Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 13.

watashi-kokoto

sr. member

Activity: 689

Merit: 269

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 30, 2016, 07:20:29 AM

Quote from: sturle on January 30, 2016, 07:08:14 AM

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 29, 2016, 05:51:14 PM

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.

Acutally not. Some of the miners on the 2 MB block size support list mine blocks of 912 or 976 KB. If they really want larger blocks, they could at least produce 1 MB blocks.

MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1 000 000 bytes
1 000 000 bytes / 1024 = 976,56 bytes

So current (EDIT:) maximum blocksize limit is 976 kibibytes or 1000 kilobytes. That is the source of "976".

But not all mines will always produce maximum blocksize blocks. Some even mine empty blocks. It has always been this way and it probably always will. And they have right to do so.

By the way, that is the reason why blocks are full right now. Because there will never be a situation when all blocks are at 1MB, because some miners always mine smaller ones.

You are right. This is why the block 395783 has 974.8271484375 KB

They packed it full of some transactions, it's not exactly full but it's obvious that all these miners respect the 1MB limit.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: sturle on January 30, 2016, 07:08:14 AM

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 29, 2016, 05:51:14 PM

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.

Acutally not. Some of the miners on the 2 MB block size support list mine blocks of 912 or 976 KB. If they really want larger blocks, they could at least produce 1 MB blocks.

MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1 000 000 bytes
1 000 000 bytes / 1024 = 976,56 bytes

So current (EDIT:) maximum blocksize limit is 976 kibibytes or 1000 kilobytes. That is the source of "976".

But not all mines will always produce maximum blocksize blocks. Some even mine empty blocks. It has always been this way and it probably always will. And they have right to do so.

By the way, that is the reason why blocks are full right now. Because there will never be a situation when all blocks are at 1MB, because some miners always mine smaller ones.

sturle

legendary

Activity: 1437

Merit: 1002

https://bitmynt.no

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 29, 2016, 05:51:14 PM

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.

Acutally not. Some of the miners on the 2 MB block size support list mine blocks of 912 or 976 KB. If they really want larger blocks, they could at least produce 1 MB blocks.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Luke-Jr on January 29, 2016, 10:40:33 PM

That is users vs nodes, not nodes vs miners.

1.

Quote

The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.

2.

Quote

Those few nodes will be big server farms.

Isn't 2 a reference to miners?

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: oakpacific on January 30, 2016, 06:24:06 AM

Quote

Quote from: Peter Todd
So your security assumption goes from not being sybilled, and no miner collusion, goes to "and I am not censored from other nodes which altogether do 100% validation" (for receiving fraud proofs). This is a far-more scalable full-node or partial-full-node model that we could evolve to. It's a security tradeoff. It's certainly not one that everyone would want to make, but it doesn't effect those who wouldn't want that.

It was not said by Peter Todd, but Pieter Wuille in his original Segwit presentation: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/ he was talking about the possibility of a new kind of node between SPV and full node, and it has nothing to do with the full node security during a hard fork. Cypherdoc misrepresented it as " and since one of the stated benefits of SWSF was that it shifts the security assumptions away from miner collusion and non-Sybiling to that of "non censored partially validating SPV node connections" via as yet uninvented/coded fraud proofs in an attempt to scale nodes, this just compounds the problem given that we now know that the p2p network in a SWSF can be parititioned. we can't tell if SWSF is safe."

Your full node would not be downgraded to a "fraud-proof" node in the scenario of a SWSF, AFAIK the code for fraud proof has not even been written, it's until now a mere theoretical construction.

Very well, I have misquoted something in a hurry.

Thanks for clarification.

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote

Quote from: Peter Todd
So your security assumption goes from not being sybilled, and no miner collusion, goes to "and I am not censored from other nodes which altogether do 100% validation" (for receiving fraud proofs). This is a far-more scalable full-node or partial-full-node model that we could evolve to. It's a security tradeoff. It's certainly not one that everyone would want to make, but it doesn't effect those who wouldn't want that.

It was not said by Peter Todd, but Pieter Wuille in his original Segwit presentation: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/ he was talking about the possibility of a new kind of node between SPV and full node, and it has nothing to do with the full node security during a hard fork. Cypherdoc misrepresented it as " and since one of the stated benefits of SWSF was that it shifts the security assumptions away from miner collusion and non-Sybiling to that of "non censored partially validating SPV node connections" via as yet uninvented/coded fraud proofs in an attempt to scale nodes, this just compounds the problem given that we now know that the p2p network in a SWSF can be parititioned. we can't tell if SWSF is safe."

