Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

ok, so we're slowly cleaning out the flags or "Extra Info" in blocks in preparation for the next most popular proposal. that's good. the only one stuck on BIP100 is Bitfury. we know that Kano CK Pool & KNC have already disavowed BIP100; the only reason they haven't stripped down the flag support is b/c they don't want to waste time restarting their pool servers:

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1
[doublepost=1452626151][/doublepost]new high. that's good:

 

[Justus Ranvier]

I already expressed my belief that Coinbase and
other businesses that accept 0-confirmations have
in all likelihood factored in the risks, and have ways
to deal with it.

Sorry about that. In that case, consider that part of my last post to not be addressed to you.

 

[cypherdoc]

The Squid at multi-year lows:

JPM not far behind:

[doublepost=1452627909][/doublepost]this doesn't look good:

[doublepost=1452628643,1452627618][/doublepost]i mean, c'mon, are you kidding me?:

Shipping Traffic

http://www.harperpetersen.com/harpex/harpexRH.csv;jsessionid=A5D2C89144264CC3180F66A1E5D13112
[doublepost=1452629576][/doublepost]$20's here we are!:

 

[Erdogan]

I guess now I'd better crawl back to my little hole,
but I'm curious. If it's in principle OK to call
help from "the authorities" to make 0-conf
safe from double-spend, what about 1-conf?

Where do you draw the limit ( 2,3,...N-conf)?
and on what grounds?

You can never be sure, that is an important trait of the system. A 0 confirmation gives some confidence, 1 confirmation gives more, and so on. You can say statistically something of the confidence of some payment being final (neither this is absolute, because the mining network changes and is operated by humans).

This is exactly like it is with all forms of payment. Look hard on the edge cases, and you will see that the confidence of finality increases with time. Bitcoin does it in a quicker, more predictable, less third party dependent way.

 

[chriswilmer]

The whole discussion here about including the legal system to settle disputes for fraudulent 0-conf transactions is just a rehashing of the age old "tall fences make good neighbors" principle.

Why do people have fences? Fences act as a barrier to someone trespassing on your own property. Separately, your property title and legal system (with its enforcement arm) also acts as a barrier to someone trespassing on your own property. Most people find that, despite legal protections, it's helpful to have a fence. However, just because they have a fence does not mean they are abandoning legal recourse (in the case that someone, for example, hops over the fence). In fact, people are *more* likely to seek legal recourse when someone hops over the fence, because it is more clear that it wasn't an accident.

So, Bitcoin and its cryptographic machinery acts as a fence (a really good one) for ensuring payments work as expected, and that frees up law enforcement to focus on the edge cases when it doesn't.

 

[YarkoL]

Sorry about that. In that case, consider that part of my last post to not be addressed to you.

That's all right. Actually I understand - to a degree -
your statement that "this nothing to do with Bitcoin".
Of course businesses and individuals are free to use
any kind of expediency they deem fit.

The real question, of course, is on the relation of
Bitcoin to the existing legal framework. IMO they are
somewhat like oil and water; the system ("A purely
peer-to-peer version of electronic cash") is designed to
be have an autonomous securitymodel without resort to
an external authority.

This is exactly like it is with all forms of payment. Look hard on the edge cases, and you will see that the confidence of finality increases with time. Bitcoin does it in a quicker, more predictable, less third party dependent way.

Basically you need more hash power to commit double
spend after N confirmations, so the question turns into:
if I think that double-spend is an criminal offense, shouldn't
logically 51% attack also be punishable by law?

 

[Aquent]

The drums stand silent in this glorious night...

 

[rocks]

ok, so we're slowly cleaning out the flags or "Extra Info" in blocks in preparation for the next most popular proposal. that's good. the only one stuck on BIP100 is Bitfury. we know that Kano CK Pool & KNC have already disavowed BIP100; the only reason they haven't stripped down the flag support is b/c they don't want to waste time restarting their pool servers:

I think it is a very strong signal that the Bitcoin Classic website lists several miners as adopters (Marshall Long, Bitmain/Antpool, BW.COM, HAOBTC.com, Genesis Mining).

