Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

trinoxol

Active Member
Jun 13, 2019
147
422
Germany
@kyuupichan, what do you mean by "it"? Both CTOR and TTOR can do incremental IBS, but CTOR needs a final size-of-data step to finalize the block. This final step is parallelizable across arbitrarily many CPUs so it's not too bad. But it's unnecessary work.
 

kyuupichan

Member
Oct 3, 2015
95
348
@kyuupichan, what do you mean by "it"? Both CTOR and TTOR can do incremental IBS, but CTOR needs a final size-of-data step to finalize the block. This final step is parallelizable across arbitrarily many CPUs so it's not too bad. But it's unnecessary work.
Merkle trees scale well; they can be incrementally updated efficiently. They can also be efficiently cached so that merkle proofs are almost free. CTOR and merklix trees destroy both properties.

Ironic given the shitlord's justification for CTOR was it's more scalable. The opposite is true, as will become clear with time.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
look at that tx count. wtf @freetrader!
hey @freetrader & @jtoomim are you just so mad that this is not only a whopping 147MB block filled with a whopping 27117 tx's, but that there was absolutely no delay on the network in propagating and verifying this megablock? you must be pissed! lol:

 

shadders

Member
Jul 20, 2017
54
344
Please identify what you see as the 'truth' in Hodl's post. I'm curious, because the two points you followed up with didn't seem to relate.

The only true statement I saw in it was that I'm still anonymous. Woo, anonymous man bad, I hope Satoshi is listening. The cringe is off the chart.
LOL... You're not anonymous FT. You just think you are...
 
@kyuupichan, what do you mean by "it"? Both CTOR and TTOR can do incremental IBS, but CTOR needs a final size-of-data step to finalize the block. This final step is parallelizable across arbitrarily many CPUs so it's not too bad. But it's unnecessary work.
So, another reason why ctor has disadvantages? While, still, no advantage of doing it. This was the stupidest feature a blockchain is ever split for.

Great day, 147mb block, thousand blockchains, so many experts, developers, companies... But nobody was ever brave or mad enough to just realize huge blocks. Except one men... The most unpopular person on crypto.

BSV is so poetic.
 

Epilido

Member
Sep 2, 2015
59
185
this is not only a whopping 147MB block filled with a whopping 27117 tx's!
So a current btc block at approx 5 transactions/sec equals
5tsn*60sec*10min=3000tsn/block in a 1 meg block.

If you assume the same average transaction size on other block chains then. A full block would be

BCH (5tsn*32(increase in size blocks developer stated "safe"))*60sec*10min =96000tsn/block

BSV. (5tsn*2000(increase in size blocks developer stated "safe"))*60sec*10min =6,000,000tsn/block
Theoretical assumptions would be:
BTC 3,000 tsn/block
BCH 96,000 tsn/block
BSV 6,000,000 tsn/block
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@Dusty P2SH as a protocol change, has been destructive. When I was mining in 2012 or I was confronted with a choice, I did not care or understand the externalities (or even what an extremality was). Not one person expressed an understanding at the time and still very few, years later. I even thought it was a great idea at one point until I understood the economic implications.

As a miner, it was just shut up already and pick one, it does not matter. That's the same attitude I saw in 2015-17 with Segwit and miners.

P2SH has set us on the path to destabilizing Bitcoin, it prompted the soft fork notion that miners follow developers, it laid the foundation for the "scaling technologies" that have delayed progress and divided the community. @trinoxol has given a more technical objection, however, I think the rationale to expunge it can be justified on economic principals alone.

Removing it I believe is not complex, just incentivize cooperative behaviour. Give miners an opportunity to charge for the extra work and future risk to process such transactions, in time the market will use more efficient options. If you are interested in the economic objection to P2SH
here are my thoughts: Understanding Externalities.

Of course, that's why it has been added: in the original protocol there was no way to create an address from a script different from P2PKH.


