Taal consistently mines large blocks of transactions. It seems that these transactions are not broadcast to all nodes as other miners have historically not included these transactions in their blocks. It seems the first time these transactions are seen is when they are hashed into a block.
My node running an e-x server sees all the txs; I watch its mempool go up and down regularly. I saw the reorgs, and watched them get undone. The events of the last few weeks have increased my confidence in BSV's stability. If these regular 500MB+ blocks become the norm or even grow further, the impact on the miners more widely will be impossible to ignore.
Still, Shadders's well-articulated description of the Bitcoin protocol points out the necessity for the public broadcast of all transactions. “The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions”
Today BSV had a 2GB block. Reward was 16.25 BSV; more than 10 BSV more than the "subsidy". 260+% of the subsidy. This must be very scary for BTC followers if they're thinking of what it means dispassionately.
I'm not defending BTC, BTC can't and won't scale with a transaction limit, It'll eventually succumb to manipulation that'll undermine its integrity on or off-chain.
It is worth understanding the subsidy and the block reward: BSV to BTC in this instance is an apples-to-oranges comparison, so, it is not a threat or something to consider.
The 10 BSV block reward (less the subsidy of 6.25) has a relative value of about $1680 and about 10,000 inputs (total transaction count of 5,869). so that's about $0.28 per transaction. 1 BSV costs about $168 USD.
Let's imaging BSV was worth $10,000 (1/4 less than the price of BTC).
If 1BSV was worth $10,000 and the market rate for a transaction was the same at $0.28 per transaction, and you did the same number of transactions, 5,869, with the same real-world cost. The block reward would be $1680 worth of BSV that's 0.168 BSV and not 10 BSV.
The cost per transaction impacts the block reward, The amount in BSV will shrink based on the value of BSV.
A low price of BSV, and a relatively high block reward, is useful when you want to launder ill-gotten gains via a mining pool by declaring it as income.
Another way of looking at that 2GB block is: if it were to happen on the BTC network, the same size and with the same value and quantity of transactions, the block reward would be 0.03652 BTC.
So there is no ratio shift, no value shift from subsidy to fees, not amazing value for miners. It's just BSV with such a low value that you need to pay a lot of BSV to account for $1680 worth of fees.
One other negative externality that comes with such a low price for the BSV token is block reorgs. As the value of the BSV token goes up the total quantities of fees denominated in BSV go down.
Block space is basically transaction capacity. The second use, and I still think viable use for a blockchain, is the storage of data, not all data only the data people are willing to pay to write to the blockchain. In this instance, on BSV, it's about $0.85 per MB. admittedly blockchain data is not apples to apple comparison. On AWS it's about 0.000023 per MB but compared to a competitive phone plan that's about $0.08 to $0.01 per MB depending on use.
Blockchain data is potentially always available, however, you may need to pay to unarchive the pruned data.
Worth noting that hosting costs don't actually provision 2GB of data if you pay for it, they only give you what you use. So ISP's don't actually have all the data they sell it's a little like fractional reserve banking that way.
I'm not defending BTC, BTC can't and won't scale with a transaction limit, It'll eventually succumb to manipulation that'll undermine its integrity on or off-chain.
It is worth understanding the subsidy and the block reward: BSV to BTC in this instance is an apples-to-oranges comparison, so, it is not a threat or something to consider.
The 10 BSV block reward (less the subsidy of 6.25) has a relative value of about $1680 and about 10,000 inputs (total transaction count of 5,869). so that's about $0.28 per transaction. 1 BSV costs about $168 USD.
Let's imaging BSV was worth $10,000 (1/4 less than the price of BTC).
If 1BSV was worth $10,000 and the market rate for a transaction was the same at $0.28 per transaction, and you did the same number of transactions, 5,869, with the same real-world cost. The block reward would be $1680 worth of BSV that's 0.168 BSV and not 10 BSV.
The cost per transaction impacts the block reward, The amount in BSV will shrink based on the value of BSV.
A low price of BSV, and a relatively high block reward, is useful when you want to launder ill-gotten gains via a mining pool by declaring it as income.
It's interesting that the difficulty isn't factored in. So a $10,000 BSV wouldn't also demand increased difficulty costs? Is BTC difficulty being manipulated by money laundering subsidies as well?
