Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

@deadalnix continuing the Merklix shitlord show in the face of contrary evidence :

If a few developers can successfully change the bitcoin core design because they believe that their protocol design scales better (most of the times without any code to test it), then bitcoin has failed at being stable money that nobody can manipulate. You never know what's the real intention behind certain changes.

https://www.yours.org/content/scaling-bitcoin-s-merkle-tree-936c950c63d6

 

[cypherblock]

Using the calculations presented in that article ( https://www.yours.org/content/scaling-bitcoin-s-merkle-tree-936c950c63d6) , the time to validate a 1 TB block would be about 6min.

Definitely though I think the problem statement needs to be clear. Then people can find solutions (or at least understand why devs are proposing changes). At this point in time it is unclear what the issue is with merkle trees or why we would need to change anything now. But I suppose if the goal is to 1) lock down the protocol quickly 2) scale to 1 TB blocks 3) still build merkle trees using CPUs, then that would justify looking at any bottlenecks (6min validation) and improving something.

 

[Norway]

@cypherblock

the time to validate a 1 TB block would be about 6min.

On a RTX 2070 GPU, it takes 179 ms for a 13.5GB block.
1TB/13.5GB * 179ms = 13.6 seconds for a 1TB block.

 

[Zarathustra]

LOL it's not free, it's just subsidized. Otherwise someone could show in the code where such transactions are free on BSV.

That's why you can use it for free.

Basic economic realities being thrown overboard by BSV proponents in desperation?

Not really. It's the BCH proponents in desperation when realizing that the unwriters are not on their project anymore.

 

[cypherdoc]

Using the calculations presented in that article ( https://www.yours.org/content/scaling-bitcoin-s-merkle-tree-936c950c63d6) , the time to validate a 1 TB block would be about 6min.

Definitely though I think the problem statement needs to be clear. Then people can find solutions (or at least understand why devs are proposing changes). At this point in time it is unclear what the issue is with merkle trees or why we would need to change anything now. But I suppose if the goal is to 1) lock down the protocol quickly 2) scale to 1 TB blocks 3) still build merkle trees using CPUs, then that would justify looking at any bottlenecks (6min validation) and improving something.

the way I read that article is that I can't even see a potential bottleneck given the ability to recruit and parallelize infinitely better and faster numbers of gpu's from the future to process Merkle based hashes. his solution is an economic one, which Bitcoin is.

 

[cypherblock]

@Norway yeah in fairness I was just using his first attempt : "Hashing 4,000,000 transactions (that's about a 1GB-2GB block) with four threads took about 580ms on my CPU."

Later he says he was able to do 27GB in 348ms. So that is indeed much faster. So yeah like 12sec for a TB.

Anyway, the point stands, no one can figure out why merkle trees need to be changed, as it seem quite fast to generate them. Now yeah, I mean 12s is 12s, but this is not enough for us to change shit for at this point IMO cause likely miners can optimize further, use asics if they need to, etc.

 

[TFOBC]

 

[Norway]

@TFOBC
Will the default max blocksize be raised from 32MB in the may hardfork?

 

[cypherdoc]

no

 

[Norway]

So what happens if a significant group of miners change the default to 64 MB and mine a 60 MB block? This could easily end in another chainsplit of BCH, right?

Should the exchanges acknowledge the 32 MB or the 64 MB chain as BCH? It's just a default setting...

 

[lunar]

Through the looking glass indeed. 17k OP_RETURN.

Rumour says, this is just the beginning.

https://www.bitcoinsvexplorer.com/tx/21a5c896f23bea81ae5018dfeb8801ddc68691d0186a7e2d8c011e65e0a396d9


#Unfuckening
[doublepost=1548260250,1548259396][/doublepost]Also this:


They are a machine.

#UnWriting

 

[bitsko]

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Sometimes I'm still surprised how stupid all this was.

In our little city we started a meetup some time ago, not very long. Most people there are full on "Bitcoin Maximalism", or, to put it correctly, "Lightning Maximalism". Most have not even be there when Bitcoin did just work. I'm very polite and peaceful, know more about Lightning than most other people, and say that I prefer Bitcoin SV, and tick in the philosophy, tick by tick ...

