Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Richy_T]

Question:

Bitcoin has blockchain pruning if you don't want to store the whole blockchain. However, this pruning means severe reduction in functionality if you want to do certain things.

So

Would there be any mileage in a hybrid dehydration solution. That is, to remove from blocks any transactions which are no longer relevant.

Ex A->B B->C

We know that B->C is valid and so the transaction A->B becomes irrelevant for many purposes. If we deleted it from the block and closed up the gap...

Does this make any sense or is it just no better than the regular pruning?

 

[Peter R]

what about my question?

I actually started working on the subchain paper because I was trying to understand how the pre-progation of block contents would affect the fee market. I believe I showed that the marginal cost of adding *new* transactions to a block (i.e., those that haven't yet been pre-propagated) never approach zero as long as the propagation impedance is finite--even if you imagine the degenerate case of an arbitrarily-high number of weak blocks per strong block.

Sure, miners could agree to never include new TXs that have not yet been "pre-propagated" over some out-of-band channel. But what I showed in the subchains paper was that they won't do this if they want to maximize their profit. There will always be a fee density that will entice a miner to include a not-yet-propagated transaction in his block! Thus a transaction fee market will always exist.

It's like Greg doesn't actually read my analysis and just shoots from the hip instead. I can't even understand the point he's making.

 

[rocks]

but how about if some exchange/miner like BTCC with >100 nodes worldwide decided to spend funds from one of Bitstamps cold wallets to itself? leave all it's 100 nodes as old code, self mine and then send it as a 1 tx SPV block, like it often does already.

As far as I understand it, nothing would stop this. That is why implementing SW as a soft fork is outright dangerous IMHO.

If a very clear majority of the hash rate is not behind SW and actively protecting it, then SW transactions are at risk. But with a soft fork SW is activated before anyone understands the hash rate support or even P2P node support.

The fact that Maxwell and team promote this as less risky than a 2MB bump either means they are not qualified or are self serving.

 

[Peter R]

Interesting:

 

[rocks]

@Peter R
Was just about to post this also.

It is essentially a declaration of war against the fork. Core would have to do this because otherwise they would be stranded with no hash rate and high difficulty.

If you were determined to keep a 1MB chain going it is the only way.

But you also have to wonder about the opticts of this with the miners you are trying to keep. Wonder how long BTCC will stay aligned to core knowing the "PoW code is already written". Miners should be disgusted by the threat and act accordingly.

It would mean there would be two competing and working chains. But given the ever growing list of companies backing the Classic chain I think it is clear which would behave like an altcoin.

This action would also forever brand core developers as against bitcoin. Again the biggest threat right now would be if they took a consolatory approach, but thankfully they are taking the completely opposite approach

 

[albin]

I almost hope it comes to that, it would be a lot of fun to dust off some GPUs to furiously mine and dump Maxwell's altcoin.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Peter R

how would a new POW algo help Core except by preventing a 51% attack by Classic miners on Core?

it still wouldn't prevent a plunge in the price of Core coin. it could actually accelerate it as doubt and confusion ensue from a new POW algo. he's bluffing.

 

[solex]

Amazing that he has been moderator for years on the BCT mining sub-forum, yet has such a cavalier attitude about changing PoW. Of course Classic would be Bitcoin and the weak fork just an alt with no ecosystem.

 

[cypherdoc]

http://us12.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9bf40b79f9b08bf47db4ab84c&id=1ee6bbb968

 

[Peter R]

@Peter R

how would a new POW algo help Core except by preventing a 51% attack by Classic miners on Core?

it still wouldn't prevent a plunge in the price of Core coin. it could actually accelerate it as doubt and confusion ensue from a new POW algo. he's bluffing.

I think it would allow Blockstream Coin to persist (albeit with a low market cap), rather than the fork dynamics we were discussing earlier playing out an killing it off completely.

The fact that Saruman and the Orcs are even talking about this possibility further alienates the Core team: they have just said that they'll try to make the miners' hardware worthless if the miners don't blindly follow them!

It's completely crazy: they won't even give their customers the option to follow the longest chain (e.g., with an advanced config window to increase a node's block size limit), but they'll hard fork to a new PoW *and* reset the chain difficulty if the Blockchain begins to contain blocks larger than 1 MB! The pinnacle of pettiness!

 

[Norway]

@cypherdoc
Woohoo! Classic is the prying bar, Unlimited the prefered implementation in the future!

 

[cypherdoc]

hang on:

 

[Justus Ranvier]

So according to maaku block propagation time increases rapidly above 2MB. This is why it's critical to not increase the block size limit.

Oh the other hand, when it comes to the question of why we even need a block size limit at all, in that case block propagation times are not a problem whatsoever and will in no way successfully encourage miners to keep the size of their blocks within the networks's bandwidth and verification capabilities.

Is there a word for someone who is equally willing to use either a statement or its opposite to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion, depending on which version is most advantageous in the moment?

 

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc
Woohoo! Classic is the prying bar, Unlimited the prefered implementation in the future!

yeah, i like that idea.

i hope it plays out that way.

 

[rocks]

@Peter R

how would a new POW algo help Core except by preventing a 51% attack by Classic miners on Core?

it still wouldn't prevent a plunge in the price of Core coin. it could actually accelerate it as doubt and confusion ensue from a new POW algo. he's bluffing.

It helps them by keeping the old chain at least working. Without this the old chain would be stuck with no blocks being produced and left as dead.

This is core grasping at straws. I too would fire up GPUs simply to sell, as I am sure many others would as well.

 

[albin]

Classic is absolutely killing it with respect to community outreach and stakeholder engagement. I think there might be valuable lessons here for the future in how to make progress on issues like this.

 

[Richy_T]

Is there a word for someone who is equally willing to use either a statement or its opposite to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion, depending on which version is most advantageous in the moment?

If they're not doing it deliberately, it's woolly thinking.

If deliberately, I think there is a word but it slips my mind. "Politician" might suffice.

 

[albin]

Sigmund Freud described the phenomenon perfectly in The Interpretation of Dreams as "kettle-logic". This approach is situationally acceptable in some one-off situations such as the negative side of a competitive debate or a trial defense, where the arguer benefits from certain rules of presumption (I.e. only one argument has to stick), but in the long term building relationships with people under an identity it's toxic to a person's credibility.

 

[Richy_T]

So kettlelogian then?

 

[albin]

I never borrowed your kettle! It was damaged when I got it from you, and it was undamaged when I returned it!