Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

Did anyone pay attention to Adam Back's signature in the quoted list on the 8btc article here

http://www.8btc.com/consensus_of_expand_blocksize

It seems China is asleep as of this writing. Or consensus has not been reached on the issue of his role at the meeting - President of Blockstream, or individual?

Perhaps the latter is not really to be encouraged when conveying a message to a local audience.

I, for one, will find some amusement in seeing if that stays up & for how long.

Aw heck, one for the archive: http://archive.is/KLHWv

 

[theZerg]

I want to debunk the idea that demand for free storage on the blockchain is infinite (I think that that's a gmax quote).

That statement might be true if performance was also acceptable. Although I haven't actually tried run the numbers, I'd imagine that when comparing this tech to others, read (and certainly write) performance to the blockchain would be terrible. As in orders of magnitude slower.

And if read performance is NOT terrible, it would be easy enough to make it terrible (delay old block access a bit, esp. from nodes that random access old blocks) without affecting Bitcoin's use as money.

There are very few (if any) applications that would accept that kind of performance hit as opposed to simply paying a small amount for cloud storage. The only ones I can think of are the "permanent record" type -- applications that are actually taking advantage of the Blockchain's unique capabilities.

 

[sickpig]

KnCMiner just minted a classic block:

https://blockchain.info/nl/block/000000000000000003c407e1b682fc0845825a1a7ad94dc2ba14e5887636ba96

https://blockchain.info/block-height/399753

Another.

 

[rocks]

Regardless of the ASIC resistance question and whether it would be a good idea, changing the PoW - or at least credibly threatening to - is one of the few ways to remind miners who's boss.

It comes at a cost of scaring future miners who would join, because even the ones who don't misbehave are punished (all miners who currently support Classic would be punished by a PoW change as well, even if it is intended for Core-supporting miners), but at some point that cost is potentially worth it.

Essentially I see what is happening today as a form of a 51% attack, plain and simple.

Miners have an obligation to confirm well formed standard fee paying transactions. What is happening today with the artificial 1MB cap is a group of miners are refusing to process acceptable transactions, they are in effect running a denial of service attack.

Users have the ultimate control of being able to decide what blocks to accept. Users have the ability to refuse a chain that is under a 51% attack and instead accept a different branch.

The most effective method to do this is to switch to a new POW. Mainly this is to break away from the existing miners who are running a denial of service attack, but it can also be an opportunity to at least try to create better economics around POW.

To do this we do not need full consensus upfront, instead we can and should rely on Nakamoto consensus, i.e. create the new chain and let the market move to the new chain if it prefers the branch. In the end network effects should make it so only one branch wins, and it is OK to rely on a small initial fork and market forces long term. Again considering the support Classic has on the user side I believe a full fork has a real chance, add on home mining and there could be a nice following.

If anything this will put real fear into the miners who are running the current attack.

 

[Norway]

We should drink a beer everytime a Classic block is mined.

 

[freetrader]

NEWS: First fatalities after Bitcoin splits

http://thebrewerybay.com/breweries/details/darwin-brewing-company

"Darwin Brewing Company combines modern techniques and equipment with ancient traditions and ideas"

"Brewmaster Jorge Rosabal creates new beers every week and classic favorites"

 

[VeritasSapere]

Essentially I see what is happening today as a form of a 51% attack, plain and simple.

Miners have an obligation to confirm well formed standard fee paying transactions. What is happening today with the artificial 1MB cap is a group of miners are refusing to process acceptable transactions, they are in effect running a denial of service attack.

Users have the ultimate control of being able to decide what blocks to accept. Users have the ability to refuse a chain that is under a 51% attack and instead accept a different branch.

The most effective method to do this is to switch to a new POW. Mainly this is to break away from the existing miners who are running a denial of service attack, but it can also be an opportunity to at least try to create better economics around POW.

To do this we do not need full consensus upfront, instead we can and should rely on Nakamoto consensus, i.e. create the new chain and let the market move to the new chain if it prefers the branch. In the end network effects should make it so only one branch wins, and it is OK to rely on a small initial fork and market forces long term. Again considering the support Classic has on the user side I believe a full fork has a real chance, add on home mining and there could be a nice following.

If anything this will put real fear into the miners who are running the current attack.

I can appreciate this notion, I really can. I do still think it is to early to come to this conclusion. We do not really know how this should play out, it might just require more time.

It could be that the miners and everyone else will have to feel the pain first. If the network does become completely overloaded and congested it might teach people that it is preferable for the blocksize to be increased. I was hoping it would not come to that, learning the hard way, but it might unfortunately.

