Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Just wandering around my earliest posts on that forum and found this one. Interesting to see what I got right and what I got wrong here.
Richy_T said:
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
BTC collapsing. BCH UP, BCH's.
Last edited:
Man, it sure is fun kicking the beehive over there on reddit. Core trolls get so "emotional".
@Norway and @Peter R
WRT NFC, wasn't or isn't one of the concerns NFC licensing? My understanding is there is a usage fee associated with that tech and patent which was one of the thoughts about why it was better to go towards an SMS/Mobile phone solution (similar to cointext) and to distribute discounted $5 cell phone blocks.
Also regarding the NFC Ring, I'm pretty sure a company in NY is doing something very similar. So maybe one option would be writing software that would work with BCH for those solution options? Another licensing their tech/design for your own? I still like the credit card idea more simply because many are already used to using that.
https://kerv.com/en/
https://www.digitaltrends.com/wearables/token-smart-ring-for-payments-passwords/
http://nfcring.com/
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mclear/nfc-ring-2016-range-one-smart-ring-unlimited-possi?src=btn-nfcringcom-btm
So some sort of bulk licensing deal to either buy and use how you want the nfc chips + software licenses/costs associated with that. I'll continue when I have some time in the KaChing thread and see if i can find out information.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
I'm not sure it really helps much. It's their BCH to do with whatever they please though.
As far as the part about burning BCH, the way id answer that is it appears Satoshi did the same although we're still not sure what will happen with the mysterious Satoshi Group come 2020.
As far as the second part, I agree with their view on freedom of speech and interaction. But as far as the non money apps and token schemes they seem to be supportive of, the way id answer that is that Antpool, as big as they are, is just a subset of the market as a whole. It's very possible they're mis interpreting BCH's ultimate destiny as much as anyone else, including me.
I just firmly believe Bitcoin was ultimately meant to disrupt the field of money and little else. It's not really an conflict based argument. All we can do is keep advancing theoretical collaborative arguments as to why we think one way or the other and let the market figure it out.
[doublepost=1524241468][/doublepost]Like this one
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1181#post-62681
Last edited:
Reading some of Uri's tweets got me thinking about the small-world "1.3 hops" idea.
Imagine you have N nodes connected in complete graph. Each node (not each connection) has available incoming and outgoing bandwidths of B. Node 1 finds a block at t=0. What is the minimum amount of time until every other node has a copy of the block and what is the average number of hops? To simplify the math, assume ping times are negligible, ignore processing time, assume ideal network connections, etc.
Imagine you have N nodes connected in complete graph. Each node (not each connection) has available incoming and outgoing bandwidths of B. Node 1 finds a block at t=0. What is the minimum amount of time until every other node has a copy of the block and what is the average number of hops? To simplify the math, assume ping times are negligible, ignore processing time, assume ideal network connections, etc.
What about this: even if it's slower to transmit the new block to all other miners at once, they do it anyway. Miners only need the header; they'll mine an empty block until they've received and validated the full block. They don't really care if they mine on top of the previous block or the new one (mining being memory-less and all (right?)), but they choose to mine on top of the new one because that's what everyone else will do.
(Edit: I'm addressing the medium post with this.)
https://medium.com/@bloxroutelabs/the-scalability-problem-very-simply-explained-5c0656f6e7e6
Edit 2
Whenever there's a new block:
The miner who found it wants everyone else to get it ASAP so they stop looking for competing blocks of the same height.
The other miners want the header of the new block ASAP so they can stop wasting hashes on top of an old block.
(Edit: I'm addressing the medium post with this.)
https://medium.com/@bloxroutelabs/the-scalability-problem-very-simply-explained-5c0656f6e7e6
Edit 2
Whenever there's a new block:
The miner who found it wants everyone else to get it ASAP so they stop looking for competing blocks of the same height.
The other miners want the header of the new block ASAP so they can stop wasting hashes on top of an old block.
Last edited:
...okay, selfish mining is moronic.
We are (at least, I was) used to think of a miner's hashrate as a percentage of global hashrate, instead of a miner's hashrate compared to CURRENT DIFFICULTY.
