Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[AdrianX]

For a long time alt coins were my biggest fear regarding the project, and in late 2013 it looked as if some might be gaining traction.

We all believed in and trusted that network effects would allow only one cryptocurrency to have value and keep any altcoin from gaining traction. And in the end network effects worked and no altcoin has come close to Bitcoin's value or reach.

It will be the same with the fork. Network effects will move one branch to take over and the other to be valued no more than altcoins are. It is a binary outcome, we will not see two branches maintain value, only one will. Sure core can change the 1MB chain to keep it running for years, but no one will care or use it.

This is pretty much along the lines of my thought of the day. Just let it split, let the best fork win on its merits. Core with its Limited Block size can be optimized for the user cases the few Core developers are envisioning, it may well be that we need a 1.0 layer to build sidechains and other off chain solutions, I drought it.

Lets a fork with a bigger block chain grow organically and let’s see where this goes. It's the network effect of a common vision for money that will secure it long term.

The real issue is the Core mini blockests are actually trying to protect their vision. They are scared that there will be more demand for Bitcoin with bigger blocks as bitcoin grows and they'll lose control.

If it relay is bad as they think, Bitcoin will crash and they will get there way.

 

[theZerg]

@theZerg

didn't we @rocks have a discussion during the summer where you said that it wasn't possible to tell how long it would take to validate a block ahead of time? IOW, a full node would have to go thru all the sigops, etc to only find out after the fact that it takes a long time?

No I was asking IF it was possible. It is possible to estimate, but not sure how accurately its not my area of expertise. Worst case, you can identify a block as containing "weird stuff" and from a practical perspective that is probably good enough since you could throw its validation in a separate thread.

 

[YarkoL]

@theZerg

didn't we @rocks have a discussion during the summer where you said that it wasn't possible to tell how long it would take to validate a block ahead of time? IOW, a full node would have to go thru all the sigops, etc to only find out after the fact that it takes a long time?

I think you can check the internal structure, count sigops etc. to arrive at estimate without doing actual validation.

 

[cypherdoc]

@theZerg

reason i ask is that currently most miners construct their SPV blocks off the header of an incoming currently validating block and not the previous block. in that sense, i'm struggling to understand from your paper how the miner could orphan a sigops attack block when it can't determine ahead of time how long it will take to validate it?
[doublepost=1453827314][/doublepost]@YarkoL

are miners likely to do that routinely for *every* new block on arrival? they certainly don't do that currently.
[doublepost=1453828048,1453827247][/doublepost]fascinating responses from the Chinese:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42rpak/the_rbtc_china_dispatch_episode_5_the_chinese/

 

[Richy_T]

No I was asking IF it was possible. It is possible to estimate, but not sure how accurately its not my area of expertise. Worst case, you can identify a block as containing "weird stuff" and from a practical perspective that is probably good enough since you could throw its validation in a separate thread.

Just lower the thread priority on anything that starts looking like it's taking a bit long (say 3-4x expected) and start a new thread for the rest. If it starts taking a *really* long time, lower the thread priority even further.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Richy_T

the bitch is that you're forced to make a decision as to whether to potentially waste time hashing on the incoming or previous block.
[doublepost=1453830105][/doublepost]we may be getting duped by thinking SW fixes malleability *across the board*:

@ajtowns segwit only fixes signer malleability for m-of-n multisig where at least one of the original signatures is included in the replacement transaction. Signer malleability for single-signature transactions or where an entirely new set of m signatures is used in multisig is still a possible form of malleability. This is easy to prove: the necessary set of signers can change the vouts, the nSequence, the locktime, or the the version number, thus changing the txid even when segwit is used for every scriptSig.

https://github.com/bitcoin-core/website/pull/67#issuecomment-174414065
[doublepost=1453830201][/doublepost]in this sense, you can see why the *malleability fix* in SW is specifically for LN tx's which are multisig.

