Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[albin]

The distinct impression that I got from van Weirdo's latest article is that his way of dealing with recent (heavily justified) allegations of bias isn't to engage in actual journalism, but merely to concoct self-indulgent imaginary strawman conversations on paper to give the illusion of equal time.

 

[awemany]

Is the reddit-comment still here?

I think this quote is most realistically our problem



It's about vision. Blockstream's vision is a settlement-network. So some stupid visions like "p2p cash" or "payment system" are considered idiotic and stonewalled.

I believe reddit quotes are pulled live from reddit's servers and thus will always reflect the latest state of reddit. Sometimes you see just '[deleted]' instead of the comment (e.g. many links to North Korea eventually). @Bloomie, is there anything special to reddit links?

You can get to the reddit comment from the upper right '[x] Points' link. Took me a while to figure that out, too.
So this one is here.

 

[sickpig]

Matt Corallo's just proposed SegWit hard fork on btc dev ml

[bitcoin-dev] On Hardforks in the Context of SegWit

edit:
not a real SegWit HF.

After reading more carefully (not too much since I've developed some kind of allergic reaction to BS doublespeak) it seems to me that the proposal is a mix of classical, no pun intended, BS non sense (SegWit HF only after a SegWit SF(?) with a 1 year(!) grace period for the former). Corallo is a master of this art, second only to Maxwell.

 

[Erdogan]

If outputs should cost more than inputs, the market can easily do that. Individual miners start out changing their fee requirements, over a short time a schelling point will emerge. No reason to take in the segwit cludge.

 

[Fatman3002]

I don't know if you guys have noticed, but Kano's pool has grown quite a lot lately. He's attracted some big miners, he's giving out free mining gear and mining gear coupons. Someone's got to be paying for that stuff.

Kano is Core to the bone. If he keeps growing, and with F2Pool against Classic, it will be a struggle to get 750 out of 1000 blocks.

 

[cypherdoc]

Matt Corallo's just proposed SegWit hard fork on btc dev ml

[bitcoin-dev] On Hardforks in the Context of SegWit

That's a block size HF increase to 1.5mb + b/2 SW discount.

Wow, quite a change:

1. Block size increase now ok
2. HF now ok
3. Sigops attack "limits" now ok
4. 75% discount admittedly too greedy. 50% maybe better.

 

[sickpig]

I don't know if you guys have noticed, but Kano's pool has grown quite a lot lately. He's attracted some big miners, he's giving out free mining gear and mining gear coupons. Someone's got to be paying for that stuff.

Kano is Core to the bone. If he keeps growing, and with F2Pool against Classic, it will be a struggle to get 750 out of 1000 blocks.

Kano's pool currently represents roughly 22 PH/s. Total network estimated hash rate is 1163 PH/s. that means 1.6% of the network. Before becoming relevant it has triple its capacity, IMHO.

 

[cypherdoc]

That's a block size HF increase to 1.5mb + b/2 SW discount.

Wow, quite a change:

1. Block size increase now ok
2. HF now ok
3. Sigops attack "limits" now ok
4. 75% discount too greedy. 50% maybe better.

@sickpig

I don't understand this part about op_return. The witness part is currently in the coinbase correct? :

"Move SegWit's generic commitments from an OP_RETURN output to a
second branch in the merkle tree."

 

[Fatman3002]

Kano's pool currently represents roughly 22 PH/s. Total network estimated hash rate is 1163 PH/s. that means 1.6% of the network. Before becoming relevant it has triple its capacity, IMHO.

He has more than doubled in a very short time. If both he and F2Pool keeps up the pace they may be a force to be reckoned with. Then again, Antpool and Bitfury are no slouches either.

 

[cypherdoc]

Well, the good news there is f2pool and kano hate each other.
[doublepost=1454967641][/doublepost]You can see now see the arbitrary/centrally planned reasoning going on in core dev in promoting SW. See how Corallo has now changed the maximum block size from 4mb down to 3mb upon which all other SW calculations are based.

 

[sickpig]

@sickpig

I don't understand this part about op_return. The witness part is currently in the coinbase correct? :

"Move SegWit's generic commitments from an OP_RETURN output to a
second branch in the merkle tree."

unfortunately I'm not following SegWit as deeply as I wanted to, hence I can't give a proper response to your answer.