Selfish mining might increase your percentage of blocks compared to other miners, but it won't give you more total blocks because it doesn't magically increase your (hashrate / difficulty)!
Edit: then again, if your difficulty changes every block, hurting everyone else with SM makes difficulty artificially low, in turn helping everyone? What?
We are (at least, I was) used to think of a miner's hashrate as a percentage of global hashrate, instead of a miner's hashrate compared to CURRENT DIFFICULTY.
Selfish mining might increase your percentage of blocks compared to other miners, but it won't give you more total blocks because it doesn't magically increase your (hashrate / difficulty)!
Edit: then again, if your difficulty changes every block, hurting everyone else with SM makes difficulty artificially low, in turn helping everyone? What?
Last edited:
@throwaway
Yup, the reason it works in theory is because difficulty falls due to all the orphans. You can show quite easily that if your "attack" increases the orphan rate of honest miners more than it increases your own, you earn more block rewards in the long run than you would following the default protocol.
That said, I don't see the SM vulnerability as something that needs to be "fixed."
Yup, the reason it works in theory is because difficulty falls due to all the orphans. You can show quite easily that if your "attack" increases the orphan rate of honest miners more than it increases your own, you earn more block rewards in the long run than you would following the default protocol.
That said, I don't see the SM vulnerability as something that needs to be "fixed."
I think I now remember someone saying SM was less efective in btc because of the long difficulty periods or something like that. I guess that stayed in the back of my mind all this time until I finally understood.
So, there's no way to lower the efficiency of the whole network (increasing the orphans) such that it gets less blocks than it should, because the difficulty comes back down to the equilibrium point. Then it follows (like you said) that if you get less orphans than everyone else, that automatically means you get more absolute reward per hash.
Took me a long time, but I got there.
So, there's no way to lower the efficiency of the whole network (increasing the orphans) such that it gets less blocks than it should, because the difficulty comes back down to the equilibrium point. Then it follows (like you said) that if you get less orphans than everyone else, that automatically means you get more absolute reward per hash.
Took me a long time, but I got there.
In re: SM I never got a response to this, and would really like to understand what my error might be:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1181#post-62660
cc: @Peter R
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1181#post-62660
cc: @Peter R
@jessquit
you mean this question?
Jess, its important to be clearer in your writing. You were not arguing, you were proposing a solution that has not been built, not been tried. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you.
But since you asked politely; the idea you proposed to reject or delay incoming blocks from connections that are for some reason seen as lower priority goes against the concept of proof-of-work. The core Satoshi idea was that ANYONE creating an actual valid proof will win. Not just your friends or some "prioritised" miners.
Because as soon as you start prioritising like that, group theory kicks in (cheating & cartel) and in the long run everyone loses.
Additionally your opening statement in and of itself is false;
you mean this question?
The post postulates a scenario and a possible solution (priorities and other centralising solutions) to that scenario.
Jess, its important to be clearer in your writing. You were not arguing, you were proposing a solution that has not been built, not been tried. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you.
But since you asked politely; the idea you proposed to reject or delay incoming blocks from connections that are for some reason seen as lower priority goes against the concept of proof-of-work. The core Satoshi idea was that ANYONE creating an actual valid proof will win. Not just your friends or some "prioritised" miners.
Because as soon as you start prioritising like that, group theory kicks in (cheating & cartel) and in the long run everyone loses.
Additionally your opening statement in and of itself is false;
we still have that pesky light-speed limit that causes you to loose time when sending stuff around the planet.
If that were true then every accidental chain split in the history of bitcoin would have resulted in a new accidental consensus rule. The core idea of Satoshi was consensus ENFORCED by proof of work on the longest chain, NOT consensus before PoW. We do the latter now but not doing so doesn't break the former. Short term forks are not contrary to this principle. They cannot not exist. There is no reason a group of miners can't disavow a block or set of blocks, if they can make a longer chain and maintain it they win. This is not something we want to happen often. But it can happen and so long as mempool consistency is reasonably maintained no users are going to lose out since a forked block will likely confirm all the same transactions as it's sibling.. A policy change by a less that supermajority of miners is an inevitability if we give it long enough. We need to start getting used to the idea that this is a non-broken part of bitcoin.