Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Richy_T]

I posted these over on wall observer but I thought they might be of interest here.

Available block space with time

Block size limit as a multiple of block size over time. Note that on the day Satoshi implemented it, it was 710:1

Same plot but on a log scale.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

gavinandresen
10:48 AM I would like Classic to be the client for infrastructure providers. And Unlimited be the client for end-users.

And Core can be the client for a handful of micro-block true believers who can comfort themselves with the knowledge that they're using "the one true Bitcoin" as they wait a year or two for the next difficulty adjustment. Everybody wins.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Roger_Murdock

the thing is, once Classic gets going with majority hashpower, there will be tremendous incentive to perform a 51% attack not to steal coins but simply to eliminate the competition to advance the price of Classic coins. in that sense, once Classic hardforks, the Core capitulation/destruction should be swift.

and Blockstream loses $21M.

 

[rocks]

Quick update on the total hash rate behind Bitcoin Classic.

The current declared support is 52.5% composed of:

• Bitmain/Antpool - 27% (4 day average at blockchain.info)
• BitFury - 14% (4 day average at blcokchain.info)
• BW.COM - 5% (4 day average at blockchain.info)
• KnCMiner - 5% (4 day average at blockchain.info)
• HAOBTC.com - 1.5% (claimed 13K Th/s of current estimated 900K Th/s)
• Genesis Mining - ?
• Marshall Long - ?

Congratulations everyone, we now have consensus.

Have not seen anything from Slush, but since they supported XT I would assume they would support Classic. If you include Slush we have 56.5% which creates a safer margin and tilts the scales more.

After that only F2Pool (23%), BTCC Pool (15%), and several other small pools (<10% combined) remain undeclared. Will be interesting to see what they do. My understanding is BTCC seems the most against leaving core, F2Pool indicated larger blocks under BIP100 but prefer core. The smaller ones I'd assume will follow the emerging consensus. At fork time the minority pools will have to give in and follow, otherwise they risk losing their miner base to other pools.

Edit: Well maybe we don't have consensus. Apparently Classic is using the 75% that doomed XT. That means that F2Pool and just one other miner could block the upgrade. I think this is wrong, they should activate on something closer to 50-60%, that puts pressure on others to join in after a majority has switched. IMHO the 75% hurdle required too large of a supermajority which is hard to create.

 

[cypherdoc]

Core supporters back to their dirty tricks:

 

[Roger_Murdock]

@Roger_Murdock

the thing is, once Classic gets going with majority hashpower, there will be tremendous incentive to perform a 51% attack not to steal coins but simply to eliminate the competition to advance the price of Classic coins. in that sense, once Classic hardforks, the Core capitulation/destruction should be swift.

and Blockstream loses $21M.

Hmmm, good point. They might have to take their blockchain private to guard against that. Maybe theymos could be in charge of overseeing miner permissions? Sometimes you have to abandon decentralization principles in order to save decentralization.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Roger_Murdock

Sometimes you have to abandon decentralization principles in order to save decentralization.

touche! lol!
[doublepost=1452888450][/doublepost]interesting how distribution is evening out. last 100 blocks:

 

[cliff]

Hmmm, good point. They might have to take their blockchain private to guard against that. Maybe theymos could be in charge of overseeing miner permissions? Sometimes you have to abandon decentralization principles in order to save decentralization.

Decentralization can't be measured in a vacuum and devoid of global context. The success of decentralization depends on the standard for measuring it. IMHO, the rise of crypto-currencies suggests that decentralization of money is happening and may be healthy. Think about it, money started as a private thing, then became centralized by state actors and the use of fiat powers. I think we're doing a good job of offering alternatives to the status quo, block size limit debates notwithstanding.

 

[cypherdoc]

things looking up @theZerg


gavinandresen
10:48 AM I would like Classic to be the client for infrastructure providers. And Unlimited be the client for end-users.

