Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

(who seems to have garnered quite a bit of support from the BU devs

IMHO everybody should avoid this tribal thinking and rallying behind person X and person Y. Just because people acknowledge his academical work doesn't mean that they think Emin's FUD (which has been years ago btw.) was a great move by him.

Yes, Emin's FUD about SM was bullshit and extremely unprofessional. But he did release a paper following academic standards. It is written so that people can understand his work, criticize his work, build on his work etc. Something that can't be said about the "Anti"-SM "paper" by CSW.

And SM is not a problem, obviously, today. But I
a) don't understand the "everybody who tries to find holes in Bitcoin's security model is the enemy" and the
b) "I have to belong to a BTC-Tribe with CSW, Peter R., Roger Ver, Greg Maxwell or whomever as a leader"
mentalities.

Lets put the SM/CSW stuff to rest. It's boring.

 

[shadders]

Pretty much not 0.5 even if the SM has 1:1 Sybil node for each mining node in the network.

Here's why the sybil network is less of an advantage than it seems.
99% of miner finding a block is going to be on FIBRE.
This means the HM is 1 low latency hop away from most all the rest of the miners including the SM's listening nodes.
To win the race, SM has to
1) receive block - At 1:1 Sybil to Real Miner, this is the same time that all the connected miners and Sybils receive.
2) Process - the slowest step
3) Transmit.

The SM starts one hop behind in this race, and the average distance is closer to 1 than to 2, (about 1.4 and has been decreasing). So even in the most optimal case of total sybiling the SM loses the race more often than it wins even if the process time were ZERO

At a network distance of 1.4, >60% of miner nodes have the HM block at the same time as the Sybil network. The race is over for those 60% only 40% remain uncontested and it is about 50/50 for those as they are going to be 1 low latency hop from both. Even with total 100% sybil network, SM wins about 20% of the races if we round in SM's favor.

So 0.5 is not realistically feasible when the paper was written, MUCH less so in the world today, and has been getting harder as the network scales.

Section 6.2 of the SM paper recommends that instead of first seen, mining switches to a random order if they see two blocks. This recommendation improves the SM strategy rather than defend against it. Did the authors not realize this, or are all the recommendations the paper makes just thinly veiled attacks on the bitcoin protocol?

In my sim all node are connected via private networks so very low latency. A close approximation of the FIBRE network. The 100 nodes have on average 76 connection. The SM is connected to every node. There are no transactions other than coinbase so blocks are less than 200 bytes and transmission/validation time is almost exactly the same as latency. In my early test runs (when I only had 10 nodes total, 7 connections per node and SM connected to all) the best gamma I was able to measure (at 48.8% SM hashpower) was 11%. To be clear that is out of 1 block leads for the SM when the HM found a block and the SM released their hidden block the SM won 48.8 + 11%. The numbers are probably not perfect. But it's an interesting indication.

 

[_bc]

Back to belaboring other topics: @jessquit mentioned that a currency that has industrial/other uses might not be optimal - volatility in that industrial use can hamper its unit-of-account-iness. I'm currently enjoying the success of Memo. I think it's conceivable that even more apps will build on top of Memo - and come May, even more so. We're just getting started. There's no rocket-science-crypto in Memo, and it's available to billions of people. I think we'll see lots more simple protocols built on BCH. Each one will bring their own spikes and dips to the BCH price chart. At some point, however, *to the extent that they're independent*, they'll all drown-out each other, and be noise in an otherwise-rising tide.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@_bc

memo is interesting. Some ideas:
- I don't think it is possible or wishable to have a twitter on blockchain. This prospection makes me a small blocker.
- It is fascinating, however, to get a standard for writing and reading messages on the blockchain.
- Imho miners should start to "tax" op_return at some point and refuse to accept the simple way of introducing data by encoding it in outputs
- It is also fascinating to see memo adopt the same elegant design of yours, which enables the user to have full control over his funds on the platform by putting the key in his own local wallet. I like that both my accounts on yours are represented with electron wallets. Maybe at some point this will be possible to have with exchanges?
- I wonder why number of daily transactions is still so low on BCH