Yesterday we talked about the paper of the bis, the bank of international settlement, which made up the thesis that in a future, when the block reward has dried out, you'll need 50k confirmations to be sure that your payment is not double spend. It's a weak paper, missing many important details and getting some things wrong, but it makes a bullet: How can miners earn enough money so that it's too expensive to double spend even big transactions?

Someone made up the Gregory Maxwell fee market thesis. I answered like always, calling it mediavel economics, explaining that miners will have hundreds of options to monetize blockspace, when they are allowed to and not centralplanned. Than we started to bring Lightning and Liquid into account. It wasn't even me who started with Liquid.

I never connected this dot. In 2013, Gregory Maxwell started to demand small blocks for a fee market. In 2014 Gregory Maxwell cofounded Blockstream to create a sidechain that takes transaction fees away from miners. In 2015 Matt Corallo from Blockstream reacted on Gavins push to bip101 in the mailing list, starting the argument with the fee market thesis. Later this year Lightning the panacea joined the game.

I always wondered how people buy it that easily that the same parties demands high transaction fees to help the miners survive the end of the block reward, while wanting to push of transactions with LN. The usual arguments was that LN will only be for small transactions, while big transactions will be settled for high fees. But --- Liquid. Blockstream's baby is made for high transactions, I think it is even possible to load lightning with it. How the fuck can people buy this? Why did I not even thought about this? Is it because it is burried under so many layers of manipulative arguments and virtue signals? It's so obvious, right before everyone's eyes ...

This was what I said yesterday to my lightningers: How is it possible that people buy it? Saving the miners by taking their income, not just with LN, but also with Liquid. Nobody had a good answer. I think I ticked a bit of truth into their minds ...

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

I wasn't around, but my feeling is RBF turned it into a toy. Was anything actually compromised before that?

 

[cypherdoc]

Sometimes I'm still surprised how stupid all this was.

In our little city we started a meetup some time ago, not very long. Most people there are full on "Bitcoin Maximalism", or, to put it correctly, "Lightning Maximalism". Most have not even be there when Bitcoin did just work. I'm very polite and peaceful, know more about Lightning than most other people, and say that I prefer Bitcoin SV, and tick in the philosophy, tick by tick ...

Yesterday we talked about the paper of the bis, the bank of international settlement, which made up the thesis that in a future, when the block reward has dried out, you'll need 50k confirmations to be sure that your payment is not double spend. It's a weak paper, missing many important details and getting some things wrong, but it makes a bullet: How can miners earn enough money so that it's too expensive to double spend even big transactions?

Someone made up the Gregory Maxwell fee market thesis. I answered like always, calling it mediavel economics, explaining that miners will have hundreds of options to monetize blockspace, when they are allowed to and not centralplanned. Than we started to bring Lightning and Liquid into account. It wasn't even me who started with Liquid.

I never connected this dot. In 2013, Gregory Maxwell started to demand small blocks for a fee market. In 2014 Gregory Maxwell cofounded Blockstream to create a sidechain that takes transaction fees away from miners. In 2015 Matt Corallo from Blockstream reacted on Gavins push to bip101 in the mailing list, starting the argument with the fee market thesis. Later this year Lightning the panacea joined the game.

I always wondered how people buy it that easily that the same parties demands high transaction fees to help the miners survive the end of the block reward, while wanting to push of transactions with LN. The usual arguments was that LN will only be for small transactions, while big transactions will be settled for high fees. But --- Liquid. Blockstream's baby is made for high transactions, I think it is even possible to load lightning with it. How the fuck can people buy this? Why did I not even thought about this? Is it because it is burried under so many layers of manipulative arguments and virtue signals? It's so obvious, right before everyone's eyes ...