Not exactly: everybody (everybody!) agreed that this kind of feature was missing and was absolutely needed to allow standard addresses for complex scripting, the controversy was only on the way to implement it: Lukejr's OP_EVAL introduced a new and quite powerful OP (hence a bigger change to the original protocol with more unforeseen effects).


I'm sorry I overreacted, this happens to me when I really can't understand something. But I'm harmless, don't worry :)

Anyway, I perfectly know about information manipulation (I followed the block size debate quite closely and I learnt a thing or two from it...), and that's exactly why I asked a specific question and not a generic one: I would like to know the answer of that specific one. I don't want you (or anybody else) changing topic to avoid to reply.
That seems like a forgery, and very very easy to prove, so the case seems closed for me, if I don't get an explanation.


So, tell me: how will you "ban" P2SH?
Remember that P2SH is a hack made to be backward compatible, and even old nodes would evaluate the enclosing script (not the enclosed one, though).

So, I asked a few questions and nobody replied, why?

1) How do you create addresses from random scripts?

2) How do you ban P2SH transactions, since they are normal scripts? If you disable the internal script validation they are still valid, you "just" are unable to reuse the same address because after the first usage all other transactions can be redeemed.



Yes, sorry if I reacted a bit too much.


Of course not, it's just needed to create a simple address, otherwise you would need to give the whole script to the payer, and that's not very practical since it can be quite long.


isStandard is a check that can be taken out at any moment, it's not the problem.
And also, it is enforced only on node relay since miners can create whatever transaction they want, already now.
So if you need to publish a non-standard transcation you just find a miner willing to accept it. I bet that with the right fee that's not a problem.



I mean how can you create (usable) addresses.



Because removing work done by others is not a good message to devs, exactly like changing the protocol and becoming uncompatible with the past.
Extending a protocol in a compatible way should be the way to go, and how it goes in software development since ages.


Who could believe such a thing?
CSW said so many things that didn't happen, that I think nobody sane would believe such a crazy statement.
Actually I was one of his (few) supporters when he declared that it will attack the BCH chain with hashing power to avoid a split (do you remember "you split, we bankrupt you!" ?).
I was very impressed, because I like PoW and I think it should rule. I was very pro-craig at that time.
But then that, and many other claims, showed to be just empty words, and I don't like people that does not follow words with actions, sorry.


But I asked how, can you please explain me, technically speaking?

@Cristoph Bergmann:

You haven't used Melis then ;-)
The server coordinates signing by different parties until the transaction is ready to be broadcasted.
And sends you notifications when an action is needed.
And also applies restrictions (TFA, spending limits) if amongst the signers there is the server too.
You can also attach the transaction a little chat between the participants, so that the expense will be documented and will be accessible in the future.


No, that can't be done with threshold signatures because Melis, since day one (and it means at least since 5 years) is able to implement complex signature schemes like "N out M signatures are needed plus K mandatory ones".

No other wallet in the world is able to that that, and this works on BTC, BCH, LTC, GRS (and BSV too, until P2SH is working).



As a software developer I hate software patents (actually I am against every kind of patents, but software ones are the worst) and that's another point I don't like about CSW.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
LOL... You're not anonymous FT. You just think you are...
ooh, the plot thickens.
[doublepost=1564015169,1564014475][/doublepost]
But nobody was ever brave or mad enough to just realize huge blocks. Except one men... The most unpopular person on crypto.
well, it was more than one man. but yeah, investing in BSV is a real head scratcher. by the time you figure it out, it will be too late.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
@Dusty P2SH as a protocol change, has been destructive. When I was mining in 2012 or I was confronted with a choice, I did not care or understand the externalities (or even what an extremality was). Not one person expressed an understanding at the time and still very few, years later. I even thought it was a great idea at one point until I understood the economic implications.

As a miner it was just shut up already and pick one. it does not matter. That's the same attitude I saw in 2015-17 with Segwit and miners.