 

[cypherdoc]

>- I wonder why number of daily transactions is still so low on BCH

no doubt we've lost some time due to the core censorship. traditonal fiat platforms like Venmo etc have advanced during that time. but the knuckling down will come b/c of the SOV properties of BCH. the low fees and high speed will take care of the rest.
[doublepost=1524063924][/doublepost]lol, from /u/JoelDalais:

¶▅c●▄████||▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅||█~ ::~ :~ :►

▄██ BCH ██▅▄▃▂

███ TANK █ ██████

◥☼▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲☼◤

 

[_bc]

- Imho miners should start to "tax" op_return at some point and refuse to accept the simple way of introducing data by encoding it in outputs

I can't see this happening until blocks starting filling up more. I don't know the relative costs of resources, but each Memo carries a fee. I can't imagine miners (in the aggregate) wanting to discourage an up-and-coming class of fee-payers.

 

[shadders]

Why would they want to tax it? Most miners have a fee per byte policy. They're getting payed for bytes. Better yet they're provably unspendable bytes that the miners can prune if they want to save on storage costs. For this type of miner it's more fees for less cost.

If I were a forward thinking miner I'd be offering lower fee per bytes rate for OP_RETURN data than for regular transactions to encourage further use. Perhaps keep the data around for a year before pruning if I want to save on UTXO space.

 

[cypherdoc]

yeah, i think OP_RETURN is the way to go with these add ons due to the ability to prune and that they get automatically deleted from the UTXO set. @theZerg's argument of OP_GROUP facilitating SPV wallet use doesn't make sense to me. tell me, if millions of Africans adopt SPV wallets, where are they going to spend their BCH? at local African merchant stores, of course, that will be encouraged to setup to service these new users. those will have an increased financial capacity to run local full nodes either shared or individually.

 

[sgbett]

Can you explain why this makes sense?

I explain here why Zanglebert's attempt to find a reasonable interpretation of Craig's words doesn't work: (see his response, then my response).

SM with sybils *always* has to do more "work" than HM. HM publishes a block, sybil has to receive then publish. I think its "as if" gamma were negative, but thats just me. I try and see the best in things, easy to tear things down. Some people call that naive, or easily led. They can call it what they like

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Why would they want to tax it? Most miners have a fee per byte policy. They're getting payed for bytes. Better yet they're provably unspendable bytes that the miners can prune if they want to save on storage costs. For this type of miner it's more fees for less cost.

If I were a forward thinking miner I'd be offering lower fee per bytes rate for OP_RETURN data than for regular transactions to encourage further use. Perhaps keep the data around for a year before pruning if I want to save on UTXO space.

there are a lot of reasons / dimensions

(1) Yes, you can prune OP_Return data, even if there is no such function like Prune(Op_Return). If memo.cash ever catches on, I wish to have it. Op_return is much better than storing data in the utxo. I hope cryptograffiti adopts this to be compatible with memo.cash and other platforms. However, you still need to load all op_returns when syncing a node, which becomes quickly prohibitive when this is the whole twitter history. if there is a way to sync without this data, great.

(2) Messages do not add value to the native token of Bitcoin - BCH. You can write a billion messages with 1 BCH. It will nearly never add significant demand for Bitcoin. Using Bitcoin as a currency system, transaction BCH with a value of X Dollar, gives these BCH a value. Everybody who uses Bitcoin as money supports the miners, by giving what they get (reward, fees) a value. People (ab)using the system for messaging don't. They just eat resources of miners, without giving to them. So it is fair to tax it.

(3) At some time reward will empty, and miner need some kind of reward. Imho transaction fees will be enough, but when the miners can tax messages on the blockchain to allow transactions still to be free, it is a big win. I have a lot of idee how miners can still process transactions for free but earn with special services. This is something that is needed in the long run.

