Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 8.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Adrian-x on August 17, 2015, 09:48:17 PM

Quote from: smoothie on August 17, 2015, 09:37:43 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 17, 2015, 09:28:40 PM

602

really?

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=utxo

3 /Bitcoin XT:0.11.0/ 553 (9.02%)

I think cypher is counting all nodes not just the top 5.
the metric to watch is, 1 and 2 are they dropping?
1 /Satoshi:0.11.0/ 2229 (36.30%)
2 /Satoshi:0.10.2/ 1158 (18.86%)

actually, i don't think we should be looking at %'s. why? b/c don't forget that the Cripplecoiner's can spin up their own nodes too just to give the impression that their % share is holding. i'm concentrating on the absolute #'s for XT nodes. yes, i'm ignoring the pseudo-XT's for now b/c i think that was a stupid idea out of the box and doubt any of those guys are that dumb to do that. if XT nodes can get up to 3500-4500 or even less, to me, that would be a fantastic sign of adoption and future success of the XT chain as long as miner follow along, which they should.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: smoothie on August 17, 2015, 09:37:43 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 17, 2015, 09:28:40 PM

602

really?

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=utxo

3 /Bitcoin XT:0.11.0/ 553 (9.02%)

I think cypher is counting all nodes not just the top 5.
the metric to watch is, 1 and 2 are they dropping?
1 /Satoshi:0.11.0/ 2229 (36.30%)
2 /Satoshi:0.10.2/ 1158 (18.86%)

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

the large miner XT pressure is about to get unbearable:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hcx9u/should_i_set_up_a_bitcoinxt_pool/

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: smoothie on August 17, 2015, 09:37:43 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 17, 2015, 09:28:40 PM

602

really?

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=utxo

3 /Bitcoin XT:0.11.0/ 553 (9.02%)

look lower. 604 now.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 17, 2015, 09:28:40 PM

602

really?

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=utxo

3 /Bitcoin XT:0.11.0/ 553 (9.02%)

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

602

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

this threads views per day since March this year:

600500 views / (5.5 mo * 30.5 days/mo) = 3579.7 views/day

that's up from the last time i did the calculation which was approx 3333 views/day.

rocks

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1000

Quote from: smoothie on August 17, 2015, 07:56:06 PM

Quote from: rocks on August 17, 2015, 04:00:06 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 17, 2015, 03:28:18 PM

I think Erdogan's insight into the game theory behind the block size limit was correct.

But to recognize his insight, I think we need to stop thinking in terms of "valid blocks" and start thinking in terms of "valid transactions." All blocks that are composed exclusively of valid transactions are valid.

Now instead of thinking that only Core and XT exist, imagine that there are dozens (and in the future possibly hundreds) of competing implementations of Bitcoin. Each implementation has its own rules for what block size it will build upon. From this viewpoint, the "effective limit" is the size of the largest block that's ever been included in the Blockchain. If a miner wants to create a larger block (e.g., to collect more fees), then he has to weigh the chances that his block is orphaned with his desire to create a larger block. If we imagine that the block size limit across the network forms some distribution as shown in the chart labelled "NEW THINKING" below, then, since the miner can't be 100% sure what this distribution is, it is rational for him to use the tip-toe method to minimize risk.

I think this is confusing a protocol enforced "limit" and market preferences.

There can not be disagreement on the protocol enforced limit, which is what your right hand graph shows. If there was then miners that issued larger blocks will get forked off of every miner with a lower limit.

I think the current situation is also more representative of the right hand side graph, than the left. Today all miners have a fixed protocol limit of 1MB, but many have preferences for smaller blocks. For example the stress tests showed just how many still had the 750KB soft limit in place. So we in practice have the right hand graph today.

What is needed instead is to get rid of the protocol limit in practice (maybe keep a high water anti-spam limit which is what the 1MB was/is), while letting the market show it's preferences. This would be like a combination of the two graphs where an anti-spam limit is far off to the right of the graph, and below that miners show a range of preferences on block sizes they are willing to both issue and accept, which looks like your graph on the right.