Public miner commitment is absolutely key to remove the 1MB cap. The reason is even if 99% of users and nodes were behind a larger blocksize, if a miner is unsure whether or not 51% of the hash power will build on top of a larger block then the miner will continue to mine smaller blocks. Miners have to know that some majority of hash power will build on top of a larger block size.

The current support listed is:

• Marshall Long - ?
• Bitmain/Antpool - 29%
• BW.COM - 5%
• HAOBTC.com - ?
• Genesis Mining - ?

Antpool and BW are the big ones I know of putting ~34% of the hash rate behind larger blocks already. Just one of F2Pool, Bitfury or BTCC Pool would tip the scales in favor of 2MB blocks. Surprised KnC was not already listed, they alone would get larger blocks almost to 40%. All of those screaming that XT's 75% requirement was too low for "consensus" will probably learn soon that XT was in fact being (too) nice. Consensus only needs 51%. If 51% commits to 2MB blocks, you can be sure the others will follow, to do otherwise would be a massive loss of money.

This is also what I was trying to get at with the suggestion a few days ago to have a large block scaling plan people and companies could commit to. It seems Bitcoin Classic is somewhat pursuing this at least for miner commitment, which is what really matters.

Edit: If this happens and the core devs also honor their scaling plan commitment, it effectively removes the core devs from being a factor. ALL miners would have to switch to Bitcoin Classic or BU, because any miner running core would be kicked off the network since core invalids larger blocks. And if all miners switch off of core, you can be sure most nodes would as well in order to follow.

I have to admit I was starting to lose faith, this is looking up now.

 

[Erdogan]

[...]
Basically you need more hash power to commit double
spend after N confirmations, so the question turns into:
if I think that double-spend is an criminal offense, shouldn't
logically 51% attack also be punishable by law?

I guess 51% attack could also be regarded as a normal market action. (Re "large blocks is an attack"). Theft and fraud always is a reason to act against the perpetrator.

 

[albin]

Bitcoin Classic is a genius strategic move, because it forces miners to shit or get off the pot. A one-time bump to 2 MB should be completely uncontroversial based on the public statements of basically every big miner in existence, so any opposition to this obvious obvious obvious move requires the Core side to engage in some pretty bizarre gymnastics to defend the wanton irresponsibility of their "roadmap".

 

[cypherdoc]

@albin

I think it is a very strong signal that the Bitcoin Classic website lists several miners as adopters (Marshall Long, Bitmain/Antpool, BW.COM, HAOBTC.com, Genesis Mining).

Public miner commitment is absolutely key to remove the 1MB cap. The reason is even if 99% of users and nodes were behind a larger blocksize, if a miner is unsure whether or not 51% of the hash power will build on top of a larger block then the miner will continue to mine smaller blocks. Miners have to know that some majority of hash power will build on top of a larger block size.

The current support listed is:

• Marshall Long - ?
• Bitmain/Antpool - 29%
• BW.COM - 5%
• HAOBTC.com - ?
• Genesis Mining - ?

Antpool and BW are the big ones I know of putting ~34% of the hash rate behind larger blocks already. Just one of F2Pool, Bitfury or BTCC Pool would tip the scales in favor of 2MB blocks. Surprised KnC was not already listed, they alone would get larger blocks almost to 40%. All of those screaming that XT's 75% requirement was too low for "consensus" will probably learn soon that XT was in fact being (too) nice. Consensus only needs 51%. If 51% commits to 2MB blocks, you can be sure the others will follow, to do otherwise would be a massive loss of money.

This is also what I was trying to get at with the suggestion a few days ago to have a large block scaling plan people and companies could commit to. It seems Bitcoin Classic is somewhat pursuing this at least for miner commitment, which is what really matters.

Edit: If this happens and the core devs also honor their scaling plan commitment, it effectively removes the core devs from being a factor. ALL miners would have to switch to Bitcoin Classic or BU, because any miner running core would be kicked off the network since core invalids larger blocks. And if all miners switch off of core, you can be sure most nodes would as well in order to follow.

