Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[awemany]

@cypherdoc:I think Core's grip is (still?) fragile enough that if jgarzik decides: Well, BIP101 looks good enough, that it would be implemented then.

He unfortunately seems to be quite keen on continuing with advertising for his BIP100, though.

 

[cypherdoc]

everyone needs to complete @Ivanhoe's graduate research survey on Bitcoin adoption. the more info we have, the better:

https://survey.bitcoinembassy.nl/index.php/249388

 

[Ivanhoe]

Thank you cypher! And everybody else who participtes. All results will be openly published.

For more info : http://www.coindesk.com/press-releases/bitcoin-embassy-amsterdam-adoption-research-project/

Or : https://bitcoinembassy.nl/adoption-research-project-survey/

 

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc:I think Core's grip is (still?) fragile enough that if jgarzik decides: Well, BIP101 looks good enough, that it would be implemented then.

He unfortunately seems to be quite keen on continuing with advertising for his BIP100, though.

i agree with this. he could tip the whole thing towards 101 or BU's favor. he'd highly likely choose 101 of the two.

 

[sickpig]

re chinese miners' attitude: they explicitly said they're going to follow the lead.

it seems to me that the most viable way to move things forward is that merchants/payment processors/exchanges have to take the lead.

whatever it is the choice made by such economic majority it has to be taken forward in a more pragmatic way independently from the decision itself.

if the majority think bitcoin core is the best way forward, I'm fine with it. They should state it publicly and stick with it.

The same apply to other vision. e.g. it they think BIP 101 is the right thing they have to do something along this line:

- public statement (optional)
- fund a dev team to pursue their choice.
- set up a pool (optional)
- fork the chain

or at least this is what I would do.

 

[cypherdoc]

@sickpig

the most pragmatic way forward, imo, is for @Gavin Andresen to set up a new github repository with Core+101. then try to get Garzik and, if possible, Wladimir (unlikely) to agree to be core devs. but their endorsement is NOT necessary.

then get CB, Bitpay, Bitstamp, KNC, slush etc to re-issue a statement in support.

@Melbustus should immediately setup a non profit mining pool that will support 101. but also it should state support for BU, just in case that implementation is preferred by the marketplace. i think the market will rather support 101 though, even though i personally believe BU is the long run goal.

intense education of Chinese miners needs to happen surrounding the economic benefit (rising price) to them of allowing worldwide adoption thru bigger blocks. it won't be easy. along this line, my bet is their gvt would open up the GFC just for them to attempt to maintain their lead if 101 got adopted. that would be welcomed. if just one of them can be convinced, the floodgates should open towards 101 as they've already expressed their desire for bigger blocks while 100 looks unlikely. and in the end, if they want to still mine small blocks or even spv blocks, they still can in the presence of 101 or BU.
[doublepost=1449769091,1449768436][/doublepost]just to be fair, XT should probably be taken down too. while i like Mike, he's too much of a lightning rod and all his personal extensions serve as big red targets for BS. one could say that @Gavin Andresen should just take over XT (even he's said it) but i think a fresh start is more prudent as Mike would always be deemed to be lurking in the background.

and if the 75% threshold doesn't look to be attainable, eliminate it, and just leave 101 out there as an option to be adopted incrementally.
[doublepost=1449769447][/doublepost]wow, what a sorry-ass bounce. could that be it? Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP!:

[doublepost=1449769533][/doublepost]despite today's big red candle, GBTC is actually UP 3.17% over yesterday right now:

[doublepost=1449770285][/doublepost]hmmm. i see that the relay network definitely now has a Beijing node.

what are the chances the Chinese miners are just posturing about the effects of the GFC, given the fact that Wang Chun said they all already have full nodes located outside of China and that Marshall Long said there already are viable ways for them to find their way out of China w/o the GFC?

http://bitcoinrelaynetwork.org/

 

[JVWVU]

So this means they lost their private keys?

 

[Justus Ranvier]

and if the 75% threshold doesn't look to be attainable, eliminate it, and just leave 101 out there as an option to be adopted incrementally.

Maybe it's best to raise the block size limit exactly the way Satoshi said to do it: just define a fixed block height at which the rule changes.

Suppose that's done, and suppose that most of the non-mining infrastructure (exchange, wallets, payment processors, etc) upgrades while the miners do not.

