Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
yes, it seems like some very smart people see intra block time ordering to be be very useful if it can be accomplished according to Neon. I believe it can. in that sense, CTOR is a mistake. the tradeoff being potentially faster propagation and or validation. unless this can be compensated for with things like Teranode like it probably can.
[doublepost=1558075975][/doublepost]@deadalnix sounds conflicted, if not hypocritical.
You all know how much I disliked CTOR. But I'm more on the side of honesty. That post was a lot of fancy words and conceptual analogies to frankly justify zilch. I'm getting antonopoulos vibes here...

The problem is that it and almost all the other misunderstandings in this exact space is that it ignores the fact that nodes don't organize transactions in the block based on their perceived "intra-block time ordering". They are ordered based on a picking algorithm in the block construction code. In general (I'm not looking at the code), this picking algorithm grabs higher fee stuff first and then within a fee "tranch" would grab things based on whatever hashing algorithm is used in the underlying implementations mempool data structure (its a boost multimap in satoshi codebases). And there's other stuff that makes the order different per node -- like how much space you've set aside for free tx. But ignoring that, if you just chose that hash algorithm to be the SHA256 transaction hash, you'd almost get CTOR popping out (you'd get a primary sort of DTOR and a secondary of CTOR).

Therefore calling it an intra-block **time** ordering based on the perception of time by the cat inside schrodinger's box is a fantasy.

BUT.... there is an interesting thing here... if there turns out to be any use whatsoever for this "untrusted but generally accurate" intra-block time based ordering it wouldn't be too hard for non-CTOR Satoshi clients to apply this time sort to their block creation algorithms because tx arrival time is already held in the mempool to tx can be aged out after a few days.
 

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
@rocks, I was being a bit imprecise and pedantic. Here is what I was trying to say:

Bitcoin does not solve the general Byzantine Generals Problem, because it makes a simplifying assumption which turned out to be Good Enough So Far (TM) and that is that <50% of the computational power is in the hands of the attackers.
Fork the thread if you don't like it.
@rocks
Bitcoin didn't solve the problem, it found an approximate solution. Which is good enough for the real world (or is it?).
There have been (too) many people in the space that can't live with or understand approximate solutions as solutions, e.g. Greg Maxwell..
First, I fully agree approximate solutions that work in the real world are good enough solutions. And also fully agree there are too many people in the space who don't understand that.

I guess I disagree with PoW being an approximate solution, and instead see it as a complete solution.

The Byzantine Generals Problem regards how to enable all parties to agree on a single strategy when some parties are unreliable. Bitcoin satisfies this question, it produces a single strategy (the current chain tip).

A separate question is what represents the "truth" for a single strategy to agree to. Most people believe there is some "global truth", but truth is really an open ended question and open to interpretation. Even two people following the exact same rules can hold different views on what is true, for example consider if two people have access to the same keys and submit competing transactions at the same time, different people following the same rules can still come to see different truths. How do they agree and form consensus on how to proceed, that is the Byzantine Generals Problem.

A solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem produces a single answer and provides a single statement on truth to all parties. Bitcoin is a complete solution here, not an approximate.

So the real question is what is truth and who determines it? Is truth an ordering of transactions according to some global timeframe? Well that does not exist because of the theory of relativity, people on opposite sides of the earth cannot determine which transaction is "first" below a time threshold. Is truth majority agreement, in which case what determines the majority? The majority of individuals? The majority based on economic interests? The US determines truth through voting, but voting is a complicated equation that weights people differently based on location and is not 1 to 1 (some apparently disagree with this mechanism but not enough to form a new consensus on that).

Bitcoin chooses a majority of real world consumed work as the basis on which consensus is created to determine truth. What some may call a >50% attack, is also just as easily framed as the majority determining what is truth. Hence Bitcoin is a complete solution.
 
Last edited:

cbeast

Active Member
Sep 15, 2015
260
299
Maybe saying that Bitcoin "solves" the Byzantine Generals problem is too strong a word for some. Theoreticians are never satisfied with technical developments. They are welcome to use words like "remedies" or "addresses" if it makes them happy. Until Physicists can define chemical bonds, explain magnets, or discover a universal field theory, we'll have to use tools that improve our understandings.

I see the kludge we call Bitcoin as an ecosystem of social phenomena. The cryptography in Bitcoin is a language tool that allows some of our deeper social needs to be addressed on a scalable level and protects our sensibilities. Money is nothing more than a way for us to help each other, but also be perceived as fair and equitable. Bitcoin just allows us to scale our own personal influence securely.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
this does not get any more crazy Blockstream Working the magic. .
Q: if fees get high, will you support a block size increase?

Eric:... stalling ok...as far as a block size increase is concerned.... Oh, I'm kinda being called off the stage.

Samson Mow: Thank you, Erick, we know who partied late last night.

Samson Mow: meat the real Bitcoin Jesus.
 

bsdtar

New Member
Apr 1, 2019
20
52
But ignoring that, if you just chose that hash algorithm to be the SHA256 transaction hash, you'd almost get CTOR popping out (you'd get a primary sort of DTOR and a secondary of CTOR).
People have been claiming bitcoin 0.1 had chronologically ordered transactions in mined blocks. No, since then it iterated over a std::map. DTOR and then CTOR, as you said.
 

