Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
@JVWVU
he's right about that. but the HF is about much more than 6.6TPS. it will prove that Bitcoin can break away from a corrupted core dev.
[doublepost=1454802780][/doublepost][doublepost=1454802924][/doublepost]3rd place already. not bad:
he's right about that. but the HF is about much more than 6.6TPS. it will prove that Bitcoin can break away from a corrupted core dev.
[doublepost=1454802780][/doublepost][doublepost=1454802924][/doublepost]3rd place already. not bad:
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
I could not resist posting this here. 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13776073#msg13776073
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13776073#msg13776073
[doublepost=1454804527][/doublepost]
i highly admire your heroic efforts talking to that wall.I could not resist posting this here.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13776073#msg13776073
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
What could people possibly be doing with Ethereum right now that meaningfully uses 8 tps? Just a cursory scan, but I've been perusing blocks randomly and I don't see any gas actually consumed. Presumably that means none of those blocks I'm looking at are executing contracts?
- Aug 29, 2015
- 536
- 2,597
Hmm, that's hard to say. It's possible there might be some minority of Bitcoin transactors who benefit, but it's difficult to determine with confidence who that would be. Possibly providers of off-chain transaction services. What can be stated confidently is that the net effect is virtually guaranteed to be negative.
UTXO has benefits and costs. It is The Ledger of bitcoin balances. There is value to having more entries in this Ledger, as well as costs to maintaining it. The Blockchain is the permanent record of changes to the Ledger. Ease of updating the Ledger is very valuable, so more data in the blockchain also has benefits as well as costs.
The costs are made up of scarce resources such as bandwidth, disk space, CPU time, etc. which different transactions can use in different proportions. To try to push these proportions in a certain direction by the decision of a central committee is almost guaranteed to be non-optimal. They do not have the needed information to know whether the tradeoffs they are choosing yield the greatest overall value. It is a form of price control.
These tradeoff decisions should be made by those who reap the benefits and bear the costs of the resources. They alone have the knowledge needed to strike the best balance. In future, providers of different services could specialize and develop methods to price these products. There will probably be entrepreneurial opportunities here, for example services to reliably serve transaction data to SPV wallets. Those who are more efficient and innovative will reap greater rewards, and all Bitcoin participants will benefit from a system that delivers the greatest value for lowest cost.
@Mengerian
i'll tell you what i think.
i think the consolidation of these multi input tx's via SW are being sold by core dev as being good for miners/exchanges via the b/4 discount. every once in a while these large entities have to make mass payouts and it would be handy to get a discount while doing so. from what i heard from @Gavin Andresen (i think it was him) is that these occur rarely, like maybe a coupla times a quarter and even once a year for a 500kB tx for f2pool. pt being these are rare.
but having said that, i think the real thrust of these discounts is to encourage 2 of 2 multisigs for LN payment channels. core dev wants these types of tx's to flourish and they need a block size increase to accomodate the larger sigs but they don't want to do it the easy way via a HF. so they come up with this accounting gimmick which is centrally planned and forces miners to relay bigger blocks btwn 1.1-4MB that risk orphaning, while getting paid less or the same for doing it. we all, as nodes, have to relay around all these bigger blocks as well. if you insist on running an old node out of protest or just b/c you aren't paying attention, all your regular tx's will have to pay 4x those of SW tx's.
[doublepost=1454809223][/doublepost]
i'll tell you what i think.
i think the consolidation of these multi input tx's via SW are being sold by core dev as being good for miners/exchanges via the b/4 discount. every once in a while these large entities have to make mass payouts and it would be handy to get a discount while doing so. from what i heard from @Gavin Andresen (i think it was him) is that these occur rarely, like maybe a coupla times a quarter and even once a year for a 500kB tx for f2pool. pt being these are rare.
but having said that, i think the real thrust of these discounts is to encourage 2 of 2 multisigs for LN payment channels. core dev wants these types of tx's to flourish and they need a block size increase to accomodate the larger sigs but they don't want to do it the easy way via a HF. so they come up with this accounting gimmick which is centrally planned and forces miners to relay bigger blocks btwn 1.1-4MB that risk orphaning, while getting paid less or the same for doing it. we all, as nodes, have to relay around all these bigger blocks as well. if you insist on running an old node out of protest or just b/c you aren't paying attention, all your regular tx's will have to pay 4x those of SW tx's.
[doublepost=1454809223][/doublepost]
Last edited:
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
@cypherdoc
The node counts are interesting because they show that take-up enthusiasm for new Core versions is fading. SWSF is never going to trigger at 95% mining support, or even get a majority of non-miner nodes. I think the slow take-up of Core v.0.12 is the first proof that the SWSF plan is dead on arrival.
If Classic stalls at <75% then this is going to be a temporary stalemate. Full-blocks will eventually bring market pressure to break the stalemate in favor of Classic, unfortunately at the cost of widespread bad PR and price volatility which we hoped to avoid all along. Necessary pain perhaps.
