Pages:
Author

Topic: Please run a full node - page 8. (Read 6680 times)

legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
May 10, 2017, 03:06:20 AM
#48
You have visibly a fundamental misunderstanding about mining blocks.  

If you have hash power that is so that, with a given difficulty, on average, you find a good block, say, every hour, which means that you have about 1/6 of the total hash power *when the difficulty was determined*, then it doesn't matter whether others are mining or not, you will win, on average, one block every hour - minus those few seconds that you were mining on the wrong block each time.

your not getting it at all!!

ok try this..

imagine the olympics 100m

5 guys.. they all run
average is 10 seconds to get to the other end, and only 1 guy wins

now then, you ask the 5 guys to run the length 6 times..

out of those 6 times there is a guy that only wins once..

does that mean if he was the only runner it would take him 60 seconds.. no

because the game is run for 10 seconds and reset.
all the guys run within milliseconds of each other but there is only one winner, the timings of the other 4 guys per race are not multiples of the first guy, but miliseconds behind the first guy.
-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
May 10, 2017, 02:26:56 AM
#47
What is the size of the blockchain currently ?
About 140GB but you can run a full node in pruned form and specify how much space to use with 550MB being the lowest setting. However a pruned node isn't as useful to the network as a full one since it can't serve old blocks to the rest of the network.
hero member
Activity: 2604
Merit: 961
fly or die
May 10, 2017, 01:02:32 AM
#46
What is the size of the blockchain currently ?
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
May 09, 2017, 10:58:41 PM
#45
Nope, it won't win anything more than if it were keeping his agreement with other miners, because it has only a fraction of the hash rate, and can hence only provide just as many blocks as it would when with his peers.  In other words, that pool is betting on making a very short chain, with much less PoW than the rest of his peers, and breaking his agreement.

In other words, if this pool has 10% of all the hash rate, when his peers have mined 90 blocks on the new chain, he will have mined 10 blocks on the old chain.  Most merchants and exchanges will not see their transactions on this small chain because the blocks are too full.  So merchants and exchanges would still be locked out of bitcoin for 90% - while they would be running entirely NORMALLY if they simply upgrade their node to the majority hash rate of the miners' rules, and see all their transactions.

you have no clue..
now you are meandering into trying to argue about hash power.. yet you dont even understand hashpower either

you are presuming if it takes pool A 10minutes.. then it would take pool B 20 minutes, pool C 30 minutes.
that is not the case.
pools B and C could have found a block just SECONDS later.. but because there is only 1 winner. no one cares about the runners up timing.

if you take 1 pool away its not going to take 20 minutes to make a block. it can still take 10 minutes average block, just less competition so that the runners up now become winners more often, without affecting the average time much

You have visibly a fundamental misunderstanding about mining blocks.  

If you have hash power that is so that, with a given difficulty, on average, you find a good block, say, every hour, which means that you have about 1/6 of the total hash power *when the difficulty was determined*, then it doesn't matter whether others are mining or not, you will win, on average, one block every hour - minus those few seconds that you were mining on the wrong block each time.

What does it mean, having hash rate that gives you a good block every hour on average ?   It means that you need to hash about 60 minutes on average, to find a hash that satisfies the difficulty.  Whenever that happens, you win a block - unless this happens during those few seconds when your block will get orphaned, which means that you've wasted a few seconds of hash rate.

Your chances don't increase when you've been mining for 20 minutes on the same block.  It doesn't matter on which block you mine.  You could change every 20 seconds the block on which you're mining, and you would STILL be finding a block, on average, every 60 minutes.

So if all other miners shut down, the only thing that happens is that THEIR blocks don't appear any more.  Yours will.  On average, every 60 minutes.

Other miners disappearing doesn't make you win more blocks (except those few that were orphaned).  Other miners not being there any more will make you win more blocks AFTER DIFFICULTY GETS LOWERED, but not before.

If you have hash rate to win a block every 60 minutes with a given difficulty, that's what will happen, *independent of others*.  The fact that others are NOT mining, doesn't make you, by miracle find solutions faster.  It is not a competition of the BEST solution: it is a competition of finding A solution.  If another one found a solution after 10 minutes and you didn't, it means that you, well, didn't.  So if he wasn't there, you still wouldn't have a solution.

To take the example of your dice, if the game is: you have 5 dice, and you need to throw at least 4 times a 6 (difficulty) to win a point, then the number of times you will have to try on average before winning a point, is independent of the number of players you play with.
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
May 09, 2017, 11:16:47 AM
#44
Nope, it won't win anything more than if it were keeping his agreement with other miners, because it has only a fraction of the hash rate, and can hence only provide just as many blocks as it would when with his peers.  In other words, that pool is betting on making a very short chain, with much less PoW than the rest of his peers, and breaking his agreement.

