Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
oh, this is beautiful. and long predicted:
http://bitcoinware.net/collections/frontpage/products/antrouter-r1-5-5-gh-s-btc-miner-wireless-networking
http://bitcoinware.net/collections/frontpage/products/antrouter-r1-5-5-gh-s-btc-miner-wireless-networking
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
So frustrating to see genuine good discussion being removed. It's hard not to be annoyed watching those muppets destroy the very community they claim to hold so dearly.
It almost seems deliberate.
Thanks for that quote bitsko and link, real helpful. I would have agreed with Gavin only one week ago, but, seeing Mike Hearn's posts being deleted like that, banned, and with all that has been going on...
This debate needs to end as soon as possible in my opinion and the only way it can end is by bigger blocks, so maybe it is about time we stopped ignoring reality with fuzzy ohh if they only agree and get it over with because every second this debate goes on I lose a bit more confidence and if that applies to me it applies a thousand times to most bitcoiners.
Knc has publicly said they pro, so has slush and antpool, we need to get those guys to mine xt at the same time first as soon as possible. 21inc can defo be persuaded so we need to get them to join and bitfury from some talks at montreal can be persuaded too.... that's all we need.
Let's stop beating around the bush pleading with authoritarians who clearly do not care and let's get this thing going
This debate needs to end as soon as possible in my opinion and the only way it can end is by bigger blocks, so maybe it is about time we stopped ignoring reality with fuzzy ohh if they only agree and get it over with because every second this debate goes on I lose a bit more confidence and if that applies to me it applies a thousand times to most bitcoiners.
Knc has publicly said they pro, so has slush and antpool, we need to get those guys to mine xt at the same time first as soon as possible. 21inc can defo be persuaded so we need to get them to join and bitfury from some talks at montreal can be persuaded too.... that's all we need.
Let's stop beating around the bush pleading with authoritarians who clearly do not care and let's get this thing going
@Aquent
Mike has started to talk with miners:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoin-xt/SkNO-gnKiX0/cXzDfVy9CQAJ
Mike has started to talk with miners:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoin-xt/SkNO-gnKiX0/cXzDfVy9CQAJ
Last edited:
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
I had the idea of an 'open letter from the XT/BIP101 userbase' that we could possibly collectively draft and sign on.
It could attempt to rally the pools and (confirm a date for mining) that are pro 101 or on the fence...
Unfortunately, I'm not the best writer, nor am I convinced this would work...
Theymos finally responds about his personalized blocksize proposal:
Seems oddly self-contradictory, but it's interesting that he supports this idea on some level.
Seems oddly self-contradictory, but it's interesting that he supports this idea on some level.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
I think that there are several reasons why miners have not gone for XT even though at least 75% of the hashing power wants to be able to mine larger blocks.
1). When the Chinese miners said up to 8MB was ok, it is unlikely that they were also on the same page for the 8MB doubling every two years.
2). Leaving Core and going with XT is a leap of faith that XT will get maintained long-term with all the patches which Core gets. Plus the fact that XT has a few non-Core patches (e.g. getutxos) means that divergence has begun. They have invested millions in their businesses so they are conservative about changing from the reference client.
3) Jeff Garzik has dangled the BIP100 carrot, which miners like because they can see that Core Dev and the community are at gridlock on the block limit. So it makes sense to miners that they control this because otherwise the ball is being dropped.
Edit. And this which Gavin mentions:
"The only change I can think of that is strictly needed:
+ Modifying Matt's fast relay network so it will handle >1MB blocks."
Now we see the risk inherent in special side-services which become dependencies. Because Corallo is a hard-bitten fan of the 1MB then he won't be upping the limit in his relay service until it is absolutely necessary. It seems that the network would be better off without such "services".
Last edited:
@solex gridlock?!?!? what gridlock? threre's no gridlock here! /sarcasm
Definitely this is a concern, but AFAIK corall'o's relay network is an open source project:
https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/RelayNode
http://bitcoinrelaynetwork.org/
(the relay node is even based on hearn's bitcoinj)
So if a "consensus" won't be reached we should tweak the source code to accept bigger blocks and fork even the relay network.
edit: grammar
Last edited:
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
@solex You're right, the bar is raised. more are the layers the status quo depends upon the higher the friction to change it.
In this particular case, as you correctly state, in additions to the software fork and the relay nodes setup the burden of maintaining the network will be significant, due to the hostile environment in which it has to be operated.
I see it a as a last resource rather than the preferred path to change.
In this particular case, as you correctly state, in additions to the software fork and the relay nodes setup the burden of maintaining the network will be significant, due to the hostile environment in which it has to be operated.
I see it a as a last resource rather than the preferred path to change.
@cypherdoc from the bitcoinrelaynetwork.org main page:
"The relay nodes do some data verification to prevent DoS, but in
order to keep relay fast, they do not fully verify the data they are
relaying, thus YOU SHOULD NEVER mine a block building on top of a
relayed block without fully checking it with your own bitcoin validator
(as you would any other block relayed from the P2P network)."
"For some time I was asking large miners/merchants to request tokens which
would be used in the case of DoS to switch some entities to private nodes,
however I have largely stopped this practice. If a DoS attack does occur,
expect me to nullroute packets from hosts which have never been the first
to provide a block to the network."
"The relay nodes do some data verification to prevent DoS, but in
order to keep relay fast, they do not fully verify the data they are
relaying, thus YOU SHOULD NEVER mine a block building on top of a
relayed block without fully checking it with your own bitcoin validator
(as you would any other block relayed from the P2P network)."
"For some time I was asking large miners/merchants to request tokens which
would be used in the case of DoS to switch some entities to private nodes,
however I have largely stopped this practice. If a DoS attack does occur,
expect me to nullroute packets from hosts which have never been the first
to provide a block to the network."
I've said this before. RN has always been a bit of a perversion to me. It's only a year old; Sept 2014. It's not surprising it was spawned by Corallo, a BS employee, who constantly was warning of the LMLB attack vs SM at the time as a result of propagation latency.
I call it a perversion because it specifically encourages miners to relay unconfirmed blocks utilizing a form of iblt while depending on preconfirmed TX's despite the disclaimers. Otoh, it does propagate blocks faster across the world. The irony is that Core dev complains about SPV mining, especially as it relates to Chinese miners. I think the Chinese miners SPV mine because they're worried about competing against the RN given their bandwidth constraints.
In the end it all seems to be working; I guess.
I call it a perversion because it specifically encourages miners to relay unconfirmed blocks utilizing a form of iblt while depending on preconfirmed TX's despite the disclaimers. Otoh, it does propagate blocks faster across the world. The irony is that Core dev complains about SPV mining, especially as it relates to Chinese miners. I think the Chinese miners SPV mine because they're worried about competing against the RN given their bandwidth constraints.
In the end it all seems to be working; I guess.
remember we got a successful thrust up and thru resistance 4d ago, came back down for a brief retest, and are now resuming the grind higher:
I've just found out (via coindesk) another project which aim to improve bitcoin scalability in a similar way to LN (offchain), and I thought it was worth sharing.
it's called Duplex Micropayment Channels (DMC), no source code available till now, but a published white paper us available here:
http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-micropayment-channels.pdf
DMC as LN requires a fix for tx malleability. Christian Decker, one of the DMC proponents, proposed a draft BIP to solve tx mutability problem.
it's called Duplex Micropayment Channels (DMC), no source code available till now, but a published white paper us available here:
http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-micropayment-channels.pdf
DMC as LN requires a fix for tx malleability. Christian Decker, one of the DMC proponents, proposed a draft BIP to solve tx mutability problem.