This situation probably leads to a loose and dynamic form of market consensus on sizes. Miners that decided to only accept blocks well below most other miners' preference risk being orphaned at a higher rate and so are forced to up the size they accept to better match other miners. At the same time miners that issue blocks larger than what most other miners are willing to build on also risk being orphaned at a higher rate. The result is miners are forced by market pressures to move towards a consensus.

This is where we should be and the hard protocol limit prevents the market from properly functioning.

What "many" have preferences for smaller blocks specifically? Who?

The last stress test showed that many pools were operating with the default 750KB block limit in place, which is a configurable option in the core and defaults to 750K. This is separate from the protocol limit of 1MB. You could see this as a string of MANY blocks coming in at just under 750KB.

As a result of the stress test some of those pools changed their default to 1MB, but not all.

awemany

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

More kinks to iron out. Peter R.'s submission dropped off the 'news' page of /r/bitcoin_uncensored again, complete and suddenly - as opposed to just slowly moving down under the influx of new posts.

Weird.

EDIT: Back up again. Here's the mod replying to my question for the 2nd auto(?)mod:

from SatoshisGhost [-1][M] via /r/bitcoin_uncensored/ sent a minute ago

I just approved it. Not sure what happened before. Please confirm you see it now.

permalinkreportblock usermark unreadreplyfull comments

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: rocks on August 17, 2015, 04:00:06 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 17, 2015, 03:28:18 PM

I think Erdogan's insight into the game theory behind the block size limit was correct.

But to recognize his insight, I think we need to stop thinking in terms of "valid blocks" and start thinking in terms of "valid transactions." All blocks that are composed exclusively of valid transactions are valid.

Now instead of thinking that only Core and XT exist, imagine that there are dozens (and in the future possibly hundreds) of competing implementations of Bitcoin. Each implementation has its own rules for what block size it will build upon. From this viewpoint, the "effective limit" is the size of the largest block that's ever been included in the Blockchain. If a miner wants to create a larger block (e.g., to collect more fees), then he has to weigh the chances that his block is orphaned with his desire to create a larger block. If we imagine that the block size limit across the network forms some distribution as shown in the chart labelled "NEW THINKING" below, then, since the miner can't be 100% sure what this distribution is, it is rational for him to use the tip-toe method to minimize risk.

I think this is confusing a protocol enforced "limit" and market preferences.

There can not be disagreement on the protocol enforced limit, which is what your right hand graph shows. If there was then miners that issued larger blocks will get forked off of every miner with a lower limit.

I think the current situation is also more representative of the right hand side graph, than the left. Today all miners have a fixed protocol limit of 1MB, but many have preferences for smaller blocks. For example the stress tests showed just how many still had the 750KB soft limit in place. So we in practice have the right hand graph today.

What is needed instead is to get rid of the protocol limit in practice (maybe keep a high water anti-spam limit which is what the 1MB was/is), while letting the market show it's preferences. This would be like a combination of the two graphs where an anti-spam limit is far off to the right of the graph, and below that miners show a range of preferences on block sizes they are willing to both issue and accept, which looks like your graph on the right.

This situation probably leads to a loose and dynamic form of market consensus on sizes. Miners that decided to only accept blocks well below most other miners' preference risk being orphaned at a higher rate and so are forced to up the size they accept to better match other miners. At the same time miners that issue blocks larger than what most other miners are willing to build on also risk being orphaned at a higher rate. The result is miners are forced by market pressures to move towards a consensus.

This is where we should be and the hard protocol limit prevents the market from properly functioning.

What "many" have preferences for smaller blocks specifically? Who?

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: awemany on August 17, 2015, 06:54:58 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 17, 2015, 06:49:41 PM

[...]
OK all done:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hdgdt/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hdeqs/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/

EDIT: Strange. Neither of my submissions are showing up either if you search in "new."

Thank you, now I need to read all what you wrote there

With regards to them showing up nowhere: This is indeed getting strange. I was eagerly waiting and I admit I repeatedly reloaded bitcoinxt and bitcoin_uncensored. Nothing shows up.

It is probably too early to be this paranoid, but: Are we getting played and strung along by people even more hideous than we can imagine? Pulling us into essentially dead and controlled subreddits? Can anyone with subreddit experience explain this?

On a related note Reddit will remove moderators if they have used their position for kickbacks or financial gain, does anyone know a for profit business that has contributed to any of the mods or any of the mods businesses?

xeretix

newbie

Activity: 12

Merit: 0

Quote from: awemany on August 17, 2015, 06:54:58 PM

....
Are we getting played and strung along by people even more hideous than we can imagine? ...

Matilda Briggs was not the name of a young woman, Watson, ...
It was a ship which is associated with the giant rat of Sumatra, a story for which the world is not yet prepared.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1276

Quote from: Bagatell on August 17, 2015, 04:20:31 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 17, 2015, 04:11:50 PM

590

Does that include the notbitcoinxt nodes?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12160141

To my knowledge, I was the first person to suggest faking out the XT node count with a patch here on trolltalk. It's a relatively obvious attack, though, so I'm sure that some people had thought of it before.

The counter would be for Hearn to release closed source binaries containing a magic number so that he (alone) could judge when the count of real XT nodes was high enough to start producing bigger blocks and fork the blockchain. That will allow him to do it on his schedule and his group of friends to make some big bucks whether XT is DOA or not. And/or he could syncronize it with an event in the mainstream economic system.

It will be interesting to know how many of cypherdoc's minions are willing to run a closed-source precompiled binary. Of course since most of these nodes are just cranking away as VM's sharing a same processor just to build up a count, it doesn't matter much. Even cypherdoc would not be stupid enough to have actual BTC on them.

awemany

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 17, 2015, 06:58:23 PM

Quote from: awemany on August 17, 2015, 06:54:58 PM

[...]
Thank you, now I need to read all what you wrote there

With regards to them showing up nowhere: This is indeed getting strange. I was eagerly waiting and I admit I repeatedly reloaded bitcoinxt and bitcoin_uncensored. Nothing shows up.

It is probably too early to be this paranoid, but: Are we getting played and strung along by people even more hideous than we can imagine? Pulling us into essentially dead and controlled subreddits? Can anyone with subreddit experience explain this?

that would be hard to believe as Mike, Statoshi, and some guy i don't know Andy Rowe are mods at Bitcoinxt. you should pm them.

Yes, that's a very good point

I just did that, messaged /r/bitcoinxt and u/fast5alive for /r/bitcoin_uncensored (the latter because I simply forgot that messaging all mods of a subreddit exists as a functionality).

Probably just kinks to be ironed out. Interesting times!

EDIT: bitcoin_uncensored is approved. Just got this:

from fast5alive sent a minute ago

yes, the pdf link triggered automod. I've approved it. thanks!

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

596

about to break 600

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: awemany on August 17, 2015, 06:54:58 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 17, 2015, 06:49:41 PM

[...]
OK all done:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hdgdt/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hdeqs/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/

EDIT: Strange. Neither of my submissions are showing up either if you search in "new."

Thank you, now I need to read all what you wrote there

With regards to them showing up nowhere: This is indeed getting strange. I was eagerly waiting and I admit I repeatedly reloaded bitcoinxt and bitcoin_uncensored. Nothing shows up.

It is probably too early to be this paranoid, but: Are we getting played and strung along by people even more hideous than we can imagine? Pulling us into essentially dead and controlled subreddits? Can anyone with subreddit experience explain this?

that would be hard to believe as Mike, Statoshi, and some guy i don't know Andy Rowe are mods at Bitcoinxt. you should pm them.

awemany

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: Peter R on August 17, 2015, 06:49:41 PM

[...]
OK all done:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hdgdt/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hdeqs/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/

EDIT: Strange. Neither of my submissions are showing up either if you search in "new."

Thank you, now I need to read all what you wrote there

With regards to them showing up nowhere: This is indeed getting strange. I was eagerly waiting and I admit I repeatedly reloaded bitcoinxt and bitcoin_uncensored. Nothing shows up.

It is probably too early to be this paranoid, but: Are we getting played and strung along by people even more hideous than we can imagine? Pulling us into essentially dead and controlled subreddits? Can anyone with subreddit experience explain this?

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007