In other words, if this pool has 10% of all the hash rate, when his peers have mined 90 blocks on the new chain, he will have mined 10 blocks on the old chain.  Most merchants and exchanges will not see their transactions on this small chain because the blocks are too full.  So merchants and exchanges would still be locked out of bitcoin for 90% - while they would be running entirely NORMALLY if they simply upgrade their node to the majority hash rate of the miners' rules, and see all their transactions.

you have no clue..
now you are meandering into trying to argue about hash power.. yet you dont even understand hashpower either

you are presuming if it takes pool A 10minutes.. then it would take pool B 20 minutes, pool C 30 minutes.
that is not the case.
pools B and C could have found a block just SECONDS later.. but because there is only 1 winner. no one cares about the runners up timing.

if you take 1 pool away its not going to take 20 minutes to make a block. it can still take 10 minutes average block, just less competition so that the runners up now become winners more often, without affecting the average time much

i think its time you go to a shop and get some dice.. and some friends and family and play out some scenarios of randomness.. and see some real world scenarios play out.. it will surprise you

take your 10% of network hash scnario for instance
buy 100 dice..

get 10 people and give them 10 dice each. and ask them all to keep rolling until they get a total of lets say 600(adding each roll)
at very luckiest 1 person MIGHT get it in 10 rolls.. at unluckiest 1 person might get it in 60 rolls.

what you wont find is that if after playing the game for 2 weeks you found out the average took 20 rolls .. does not mean
if you took one person away it would average 40 rolls,
took one person away it would average 60 rolls,
took one person away it would average 80 rolls,
took one person away it would average 100 rolls
took one person away it would average 120 rolls
took one person away it would average 140 rolls
took one person away it would average 160 rolls
took one person away it would average 180 rolls
took one person away it would average 200 rolls

you would see the average would still be ~20 rolls. but now there are less people competing. so other people win more often.. and getting the result just miliseconds/couple roll variance before the other


hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
May 09, 2017, 10:45:44 AM
#43
if there was some secret cartel of "lets make md5 blocks for the next 6 months to force nodes to be less secured"
initially 20 pools have that motive.. but soon enough a pool gets greedy and jumps back to sha256 and wins every block.

Your example of MINERS changing the hash algorithm is of course somewhat strange, because they would kill their own hardware.  But if you want to prove the power of full nodes, you will have to leave aside hard forking.  Hard forking will be decided in the market ; NOT by full nodes.  So this is a straw man argument.

Try rather to argue how full nodes would impose MD5 mining upon miners who continue to use SHA-256. THEN you will prove the power of full nodes over miners !

hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
May 09, 2017, 10:41:24 AM
#42
so pools wont continue making md5 hashed blocks for 16 hours because 1 pool will see a nice easy income by switching back to sha256 and win every block that is spendable to the merchants and have no competition

Nope, it won't win anything more than if it were keeping his agreement with other miners, because it has only a fraction of the hash rate, and can hence only provide just as many blocks as it would when with his peers.  In other words, that pool is betting on making a very short chain, with much less PoW than the rest of his peers, and breaking his agreement.

In other words, if this pool has 10% of all the hash rate, when his peers have mined 90 blocks on the new chain, he will have mined 10 blocks on the old chain.  Most merchants and exchanges will not see their transactions on this small chain because the blocks are too full.  So merchants and exchanges would still be locked out of bitcoin for 90% - while they would be running entirely NORMALLY if they simply upgrade their node to the majority hash rate of the miners' rules, and see all their transactions.

And as I told you, you are now considering a hard fork, so in the end, you are considering the power game of a hard fork, not the power which you pretended, came from full nodes, so you are now building an argument for a statement that is not what you pretended.  But moreover, who is going to bet on this small chain with less PoW ?  Who is going to be confident in the transactions on this short chain with minority hash power ?

legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
May 09, 2017, 10:40:14 AM
#41
Well, they would realize that all merchants are simply locked out of all transactions, unless merchants use the new rule software on their full node, or connect their wallet to a miner node.  Because there aren't any other transactions in accepted blocks.

So yes, miners can't cash out their coins, as long as ALL USERS decide not to upgrade, and accept being locked out of bitcoin, their funds and their transactions at the same time.

