Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[albin]

The Strateman comments are so strange that it makes me wonder if by now they are so far gone into ideology and politics that they're starting to get the straightforward technical stuff just plain wrong.

 

[sickpig]

@Peter R

sure you're right. It seems that Patrick said that we always make one more round trip in respect to RLN, but it's flat wrong.

AFAIU the only case when an extra round trip is required is in case of missing txs due to bloom filter false positive.

In the context of your figure Node A does not send to us all the missing TXs because the bloom filter said that Node B has txs that actually hasn't.

According to wikipedia false positive probality is less than 1% if for each member of the set at least 10 bit is used to store the element into the BF

 

[Richy_T]

I've quickly skimmed the reddit thread you quoted and the RLN website and I think that Patrick is not arguing in good faith. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't see a lot of rationality in his statements.

His tone is highly venomous.

The desperation is palpable. That's a good sign in my book.
[doublepost=1455897949][/doublepost]

With libsec256k1 etc. cpu capacity would go down to 10%. So if everybody is ok with 2/4 mb blocks, regarding cpu / bandwith we should be able to go to 20/40Mb easily. Only problem left is the enormous amount of data to download.

This is also an easy problem to resolve *if* you're willing to allow a temporary lower level of security (on the level of trusting that you're downloading a trustable binary client) and eventual full-chain verification. It just doesn't suit Core's agenda (which implies the whole decentralization argument and/or that this is due to blockchain verification time is a smoke screen)

 

[YarkoL]

That "extra round trip issue" has now been brought forward, respectively, by G Maxwell, Matt Corallo and now this Strateman fellow. It is literally the first thing they say when encountering Xtreme Thinblocks.

Oh well, they say great minds think alike, but I guess the size does not matter...

 

[AdrianX]

@sickpig

Agreed.

And he's not just comparing Xthin to the centralized relay network. He's also claiming that Xthin doubles the number of round trips compared to the the normal p2p network (which my diagram shows is false):

It's actually quite sad RLN is not a viable solution it's just a hack. If it ever was fully adopted being a centralized service it could pick winners and losers being open source does little to create market completion.

The real disappointment is knowing counter arguments are banned. I'm serving out a 30 day ban and I'm most disappointed to see Peter is banned as he's very effective on Reddit.

 

[rocks]

The Strateman comments are so strange that it makes me wonder if by now they are so far gone into ideology and politics that they're starting to get the straightforward technical stuff just plain wrong.

This happens, people can become so fixated that a certain direction is right that it blinds them to anything else. At this point it seems the core devs simply don't believe in anything that might help to scale the main chain.

 

[rocks]

Apparently Core 0.12 on disk block chain structure is incompatible with older clients, and thus incompatible with Classic and Unlimited as well. The stated reason for the change seems weak IMHO.

 

[Peter R]

@theZerg

It looks like your submission was shadow-hidden from /r/bitcoin and the body text removed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46gtjm/thin_blocks_early_results_messages_are_on_average/

I also noticed that some links back to this site in the comments were deleted.

I think we have Blockstream and Core quite worried, given the very positive public reception of Xthin.

BTW: do we have an estimate for the date when Xthin might be released in BU?

 

[theZerg]

How do you tell if something was shadow hidden? Can you show proof including the time?

It was banned because I edited the OP to say "this work was done on the bitcoin unlimited client"... I want to post to /r/btc showing how popular the topic was and how it got banned 5 min after I posted that...

 

[Peter R]

@theZerg: it was visible on the first page when I checked this morning and now (a few hours later) I can't find it on any page.

But here's even better evidence:

Your submission presently has 220 upvotes, and, at the time of me writing this comment, Reddit says the submission was made 22 hours ago.

Now check the list of "top posts" for the last 24 hours:

At 220 upvotes, your Xthin submission should be listed in the #2 spot (below 901 above 149), however it is completely absent. This means it has been shadow-hidden, AFAIK.

EDIT: I think you'll personally need to check after logging out of the /u/theZerg1 account.

 

[albin]

How can they even still pretend with a straight face that the moderation is not censorship when even the text of a post describing a feature that could presumably even be merged into Core gets removed? At this point they might as well publish a list of approved features or developers in the sidebar. Furthermore if there was something objectionable about the post where they felt an "altcoin" was being promoted, the way a normal human being deals with that situation is to private message the poster and at least explain how to edit whatever is offending.

 

[Inca]

/r/bitcoin is a disgrace

I will redouble my efforts to control the debate there.

 

[albin]

That's just beyond the pale, you can't even say a feature is in Unlimited? Even if you concede their idiotic definition of an altcoin, that's a total betrayal of the mainstream community perception that altcoins can provide value as a laboratory for features.

 

[_mr_e]

All the more reason we absolutely need this hard fork to happen. Not only do we need bitcoin to scale but it will give us the ability to shame these harmful actors with so much more force.

 

[freetrader]

Apparently Core 0.12 on disk block chain structure is incompatible with older clients, and thus incompatible with Classic and Unlimited as well. The stated reason for the change seems weak IMHO.

It is baffling that they introduce such a feature which brings backward incompatibility without a switch to turn it off. This smells like something rushed in to satisfy some checklist in some corporation with an IT requirement to run a virus checker on all servers. Or are we really to believe it is to help home users who run full nodes on their Windows systems?

 

[solex]

The gloves are off. /r/bitcoin has one principal objective which is to preserve the status of the current reference client, and by implication, the status of the devs who drive it forward. If Bitcoin itself benefits at the same time then this is a bonus, if it doesn't then too bad.

The most powerful argument to be made against this agenda is the rolling out of a better client. BU v0.12 will be that client. Fortunately r/btc has a lot of traction so the news of this won't be completely muffled.

Because of the 1MB all the node mempools are choking up and spammers are having a field day. Xtreme thinblocks is showing a 13x reduction in propagated block sizes, which should be more like 40-100x reduction in an ideal environment with highly synchronized mempools, i.e. when there is a real (miner) fee-market for tx getting into blocks, not an artificial fee-market for the mempool itself.

 

[Bagatell]

No comment.

https://unreddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46gtjm/thin_blocks_early_results_messages_are_on_average/

 

[Richy_T]

That "extra round trip issue" has now been brought forward, respectively, by G Maxwell, Matt Corallo and now this Strateman fellow. It is literally the first thing they say when encountering Xtreme Thinblocks.

Well, you just have to understand. They're smart and everyone else is dumb. And if they don't have a solution, off the top of their head, in the time it takes them to hit "reply", nobody has a solution.
[doublepost=1455923522][/doublepost]

Apparently Core 0.12 on disk block chain structure is incompatible with older clients, and thus incompatible with Classic and Unlimited as well. The stated reason for the change seems weak IMHO.

This is not that big a deal to be honest. The reason for the change *is* weak to be sure and very questionable as to whether such a thing should be included in a "Core" implementation (more like Kitchen Sink) however, it is open source and so should be trivially portable.

The format of the blockchain on disk is not part of concensus so interoperability between clients is more of an accident of heritage than something that should be looked at as a standard. I wish they'd move away from BSD 4.8 being the standard for wallets as well (should be exported to something like JSON or XML for which there *is* some support but it is partial and not well advertised)

 

[cypherdoc]

Both Peter Todd & Lombrozzo, in their podcast interviews admit that this struggle is about control primarily and vision secondarily.

 

[YarkoL]

control primarily and vision secondarily.

Sad to say, this is what it looks like.

I hope the non-core faction can bring the Vision to the fore.