Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Peter R]

@theZerg: so cool! Looking forward to a report on how the bigger blocks go!!

 

[Justus Ranvier]

But intentionally making 0-conf less secure seems pure crazy to me!

You only think it's crazy because you're not in the business of selling solutions that to a problem that only exists if Bitcoin is broken.

 

[theZerg]

me too. we'll see if my tiny miner can produce any blocks (and if anyone is spamming the testnet) tonight. Unfortunately my other nodes are still synchronizing so I can't produce a lot of spam.

 

[rocks]

CPFP definitely seems like something a profit maximizing miner is going to implement themselves anyway as a policy, simply to make rational decisions about tx inclusion vis-a-vis fee density.

RBF rubs me the wrong way at this point, because while it's simply a policy rule that any miner could implement, barring grotesque UX schemes based on functioning persistently at Qmax, it seems unsettling to make something akin to an attack such a priority to actually be a feature of the reference client.

Yes. CPFP is simply smarter miner logic in choosing transactions while still staying within the parameters satoshi laid out. RBF is a fundamental change in P2P behavior, yes miners could do it today, but they don't because they understand doing so weakens bitcoin and the value of their investments.

 

[Zarathustra]

That's the biggest BUY signal I've seen in years.

First the Peter_R effect, now the Gavin_A effect:

 

[sickpig]

I wholeheartedly agree with Peter Todd (it's been a while since last time it happened, fwiw).


Furthermore this comment fits perfectly with BU base principles.

 

[Zarathustra]

News from the HongKong Farce:

https://scalingbitcoin.org/hongkong2015/#schedule

 

[sickpig]

@Zarathustra at first glance it seems they explicitly avoid any talks on the economic side of the issue. what a pity.

 

[awemany]

First the Peter_R effect, now the Gavin_A effect:

That the market sees it exactly the same way that we do here tells me that not all is lost with regards to humanity, its average intelligence and sheeple following idiots

I think this also gives a glimpse into how the market will react as soon as BIP101 scaling is implemented.

 

[Erdogan]

I've never understood the benefit of replace-by-fees (RBF) if child-pays-for-parent (CPFP) is available. People argue that CPFP only allows the receiver to speed up the TX but this is not true: in (nearly) all cases, the TX would have a change-to-self output. The user would just re-spend this change output back to himself with a high fee.

The only thing I can see that RBF does that CPFP doesn't is RBF makes double-spending 0-conf TXs easier. But intentionally making 0-conf less secure seems pure crazy to me!

I have changed my mind about zeroconf, and I am now for protecting it. With sufficiently large blocks, no change is necessary. We will have to remember that it will always have some risk, and that it will always be up to the discretion of the miners to choose a newer transaction in case of double spend.

 

[cypherdoc]

I wholeheartedly agree with Peter Todd (it's been a while since last time it happened, fwiw).


Furthermore this comment fits perfectly with BU base principles.

To me that post is Todd intuitively sensing danger and wanting to get over to the right side before TSHTF for miniblockists.

@Zarathustra:

[doublepost=1448539676][/doublepost]Happy Thanksgiving Boing everyone!

 

[awemany]

Happy Thanksgiving!

@Ptodd: I read the same out of his statement. He's opportunistically readying himself to jump over to XT, as soon as the time is favorable. Disgusting. I want him as far away from any 'controls' as possible. He might have some good ideas while being on the fringe. But that's it.

 

[awemany]

I have changed my mind about zeroconf, and I am now for protecting it. With sufficiently large blocks, no change is necessary. We will have to remember that it will always have some risk, and that it will always be up to the discretion of the miners to choose a newer transaction in case of double spend.

The thing about 0-conf txn is that they are ugly design- and security-wise but they actually work.

And that's something people who want to lead Bitcoin into the perfect but deadly academic purity desert don't get - or rather the top ones very much do get what they are doing but are relying on the narrow minded mindset of their followers to do the rest - kill 0conf - but for other, more nefarious reasons.

Because, well, we all learned in IT security that only the paranoid enemies-everywhere mindset works and is the 'right' approach. Because miners will screw other people over because you cannot rely on their goodwill. Ever.

But that that 'goodwill' is connected to reputation and thus a direct monetary incentive keeps them (mostly) from doing this is something that is lost on those that mistake otherwise valuable knowledge for mantras to be mindlessly chanted at any situation which looks similar on the surface.

That people are not robots and are actually able to accept a certain risk profile for $5 coffees - that is similarly lost.

I am fine with deprecating 0-conf as soon as there is a truly viable alternative. I do not see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

There is no way to make unconfirmed transactions as secure as confirmed ones. If there was a technical solution that could achieve that it wouldn't be a add-on to Bitcoin - it would be a replacement for Bitcoin, so there will always be some risk in letting a customer walk away with merchandise before a transaction has been confirmed.

The correct tool for managing risk is insurance.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@awemany

Because, well, we all learned in IT security that only the paranoid enemies-everywhere mindset works and is the 'right' approach. Because miners will screw other people over because you cannot rely on their goodwill. Ever.

Right, I think what we are seeing happen in the debate is the unstoppable force of the mindset you explain here meeting the immovable object of "market takes care of things in ways no one can preordain or conceive of"/"perfect is enemy of good"/"common sense beats ivory tower narrow thinking". Two contradictory things that are Always True™ exist at once, with different people reaching different conclusions as to which really allows for exceptions and which does not.

 

[cypherdoc]

@JustusRanvier

That is the entire point of the thread by Miller you posted yesterday.

Bitcoin isn't an absolute solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem. But it is a practical solution that works in the real world.
[doublepost=1448555739][/doublepost]A solution that instead of hard depends instead on probabilities. A scheme that no doubt makes current core dev very uncomfortable.

 

[theZerg]

I have posted the first BUIP for Bitcoin Unlimited here: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip001-unlimited-inspired-extensions-to-the-bitcoin-client.222/

Please discuss; we'll vote in 2 weeks and hopefully make an initial release at that time!

 

[cypherdoc]

the questioning continues to increase. as it should:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uce96/anonymity_and_side_chains/

 

[rocks]

The thing about 0-conf txn is that they are ugly design- and security-wise but they actually work.

They work not because of design but because of economics.

First, even if you find a large pool to collude with, given hash distribution your odds of success with a double spend are low. Second, any pool that started to help people double spend would quickly be found out, and the result would be massive loss as independent miners left to honest pools. Remember ghash? The system is self correcting.

Bitcoin works because the vast majority of participants in an open and free market each have incentives to enable an honest system. And honest system is usable to many, a dishonest system is not usable by most.

Bitcoin is simply a platform that enables participants to be honest with each other by enabling them to communicate in a verifiable manner. Design does not ensure honestly and never will, human motivations is what makes it work. This is what is lost by the core devs.

 

[cypherdoc]

@rocks

And the ultimate honesty that drives the incentives and good behavior is the apolitical money that is fixed in supply.

Which is why the emphasis and innovation should be focused on Bitcoin's monetary aspect and not speculation (like SC's).