Even with this understanding I would still prefer to stick with the original POW algorithm. Since I do not see how resetting the mining industry fundamentally solves this problem, it does not, it could be that the mining industry just has more maturing to do, if that is the case changing the POW algorithm might even be counter productive.

Since a chain fork of Bitcoin with the same POW algorithm would still in essence be part of the same mining industry, much like the SHA256 altcoins of today.

 

[rocks]

@VeritasSapere
There is nothing stopping the both paths to be taken and letting the market choose. In terms of growing adoption I think the option that let's users participate on mining/voting again will gain more attention and interest. And if you can add strong reasons for by the new POW reduces the electricity cost advantage to create a least a slightly more fair environment, then even better.

Samson takes a break from taunting Brian Armstrong and shows us a piece of his CEO mentality.

It's what I'd expect from someone in charge of a ruling party - or a cartel believing itself firmly in power and wanting to retain the status quo.

The term 'election' is apparently a threat to this mindset. The money must (still) be good. Too bad the foresight isn't, the hindsight will be something to behold.

This is why I think we need at least one option available for people who want to break away from guys like Samson. A majority of the hash rate does not seem to care or understand about Satoshi's vision at all. They also only have their position due to artificial advantages in Chinese subsidized electricity. I have already decided to reject blocks from Samson, that is my choice as an individual Bitcoin user.

 

[Mengerian]

@sickpig Cool, kudos to KNC. Nice to see a miner actually doing something rather than tweeting and signing statements. Funny that they are still flagging BIP100 support also.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@rocks If that was true it might even be the case that proof of work governance is fundamentally flawed I do not think that is the case yet. Which is why I do not see the point in repeating the same experiment. The outcome of the social experiment might be different considering this history and the divide in the community but like I said I am not so quick to give up on the governance of Bitcoin just yet.

We could even see a redistribution of the hashing power across the pools when the classic voting really begins. It could well be that these big pools do not represent the beliefs of their miners. We should not forget that these pools are not the same as the miners, and it is incredibly easy to switch miners between pools.

I totally understand the sentiment, I really do. I just think it is to early to give up on POW governance. I question also if it did not work now is it worth repeating the experiment? A chain fork with the same POW in many ways is a continuation of the experiment, it is just giving the market and people the free choice. The miners will follow the market and the people ultimately. Which is why we should not give up on POW governance and if we did we should not repeat the same mistakes, just having a POW resistant algorithm is not enough, if POW governance really failed I think self funded block chains and incentivized full nodes along with more complex governance mechanisms are most likely the solution to these problems, which are obviously much more radical changes.

Having a chain fork of Bitcoin with only the blocksize changed makes a very clear statement. Something we can all rally around, a simple solution. Changing the POW makes it a much more complicated issue. I think part of what defines Bitcoin is this experiment in POW which is still going through the motions and evolving, the industry, the motivations and incentives of the miners this is all still being tested, I want to see where the experiment ends, by changing the POW we might be ending the experiment to early to actually see what happens and learn from it. Since it would pull many of the people into this chain fork, I want to see the miners change back to the chain fork and abandon Block Stream Coin, if this happened it would go very far to prove the viability of POW governance. I do not want to give up on that aspect yet since that would mean we would lose so much of what Bitcoin is.

I feel so strongly about this actually that maybe there should be two chain forks, one with the original POW and one without. That is if there are enough people that feel strongly enough about changing the POW algorithm. If it is done on this forum, we should even carry out voting in a similar way we have done for the BUIP's with known members. I still think it is to early for this action but we are coming closer to where this action becomes a sensible strategy. I would have a lot less confidence in Bitcoin if it was not for this possibility, it was actually even one of the things that really first appealed to me when I first learned about Bitcoin.

 

[theZerg]

There's a guy on these forums who is interested in a reset based on BU. I wonder if he'd consider a fork instead if it had broad support.

 

[AdrianX]

@theZerg what would the mining algorithm be?
Assuming it wont be the same hashing algorithm as Core, I don't like the idea of calling it a fork if it has a new mining algorithm but rather a spin-off.

 

[VeritasSapere]

That is the question we have been discussing here, I favor using the original SHA256 algorithm. However I still think it is to early for this action, I think it would be better if it is released once the Bitcoin network is truly congested and overloaded then people will feel the pain.

Though it could be good to have the software ready to go for when that time does come, it does not hurt to be prepared.

I don't like the idea of calling it a fork if it has a new mining algorithm but rather a spin-off.