This was what I said yesterday to my lightningers: How is it possible that people buy it? Saving the miners by taking their income, not just with LN, but also with Liquid. Nobody had a good answer. I think I ticked a bit of truth into their minds ...

just yesterday i was looking at this and marveling at it's beauty; miner decentralization doesn't get any better than this, as predicted by many of us back in 2011:

it all started with Gavin vs Luke, at least back to 2012. then the disputes began with Peter, who in 2013 produced that video stating small blocks were virtuous. everyone knows that infamous thread that went with it. Maxwell joined in shortly thereafter. those 3 guys have always hated miners (and Gavin b/c he defended them), mainly b/c they are the only one's getting paid by the protocol. nvm that they have to invest in it with their hard earned fiat resources while at the same time taking on long term real risk according to the WP; unlike core devs who sit behind their desks trying to figure out how to repurpose the protocol to their for-profit advantage via code. mainly like Blockstream, the quintessential "coup", as late-to-the-party carpetbagger Adam Back likes to characterize it. despite the BTC mining decentralization, Core has already f*d over BTC via Segshit, LN, and Liquid, as you say. that's why the price is dwindling. i honestly feel one of the big block chains is still going to come out the winner long term (BSV of course) but it's very possible the entire space is f*d over and we're all doomed due to irreparable damage inflicted by Blockstream Core. i honestly don't understand how they do this:

 

[cypherblock]

Can we just leave the bashing to reddit or something? So tiring.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@cypherblock

Do you prefer this thread to be silent, or should we instead take the thousand opportunities to bash BCH? Maybe we talk about the adjustable blocksize limit which some people here promised will happen with the May fork but does not, or about that ABC relies on Bitcoin adopting Bech32 to fix their mistake? Or ...

With Bitcoin (BTC) having lost all resistance against the Maxwell-Todd-Dashjr doctrin after the split of BCH, and with BCH having lost its route with the November Fork, all Cypherdoc and I can do is hope for BSV and trashing BTC. I guess you prefer it over us bashing BCH.

@cypherdoc

it all started with Gavin vs Luke, at least back to 2012. then the disputes began with Peter, who in 2013 produced that video stating small blocks were virtuous. everyone knows that infamous thread that went with it. Maxwell joined in shortly thereafter. those 3 guys have always hated miners (and Gavin b/c he defended them), mainly b/c they are the only one's getting paid by the protocol.

Yes. I wrote a book about Bitcoin and gave the blocksize war a chapter. This is nearly exactly how I told it, and more than 700 people have read this story, and more can it access in libraries.

I left the part about hating miners (maybe I add it for the second edition). I also left the part about Luke, which is ironic, as my first attempt of this chapter preluded with portraying this crazy guy. But I wanted it to be straight, and I found no good discussion of Luke and Gavin or Mike about blocksize. I only found the arguments about P2SH soft fork. Maybe you have a link?

i honestly feel one of the big block chains is still going to come out the winner long term (BSV of course) but it's very possible the entire space is f*d over and we're all doomed due to irreparable damage inflicted by Blockstream Core. i honestly don't understand how they do this:

Yeah, that's how I feel too. But I know how they do this: Nearly every single activity in the Bitcoin community has gone Lightning.

The Bitcoin meetup in Munich organizes "Bitcoin Tech Days". Go, visit their site, look at the schedule: It's almost entirely about Lightning. On our little local meetup, after the hype-ponzi-ico-speculators left, around 8 people are still here. More of the half of them runs a Lightning Node. If the talk about the tech, it's mostly about Lightning. I asked one, why, and he gave two answers: First, because Bitcoin without Lightning makes no sense at all, because of the blockisze, and second, that he hopes Lightning will make Bitcoin anonmyous.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Looks as if everybody is pretty pessimistic..
To me it looks as if a lot is being built around BCH these days. Bitcoin took some pretty big hits but I have the feeling as if it's still managing to stay somewhat on track.

 

[Zarathustra]

Wright, Craig, anarchy is the absence of capitalism, socialism and all kind of collectivism (= patriarchy). Anarchy is before (paleolithic) and beyond (some last rain forest communities today) the state. Anarchy is the life style of self-sufficient communities.


Wrong, Craig, anarchy (self-sufficient communites) 'failed' when it had been replaced with patriarchy (=organized violence = society = hypercollectivism). That was 10'000 years ago, after it didn't fail for hundred thousands of years.

 

[RollieMe]

A friend and I made a thing. It's a searchable, explore-able map of the people and organizations behind blockchain development.

https://www.humanize.net

Many regulars in this thread, and some key Bitcoin Unlimited people, have been added already but there are no doubt some errors and many omissions. Please check it out and feel free to suggest corrections/additions. There's a "Suggestion" link on most pages.

It's still very new so there might be some bugs and problems. It has only been tested with Firefox, Chrome and Edge browsers.