1. pools are not going to waste 16 hours to double prove what they learn in 3-seconds to 10 minutes.. which is they cannot spend funds
2. pools are not going to waste days/weeks/month to really trying to push it in the HOPE that nodes download a MD5 hashing rule implementation..
after all even core suggest it would take a year to get clear node acceptance..

reality is..
if there was some secret cartel of "lets make md5 blocks for the next 6 months to force nodes to be less secured"
initially 20 pools have that motive.. but soon enough a pool gets greedy and jumps back to sha256 and wins every block.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
May 09, 2017, 10:34:55 AM
#40
We are in the scenario where all pools agree upon a protocol, and the full nodes want another one.  Pools only care about their block being accepted by other miners

nope. because if pools right now made blocks 465623-465723 that were, say using MD5 hashing..

by this evening.. they would find out that all the merchants wont see their rewards of 465622
the pools would have most definetly realised that merchants wont buy their 465622 reward by at most 465623

Well, they would realize that all merchants are simply locked out of all transactions, unless merchants use the new rule software on their full node, or connect their wallet to a miner node.  Because there aren't any other transactions in accepted blocks.

So yes, miners can't cash out their coins to users, as long as ALL USERS decide not to upgrade, and accept being locked out of bitcoin, their funds and their transactions at the same time.  The question is why users would keep themselves locked out, while they can be up and running with bitcoin by simply running nodes that accept the existing block chain, or by connecting their wallets to such nodes, of which the miner pool nodes are of course examples.


legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
May 09, 2017, 10:30:32 AM
#39
We are in the scenario where all pools agree upon a protocol, and the full nodes want another one.  Pools only care about their block being accepted by other miners

nope. because IF pools right now made blocks 465623-465723 that were, say using MD5 hashing..

by this evening.. they would find out that all the merchants wont see their rewards of 465622+
the pools would have most definetly realised that merchants wont buy their 465622 reward by at most 465623

Stick to the case where all miners agree on a set of rules, where the full nodes don't agree with, if you want to show the power of full nodes imposing their rules on miners.

so pools wont continue making md5 hashed blocks for 16 hours because 1 pool will see a nice easy income by switching back to sha256 and win every block that is spendable to the merchants and have no competition
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
May 09, 2017, 10:25:20 AM
#38
but if pools were to change the rules they would get orphaned
Quote
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

No, if SOME pools would change the rules.  But we are considering the case where ALL pools fix the rules (the same ones, or the same change).

You are just printing what your local full node would tell YOU.  But if all miners are in agreement on the rules (old ones or new ones) - that's the case we consider - then there's no orphaning.  Because only miners can orphan blocks, by building on other blocks.

(btw, strictly speaking, an invalid block is not orphaned but rejected: the definition of orphaning is a VALID block that is not built upon ; by definition, blocks in the chain are valid).


and while say pools BCDE are creating their blocks ontop of B for 16 hours.

pool A gives nodes blocks that are rule A acceptable. and pool A get to spend the funds(pool Awins every 10 minutes, zero competition)


First of all, no. If you want to prove that full nodes can impose their verification onto mining pools, you must be able to prove that in the case where all mining pools are agreeing amongst themselves ; otherwise you do not distinguish the effects of a hard fork, and the effects of the power of the full nodes, which is what you want to prove.

In other words, if you want to prove that full non mining nodes have decision power over miners, you must be able to prove that they can impose their rules also over a set of mutually agreeing mining pools.  

So the Gedanken experiment is simply that: all mining pools (of any significance, say the 20 biggest) AGREE on a set of rules, and the full nodes DISAGREE.  It is in this Gedanken Experiment that you have to show how the full nodes are going to impose their rule set over those of the mutually agreeing miners.

We are NOT talking about users, and not talking about miners making different chains and forking.  We are talking about how full nodes "keep the miner pools in check".  So show me how the large majority of full nodes is going to impose its rules against all miner pools mutually agreeing.

Moreover, even outside of the argument, the forking pool that agrees with the full nodes will not make a block every 10 minutes: it will make a block at exactly the same rate as it was winning blocks when in competition, because that's given by the constant difficulty.  So if pool A was winning a block every 3 hours, it is still going to be able to make a block every 3 hours, grossly.  And, again, this doesn't prove anything about the power of full nodes ; this only indicates what happens when pools fork.  Stick to the case where all miners agree on a set of rules, where the full nodes don't agree with, if you want to show the power of full nodes imposing their rules on miners.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
May 09, 2017, 10:23:15 AM
#37
Daily reminder: Bitcoin is controlled by a pompous pimpled faced rich kid in China

says the idiot who recently exclaimed: "its my opinion Bitcoin is only at 10% capacity"  (when charts clearly show full blocks.)   Cheesy

legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
May 09, 2017, 10:15:59 AM
#36
but if pools were to change the rules they would get orphaned
Quote
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

No, if SOME pools would change the rules.  But we are considering the case where ALL pools fix the rules (the same ones, or the same change).