Edit: Presently, I'm seeing large inconsistency between bitnodes.21.co and nodecount.com
Bitnodes has "classic" at 279 and "unlim" at 97, "xt" at 333 (and Core ":0.12" at 258)
Nodecount has Classic at 394, XT at 268 and Unlimited at 80
Re-edit: Seems like bitnodes search data goes stale when left open for a while.
Their latest counts are: "classic" at 430 and "unlim" at 77, "xt" at 292 (and Core "i:0.12" at 270)
The node counts are interesting because they show that take-up enthusiasm for new Core versions is fading. SWSF is never going to trigger at 95% mining support, or even get a majority of non-miner nodes. I think the slow take-up of Core v.0.12 is the first proof that the SWSF plan is dead on arrival.
If Classic stalls at <75% then this is going to be a temporary stalemate. Full-blocks will eventually bring market pressure to break the stalemate in favor of Classic, unfortunately at the cost of widespread bad PR and price volatility which we hoped to avoid all along. Necessary pain perhaps.
Edit: Presently, I'm seeing large inconsistency between bitnodes.21.co and nodecount.com
Bitnodes has "classic" at 279 and "unlim" at 97, "xt" at 333 (and Core ":0.12" at 258)
Nodecount has Classic at 394, XT at 268 and Unlimited at 80
Re-edit: Seems like bitnodes search data goes stale when left open for a while.
Their latest counts are: "classic" at 430 and "unlim" at 77, "xt" at 292 (and Core "i:0.12" at 270)
Last edited:
cypherdoc [7:19 AM] In SW, what's your understanding of how it encourages reduction of the UTXO set?
elliotolds [12:38 PM] It basically makes inputs cheaper and outputs more expensive. so txns that take lots of inputs (hence clean up the utxo) are cheaper, and those that have lots of outputs (pollute the utxo) are more costly. The debate comes when you imagine that since spending outputs is cheaper, people might be more willing to generate them in the first place. If youre creating and spending outputs as part of one use case it may have no effect
cypherdoc [1:05 PM] Who are the ones who will be making these multi input txs? Pools & exchanges?
And the reason these multi input txs are cheaper is because they tend to be more complex and require bigger sigs and therefore are skunks for b/4 discount?
Skunk=eligible
elliotolds [1:19 PM] I think your guess is as good as mine on the first question. basically anyone who receives lots transactions. I think they benefit more if they receive lots of small transactions because in that case their percentage of that money that they have to pay in fees is higher. exchanges, payment processors, businesses. yes, the reason inputs are cheaper is that signature data is always attached to inputs, so you benefit from the extra space to the extent that your signature data is large
cypherdoc [1:29 PM] What's funny is that I took an entirely different meaning away from pwuilles talk about how utxo sets can be reduced for nodes. It revolved around his discussion about these new types of "partially validating nodes" that can prune out the majority of their utxo set by relying on inserting the inputs into the witness and then relying on the receipt of fraud proofs from other fully validating SW nodes to invalidate a block. This is the "change in the security model" that he was talking about.
Because when you think about it, how many of these multi input consolidating txs actually go on on the real economy? Not many I'd guess.
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/
elliotolds [1:32 PM] yes, I thought the same thing after his talk. I had to ask a bunch of questions in #segwit-dev to understand what was going on
cypherdoc [1:35 PM] So it seems to me the real impetus behind the discount is for ordinary users of the system to be pushed towards multi sig txs for LN payment channels. Would you agree?
Cuz it can't be fur the rare exchange or pool TX
elliotolds [1:39 PM] I would guess that it is influencing their decision somewhat, even if only subconsciously. they could say that they need the discount to give some functional increase to the block size, as that's the only (easy) way to do it with a soft fork.
gotta go
cypherdoc [1:40 PM] Thanks
elliotolds [12:38 PM] It basically makes inputs cheaper and outputs more expensive. so txns that take lots of inputs (hence clean up the utxo) are cheaper, and those that have lots of outputs (pollute the utxo) are more costly. The debate comes when you imagine that since spending outputs is cheaper, people might be more willing to generate them in the first place. If youre creating and spending outputs as part of one use case it may have no effect
cypherdoc [1:05 PM] Who are the ones who will be making these multi input txs? Pools & exchanges?
And the reason these multi input txs are cheaper is because they tend to be more complex and require bigger sigs and therefore are skunks for b/4 discount?
Skunk=eligible
elliotolds [1:19 PM] I think your guess is as good as mine on the first question. basically anyone who receives lots transactions. I think they benefit more if they receive lots of small transactions because in that case their percentage of that money that they have to pay in fees is higher. exchanges, payment processors, businesses. yes, the reason inputs are cheaper is that signature data is always attached to inputs, so you benefit from the extra space to the extent that your signature data is large
cypherdoc [1:29 PM] What's funny is that I took an entirely different meaning away from pwuilles talk about how utxo sets can be reduced for nodes. It revolved around his discussion about these new types of "partially validating nodes" that can prune out the majority of their utxo set by relying on inserting the inputs into the witness and then relying on the receipt of fraud proofs from other fully validating SW nodes to invalidate a block. This is the "change in the security model" that he was talking about.