 

[cypherdoc]

[doublepost=1454969067,1454968082][/doublepost]So according to my calcs (done in my head & phone), I get:

For a block filled just with p2pkh txs, the split would be 1MB (utxo) + 1MB (witness)=2MB.

For block filled just with p2sh multi sigs the split would be 750kB (utxo) + 1.5MB (witness)=2.25MB.

Discount preference given to SW txs is b/2 or 50%. still a LN subsidy, just less.

The new constraint is a+b/2<=1.5MB
[doublepost=1454969897][/doublepost]He's getting his 2.1MB figure from the average of 2MB & 2.25MB between the two extremes.

 

[cypherdoc]

2nd place mofos:

 

[cypherdoc]

[doublepost=1454976458,1454975427][/doublepost]TBH, the 50% discount is now "fair" when you consider that, on average, p2pkh & p2sh tx's take up 60% of blockchain storage space (p2pkh tx's are approx 50% sigs while p2sh tx's are approx 66% sigs). the fact that SWHF allows us to discard 60% of the blockchain more than deserves the 50% discount it asks for (10% difference), if this is your only consideration while ignoring the push towards LN multisig tx's. as well, SWHF will bring several sought after "fixes" to Bitcoin.

the real question is who those "fixes" favor, Blockstream LN plan or Bitcoin in general? IOW, how much do/did we need fixes like malleablility, script versioning, a facile Schnoor/Lamport sig fix, a new "partially validating SPV node" security model, LN, CT insertion as a SF directly into the protocol w/o the need for the 2wp, & 2000 extra LOC that have the potential to change Bitcoin economics?

i see where Corallo is coming from. his 2.1MB effective network blocksize increase from a SWHF meets and even exceeds the Classic 2.0MB HF; by a measly 0.1MB. but it comes with all the above. he would say sweeteners, some would say baggage.

now the biggest & final question of all revolves around governance. do we want a Blockstream dominated core dev at the helm?

 

[rocks]

This guy states on Redit that Classic is exposed to a malicious large transaction attack.Responses explain that is why Classic implemented a simple fix that limits transaction sizes. His response back is that Classic is broken because it blocks legitimate transactions >1MB.

Can people really be this crazy?

 

[cypherdoc]

@rocks

that's easy. there are no legitmate tx's over 1MB.

the biggest one we've seen is the 1MB f2pool multi input UTXO consolidation. it took about 1.3GH/block of hashing the sigops which Gavin has brought over into Classic to stop someone from exceeding that given the bigger blocksize of 2MB.

 

[chainstor]

[doublepost=1454969067,1454968082][/doublepost]So according to my calcs (done in my head & phone), I get:

For a block filled just with p2pkh txs, the split would be 1MB (utxo) + 1MB (witness)=2MB.

For block filled just with p2sh multi sigs the split would be 750kB (utxo) + 1.5MB (witness)=2.25MB.

Discount preference given to SW txs is b/2 or 50%. still a LN subsidy, just less.

The new constraint is a+b/2<=1.5MB
[doublepost=1454969897][/doublepost]He's getting his 2.1MB figure from the average of 2MB & 2.25MB between the two extremes.

Interesting move. Is bluematt running solo on this?

 

[cypherdoc]

This guy states on Redit that Classic is exposed to a malicious large transaction attack.Responses explain that is why Classic implemented a simple fix that limits transaction sizes. His response back is that Classic is broken because it blocks legitimate transactions >1MB.

Can people really be this crazy?

 

[digitsu]

This guy states on Redit that Classic is exposed to a malicious large transaction attack.Responses explain that is why Classic implemented a simple fix that limits transaction sizes. His response back is that Classic is broken because it blocks legitimate transactions >1MB.

Can people really be this crazy?

No, but people can be ignorant, and paid social marketers.

 

[Richy_T]

For a block filled just with p2pkh txs, the split would be 1MB (utxo) + 1MB (witness)=2MB.

Don't forget that witness costs 1/4 against the blocksize. So if you have 1mb of witness, you only get 750k of UTXO so if you define 1:1, that's 800* of each. (800+800/4 < 1mb).


*(Less a byte)