After the defined block height is reached, both sides are theoretically following different consensus rules but still agree on the same chain prior to anyone actually mining a > 1 MB block.

If a >1 MB block is mined, it will be recognized by a large number of users but will ultimately be orphaned unless a majority of the hash power accepts the block (either because they upgrade their clients, or because they aren't actually validating and are just SPV mining).

The result will be a kind of high stakes standoff where everybody is waiting to see who blinks first and considerable amounts of money are on the line.

And that's actually fine.

When the 1 MB limit begins causing obvious damage to miner income, they'll start producing larger blocks. Maybe they won't adopt the BIP101 limit though. Maybe they decide among themselves on a smaller limit. That's still compatible with what the rest of the network will accept so their chain will still be accepted.

It's not a problem for the users of the network to raise the blocks size limit they will accept independently of how the producers of blocks raise theirs. If the miners raise their limit too slowly, then they'll be punished by the exchange rate and will self-correct quickly.

 

[cypherdoc]

don't let the $DJI fool you, deflation is still rampant:

 

[theZerg]

@sickpig

the most pragmatic way forward, imo, is for @Gavin Andresen to set up a new github repository with Core+101. then try to get Garzik and, if possible, Wladimir (unlikely) to agree to be core devs. but their endorsement is NOT necessary.

then get CB, Bitpay, Bitstamp, KNC, slush etc to re-issue a statement in support.

@Melbustus should immediately setup a non profit mining pool that will support 101. but also it should state support for BU, just in case that implementation is preferred by the marketplace. i think the market will rather support 101 though, even though i personally believe BU is the long run goal.

I'd support BU's excessive blocks tracking BIP101 by default, or even a "strict" BIP101 compliance mode. OFC we'd have to have a vote on this. But I think that that would be acceptable to the public if some well known engineers joined the project.

The real question would be whether BU should split from Core like XT has done or attempt to maintain patch sets and therefore leverage the Core work. In the XT project we are already seeing questions on reddit "when will XT support XXXX" whenever Core release a new feature. Re-implementing features is a big effort drain, and a thankless job; you'd probably have to pay someone a competitive salary to do it.

 

[rocks]

it seems to me that the most viable way to move things forward is that merchants/payment processors/exchanges have to take the lead.
....
if they think BIP 101 is the right thing they have to do something along this line:

- public statement (optional)
- fund a dev team to pursue their choice.
- set up a pool (optional)
- fork the chain

This is it in a nut shell. Having the larger ecosystem participants take a lead is the only real way to push back against the core devs "authority".

But for whatever reason they still are not doing so. Where is this announcement coinbase and others hinted at for BIP101? We are well into December now.

They need to start developing and releasing scaling solutions themselves. If they implement IBLT, thin blocks, weak blocks, ect on their own client, miners will migrate because doing so makes them money. And if that does not work build pools and then even hard fork if needed.

But unfortunately I think they are taking a kick the can approach, knowing we will get 4ish MB scaling in the near term and that is enough for now.

The problem is it sets a precedent on who gets to decide the limit.

 

[cypherdoc]

the $DJI is desperately trying to stay above that first little red line. if it gets below it, you'll see an acceleration down to the 2nd red little line. remember, that is the secondary low point, at which the stock mkt will fully re-confirm the Dow Theory Primary Bear market. look back to August to see the importance of this line, proving to you that major players follow the technicals as opposed to the fundamentals. IOW, we got a plunge:

 

[luigi1111]

we will get 4ish MB scaling

AFAIK, it's supposed to be txData + SW / 4 <= 1MB. If SW data is 50% of total data, then "real" scaling will only be a 60% increase in Tx volume. Of course this depends highly on what % SW ends up being of the total.

 

[Melbustus]

@luigi1111 @rocks - from what I saw, just segwit gets close to a 2x better efficiency if you just look at the tx chain, and you only get to the predicted 4x improvement (eg, the throughput of 4mb cap under the current blockchain model, while still *actually* leaving the cap at 1mb) if most transactions were multisig.

 

[cypherdoc]

Maybe it's best to raise the block size limit exactly the way Satoshi said to do it: just define a fixed block height at which the rule changes.

Suppose that's done, and suppose that most of the non-mining infrastructure (exchange, wallets, payment processors, etc) upgrades while the miners do not.