 

[_bc]

(2) Messages do not add value to the native token of Bitcoin - BCH. You can write a billion messages with 1 BCH. It will nearly never add significant demand for Bitcoin.

Never say never. Let's see what the market decides. If dissidents in Venezuela or China find this is the best way to incite political change, who are we to suggest it's not? Holding a few BCH now means locking-in the right to post later. Who know what the price will be later?

We're in a Peacock Phase of Bitcoin. It's demonstrating it can afford the resources to distribute shares, place bets, buy gift cards, and wax philosophic. It's not clear which birds will come calling in the long-run. Initially, perhaps all, but eventually perhaps not.

 

[Peter R]

"Peacock Phase of Bitcoin"

I love it

 

[AdrianX]

In the technology, adoption cycles its primary utility that pushes users along the bell curve, fulfilling need is what will drive adoption.

I'm not qualified to tell people what they need, but I am confident in my assessment knowing it's better money first and foremost.
I'm comfortable predicting for reasons discussed many times that better money catalyzes a paradigm shift comparable to the industrial revolution. Efforts should go there.

It's not my fridge telling my car when to stop hogging the power outlet, or having to buy a storage token to use Dropbox.

Everything I can think of is good enough (great actually) except money. Shiny new toys that grow fringe adoption I don't see as a priority. Second and 3rd place after money is decentralized DNS, followed by better many to many communication standards.
[doublepost=1524088689][/doublepost]

but the knuckling down will come b/c of the SOV properties of BCH. the low fees and high speed will take care of the rest.

 

[theZerg]

@cypherdoc, its simple. If you want tokens that have the same properties as BCH -- P2P, pseudo-anonymous, uncensorable, can't be confiscated -- you need op_group. If you don't care about all these properties one of the other token schemes will fit your needs.

That there is a difference is a hard argument to make. people claim that (say) a stock requires that you trust the issuer. Not really... you are just "trusting" in them to preserve or enhance the fiat value of the stock. You are not trusting them to track and provide proof of your ownership. Similarly, with bitcoin cash. A high profile company failure such as coinbase or gemini, or govt legislation could hammer the fiat value of BCH, BCH's properties only protect your ownership of and ability to transfer some quantity.

 

[go1111111]

@Peter R
No miner is going to store a $105,000 block solution on a remote server outside his direct control.

Can you explain why not? You do realize that someone gaining control of the server can't just steal the block rewards, right?

SM with sybils *always* has to do more "work" than HM. HM publishes a block, sybil has to receive then publish. I think its "as if" gamma were negative, but thats just me.

It seems like you're making the "the SM can't use both channels, only one or the other" mistake that I highlighted.

 

[cypherdoc]

@go1111111

A stolen block contains the solution nonce, does it not?

 

[AdrianX]

@Peter R linked this yesterday https://blog.unchained-capital.com/bitcoin-data-science-pt-1-hodl-waves-7f3501d53f63 The Hodl Wave ;-)

I found it quite interesting, I also found absolute 100% coin issued distracting where 1% of the total money supply form 2009 = 100% having the same visual weight as 80% total money supply from 2018 = 100%.

I tweaked it visually to correspond with coins issued and posted it here for anyone who's interested.

Let me know if there are any mistakes that need fixing.
It seems price correlated stronger with coins younger than 12 months.

[doublepost=1524100307,1524099688][/doublepost]

 

[throwaway]

@cypherdoc

A stolen nonce won't work once you change the address receiving the coinbase.
(Yes, I know there's a chance it will work, but that chance is infinitesimal.)

 

[cypherdoc]

Wait, why not? Attacker steals solution nonce, replaces coinbase address with his, recalculates block hash, and broadcasts to network.

Edit: nvm. You're right.

 

[cypherdoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8dcjii/bchbtc_cross_about_to_launch_over_011_hang_on/