Your full node would not be downgraded to a "fraud-proof" node in the scenario of a SWSF, AFAIK the code for fraud proof has not even been written(he did mention that, but apparently contradicting himself), it's until now a mere theoretical construction.

watashi-kokoto

sr. member

Activity: 689

Merit: 269

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 30, 2016, 05:33:03 AM

Issue update:

Solution: Deploy Classic with security errors and pocket redditard's funds.

Grin

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Issue update:

Peter Todd is starting to have serious doubts if implementing SegWit as soft fork is the right way to go:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43bgrs/peter_todd_sw_is_not_safe_as_a_softfork/

Quote from: Peter Todd

While segregated witnesses is a soft-fork, because it adds new data blocks that old nodes don't relay segwit nodes can't sync from non-segwit nodes and still be fully validating; once the segwit softfork has activated full nodes need witness data to function. This poses a major problem during deployment: if full node adoption lags miner adoption, the segwit-supporting P2P network can partition and lose consensus.

Quote from: Peter Todd

While Pieter Wuille's segwit branch(1) doesn't yet implement a fix for the above problem, the obvious thing to do is to add a new service bit such as NODE_SEGWIT, and/or bump the protocol version, and for outgoing peers only connect to peers with segwit support. Interestingly, a closely related problem already exists in Bitcoin Core: neither addrman nor the outgoing connection thread takes what service bits a peer advertises into account. So if a large number of non-block-relaying nodes joined the network and advertised their addresses the network could, in theory, partition even without an explicit attack. (My own full-RBF fork of Bitcoin Core does fix(2) this issue, though by accident!)

EDIT: This was said by said by Pieter Wuille:

Quote from: Pieter Wuille

So your security assumption goes from not being sybilled, and no miner collusion, goes to "and I am not censored from other nodes which altogether do 100% validation" (for receiving fraud proofs). This is a far-more scalable full-node or partial-full-node model that we could evolve to. It's a security tradeoff. It's certainly not one that everyone would want to make, but it doesn't effect those who wouldn't want that.

So basically, Bitcoin Core may no longer be safe - and this is said by (edit:) Core-Team supporters.

And guess what: Peter Todd actually proposes to do a hard-fork in order to make SegWit safe !

Gavin Andersen said long ago that segwit as a soft-fork is worse than as a hard fork:
http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/segregated-witness-is-cool

watashi-kokoto

sr. member

Activity: 689

Merit: 269

Ok. I admit it. I am a shill and associated Theymos. We want to undermine Bitcoin.

Let me tell you what I really believe:

Honestly, Core vision, if you do the math, is not viable in the long run.

There must be a considerable capacity increase when block reward diminish otherwise fees wont cover expences.

How can bitcoin live without miners? Bitcoin is Dead and has no future.

Grin

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 30, 2016, 04:40:11 AM

Here is your concrete:
[image]

OK great, so that's it.

You are officially a troll now and this is how I will treat you.

Quote from: hdbuck on January 30, 2016, 04:46:56 AM

Lol the VERified whiners are having a hard time convincing people to follow them in their shitty inflated shitcoin fork.

Another troll pretender ?

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Lol the VERified whiners are having a hard time convincing people to follow them in their shitty inflated shitcoin fork.

watashi-kokoto

sr. member

Activity: 689

Merit: 269

Here is your concrete:

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 30, 2016, 03:59:59 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 30, 2016, 03:44:46 AM

You have no reason to doubt these places are uncensored and you have completely no proof whatsoever that any of them is censored.

Please provide a strong proof or stop wasting my time.

Unless you are a troll who is trying to water down the important issues.

Again, If you did not accept the Fact 1, that those boards are censored, and there are down vote robots that hide every single post that challenges the official narrative, why should I waste my time in further discussion?

There were no facts in what you supplied.
There was no proof. And downvote robots are everywhere. I am actually starting to believe you may be a robot of some kind.

Anybody can photoshop such a fake, this means nothing.

Seriously, are you a troll, a child or a mentally disabled person ? I am sorry, but I really don't have time to explain such simple things.

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 30, 2016, 03:59:59 AM

I am not paid to convince people.

Nobody accused you of being paid, so why are you explaining yourself ? This is suspicious. Now it's like you actually are paid by somebody.

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 30, 2016, 03:59:59 AM

You have the freedom to fork back off to reddit, and you can Believe What You Want To Believe.