You are just printing what your local full node would tell YOU.  But if all miners are in agreement on the rules (old ones or new ones) - that's the case we consider - then there's no orphaning.  Because only miners can orphan blocks, by building on other blocks.

and while say pools BCDE are creating their blocks ontop of B for 16 hours.

pool A gives nodes blocks that are rule A acceptable. and pool A get to spend the funds(pool Awins every 10 minutes, zero competition)

so 16 hours earlier.. it would be like

nodes 399,999 height rule A
poolb 400,000b height rule B
poola 400,000a height rule A

nodes 400,000a
poolb 400,001b
poola 400,001a

..16 hours later
nodes 400,100a
poolb 400,101b - dang it i cant spend 400,001 and it looks like i cannot spend the other 99 blocks either. dang it i wasted half a day
poola 400,101a - woo hoo i won every block for last 100, PARTY AT MY HOUSE 1250 btc to spend Cheesy thanks B for being a dumb & orphaning urself for 16 hours

..16 hours later
nodes 400,101a
poolb 400,102a - ok i lost 100 rewards, ill just stick with rule A from now on.. i wont be changing the rules that easily again
poola 400,102a - dang it B learned his lesson.. ok guys party only every other block, we have competition again, seems they learned their lesson

..
which is why NOW when a pool sees their bloc getting ropped by the ntwork.. they wont continue for 16 hours they realise their mistake straight away.

(btw, strictly speaking, an invalid block is not orphaned but rejected: the definition of orphaning is a VALID block that is not built upon ; by definition, blocks in the chain are valid).

by the way strictly speaking an orphan was 'suppose' to be used in terms of, when a CHILD (newest addition) gets rejected purely because the parent(previous block) disappears..

but reality is a new block can be an orphan if the parent still exists but just gives up its child..

check the definition
An orphan is a child whose parents are dead or have permanently abandoned the child.

most pretend that "orphans" = parents are dead.. but the reality of human orphanages/foster care system is that children do not have to have dead parents to be classed as orphans.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
May 09, 2017, 10:06:57 AM
#35
it seems you are trying too hard to downplay satoshi's consensus mechanism and trying too hard to make bitcoin sound like the fiat system.

No, on the contrary.  Satoshi introduced "consensus by majority of hash rate" to avoid any "majority of nodes".  Satoshi wrote that "only people wanting to make new coins should run full nodes", and he considered these to be "big data centers with special purpose hardware".

Now, Satoshi estimated that there would be less than 100 000, and he was right: there are only about 20.  20 is less than 100 000.

What Satoshi didn't realize or didn't want to say openly if he did, was that miners would pool together to increase their hash rate efficiency and that in a winner-takes all lottery, of course, pooling together is advantageous.  Instead of potentially winning one block every 6 months, you can be paid the same average amount by selling your hash power to a pool, delegating your decision on what block to mine.

  He didn't realize or he didn't want to say openly if he did, that economies of scale would bring the mining market into what every mature market does: a power distribution of market shares, concentrated in those areas of the world where the systems can work most efficiently.

In other words, an industry with about 20 entities sharing most of the market is normally to be expected from his design.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
May 09, 2017, 10:01:36 AM
#34
pools learn in seconds if their block is going to be accepted.. they wont just continue for 16 hours HOPING merchants adapt..
pools learned this lesson the hard way years ago..

.... by other miners.  We are in the scenario where all pools agree upon a protocol, and the full nodes want another one.  Pools only care about their block being accepted by other miners - if that's the case, their block is not orphaned, but is now part of the immutable history.  The few seconds is exactly that.
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
May 09, 2017, 09:59:25 AM
#33
Of course they can if they configure their wallet to connect directly to a miner pool node !   And do you think that a merchant or an exchange is going to stop its business for a day, while the competition accepts the new rules on the chain, and gets its node and wallet up and running again ?

your ignoring the past and creating scenario's that never happened..

pools learn in seconds if their block is going to be accepted.. they wont just continue for 16 hours HOPING merchants adapt..
pools learned this lesson the hard way years ago..

it seems you are trying too hard to downplay satoshi's consensus mechanism and trying too hard to make bitcoin sound like the fiat system.

its time you stop looking at the end result and thinking "its just a database" and instead actually look at all the different security mechanisms that make bitcoin completely different to fiat.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
May 09, 2017, 09:57:41 AM
#32
but if pools were to change the rules they would get orphaned
Quote
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

No, if SOME pools would change the rules.  But we are considering the case where ALL pools fix the rules (the same ones, or the same change).

