Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunar]

Happy new year, one an all.

100

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/block/563628

103,837,821 bytes

Edit: orphaned but looks like the same Tx made it into 563638

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/block/563638

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Block 563628 was orphaned.

But block 563638 made the 103mb!

460k transactions inside

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/block/563638

 

[Windowly]

Very cool!

 

[cypherdoc]

this is bitchin':

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/block/563628

oops, Christoph beat me to it!
[doublepost=1546541131][/doublepost]

Block 563628 was orphaned.

But block 563638 made the 103mb!

460k transactions inside

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/block/563638

where are all the huge delays both before and after this block that we are supposed to be seeing?:

 

[Norway]

We downloaded the big block in less than 3 minutes on a phone and verified in 41 seconds on a medium level laptop. No CB was used, as the transactions in the block were new.

(We're in a new office, and we haven't got proper internet yet.)


With six degrees of separation to a miner and phone connections all the way, still around 20 minutes for 103 MB blocks.

It's hard to believe people saying a much smaller block took 20 minutes to propagate.

 

[freetrader]

 

[molecular]

100

103,837,821 bytes

what are you trying to prove?

Edit: orphaned

the irony is thick in this one.

Happy new year, everyone!

 

[lunar]

First 100MB block, Bitcoins largest ever, and this.​

​

Apparently there are still some, who don't understand how Bitcoin actually scales. It's messy and that's a good thing.

Will you still be laughing at 500MB?

Perhaps this is the appropriate response?

 

[Griffith]

@lunar selecting to promote only a portion of the data returned from a test isn't going to help your cause. Using the 100MB block to show others that their theory on 22MB blocks is comparing apples to oranges. I can give a lengthier explanation on why, but i have a feeling you already know/understand what my explanation would be and are intentionally only addressing purely the block size aspect

 

[solex]

103MB block! Looks like Bitcoin Unlimited's trail-blazing improvements and optimisations from the Gigablock project are being usefully deployed into the SV software.

We all knew that once the 1MB limit was removed there was massive capacity for p2p money. The problem remains that organic blockspace demand on the SV chain is minimal, perhaps 10KB per 10 mins, and for BCH a few times larger. Both are a thousandth of available capacity.

Adoption remains the most important goal, and sadly, after the 15 November fiasco wrecking BCH's nework effect, its benefit is as far away as ever for Bitcoin-as-global-money enthusiasts.

 

[freetrader]

103MB block! Looks like Bitcoin Unlimited's trail-blazing improvements and optimisations from the Gigablock project are being usefully deployed into the SV software.

Really @solex, do you have firm indications of this? I have none.

Their SV software github has been dormant for a month, and they didn't propagate their transactions through their network, but selfish mined that block within some pool.

I don't think there are many improvements needed to selfish mine a 103GB block on the ABC side of the software. Certainly nothing from BU.
Back in 2017, I reg-test mined a sustained sequence of blocks, increasing size by 1MB per block, on an early ABC version. I got up to a maximum of 135MB. Sustaining validation and storage of blocks in the range of 100MB would have been easily possible from an internal POV, on a capable machine.

Organically propagating larger blocks and their transaction traffic is obviously a different matter, and their test showed that again, their network suffered orphaning and downstream breakdowns as a result of being unprepared for such large blocks.

If they were actually using BU improvements, they might have been able to propagated their test transactions without the need for selfish mining.

 

[Norway]

@freetrader
1) Why do you call it selfish mining, when another pool than Mempool.com mined the following block (563639)?
2) How many hops do you think it is between the pools?

 

[bitsko]

If, in the future, a business has an arrangement with a miner to publish their transactions directly, and they are of significant volume, are they just publishing transactions or is that selfish mining?

Is VIABTC's transaction accelerator tool a selfish mining tool? I don't believe it is.

 

[cypherdoc]

1) Why do you call it selfish mining, when another pool than Mempool.com mined the following block (563639)?

maybe b/c it sounds way more insidious and conspiratorial to call it selfish? i mean, c'mon, "self constructed" is way much longer and laborious to type out. so much for Mempool.com getting a head start on the next block.

 

[solex]

I agree that "self-constructed" is a more accurate term for this large block. @freetrader One of the areas of improvement by BU is optimising transaction generation. This software has been publicly available for a year so it is quite reasonable to assume it has since been re-used.
I didn't know that you (or anyone else) had created up to 135MB with effectively what was the Core implementation.

..edit
One point which is getting missed is that demonstrating willingness to scale, creating ever-larger blocks, is not proof of a high-capacity network suitable for sustained high levels of traffic. However, for people used to BTC's permanent inflexibility, a large headline block size looks impressive.

 

[freetrader]

@solex @Norway self-constructed would have been a better term.

But if SV folks can usurp the term 'large blockers' for themselves while only producing a 104MB block then I don't feel bad about applying the label 'selfish mining' to their pools' transaction withholding strategy for producing these blocks, especially knowing how triggered they get by that terminology.

I have the screenshots of Johoe's mempool site which show that the transactions of these blocks were not propagated to the general network. This has been observed by others too, there is no discussion about it.

2) How many hops do you think it is between the pools?

Irrelevant, the transactions were not propagated before the blocks were mined.

 

[Zarathustra]

read the last link (Begrifferklärungen): awesome insights and writing style. Will share this around. Thanks.

https://blogs.faz.net/chaos/2009/07/06/aufschwung-ohne-ende-bis-zum-bitteren-ende-36/

 

[bitsko]

Medium blocker: an individual who finds raising the default maximum blocksize unacceptable if it is already presently above the worst bottleneck in the software

 

[Norway]

Medium blocker: an individual who wants to "protect" mining pools from competing in a technological race with winners and losers.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

German bitcoin maximalists are funny. Heise published a comment on the ten year anniversary, starting that bitcoin failed in becoming a popular payment system, because it's too slow and can't handle enough capacity, only used by cypherpunks-nerds and criminals.

He basically says what the 'bitcoin maximalists' preach all the time: you shall not use zero conf, bitcoin cannot scale.

Now German bitcoin maximalist rage against him, because he believed them.