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
kiarahpromise's report certainly deserves a better analysis than what's been given on the rbtc thread linked by @bsdtar (up to 7h after posting). the obtuseness of some people there defies belief.

i do hope @theZerg or @Peter R post an evaluation of the claims made. it is alleged that the top two BCH miners, possibly in coordination with the developers of the leading implementation, rolled back the chain.
 

bsdtar

New Member
Apr 1, 2019
20
52
i do hope @theZerg or @Peter R post an evaluation of the claims made. it is alleged that the top two BCH miners, possibly in coordination with the developers of the leading implementation, rolled back the chain.
Yes, this looks shady to say the least. Johoe has confirmed a few claims already:
> "It doesn't matter it was a 7000BTC HACK. It doesn't matter unknown took segwit coins. Bitcoin value depends on security. If it's not secure, it has no value."

This seems kinda obvious to me. Interestingly everyone in rbtc seem to think otherwise??
 
Last edited:

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
So much of the early Bitcoin story is coming out now. It's truly remarkable how the backstabbing and unethical behaviour has led to this multicoin shitshow we see today.


Contrarian/Maxwell and various anonymous groups have allegedly been attacking since the early days. Could this be the source of all the fake documents out there? Maybe the ONLY solution to these persistent attacks is a court of law, with real world proof rather than continuous manipulated social media.

Goes a long way to explaining how it was so easy to hijack Reddit, bitcointalk and the crypto media

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/why-code-must-not-be-law-438e2cafe2e4

Looking like we'll be finding out ALL the truth over the next year or so.

Example of the character assassination that's been going on, fooling everyone.

 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
if we find out BCH miners secretly colluded with ABC devs, its all over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kostialevin

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
how can it be? what we have is a situation where it appears ABC devs have no idea what's going on. or if they do then they've colluded secretly with some centralized miners. I'm traveling so I don't have all this parsed out yet but first we get the sigops counting bug. which BCH actually cheers (so no one can blame the hard fork like we've been warning). immediately @deadalnix lashes out defensively once again blaming BU and their mother for it. r/btc cheers. nvm that they let this bug linger as the direct fault of them carelessly adding the new OP CDSV. now we got this reversion of a faulty reversion (faulty SW recipient address) that ABC tried to unwind that's gone awry. I saw Calin cooing about poaching these with guessed pre images (?) the other day; the glorified ANYONECANSPEND left over debacle from the still only 42% used segwit from core. r/btc cheers because it was couched as stealing from the attacker. now, I can't tell who's been stealing them and Calin seems to have gone quiet. the original owners, centralized miners, or anonymous miners, who is it? what a shitshow. please correct me where I'm wrong on the small details . but the big picture is clear.

This is exactly what we expected from the constant q6mo hard forking. except it appears we can't get any straight answers probably because nobody knows.

at least with BSV to date and it's strategy going forward , the attack vector is clear; come get it with your steady stream of 128mb attack blocks, soon to be 2GB. if you can.
[doublepost=1558226207,1558225076][/doublepost]removing technical debt is Dunning Kruger. this go around we see examples of how adding things (OP CDSV) caused the sigops counting bug and now where what I assume was removing technical debt via CLEANSTACK last November inadvertently locked up mistaken BCH sends to Segwit addresses and such is now being exploited with ANYONE CAN SPEND via the reversion.

I see a bi pronged problematic strategic vision.
[doublepost=1558226757][/doublepost]and r/btc and BCH cheers because apparently we've moved to a paradigm where "anything goes to defend our price". nvm they throw all principles of permissionless, decentralized, PoW out the window via things like replay protection, EDA, DAA, rolling checkpoints, centralized dev, collusion, etc .
 
Last edited:

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
it has always been possible to enlist sufficient SHA256d hashpower to grind both BCH and BSV txns to a halt, indefinitely. it has not happened because BTC miners have not found sufficient incentive to do it. one can think of scenarios in which such incentive does arise.

but if to that anomaly you add that BCH's own miners are in a position to 51% the chain, with or without the connivance of the lead devs, who in any case case are all too willing to add "things like replay protection, EDA, DAA, rolling checkpoints", then we have deviated far from bitcoin's original assumptions and should question whether the conclusions that flow them are in force.

for its part, BSV mining is fully centralized. the difference is that BSV is not pretending to be ready for trade -- rather, BSV presents itself as reconstructing a situation in which the original assumptions can take hold. when they are through with their protocol and scaling goals, BSV might have to consider changing the POW algorithm, in order to reboot mining.

so: what @Richy_T said.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
>reboot mining.

let's hope that's not necessary. with a big and persistent enough price move in opposite directions for BSV and it's competitors, it would be
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
From early after the launch of BCH, the attitude of the project leaders didn't fill me with a good feeling. When a project is that small (or even as big as BTC. But bear in mind that Bitcoin is bigger still), the people in charge (read: with their hands on the levers of power) count and personalities, sadly, are important. That's why I have so much trouble with the idea of getting behind BSV with how I feel about CSW. You guys who believe he's on the up-and-up, you should certainly be all-in but I don't and I just can't go for the whole "personalities don't matter" this early in the game. Keep cranking it up and maybe I'll see in another 18 months or so.

I am considering signing up for medium and writing a "Why I am leaving Bitcoin Cash" article though.