I have the freedom to believe you are a troll with
- No facts
- No proof
- No arguments

Give us something concrete or get out of this discussion. You are really wasting mine, your and everybody else's time.

watashi-kokoto

sr. member

Activity: 689

Merit: 269

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 30, 2016, 03:44:46 AM

You have no reason to doubt these places are uncensored and you have completely no proof whatsoever that any of them is censored.

Please provide a strong proof or stop wasting my time.

Unless you are a troll who is trying to water down the important issues.

Again, If you did not accept the Fact 1, that those boards are censored, and there are down vote robots that hide every single post that challenges the official narrative, why should I waste my time in further discussion?

I am not paid to convince people.

You have the freedom to fork back off to reddit, and you can Believe What You Want To Believe.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 30, 2016, 03:39:11 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 30, 2016, 03:29:35 AM

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 30, 2016, 03:27:11 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 30, 2016, 02:24:24 AM

Current thread backup in case of censorship,

Tinfoil hat on?
Grin

Clown hat on ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3id1al/moderators_of_rbitcoin_changed_the_stylesheets/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h51e0/we_did_it_reddit_a_500_upvoted_post_with_hundreds/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3ruq0a/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_proposes_rbtc_for/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/40qrc6/theymos_is_intentionally_bugging_threads_that_he/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8vkv/rbitcoin_is_now_banning_people_for_mentioning_xt/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3z0pkq/theymos_caught_redhanded_why_he_censors_all_the/

r/btc
r/bitcoin_uncensored

>credible source of information

Yes it happens, even to the brightest ones of us. It's not a shame to admit that one has been deceived. I know it looks really convincing.

You have no reason to doubt these places are uncensored and you have completely no proof whatsoever that any of them is censored.

Please provide a strong proof or stop wasting my time.

Unless you are a troll who is trying to water down the important issues.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

@Luke-Jr

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 29, 2016, 10:12:15 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on January 29, 2016, 08:05:32 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on January 29, 2016, 07:39:42 PM

-snip-
Also keep in mind that back when Satoshi was around, the idea was that every node would be a miner among equals. That is no longer the case.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6306

Quote

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

And you responded with:

Quote from: Luke-Jr on January 29, 2016, 10:40:33 PM

That is users vs nodes, not nodes vs miners.

@Luke-Jr
Elaborate, or I call bullshit.

watashi-kokoto

sr. member

Activity: 689

Merit: 269

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 30, 2016, 03:29:35 AM

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 30, 2016, 03:27:11 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 30, 2016, 02:24:24 AM

Current thread backup in case of censorship,

Tinfoil hat on?
Grin

Clown hat on ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3id1al/moderators_of_rbitcoin_changed_the_stylesheets/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h51e0/we_did_it_reddit_a_500_upvoted_post_with_hundreds/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3ruq0a/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_proposes_rbtc_for/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/40qrc6/theymos_is_intentionally_bugging_threads_that_he/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8vkv/rbitcoin_is_now_banning_people_for_mentioning_xt/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3z0pkq/theymos_caught_redhanded_why_he_censors_all_the/

r/btc
r/bitcoin_uncensored

>credible source of information

Yes it happens, even to the brightest ones of us. It's not a shame to admit that one has been deceived. I know it looks really convincing. These many, credible looking accounts, with various achievement badges, on social media. A flood of well written posts, a carefully copy pasted arguments, followed by a fear and doubt inducing statements. A robotic -generated burst of down votes, and a slight burst of up votes for every post that needs to be legitimized. A "majority" couldn't be possibly wrong.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 30, 2016, 03:27:11 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 30, 2016, 02:24:24 AM

Current thread backup in case of censorship,

Tinfoil hat on?
Grin

Clown hat on ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3id1al/moderators_of_rbitcoin_changed_the_stylesheets/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h51e0/we_did_it_reddit_a_500_upvoted_post_with_hundreds/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3ruq0a/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_proposes_rbtc_for/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/40qrc6/theymos_is_intentionally_bugging_threads_that_he/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8vkv/rbitcoin_is_now_banning_people_for_mentioning_xt/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3z0pkq/theymos_caught_redhanded_why_he_censors_all_the/

YarkoL

legendary

Activity: 996

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Luke-Jr on January 29, 2016, 10:40:33 PM

That is users vs nodes, not nodes vs miners.

As you pointed out, the nodes and generators were the same at the time of
that quote. So you can't say that it applies only to the miner side of them.
When it says, "client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate"
I don't think it applies to full nodes, but wallets.

watashi-kokoto

sr. member

Activity: 689

Merit: 269

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 30, 2016, 02:24:24 AM

Current thread backup in case of censorship,

Tinfoil hat on?
Grin

Topic: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 13. (Read 38050 times)