P2SH has set us on the path to destabilizing Bitcoin, it prompted the soft fork notion that miners follow developers, it laid the foundation for the "scaling technologies" that have delayed progress and divided the community. @trinoxol has give a more technical objection, however I think the rationale to expunge it can be justified on economic principals alone.

Removing it is I believe is not complex, just incentivize cooperative behavior. Give miners an opportunity to charge for the extra work to process such transactions, in time the market will use more efficient options. If you are interested in the economic objection to P2SH
here are my thoughts: Understanding Externalities.
nice. i hadn't seen that post. very interesting what Electrum is up to.

btw, p2sh was also the offramp to sidechains: p18 Sidechains WP.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
things looking not good for BCH:

[doublepost=1564018987][/doublepost]this is exactly what guys like Maxwell, Luke, & Todd started saying in 2012:

[doublepost=1564019086][/doublepost]if you can't see it by now, the attitude behind those tweets is extremely damaging.
[doublepost=1564019862,1564018858][/doublepost]more good news:

https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/lightning-network?orgId=1
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
So a current btc block at approx 5 transactions/sec equals
5tsn*60sec*10min=3000tsn/block in a 1 meg block.

If you assume the same average transaction size on other block chains then. A full block would be

BCH (5tsn*32(increase in size blocks developer stated "safe"))*60sec*10min =96000tsn/block

BSV. (5tsn*2000(increase in size blocks developer stated "safe"))*60sec*10min =6,000,000tsn/block
Theoretical assumptions would be:
BTC 3,000 tsn/block
BCH 96,000 tsn/block
BSV 6,000,000 tsn/block

Different data - different results. You can not extrapolate cripple net blocks to get the numbers for the metanet blocks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
its ok. we need more ppl to run BSV nodes.

yeah, i'm in the camp we need at least a few of these non mining nodes.
[doublepost=1564072435][/doublepost]oh my, this would so piss me off @freetrader @jtoomim:

vault experiments fallout 4

 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
hey @shadders @Otaci quick question.

if the 147MB block 592605 originated on the eventually 6 block orphaned chain on the right of the diagram, how did it get into the final main chain on the left of the diagram at height 592605 since it would have had to have been rolled back? what am i missing?

 

RollieMe

Member
May 6, 2018
27
49
> 6 block orphaned chain on the right of the diagram

I don't know about six blocks but the three that are shown on the right in that diagram are in the main chain and buried 100 blocks deep now (ie not orphaned). I just scrolled through back through on blockchair.com and confirmed the hashes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trinoxol

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
It strikes me that if BCH plays its cards right by implementing avalanche that It could garner massive favor of ETH community through vitalik

ETH inevitably fails first -as it had a head start- it's userbase may be inclined to switch to BCH promotion
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@theZerg, I don't hate you. I get mad at you because I care about you.

Something happened between us. It changed our relationship.

What happened was that you became less relevant for my investments. I still care about you as a cool guy, but your actions in the bitcoin space are no longer relevant to me because Shitcoin Unlimited (BU) no longer support the original bitcoin protocol.

Or more precisely, BU doesn't support the path to the Genesis event february 4th next year when the original bicoin protocol from v 0.1 is restored (bignum & shit, no centralized developer defined default max blocksize) and frozen at the same time. (Key word is default for experienced BU members. We all agree miners should decide,)

With Thomas and my IBS invention, I don't try to pretend we made something very complex in terms of computer science. What we did, was to take a step back and look at the whole bitcoin system from a more distant perspective. You can lose the perspective if you have your nose dug deep into the code.

And what we found, was a Columbus' egg.

That's why I called it a Columbus' egg in the announcement of the announcement of IBS.

In a simple way, the whole issue of block propagation time, orphans and spikes in network traffic and cpu is gone. :cool: (EDIT: Orphans are not gone. But the frequency is reduced and not tied to block size anymore.)

And no, it's not just a small change from Expedited Xthin in terms of concept and real results.

The original Columbus' egg-post is here:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1274#post-83615

We can still be friends, but you have to show some more respect for what I do. Respect works both ways.
 
Last edited: