Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Melbustus

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
237
884
I wonder if we should maybe start a good-faith "economics for small-blockers" educational series. This can be the tagline:

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
- F.A. Hayek
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
@Melbustus : Yes that's a great quote for the small-blockers who want to transform that block size limit into a policy tool to protect Bitcoin. Speaking of policy tools and good intentions:

“I got into economics because I wanted to make things better for the average person.” – Ben Bernanke

“The day is not far off when the economic problem will take the back seat where it belongs” – John Maynard Keynes
 

Melbustus

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
237
884
@Peter R - Heh, first time I'd seen that Bernanke quote. Getting at what underpins it, I think economists are drawn to the elegance of the math and the inspiring ideas that if you can tweak just a few parameters, you can increase positive outcomes across the board (not zero-sum). I think the reality is that human systems are mathematically chaotic (so you can't actually tweak very much), plus the ugly political incentives/bias/COIs that come into play in practice are non-trivial.

Thus I think that unless there's *overwhelming* evidence to the contrary, hands-off approaches are best; even in the narrow sense of best economic outcomes (ie, ignoring human-freedom arguments).

Anyways, I think the same engineers-enamored-by-the-theory phenomenon is happening with blocksize; but instead of macro-economic-engineers, we have software-engineers. In both cases, I think users would be better served if the engineers appreciated free-market processes a bit more and took that Hayak quote to heart.
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
@Melbustus: I think you're bang on that instead of economists drawn to interest-rate levers, we now have software engineers drawn to protocol "knobs" they can twist and turn. In both cases, their intentions may be genuine and for the good. But we've already seen that handing control of the money supply to a central bank leads to political favouritism; why should we expect that handing control of the protocol to a group of wise coders would be any different?
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
any further news on the gmax de-sub from dev-mail? has there been a replacement for the BIP process nominated yet?
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
I noticed these objections to BU (user-selectable limit version) by /u/jonny1000 just now:



Some food for thought, but I think he is simply imagining the blocksize cap being much more variable than it actually would be. Also, as @Peter R said there, the fact of orphaning already means that "different nodes think a different version of the chain is valid at the same time." Does BU really exacerbate that?

I think confirmations would mean just as much as before (or close to that), because accepting an oversize block that got into the chain a few blocks ago is something that only happens with nodes that have low blocksize caps set. If you want to track consensus, use a very high cap, or draw from nodes that use very high caps.

I haven't thought this through carefully yet, though.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
ppl are starting to notice:

 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
@Zangelbert Bingledack

No, I don't think you're missing anything. But we do need a good way to present BU so that people don't start extrapolating things that aren't there.

How I suspect things will play out is that the network just "gets in line" around the current effective block size limit it. It's in the network's best interest to do so. I don't think the effective block size limit will be some continuous function of time; instead it will be a step function. Maybe it will start at 8 MB, and then two years down road will jump to 16 MB. In fact, BIP101 has already probably created Schelling points for 8, 16, 32 MB, etc... The limit will emerge naturally and--except for rare cases--be clear to all participants.

The only times it won't be clear are during the "phase changes" themselves. This is the only time I would expect for the "meta-cog" fork-tracker code to be executed (and really only during a fork-split attack like what @solex was describing several months ago).
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Based on Plassaras' interpretation, there are only two ways which the IMF could ever acquire bitcoin.
The IMF could accumulate Bitcoins through its member countries by expanding the scope of Article IV, Section 5 of the Articles of Agreement to include digital currencies. This would enable the Fund to require all member nations to pay part of their subscription quota with bitcoins, giving the IMF a steady supply of bitcoins for their reserves. However, the rules can be interpreted loosely or strictly, and this may not be possible at all, he speculates.
Alternatively, the IMF can directly acquire bitcoins themselves, from exchanges and users. The problem is that “Article II, Section 2 explicitly states that membership to the IMF is only open to other countries,” Plassaras argues. Therefore, in order to obtain bitcoin directly, “Article II could be amended to include a new section, Section 3, which provides quasi-membership status for digital currencies.”
Since bitcoin would not need full IMF benefits or burdens of membership, such as the ability to borrow money from the IMF, the agency would “recognize Bitcoin as an ‘IMF-official’ digital currency.” Plassaras suggests that by this method, bitcoin will gain increased legitimacy from the IMF's recognition, while the IMF would benefit from having a way to purchase bitcoin reserves.

http://bravenewcoin.com/news/imf-unable-to-supply-the-currency-needed-to-counter-speculative-attack-using-bitcoin/
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
any further news on the gmax de-sub from dev-mail? has there been a replacement for the BIP process nominated yet?
I don't think word has spread yet that he is in violation of his duties. Someone could write an email praising Mr. Maxwell for his hard work as BIP editor, but then stating that he is in violation of his duties. The email would quote the duty that he's broken and provide a link. Lastly, the email would politely notify Mr. Maxwell that he must make his intentions clear if he wishes to remain BIP editor and that he must re-subscribe to the developer mailing list. Failure to respond may be interpreted as his resignation as BIP editor, in which case a call for nominations for a new BIP editor would follow.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Macy's grinding lower:


[doublepost=1447784782][/doublepost]Lululemon down as are most high end retailers:

 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
Gold being pummelled. Stocks on the precipice.

If it weren't for the magical central bank spigots which can turn back on at any stage with the hint of 'QE to infinity' then a global crash seems likely.

Triple digit gold is getting tempting I have to say..

Come on bitcoin, rally up to gold parity please :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: cypherdoc

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
@Peter R

I guess if we say it will be a step function (which I tend to agree would be the case), people might object that we should just fork more often. Of course the advantage is that the timing of the steps can respond to market demand, even in the case of sudden mainstream adoption.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
Who controls Bitcoin? Right now, it's the buyers of the 3600 new bitcoins minted every day.

Whoever they are, they decide the fate of any Bitcoin fork.

It's difficult to figure out who they are, but there's one thing we can say for certain about who they aren't:

Anyone who does not have a positive savings rate in btc terms is not part of that group.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@Justus Ranvier

it ain't core dev and it never has been given how bearish they've been on the system. for years. just listen to DevCore, ie, Corallo and gmax.
[doublepost=1447791222,1447790178][/doublepost]i like Ehrsam:


$DJI gone negative. PPT needs to wake up.
[doublepost=1447791712][/doublepost]even Michael Casey talking about centralization in core dev:

[doublepost=1447791915][/doublepost]

live:

http://www.media.mit.edu/events/medialabtalk/
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Bitcoin Unlimited liftoff!!!!!

I've set the "excessive" block limit to be 100k bytes for testing, and the acceptance depth at 6 (when an excessive block is 6 deep the code will accept that chain as valid):

Starting with 1 chain:

Status: active height: 284, length: 0 (this is the chain info)
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3 (these are blocks on the chain)
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:02 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:01 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3

Now I write a bunch of TX on another node and generate a block. Note the fork! Active chain does not contain the excessive block:

Status: valid-headers height: 285, length: 1
Date: 2015-11-13 23:07:37 Size: 128789 NumTx: 402 Ver: 3
Status: active height: 284, length: 0
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
...

Let's generate more blocks. The "active" chain remains the same, even though the other chain is growing:

Status: valid-headers height: 288, length: 4
Date: 2015-11-13 23:08:14 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 23:08:13 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 23:08:12 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 23:07:37 Size: 128789 NumTx: 402 Ver: 3
Status: active height: 284, length: 0
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
...


Now generate 6+ blocks. Note that the ACTIVE fork now contains the excessive block!!!

Status: active height: 291, length: 0
Date: 2015-11-13 23:08:24 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 23:08:24 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 23:08:24 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 23:08:14 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 23:08:13 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 23:08:12 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 23:07:37 Size: 128789 NumTx: 402 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3
Date: 2015-11-13 22:50:16 Size: 181 NumTx: 1 Ver: 3

(In this case, the other "fork" disappears because no blocks were generated on it)
@theZerg I have a hypothetical scenario and was wondering what would happen with Bitcoin Unlimited.

say LukeJr and his supporters run BU with a very small block limit. Now a number of miners mine smaller blocks or empty blocks. (just like real world scenario with those 7 SPV blocks that were orphaned a while back)

How would BU handle that would just LukeJr and his supporter switch to that chain, or would it orphan those block with the network, or would it only orphan those block if the majority of the network was not using BU with small blocks?
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
@AdrianX :

It depends if he has the meta-congnition stuff enabled. If he does, then he ends up following consensus anyways. If he doesn't, the worst case is that he forks himself away from consensus (i.e., if the longest chain starts to contain blocks bigger than his limit).

BU nodes with a limit greater than or equal to the hashpower-weighted median will never fork from the longest chain, nor will BU nodes with meta-cognition enabled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
What is the status on BU currently?

EDIT: a logo idea could be a stylized bitcoin symbol on its side to resemble the infinity sign..

EDIT2: a website should go up asap..
I think the logo should be very close to the existing bitcoin logo. We are building on the existing Bitcoin Brand nothing is relay changing, you are just removing a software bug that limits block size, and adding a user defined limit for those who think the bug is not a bug. I think it has to be ultra conservative I agree with cyphor the less deviation the better.

Here is my take on what it could look like. It may be too much but my though was same old bitcoin just new and shiny.




I have a fiew launch screan images and a bunch of icon images of verious sizes @theZerg if you want to include them in a GUI.


[doublepost=1447795581][/doublepost]
@AdrianX :

It depends if he has the meta-congnition stuff enabled. If he does, then he ends up following consensus anyways. If he doesn't, the worst case is that he forks himself away from consensus (i.e., if the longest chain starts to contain blocks bigger than his limit).

BU nodes with a limit greater than or equal to the hashpower-weighted median will never fork from the longest chain, nor will BU nodes with meta-cognition enabled.
so you can't force small blocks forever, but @Peter R why wouldn't all BU implementations start flowing the longest chain after 7 empty blocks were mined, The last time this happen they were orphaned, would that happen again if BU was the dominant implementation?
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@AdrianX

the reason those 6 SPV blocks from f2pool (5) and BTCChina (1) were orphaned was b/c they were blindly mining (not verifying blocks) on top of an invalid block (wrong version #) from BTCNugget who just so happened to be within the 5% of miners (95% miner activation target) who hadn't bothered to upgrade it's software after BIP66 was released.

so the answer to your question is yes if there is an invalid block (non BU version#) at the root of those 7 empty SPV blocks upon which they were being built.