@Gavin Andresen

i'm getting some upvotes for this so i should add:

this just goes to show you @Gavin Andresen is not looking to be a dictator and control everybody and everything contrary to ridiculous allegations by miniblockists and core dev. he's had a vision from the beginning to encourage multiple implementations and he's now actively looking to actualize this. whether it happens or not is irrelevant, since i still think there's a chance for something like Classic to become a dominant implementation. we'll have to see. Core could be a part of that distribution but are more likely to dig their heels in, as they have, and allow themselves to be forked into irrelevancy.

anyways, great for BU.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Huge amounts of electricity *are* being squandered right now but that is because the block reward is so high.

Electricity is being squandered right now because it's a fixed cost being spread over a too-low number of transactions.

Increase the transaction rate by 100x and the total electricity cost will barely budge, so the electricity cost per transaction will drop by two orders of magnitude.

 

[AdrianX]

And Core can be the client for a handful of micro-block true believers who can comfort themselves with the knowledge that they're using "the one true Bitcoin" as they wait a year or two for the next difficulty adjustment. Everybody wins.

The next big price shocker, the Block Limit increases by 100% and Gregory Maxwell throws in the towel saying, if this doesn’t kill bitcoin, these big blocks just make it uninteresting, I’m all out. (I wish! But at least well know if he is or isn’t consistent.)

On another note this is ridicules why is everybody still selling. Looking at the positive side, there is a lot of bitcoin in new hands; I hope this new wave of investors are not put off by a little volatility.

 

[cliff]

@AdrianX - 'erbody selling everything today, not just BTC. Plus, coins have been flocking into the exchanges for days IIRC, so this was gonna happen no matter what (IMHO).

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I never bought the idea that the block reward divided by the number of transactions is the "cost per tx," and that that means we are "wasting energy." If hodling is valuable, and if that value is contingent on the transactions that do happen (even if they're not yours) being secure, then the block reward is paying for a lot more than just those transactions. Also, of course, the block reward is what helps the ledger get distributed far and wide during these early years, so it also adds value for investors/hodlers in that way.

 

[cypherdoc]

it's inevitable:

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/40az4o/bobby_lee_btcc_i_recommend_a_2mb_blocksize/

 

[AdrianX]

Electricity is being squandered right now because it's a fixed cost being spread over a too-low number of transactions.

Increase the transaction rate by 100x and the total electricity cost will barely budge, so the electricity cost per transaction will drop by two orders of magnitude.

Nice I love this!

@Zangelbert Bingledack

Yes, but cost per tx and energy per tx are not related directly. It is as you describe, but it’s dependant on the relative adoption and total wealth stored in the system over time.

The block subsidy is securing the wealth stored on the blockchain now, it was designed to diminish as the network grows and will eventually be reflected in the per transaction cost.

The cost per transaction will eventually diminish to the marginal cost necessary to secure the whole network as transaction volume increases to provide security in economics of scale.

The cost per transaction will scale to reflect the wealth in the bitcoin economy, “bitcoin is either going to be worth a lot more in the future or very little”

 

[Roger_Murdock]

The percentages being reported as supporting Bitcoin Classic are based largely on commitments by pool operators, no? But presumably we should see some reshuffling of hash power over the next few weeks as individual miners move to / away from these pools based on these commitments? How big do we expect that effect to be?

 

[Inca]

Never been more excited.

It is buying time as far as I can see. Brief price volatility whilst a fork happens..but then a massive relief rally after this happens. Could be the start of the next big one. Finally the shackles of Core are to be thrown off!

 

[cypherdoc]

@Roger_Murdock

hmm. great point. hadn't thought of that. could have a multiplier effect towards Classic. i guess we'll see.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

I never bought the idea that the block reward divided by the number of transactions is the "cost per tx," and that that means we are "wasting energy."

That argument is a lie designed to sound truthy enough to convince people who are economically illiterate.

It's phrased in a way that implies that if we double the amount of transactions the network performs then the electricity cost will also double rather than remain the same.

 

[cypherdoc]

b/c small individual miners at pools can switch effortlessly, which of them wants to be the butt of a 51% attack?
[doublepost=1452891027][/doublepost]@Roger_Murdock

given this chart i just posted and given that we know BTCC wants 2MB blocks like i linked to above, could the 18% miner dominance that BTCC now enjoys be reflective of an anticipation of their move to support Classic while f2pool hasn't committed to anything yet?