I am using the term "chain fork", to differentiate between Bitcoin forks and altcoins. Maybe we should use the term "genesis fork", I like that, it sounds cool.

To expand and summarize on what I said before on the subject. I suppose you could say that if we truly believe in the governance of Bitcoin as we have discussed it here, then we should not be so quick to give up on it. We should give it a good chance and give the experiment more time to develop, it has been a roller coaster and there could be more twists and turns ahead.

To be clear I would not consider a chain fork using the original hashing algorithm as giving up on the experiment of POW governance. Though I would consider that to be the case with a chain fork that changes the POW algorithm. Since it does not allow the miners to return to the superior chain, allowing us to define the longest chain as Bitcoin again.
[doublepost=1456281423][/doublepost]Maybe I am being a bit sentimental here and poetic, but I consider the mining equipment mining on the network as a physical manifestation of the protocol. I certainly must be a bit biased, I live with my miners and they keep me warm during the winter.

 

[rocks]

I just think it is to early to give up on POW governance. I question also if it did not work now is it worth repeating the experiment? A chain fork with the same POW in many ways is a continuation of the experiment, it is just giving the market and people the free choice.

The proposal does not give up on POW governance. To understand this it is important to remember what POW mining governs.

POW mining is responsible for determining the order of transactions only, that is the only responsibility and the only control given to POW miners.

What has happened is POW miners have taken for themselves additional rule making that is not a part of Bitcoin's governance structure and they have done this through soft forks which users never agreed to. The 1MB limit itself was a software that was not agreed to by the network, there are others.

Bitcoin's rules are determined by users in the form of what blocks users validate and accept.

Given that POW miners have taken for themselves the ability to create rules that are outside of their scope of responsibilities, users have every right to reject those miners and build a new set of miners that will adhere to Bitcoin's governance structure.

The miners will follow the market and the people ultimately.

There are clear reasons to be doubtful on this today, which is why preparing alternative options is a valid thing to explore. The market should not wait until bitcoin is falling apart due to congestion to prepare options because it will take time to put those options in place and build mind share.

Having a chain fork of Bitcoin with only the blocksize changed makes a very clear statement.

Having a chain fork option that bankrupts current POW investments also sends a very clear statement. That statement is POW miners should follow the governance parameters they are responsible for only, and should follow the interests of the market, and if they do not they will be dropped.

Clients such as Bitcoin Unlimited are the friendly work together approach, and these should be tried first. Chain fork clients are the fall back, there should always be fall backs.

 

[AdrianX]

Lol, I work with my miners.
Not having contribute to that discussion as it seems a bit reactionary. For me the most viable solution is Bitcoin. Bitcoin may have succumb to political control, it's by no means secure or stable control so no need to concern myself with it's failure to expand the block size limit to date. Non the less I've adjusted for the risk.

The spin on the name is just hype to me. It's an alt coin and it'll need a new algorithm, the initial distribution would be seeded by the blockchain so for want of practical understand a spin-off is the best seed option. It could be called anything.

All in all Bitcoin just needs to be fixed, a declaration that the 2MB hard fork has failed is just talk, unlimited leaves the option open for bigger blocks when they're needs. Classic XT unlimited are far from done, they're just getting started.

 

[Richy_T]

Perhaps it would be possible to have a something that works alongside and as part of the Bitcoin network then, upon some trigger, puts a stake in the ground on a block and then continues on its own way with changes to transactions (since they would have to be incompatible to prevent replay attacks) and whatever POW. Perhaps that choice could even be part of the trigger.
[doublepost=1456291304][/doublepost]

Having a chain fork option that bankrupts current POW investments also sends a very clear statement. That statement is POW miners should follow the governance parameters they are responsible for only, and should follow the interests of the market, and if they do not they will be dropped.

Perhaps have SHA256 on the fork for a period of, say, the first 3 months. Miners who mine blocks during that time get to keep mining SHA256 but new miners can come in with the new POW. There's no reason there has to be only one.

 

[cypherdoc]

3rd KNC block?

 

[sickpig]

@cypherdoc

yep

It seems they are full classic.

 

[cypherdoc]

Fricking core dev

 

[rocks]

@cypherdoc
The goal is to slowly introduce a fee market. First slowly knock out very low value transactions, then add SFSW to slightly increase capacity. Then knock out moderately low value transactions, then add 2017 2MB HF to slightly increase capacity.

They will increase capacity, but at a very slow rate that falls behind usage growth. The effect will be a slow introduction of a fee market that removes more and more use cases for Bitcoin.