BTC's difficulty is manipulated up due to USDT and other speculation. But given the blockchain is plain text and transactions are very limited I suspect BTC is not an ideal money laundering mechanism.
Block space is basically transaction capacity. The second use, and I still think viable use for a blockchain, is the storage of data, not all data only the data people are willing to pay to write to the blockchain. In this instance, on BSV, it's about $0.85 per MB. admittedly blockchain data is not apples to apple comparison. On AWS it's about 0.000023 per MB but compared to a competitive phone plan that's about $0.08 to $0.01 per MB depending on use.
Blockchain data is potentially always available, however, you may need to pay to unarchive the pruned data.
Worth noting that hosting costs don't actually provision 2GB of data if you pay for it, they only give you what you use. So ISP's don't actually have all the data they sell it's a little like fractional reserve banking that way.
/PRNewswire/ -- Last month, the U.S. State Department offered rewards for tips leading to the identification of cybercriminals involved in attacks on U.S....
www.prnewswire.com
In a similar vein, CoinGeek founder Calvin Ayre has had enough of the attacks on BSV and is willing to pay to see the perpetrators brought to justice. Ayre is personally funding a new CoinGeek Crime Bounty Program that promises substantial rewards for information that materially results in convictions for crimes committed in the BSV ecosystem. The bounty can be negotiated related to how good the tip is and Ayre expects to give millions in bounties in the years ahead.
Section 2 of the white paper is the most concerning when it comes to Taal, what evidence is there that Taal does not have multiple Datacenters mining BSV and what evidence is there that all the Datacenters coordinate with Taals centralized server rather than with the bitcoin network directly. eg. it is possible that not all of Taal's hashing datacenters are mining with their Miner ID.
Taal consistently mines large blocks of transactions. It seems that these transactions are not broadcast to all nodes as other miners have historically not included these transactions in their blocks. It seems the first time these transactions are seen is when they are hashed into a block.
One of the ways CSW has expressed BSV miners being superior and next level to BTC miners is to process transactions for third parties eg., a Central Bank for example where a transaction is a fiat token transaction and the fees are paid in fiat, allowing BSV miners greater profit potential vs BTC miners. Such transactions may not meet the minimum requirement to be relayed to all nodes and as a result, are not witnessed until the block is broadcast.
So given the facts, I can validate, I'm not sure all the attackers are technically attacks according to Shadders's well-articulated description of the Bitcoin protocol.
the first-seen rule applies to time-stamped transactions, i.e. those that have been hashed into a valid block and posted to the blockchain, not to txns in some public mempool (which may differ from miner to miner). thus many txns are indeed not witnessed by the entire network until a block is broadcast. the recent attack had to do with a miner broadcasting blocks with double-spent transactions -- therein lied their invalidity. in addition, the attacking miner fraudulently impersonated a trusted one (by signing invalid blocks in TAAL's name -- although not with a verifiable signing scheme --, and by attempting to send the block reward to an address known to belong to TAAL).
it is not an attack for miners to assemble blocks full of transactions that nobody else sees until they are hashed into a valid block and appended to the blockchain once the POW puzzle has been solved. it is the principle upon which SPV is being built, and central to the business model of advanced transaction processors.
FACT:
"The staff judged that [...] significant structural vulnerabilities remained at entities such as prime money funds, and new financial arrangements such as stablecoins appeared to have the same structural maturity and liquidity transformation vulnerabilities but with less transparency and an under- developed regulatory framework." Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee July 27–28, 2021, p. 9.
PREDICTION:
by the full faith and trust of the USG, USDT shall be reigned in, and USDC shall submit to regulation.
FURTHER PREDICTION:
that will be the unraveling of a speculative "industry" that has festered for over 5 years without delivering economic value, a.k.a. the great crypto bubble bust.
Not the way Shadders's explained it in the referenced article. Also what you've said is inconsistent with every other definition of first seen transactions, including CSW's.
@AdrianX
let's have the WP in view, with an eye to determine if it's ok for a miner to post a block with txns that, up to that point, other nodes have no knowledge of.
"[...] We need a way for the payee to know that the previous owners did not sign any earlier transactions. For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions. In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and decided which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced [1], and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received. The payee needs proof that at the time of each transaction, the majority of nodes agreed it was the first received.