I have to admit I was starting to lose faith, this is looking up now.

here's a list:

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/website/issues/3

 

[albin]

Is it possible that the recent stuff about the relay network was in some way a ploy to scare miners away from accepting 2MB blocks, in anticipation of this development?

 

[cypherdoc]

this is good news. @Gavin Andresen will try multiple implementations until optimized

[doublepost=1452640149][/doublepost]idiot brg444 out attempting damage control:

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@cypherdoc

I don't really see how BU is any less predictable than the situation now where some percentage of people run Core, some XT, some Bitcoin Classic, etc. If all these clients signal their blocksize limits and that's what makes it predictable for miners, then once BU gets its signaling BUIP implemented it should be the same, no? Likewise for miner commitments, they could all run BU and simply commit to 2MB, or the dynamic 2x cap proposal that will be included as an option in BU.

 

[Peter R]

@Zangelbert Bingledack

I think it comes down to whether we've permanently left the "one implementation to rule them all" monoculture or not.

If we indeed transition away from a monopoly implementation, then BU provides as good or better signalling for the miners.

But to me it's not clear that we have. My spidey senses are telling me that a lot of people still don't understand that we don't all need to run the same software. This might create a winner-take-all situation where nearly everyone migrates away from Core but all to the same thing. This concern is actually why I think Gavin isn't committing to any one project (he knows that a lot of the nodes will follow him and he doesn't want that to happen).

Personally, I think the BU approach is the long-term winner. But if I were to play Devil's advocate, I'd ask if it were possibly too far ahead of its time.
[doublepost=1452644227][/doublepost]Does anyone know whether the version bits that Classic intends to use are the same as XT used in its mined blocks? In particular, would the ~500 nodes running XT need to upgrade to avoid forking if the 2 MB increased proposed by Classic were activated? (Of course, BU nodes wouldn't need to upgrade as they are already compatible with Classic).

 

[AdrianX]

Is it possible that the recent stuff about the relay network was in some way a ploy to scare miners away from accepting 2MB blocks, in anticipation of this development?

The relay network is open sore source code that created a centralized hub to control miners. As soon as the centralized relay network provides an advantage in reducing orphan risk miners can't afford not to be a part of it.

It's irrelevant that the code is open and anyone can fork it and create a competing project - miners benefit from the network not the code.

The relay network provided an once off gain in reduced orphan risk to the early adopters, After they having joined they have to compete on equal footing again. There after if they leave they have to give back the gain.

tl:dr Yes the relay network is a centralized server that can manipulate miners by threatening to put them at a competitive disadvantage by giving them a disproportionately high orphan risk.

 

[JVWVU]

@Peter R - I think you hit my feelings exactly on last post, I think BU is the goal probably in 2020ish halving and it's too advantageous today, but we need to scale today.

I am a BU supporter but today I think Classic is the way to form a consensus to defeat Coretards. We are finally centralizing our stance thar 1MB is not the future.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@Peter R

Yes BU only comes into its own if "everyone moving from Core to something else" (or Core giving in) fails. It's a failsafe for now. A guarantee that the market will express itself. It may not be necessary for the move to 2MB; Classic may win or more likely cause Core to capitulate. Eventually BU is the only way (and perhaps ultimately spinoffs are the only way), but yeah it could be before its time. That said, it is waking people up and applying a lot of pressure at a critical time.

BU also should increase investor confidence as the path can be cleared for the future as the concept is proven. BU reverses the Fidelity Effect in some way.

 

[cliff]

relay network is open sore

Trying to figure out where you might want to edit this phrase - given some recent news, there is more than one answer.

 

[Erdogan]

I think that, for the largeblockers, there is no reason to believe that the actual limit that is in everybodys mind, is less than 2MB. So the task now is to weigh the chances for a large block, and when to mine one. The actual software implementation and escalation strategy is irrelevant. Honour to the first one to do it.