn't read such a paper more involved in the discussion, but on the other hand (like brg444 pointed out) it may have made the thread less readable.  I ended up paying out $90 to catch several small errors.  The error I was most pleased to catch was Noosterdam's "innumerate" versus "enumerate."  I think I've been using these words interchangeably my entire life but they actually mean very different things!


¹Note that the math is valid nonetheless, as this just affects the propagation delay which was accounted for in the model.  

I think the "you" in the phrase "you never orphan your own blocks" needs to be thought about more carefully, but the point is valid that a block's propagation impedance [my (gamma x C)^-1 in the paper] is much less when the information is communicated across a miner's own hardware network compared to when the information is communicated to other miners. The paper spoke to this [albeit less than I should have in hindsight and I didn't explicitly talk about intra-miner communication] in the Conclusion and in End Note 13.  

I was actually working on an "Appendix B" to formalize my definition for tau(Q) by considering these details more rigorously, but the math become too complex and so I felt that such an analysis deserved a follow-up paper instead.  

In any case, my suspicion is:

(1) As long as information regarding the transactions in a solved block needs to be communicated between miners (and even within a miner's own network), the Shannon-Hartley limit will apply, orphaning cost will be non-zero, and the fee market will remain healthy.

(2) We will be able to show that any attempts to create a "mining cartel" that prevents outsiders from accessing the same "fast relay networks" as the cartel members will fail, as individual members will improve their profitability by "cheating" by providing access to non-members. [A point Erdogan mentioned earlier in this thread.]

(3) The results of the paper will hold "as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes."  [Satoshi White Paper]

Thread title:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12057609

My extreme statist solution - which I see ultimately increasing scale across multiple systems

Current 10 minute blocks with 25BTC being mined

At next halving (2016)

1 minute blocks with 1.25 BTC being mined
Each block with 1MB limit
add Blockstream sidechain tech into code

**Equates to 10 minute blocks at 10MB with side chain capabilities mining 12.5 BTC**

This solution will allow on block transfers that will allow blocks to happen faster in real world transfers, with the reciever deciding how many confirmed blocks he feels safe with in a small amount of time, along with allowing much more transactions. - True P2P

By adding blockstream sidechain code they can integrate sidechains and ledgers as needed to assist in blockchain growth - even if this means introducing pegged coins to Bitcoin

This still allows a company like Coinbase to offer off the block transfers between user and a company like Overstock with the "Bitlicense" protecting your Coinbase held Bitcoins with "FDIC Bitlicense"

Increase to 2-4MB, not enough for pedal to the metal scaling fans, too much for accelerated fee market fans. Perfect for real world testing of a variable that we haven't tested yet.

Oh dear, it's "Off with their heads!" time again.  I'm sorry, Your Highness.

I should have realized there is no trade off between Layer 1 scaling and decentralization.  How silly of me!

Oops, I also should have realized adoption and efficiency (not resiliency) are the paramount goals of decentralized non-state sanctioned currency.

The concept of Economic majority does not easily lend itself to an intuitive understanding, perhaps because prior to the existence of Bitcoin the free software world had never faced the challenge to bring out a monetary system, and because economic science had never before dealt with a monetary system entirely based on software.

I'll give it a shot: Economic majority is the one composed of long term investors that collectively control most of the bitcoins and therefore share an interest to preserve, and if possible increase, the utility - and thus economic value - of Bitcoin.

If, for example, you are the owner of 0.001 bitcoin and you only accept and use the software version which keeps the 21 million cap to the amount of bitcoins that will exist, you are part of the economic majority.

On the other hand, if you own 1,000,000 bitcoins and, for some reason - maybe a stroke - you are in favor of turning Bitcoin into a monetary system with an ever growing inflation of the money supply, you are part of the economic minority, and no one will accept your coins if you insist on using only your version of the software.

This doesn't mean that the economic majority is always right; it just mean that if you go against it you are the one that is creating an altcoin.

That's not a definition, that's the usual FUD.

You are in fact meddling with Satoshi's plan. You know, those uncomfortable quotes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Bitcoin does what it says on the tin.  
It does it reliably, and without fail continuously for more than half a decade.

Maybe we will get to a point where it can do more, but this must not be at risk of failing to do what it does.
Many risks are insidious, and not well understood until too late so it is incumbent upon us now to at least address all those that are understood.

Ok that makes sense

Well that's helpful.  I like how you frame me as (capable of) imposing some kind of coercion on all of mankind, to "force" adoption of Layer 2+ (SC/LN) and Layer A+ (altcoins/SC/LN).  Also admirable is your hilarious exaggeration of full blocks as "Rome burning."  

Now we know you subscribe to the surreal Red Queen Interpretation, whereby in doing nothing we are accused of "meddling."

Now we know you simply refuse to accept the fact there exists a trade-off between Layer 1 scalability and decentralization.

Now we know you want to pile every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset, because you think Layer 1 can be made to scale without limit simply by increasing the max_blocksize.

Please show the class the work which justifies your conclusion.  I assume you have some breathtakingly original research which will surprise us all by refuting Mr. Wuille, Dr. Backamoto, and Professor Szaboshi.

Just kidding!  We all know you can't do that.  But it's fun to tease you, because the "LN/sidechain/alt-coin nonsense" you are so butthurt about is not going away, and grows more powerful with each new commit:


^That is bleeding edge computer science.  Your FUD and concern trolling is not.  

When people stop arguing about it. Trying to push a hard fork when people can't agree on what is to be done is insane. Arguably when you do that you are creating an altcoin, although hopefully you are at least careful with how you do it so you don't break both coins.

How do you define "economic majority"?

Thank you for that beautifully conclusive and elegantly instructive quote, which may be restated as

Wuille's Razor: Layer 1 scalability is inversely proportional to decentralization.

Is the logic behind this really so nuanced?  To me, it seems completely obvious.  But not everyone enjoys my effortless grasp of economics, systems theory, and computer science.  

It is simple. You never orphan your own blocks. So if you have hypothetically a 99% hash rate you will have an orphan rate that is <1% regardless of propagation time. Someone else on the same network may have an orphan rate that is much greater than 1% given high propagation time.

The numbers work out differently with a more realistic hash rate share (say 15%) but the principle is the same. The higher your share the more of an advantage you get from the prevailing orphan rate being high.

he's arguing that having a faster network than the competition and the majority of hash power will increase your propagation rate and give you a competitive advantage, that's nothing new, that's just a market incentive to make the network better through competition. faster networks access is not exclusive to greater hashing ability so its an non issue.   

Yes, that is precisely the point :


https://github.com/DavidVorick/Simulations/blob/master/Unlimited%20Blocksize/main.go