Because when you think about it, how many of these multi input consolidating txs actually go on on the real economy? Not many I'd guess.
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/
elliotolds [1:32 PM] yes, I thought the same thing after his talk. I had to ask a bunch of questions in #segwit-dev to understand what was going on
cypherdoc [1:35 PM] So it seems to me the real impetus behind the discount is for ordinary users of the system to be pushed towards multi sig txs for LN payment channels. Would you agree?
Cuz it can't be fur the rare exchange or pool TX
elliotolds [1:39 PM] I would guess that it is influencing their decision somewhat, even if only subconsciously. they could say that they need the discount to give some functional increase to the block size, as that's the only (easy) way to do it with a soft fork.
gotta go
cypherdoc [1:40 PM] Thanks
kyuupichan
Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 95
- 348
Sorry I'm behind again...
I actually think of all the things Satoshi said that was the only one where he was clearly wrong. I always found it odd he wrote something like that.
Satoshi was worried that an accidental hard fork would undermine confidence in the system. This quote says absolutely nothing about a deliberate hard fork. We absolutely know we will not get identical results because we are deliberately fighting the co-opting of Bitcoin as a settlement only network. We are undermining short term confidence in order to save Bitcoin in the medium to long term.
So in the sense Satoshi is using the term, we must be "a menace to the network" in order to save it.
So in the sense Satoshi is using the term, we must be "a menace to the network" in order to save it.
If the bump to 2MB occurs May 1, we'll just be back to the same level of congestion that we had last spring:
Last edited:
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
It's been my belief that we're going to have to see some pain with the price before miners make a meaningful move. As such, I finally got around to divesting some today (still keeping plenty). As soon as we have a resolution on the capacity, I'll be buying them back (and maybe more). Let's see how things go after the Chinese holiday.
Personally, it wouldn't surprise me if miners got together and did a straight Satoshi Solution when things get bad enough.
WRT the count, I believe it should be reasonably straightforward to do calculations so maybe I'll see if it's possible to put together a tool for that.
[doublepost=1454823548][/doublepost]
He apparently was not really a coder. Great ideas but some whack implementations and crazy ideas like code being the standard. Like we should all still be using NCSA Mosaic.
If nothing else, it means a whole bunch of other stuff gets bundled in as the "standard" when it's not. How do you separate out which is which? It's not hideously complicated but it's not good practice.
Last edited:
I also divested more today. I'm keeping enough that if Bitcoin "wins" I'll be doing well, but I hedged my bets in case the insanity on full display at r/bitcoin prevails.
molecular
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 372
- 1,391
Regional / Community currencies can make sense. I think I'd rather use an ethereum contract to implement than a sidechain, though.
molecular
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 372
- 1,391
People are already running ponzi schemes and whatnot. You need a tx to get you DAPP to perform any function, so it's to be expected to see many transactions.
The 7 TPS figure is just Vitalik teasing, probably got into some twitter slapfights with Todd or something
. The daily average for Feb 6th is just 0.36 tx/s. It's a ~100% increase toward the usual 0.1 - 0.2 tx/s, though. Don't know where that's coming from. Maybe some game or something useful got big quick.
- Aug 28, 2015
- 517
- 1,679
Could be good selling a portion to hedge here. But I see the long interest on bitfinex is down considerably in the last week, and when everyone expects the price to fall it may go up instead
.Who is investing 55 million dollars in blockstream? How can they possibly hope to generate returns from consulting and building open source decentralised payment layers? The stench of bald faced lies is getting overpowering!
#1
It's been my belief that we're going to have to see some pain with the price before miners make a meaningful move. As such, I finally got around to divesting some today (still keeping plenty).
#2 Matthew Light
I also divested more today. I'm keeping enough that if Bitcoin "wins" I'll be doing well, but I hedged my bets in case the insanity on full display at r/bitcoin prevails.
Don't know how serious you guys are, but this is irrational. The point is to own an asset while it rises, and not own it while it goes down. That means you should have sold earlier (if you knew...), and you should buy now.
No reason to let the price rise, then buy.
It's been my belief that we're going to have to see some pain with the price before miners make a meaningful move. As such, I finally got around to divesting some today (still keeping plenty).
#2 Matthew Light
I also divested more today. I'm keeping enough that if Bitcoin "wins" I'll be doing well, but I hedged my bets in case the insanity on full display at r/bitcoin prevails.
Don't know how serious you guys are, but this is irrational. The point is to own an asset while it rises, and not own it while it goes down. That means you should have sold earlier (if you knew...), and you should buy now.
No reason to let the price rise, then buy.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Those 55 Millions will be used for the production of permissioned/censored bankster chains, which is their core competence. They must have realized that they are not able to privatize Bitcoin. That coup failed. BlockstR3am.Could be good selling a portion to hedge here. But I see the long interest on bitfinex is down considerably in the last week, and when everyone expects the price to fall it may go up instead
Who is investing 55 million dollars in blockstream? How can they possibly hope to generate returns from consulting and building open source decentralised payment layers? The stench of bald faced lies is getting overpowering!