3. Timestamp Server
The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server. A timestamp server works by taking a hash of a block of items to be timestamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a newspaper or Usenet post [2-5]. The timestamp proves that the data must have existed at the time, obviously, in order to get into the hash. Each timestamp includes the previous timestamp in its hash, forming a chain, with each additional timestamp reinforcing the ones before it.
4. Proof-of-Work
To implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis, we will need to use a proof- of-work system similar to Adam Back's Hashcash [6], rather than newspaper or Usenet posts. The proof-of-work involves scanning for a value that when hashed, such as with SHA-256, the hash begins with a number of zero bits. The average work required is exponential in the number of zero bits required and can be verified by executing a single hash."
Post automatically merged:
- there is no mention of a mempool in any of the above (or anywhere else in the WP). transactions are timestamped when they are posted on a block. once a transaction is posted (provided the block it appears in is built upon, which requires all txns therein to be valid), then everyone sees it forever, and no txn that spends the same inputs will ever be valid.
- re-reading@shadders on the attack (the dishonesty lies in the double spending):
Attacks – second wave
On August 3 and 4, on three separate occasions, an unknown malicious attacker secretly mined hidden chains of blocks containing several million USD worth of BSV double-spent transactions. The attacker then released these long chains of blocks all at once on the BSV network, temporarily overtaking the honest chain. This time, the attacker was impersonating honest miner TAAL."
building a parallel chain is not dishonest per se, just risky as you may be overtaken before you can publish it, and lose the blocks you had won. in this case the attacker was willing to take that risk. "the honest chain" referred to above is the one made up of valid blocks, i.e. ones that do not have double-spent txns in them.
- mAPI is designed to get merchants to negotiate transaction processing charges directly with miners. not all transactions need to be sent to the entire network to see who picks them up; you can contract a txn processor in advance (for example, consider a service that only needs txns to be timestamped by a certain time, not necessarily in the next block; they contract a miner who will post a batch for a lower fee when it earns the right to publish a block, within a statistically determined time window). your txns show up in a block and never hit the mempool. i gather this is how recent GB blocks have been constructed.
Reliable open source software, providing the fundamental requirements for enterprise grade blockchain applications.
bitcoinsv.io
- i agree that my use of "first-seen rule" in the post you quoted was not the usual one. traditionally, the rule has served to disambiguate which txn is chosen if two txns validly spending the same UTXO near-simultaneously hit the network: the one first seen by the node that wins the block. but such a rule does not preclude the possibility of a node constructing blocks with txns that were sent directly to it and not to others. from the perspective of a node that has solved the POW puzzle, all that matters is that the txns written into the block it proceeds to post are valid (i.e. not double spent), lest the block be rejected.
the one first seen by the node that wins the block. but such a rule does not preclude the possibility of a node constructing blocks with txns that were sent directly to it and not to others
@79b79aa8 Shadders and I can see how bitcoin works, and if you withhold blocks and release them later and they contain double spends, Shadders makes a good argument explaining who's wrong. And it's not the entity that broadcasts their transaction first.
re Taal, they may have been orphaning their own blocks
At CoinGeek NYC, which will take place on October 5-7, Elon Musk has the opportunity to set the record straight about Tesla’s mission and how blockchain aligns with it.
coingeek.com
A very reasonable and nice message. Who are you and what did you do with Craig?
I'm very much in favor of reaching out to people and business entities. The more adoption BSV gets the faster it wins.
as of sep 3 2021, there are $68.3 B USDT in circulation.
it doesn't seem likely that Tether/iFinex possess half of that amount in liquid assets. no reputable financial entity avows holding a sizeable percentage of it. no financial audits have ever been performed.
whatever reserves Tether/iFinex hold in crypto would be affected by downturn in the market. this causes the risk of a vicious circle: if there is a run on Tether, the entire market drops, lowering their crypto reserves in fiat terms, putting further pressure on the peg.
the Open Market Committee has identified the issue as a "liquidity transformation vulnerability" posing risk to the economy.
there is an identified risk of Tether not being redeemable 1 for 1 to the dollar in the event of a downturn.
This site uses cookies to help personalize content, tailor your experience, and keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.prnewswire.com
coingeek.com
