Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 87. (Read 2032266 times)

We have the block relay network protocol already. It avoids repetition of data for anyone who wants to use it (each already known transaction is replaced with a two byte reference. A 1MB block takes about 4000 bytes at relay time when all the transactions were well broadcast in advance.

Gavin's own comments was that IBLT probably doesn't not make sense with blocks under "hundreds of megabytes":
09:49 < gavinandresen> morcos: e.g. the IBLT work really doesn’t make any sense until blocks are in the hundreds of megabytes size range.
Given my expirence with an attempted implementation of the earlier block network coding proposal, I wouldn't be shocked to find there was no size at which using set reconciliation over the whole block was a win for normal connectivity and normal CPU speeds (as opposed to things like sattelite connectivity) though we won't know for sure until its implemented.  

Regardless, the data still has to be sent a first time-- which is why in terms of overall capacity (rather than latency) the greatest improvement available from fancier relay is a doubling of capacity from eliminating double transmission-- and this is the case with both IBLT and the relay network protocol. The relay network protocol reduces some bad incentives in mining (e.g. mining without validating or mining empty blocks for faster relay) but it not a silver bullet, nor is IBLT. (Though it does have the advantage of being simple, already existing, avoids some bad incentives against including censored transactions, and likely being much faster than IBLT for current block sizes: Already the relay network protocol is CPU bottlenecked with much of its delay just computing the hashtree (even with a fancy AVX sha256 implementation in the client)).  (At least for large block reed solomon codes, it appears even highly optimized implementations cannot run faster than a few megabits per second on current CPUs... the fountain code like IBLTs should be somewhat faster, but it's unclear how much, especially when operating at near their recovery limit--- the IBLT also requires a CreateNewBlock in the reciever which is currently slower than the whole block-relay-network-process...)

Lightning network and sidechains are not magical things, they're orthorgonal and not alternatives to relay improvements. But since you bring them up: They're both at a _futher_ level of development than IBLT at the moment; though given the orthogonality it's irrelevant except to note how misdirected your argument is...

Allowing altcoin discussion on bitcointalk is one of the two biggest reasons this forum is largely unusable (the other one being signature ads).

Satoshi's role(s) predated the point at which (big-B) Bitcoin-the-currency and (small-b) bitcoin-the-technology bifurcated.  It is crucially important to read his Holy Words in that context.  His Holy Comments on dot.bit/Namecoin ("Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.") are instrumental in such an exercise.


You are assuming condemnatory facts not in evidence (a discourtesy you most pointedly do not extend to IBLT vaporware).


You are assuming condemnatory facts not in evidence (a discourtesy you most pointedly do not extend to IBLT vaporware).


You are assuming exculpatory facts not in evidence (a courtesy you most pointedly extend solely to IBLT vaporware).

This is a blatant rewrite of history. Misrepresenting opposing positions is your speciality.
Gavin did a series of blog posts about why on-chain scaling is necessary, and the pros and cons of the change to make this feasible.
Satoshi made it perfectly clear in several posts that he wanted VISA-scale volumes on-chain, and the limit was temporary.
Jeff has written a blog post to go with BIP 100 explaining his perspective. Rusty Russell and David Hudson have also made it clear how scaling is needed and why.

It is Core Dev who take the position that it is premature, too risky, want to force higher fees (too bad for ordinary users) etc etc.
They offer no alternative which is viable before the 1MB causes major problems to the ecosystem growth. LN is complex and too late, and unanswered questions remain about how decentralised its servers will be.

1MB will cripple Bitcoin. The Chinese miners know this and that is why we have >50% of the hashing power behind an open letter saying blocks up to 8MB are OK.
The 1MBers stick their heads into the sand by pretending that a problem of the near future does not exist.

It is also hypocritical to pump Monero based on it able to scale by supporting blocks >1MB. And it is irrelevant what year someone learned about Bitcoin to their being able to execute a trade on the knowledge of one coin potentially having crippled volumes and another not.


Gavin says "Network usage should get cut in half as soon as we stop doing the simplest thing and re-broadcasting transactions twice."
http://gavintech.blogspot.co.nz/?view=classic

He means using IBLT, and IBLT is so powerful that it can squeeze a 100MB new block announcement into 1MB, the size in use today. It is also less work overall than LN or SC. i.e. simplest.

It does need prototyping, testing and benchmarking, and the breakeven point is unknown. But like JR's node services payment channels, it is a Cinderella of software where the focus of attention is mostly elsewhere.

I like your pithy last two sentences, and so am willing to go out into the weeds with you.   

I know gold <> silver.  They are, of course, different elements (though in the same periodic column as copper for some ineffable, though demonstrably elegant, reason).

My point is that gold's role as a currency-cum-store-of-value is not *absolutely* unique.  Indeed, silver pre- (or co-) dates gold as the favorite metal which meets Artistotle's 'good money' criteria.

People fleeing across borders carry whatever hard assets are available, be it gold, silver, diamonds, goats, art, Bitcoin, or Monero.  I concede gold is the canonical example, but not any kind of singular status for it.

Central banks used to store silver, and I find the current situation anomalous.  In Mother India (and other Buddhist lands like Vietnam and Thailand) silver never lost its role in wealth preservation (despite the best efforts of the NY/London/Paris/Basel banksters and their standing armies).