 

[YarkoL]

@cypherdoc
There is a constant, MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/50 so sigops are being counted, and since amaclin's spam attack you have been able to specify max bytes per sigop within transaction as well.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7081

 

[cypherdoc]

@YarkoL

i'm aware of those fixes. but some, mainly miniblockists, call those "hacks" b/c they require an *estimation* of the level of the fix, similar to our arguments against centrally planned blocksizes. for ex: 1.3GB worth of hash/byte or 100kB max_tx_size. those may or may not be ideal picks long term. miniblockists claim SW fixes these in some sort of algorithmic way.

also, for those to kick in, i assume a miner has to iterate those sigops up and to the point of the limit before it cuts off the tx. it would be ideal to not have to do that.
[doublepost=1453832353,1453831595][/doublepost]no one's bothered to respond on Reddit to my concern:

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[VeritasSapere]

For a long time alt coins were my biggest fear regarding the project, and in late 2013 it looked as if some might be gaining traction.

We all believed in and trusted that network effects would allow only one cryptocurrency to have value and keep any altcoin from gaining traction. And in the end network effects worked and no altcoin has come close to Bitcoin's value or reach.

It will be the same with the fork. Network effects will move one branch to take over and the other to be valued no more than altcoins are. It is a binary outcome, we will not see two branches maintain value, only one will. Sure core can change the 1MB chain to keep it running for years, but no one will care or use it.

I like the altcoins myself, I am a holder of several. I perceive the altcoins to be an extension of the ethos of decentralization within Bitcoin. It is the very existence of these altcoins that guarantees the success of the cryptocurrency revolution, no matter what happens to Bitcoin.

The only time I could see altcoins becoming a "threat" to Bitcoin is if Bitcoin is proven to be somehow flawed. In such a scenario however I think the existence of alternative cryptocurrencies should be embraced. This blocksize debate certainly has been an existential crisis for Bitcoin, which I am now confident we have almost solved, however there are many altcoins out there with very intriguing solutions to these problems, from scaling to governance.

I might start a thread on this subject here in the future, since I suspect there are still a few Bitcoin maximilists among us, who might want to debate this with me.
[doublepost=1453838984][/doublepost]Talking about debates, I have been debating with the small blockists again:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1318519.msg13673921#msg13673921
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1318519.msg13684036#msg13684036

 

[cypherdoc]

The EU believes that the digital currency has the potential to evolve into a highly disruptive technology which could transform the conventional finance sector.

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/01/26/eu-will-not-regulate-digital-currencies-like-bitcoin/

 

[Inca]

Yesterday I responded to a post by Maxwell accusing me of working for GCHQ (lol) on /r/btc and admitted my new account ('Welcome to reddit!'), ProchronistiC, was created after my original was banned (yeeha4) by /r/bitcoin moderators (for posting a few supportive links to the bitcoin classic webpage, oh the horror).

Of course being a pathetic c*nt with no sense of humour he reported me to the /r/bitcoin moderators and my new account was banned from /r/bitcoin within about 2 minutes, and subsequently perma-banned from reddit entirely today for the terrible crime of 'evading a subreddit ban'.

I think I will give reddit a holiday until this hard fork business blows over. Plenty of other voices more eloquent and logical than mine to continue the fight.

 

[albin]

Matonis's tweets are truly baffling. Capacity increases as socialism? Now the 32 MB message limit is what's sanctified?

 

[Peter R]

@albin

I think Matonis will come around. He needs to enroll is one of @Zangelbert Bingledack's Forkology courses first though...

 

[Bloomie]

@Richy_T
also, clicking the text link below the box doesn't take me directly to the post; simply to the beginning of the thread which isn't helpful.

For embedded reddit posts, the link at the bottom leads to the thread. To get to the original comment, you have to click on the date stamp.

 

[Peter R]

Good thread by Eric Voorhees. Even better comment by @Roger_Murdock:

 

[cypherdoc]

For embedded reddit posts, the link at the bottom leads to the thread. To get to the original comment, you have to click on the date stamp.

thank you!

 

[cypherdoc]

olivier
2:12 PM Last bits are being put together, 1 or 2 days maybe? It will be RC1.

 

[rocks]

@cypherdoc
We should change the poll to ask what activation threshold will be chosen. 75% like XT, 90% as demanded by some Chinese miners (which is not achievable), or simple majority? It is a tough decision.

 

[Norway]

@rocks
50.0000001%