After the defined block height is reached, both sides are theoretically following different consensus rules but still agree on the same chain prior to anyone actually mining a > 1 MB block.

If a >1 MB block is mined, it will be recognized by a large number of users but will ultimately be orphaned unless a majority of the hash power accepts the block (either because they upgrade their clients, or because they aren't actually validating and are just SPV mining).

The result will be a kind of high stakes standoff where everybody is waiting to see who blinks first and considerable amounts of money are on the line.

And that's actually fine.

When the 1 MB limit begins causing obvious damage to miner income, they'll start producing larger blocks. Maybe they won't adopt the BIP101 limit though. Maybe they decide among themselves on a smaller limit. That's still compatible with what the rest of the network will accept so their chain will still be accepted.

It's not a problem for the users of the network to raise the blocks size limit they will accept independently of how the producers of blocks raise theirs. If the miners raise their limit too slowly, then they'll be punished by the exchange rate and will self-correct quickly.

some miner is going to be tempted to empty out the mempool with a >1MB block in a 101 or BU situation. at least to try it, to see what happens. yes, it might take a few orphans before more and more miners attempt it; or several Chinese miners might just agree to go forward together to make the bigger blocks stick. either way, the extra BTC tx fee income should be irresistible.

 

[theZerg]

Maybe it's best to raise the block size limit exactly the way Satoshi said to do it: just define a fixed block height at which the rule changes.

Suppose that's done, and suppose that most of the non-mining infrastructure (exchange, wallets, payment processors, etc) upgrades while the miners do not.

After the defined block height is reached, both sides are theoretically following different consensus rules but still agree on the same chain prior to anyone actually mining a > 1 MB block.

If a >1 MB block is mined, it will be recognized by a large number of users but will ultimately be orphaned unless a majority of the hash power accepts the block (either because they upgrade their clients, or because they aren't actually validating and are just SPV mining).

The result will be a kind of high stakes standoff where everybody is waiting to see who blinks first and considerable amounts of money are on the line.

And that's actually fine.

When the 1 MB limit begins causing obvious damage to miner income, they'll start producing larger blocks. Maybe they won't adopt the BIP101 limit though. Maybe they decide among themselves on a smaller limit. That's still compatible with what the rest of the network will accept so their chain will still be accepted.

It's not a problem for the users of the network to raise the blocks size limit they will accept independently of how the producers of blocks raise theirs. If the miners raise their limit too slowly, then they'll be punished by the exchange rate and will self-correct quickly.

So switching to a higher limit at block X doesn't really matter. What matters is when everyone upgrades.

This is BU. The only difference is that if you set your limit lower than a block that the miners build upon, you'll still track consensus rather then be forked into a standstill and then rush to have to upgrade your node.

 

[cypherdoc]

@theZerg

This is BU. The only difference is that if you set your limit lower than a block that the miners build upon, you'll still track consensus rather then be forked into a standstill and then rush to have to upgrade your node.

you mean higher don't you?
[doublepost=1449775873,1449774917][/doublepost]NBG hits all time new lows today @0.16. i'm wondering, when does Greece just drop off the grid and sink to the bottom of the ocean?:

 

[theZerg]

Well, you'll certainly track consensus if your "excessive block" limit is higher. But the point is that you'll also track consensus if its lower. This is the key difference between BU where the block size is not part of consensus and something like BIP101 where it IS.

BU will discourage the block by not relaying it (or mining on top of it), but once it is buried a few blocks deep in the blockchain, BU will accept it.

You can see how this behavior is really nice for companies who just don't care; they just want to track the most-difficult chain without having to do an emergency port of their custom modifications to their bitcoin nodes to a new release.

 

[cypherdoc]

@theZerg

what if you have the excessive block setting at 4 blocks deep before accepting it and along comes a 5 block deep fork that eventually should get reorg'd like what happened in BIP66?

 

[AdrianX]

I feel I am out of the loop: What is ROW in this context?
[doublepost=1449735067,1449733952][/doublepost]Regarding this Craight S. Wright guy:

I actually think its good practice to from time to time every 5-10 or so pages spell out what an acronym stands for. It defiantly helps with understanding for the few that pop in from time to time.

I find I don't follow optimally unless I read and say the word that the abbreviation implies. and very often I need to look them up (haha and some are rather obscure)