...

iCEBREAKER

Gold <> silver for many reasons.  Examples:

-- Silver is heavily used in a huge variety of industries and products (what, 50 ounces per Tomahawk missile as an example)
-- The central banks do not store silver
-- Even in the Bible gold signifies power, silver signifies money
-- People fleeing across borders carry gold, not silver

And:

In a SHTF, silver will buy you bread.  Gold will buy you the bakery.

Your mistake here is assuming the Gavinistas have any interest in, much less the ability to, participate in an honest debate, whereby they apply the same criticisms and expectations they put upon Team Core to themselves and their own goal of larger blocks.

They have yet to demonstrate any such interest, nor the ability in terms of intellectual consistency required to develop one.

Instead we get the exquisite hypocrisy of selective outrage (aimed only at Team Core), Chicken Little Sky-Is-Falling panic, and endless exaggeration.  Not to mention the near-daily Two Minutes Hate directed at the devs responsible for scaling Bitcoin all the way up to 1MB.

Gold is not unique.  Silver.  QED.

Why do you speak of "fee market" in the singular?

Do you not understand  on- and off-chain fee markets will exist at Layers 1 and 2+, competing to be more efficient at bundling tx for eventual reconciliation with and inclusion into the Mother Blockchain?

You seem to, with the reference to the fact that "real markets evolve spontaneously and in a P2P manner to address real issues."

How does simply staying at 1MB (and rejecting the Red Queen interpretation) preclude such real markets' spontaneous evolution?

By what logic do you conflate a dearth of consensus for increased blocksize with "a centralized solution?"

I assume from this post you are for completely lifting the limit, are you?

On it's face this is a nonsense argument since any development decisions are centralized in the same manner.

Increase the blocksize, decrease the blocksize, or leave it alone, they are all (centralized) development decisions.

It's also false that anything is really centralized about it because if there were truly a consensus for change (over the objections of the 'centralized' developers) there would be a successful fork.

Gold is unique and was the most efficient soln for thousands of years cementing its social perception of value.  Bitcoin at 1mb is more like the iphone.  It will be outcompeted in price (efficiency) before the majority of the world was even introduced to smartphones with the obvious result that the majority of phones are android.

Obviously I know you are not in a position to effect change.   But my point is that if you were your decision to force a fee market is a centralized solution.   Real markets evolve spontaneously and in a P2P manner to address real issues.

He isn't contradicting himself.

We do need to "fight" features.  Tannenbaum's maxim is a restatement of the KISS principle.  I don't care if you can't see or won't accept that because of your economic illiteracy and a priori attachment to the absurd Red Queen interpretation.  The fight is happening (with your participation) whether you like it or not, mooting your objections.

I'm not "misrepresenting" your position.  The problem is that you don't understand your own position.   

"Contrived" 1MB tx bog down the network and present an attack vector.  8MB tx would 8^2 times worse, and thus the added complexity/functionality of larger blocks is demonstrated (your feeble speculative whining about my "emotional attachment" notwithstanding).

This is Sergio's conclusion; and Gavin's (present) ad hoc workaround is to marry (IE "conflate") a 100k tx size limit to any blocksize increase. 

Let me be clear because you are a slow learner: The intentional conflation of 100k tx size limits and larger blocks is Gavin's quasi-solution to the additional functionality/complexity required by larger blocks, not my "disingenuous" personal interpretation.  You were completely wrong about that (among other things).


If you could stop contradicting yourself, that would be great. 

Gold's example disagrees with your assertion.  Gold used to be an efficient currency, and is now a store of value.  Bitcoin is, by design, following this path.

I am in no position to "force" anything onto the network has a whole, especially not a particular solution.  You need to calm down and stop exaggerating.  

I agree with Satoshi, change it "eventually" sometime in the next ~5 years (after optimization by sidechains/LN and fee markets mature).

"Eventually" will be when we see actual congestion (competitive fees no longer prioritizing tx) or the network otherwise being harmed by the Holy 1MB crapflood regulator.

Accommodating more 'cosmic background spam' with a permanent home in the Mother Chain is the worst reason ever for increasing blocksize.

IBLT is still somewhere between whitepaper and prototype, and won't really help scale until blocks are ~100s of MB.

According to Gavin, the relay network already plucked the low-hanging fruit for the short and medium term future:

i'm not sure too many ppl believe that.  after all, raising rates will have profound effects on the national debt interest owed each month for all countries.

i just think we're at the top of another stock cycle that's long overdue to roll over.  how far and how deep is the question.  ppl are anticipating this esp after all the currency crises overseas and liquidating assets for cash; which drives up the demand for USD's.  if the roll gets momentum to the downside, i've said all along that i doubt the US will get lucky again with having both UST's and the USD go up like they did in 2008.  if i had to choose, i'd guess we'd go the way of Japan and watch the USD dump while they do everything they can to save UST's ala JGB's. 

Because people have more faith in the US Dollar than other currencies.  Thats the benefit of having a world reserve currency I guess, you can fuck around and inflate for a long time before it all come crashing down.

I think money is exiting Europe and Chinese stocks and heading into the dollar / govt bonds as a flight to perceived safety. If the US does raise rates the dollar bull run will intensify; commodities and EM economies / currencies will fall and EM corporate debt issued in usd will be affected. So a raise will beggar thy neighbor and also possibly cripple Us domestically by importing more deflation into an already weak economy.

deleveraging as a precursor to incoming deflation?