You are just printing what your local full node would tell YOU.  But if all miners are in agreement on the rules (old ones or new ones) - that's the case we consider - then there's no orphaning.  Because only miners can orphan blocks, by building on other blocks.

(btw, strictly speaking, an invalid block is not orphaned but rejected: the definition of orphaning is a VALID block that is not built upon ; by definition, blocks in the chain are valid).
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
May 09, 2017, 09:54:45 AM
#31
No Satoshi actually envisioned that we would reach a stage where only big companies would be hosting nodes. We already see a scenario where only

people with fast internet and lots of disk space are capable of running FULL nodes. It takes a lot of bandwidth too, so you will have to take that into

consideration, if you want to run a FULL node. All of this can become pretty expensive, if you are living in some 3rd world country with expensive data

packages and slow internet.  Angry

1. his whole mindset (full context) is that there would be ~100k full nodes and no need for millions/billions of full nodes. the reason for this is:
a. the more nodes to propogate to makes it more delayed to get the data to everyone. so having 7billion full nodes actually hurts a decentralised network. (x degree's of separation)
b. not everyone NEEDS to be a full node
c. it would mainly be businesses and enthusiasts that NEED to run full nodes
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
May 09, 2017, 09:54:24 AM
#30
==> what "orphaning effect" ?  Orphaning occurs when OTHER MINERS decide to mine upon ANOTHER block than the orphaned block.  If miners decided to mine upon block A, with blocks B, C, D and E, there simply isn't any other set of blocks around that a P2P node could "prefer".  Suppose that a majority of P2P nodes decides to "orphan" block B.  But the miners have been building blocks C, D and E on top of B.  What happens ?

Well, these nodes stop.  They stop at block A.  And they can't find any other block that pleases them.  B wasn't according to their taste.  But there's NO OTHER BLOCK around that is built upon A.  Nobody has ever made a block on top of A with a higher PoW than the chain B,C,D,E.  In fact, nobody ever made a block on top of A.

but then pools see that all the merchants cant see their rewards for BCDE..
the users waiting on transactions cannot see BCDE

Of course they can if they configure their wallet to connect directly to a miner pool node !   And do you think that a merchant or an exchange is going to stop its business for a day, while the competition accepts the new rules on the chain, and gets its node and wallet up and running again ?

Suppose that miners have announced that you should configure your node to 1.2 MB, because otherwise, you won't be able to see their chain.  Now, suppose that you need to send or receive 100 BTC for an important deal.  What are you going to do ?  Stop your node ?  Or accept their change ?  Suppose you are a merchant.  You simply want to be able to get bitcoins, and to send them for conversion.  You don't care about the technicalities, you simply want to use it.  What are you going to do ?  Connect to a stopped node, or connect to something that sees the current chain and accepts transactions ?

Suppose that you are an exchange.  Are you going to block withdrawals and deposits from customers, or are you going to update your node to suit the new chain ?  

As you say, the miners can wait to spend, they even have to wait to spend !  They just keep on mining the same chain, and you can chose to join them, and see your funds and be able to transact, or simply do nothing.  You upgrade, you are online again with bitcoin ; you don't upgrade, you are off the chain and off bitcoin.  What are you going to do ?

As a user, you are rather agnostic, and just want to use bitcoin.  As a full node owner, you can chose to have your node halted or to agree with the miner's protocol.  But by doing so, you are just going to get a user to ignore you, because the user wants a working chain to be able to transact on.

Quote
so way way way before z4 (z4=going through the alphabet 4times(100 block confirm maturity)) occurs just to spend B.. pools realise they better make blocks according to rule A otherwise they have wasted half a day building b-zb-zb-zb-z that would be unspendable.

Of course it will be spendable.  Nobody else can in any case spend what so ever during all of this time.  All those not accepting the chain are "taken hostage" too.  So who's going to give in first ?  The mining pools, that eventually would like to sell their coins, or the nodes that serve the users, that cannot do anything on the network any more until they accept the new chain ? 

Remember that most users don't have full nodes.  There are millions of users, and only a few thousand of full nodes.  Users have wallets that connect to a reference node - this could just as well be a miner node.

legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
May 09, 2017, 09:51:14 AM
#29
Most people will have only 8 connections or will shut down the node from time to time and will be syncing most of time, so they will be a burden for the network most of time.

Also I think the network is more than strong enough with the current nodes. It is more a future problem maybe than an urgent issue
Pages:
Jump to: