Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

 

[cypherdoc]

in fact, the infamous /u/ydtm asked me a compelling question about this Consensatron idea the other day. he postulated that @Gavin Andresen, by using 75% activation as a threshold, might be contributing to the problem of inaction by miners. it actually took me a while to think about this and to come up with an opinion. he asked me whether i thought that perhaps @Gavin Andresen's nature is to be too nice by continually compromising and offering fig leaves to kore gang with activation thresholds maybe being a good example of this.

if we didn't have a threshold on Classic, then a daring miner (most likely a large one) just might release a 1.1MB block into the network anonymously a few times to see what happens. it *would* be relayed by all the Classic nodes out there already and interesting things might happen over time. yeah, maybe it wouldn't happen at all because of the orphaning risk. except that if it was a Bitmain who did this along with a wink to f2pool behind closed doors (anonymously) to support "just this one 1.1MB block", then that 1.1MB should end up in the longest chain. again, this could be done anonymously and would have immediate effects. remember, this would remove all the contentious pre-consensus debate that goes along with "signalling".

 

[Erdogan]

I'm starting to think the best way to get a blocksize increase is to agree to a 95% miner vote instead of 75%.

No, it's a trap and a diversion.

 

[cypherdoc]

correct
[doublepost=1465134091][/doublepost]interesting and good:

 

[Erdogan]

Even 75% is too gratuitous.

Here's what to do: Prepare for larger blocks. If you are afraid of being kicked out of the relay network or being ddosed, just covertly add the one byte patch. Keep a bitcoin unlimited node close to your mining node. Keep talking. Keep yourself informed of the opinion of other miners, including under four eyes.

And verification node operators: Keep your XT, Classic and Unlimited nodes running. We are about to win.

A little more pressure from the market... and snap.

 

[cypherdoc]

note China starting to pull away again UP (the spread):

 

[albin]

In economics there is no concept of supply being permanently above demand. We have to change and have a real economic model where demand is a function of price. I would hope the price is low like 1 cent or something, but the idea of capacity always being above demand makes no economic sense.

I'm not sure where you're getting any of this from other than pure imagination. Please stop making things up about introductory microeconomics.

You don't have a right to patronize anybody if you either don't understand or pretend to not understand that you can't conflate supply and demand as functions with quantity supplied and quantity demanded the values @ a given price level. Either way, all you're doing is playing word games switching back and forth between the two concepts on demand.

 

[cypherdoc]

Even 75% is to gracious.

that's why i say maybe just remove the threshold completely.

that way we can let the market choose with *immediate* effect. yes, a little disruptive but that is what Bitcoin IS and does; disrupt.

and it's time for disruption.

 

[cypherdoc]

ever try getting 12 ppl into a room and getting them to agree on something? it's human nature to disagree. and some ppl just revel in doing it (cough, cough, Greggy). now extrapolate that out to a global level with Bitcoin and all the vested interests involved. "activation thresholds" as currently implemented in Bitcoin thru block signalling seems to me to be broken. as much as we wish it were miners only who decide this, it's not. kore dev and vested interests lobby miners hard. and it's even worse than those 12 guys in a room b/c it's so slow and arduous.

just get rid of it and release a fork that will kick in once 51% of hashpower mines a 1.1MB block conforming to it's rules. we already have this to a degree with BU but conceptually it seems too much for miners to get behind right now. but Classic would seem to be the perfect implementation to do this with it's still significant support. but it needs to be done now b/c that support is somewhat waning.

 

[AdrianX]

[

Everyone respected the good work that Core was doing so far until it became clear what was happening.

They did themselves no favor by not distancing themselves from the enormous commercial conflict of interest of their leadership, nevermind sitting down with a >51% mining cartel to hammer out a deal to suppress others (reminiscent of the censorship their supporters like to practice in other spheres).

Besides, who are we kidding. There is no "Core project". There are only Core supporters, acting on their invididual instincts.

My take is that by adding tons of complex code, Core is adding a large number of bugs, some of which will (!) slip through testing and could give Bitcoin major headaches. There's simply no way they are doing sufficient testing - this is looking at the existing code and tests - the results of the last few years' work.

Then there's the bewildering complexity of up to 29 soft-forks interacting in future, soft forks which most of the ecosystem has no veto over and which Lombrozo has already said will open the door to undetermined future script changes. Nice strong consensus indeed. Pity it only applies to Core and its cartel buddies, not the rest of Bitcoin users.

All because some egos will do anything to prevent what amounts to the least risky approach to on-chain scaling.

One thing is for sure, before SegWit activates, there'll be a hard fork for people who don't want to be dragged along in this farce. And it's going to be called Bitcoin.

Just quoting this whole post as it's the most appropriate response to small block advocates I can think of.
[doublepost=1465136063][/doublepost]

Maybe, I hope you see how a long protracted ware with people taking sides and becoming stubborn reduces the chances of this...

That is exactly what this guy is doing, and by ignoring the obvious problem in the first quote he's perpetuating conflict.

 

[awemany]

A little more pressure from the market... and snap.

As much as I hope you are right, I see us losing for the forseeable future. Core will be fully entrenched and throw a 2MB in 2017 bone to Jihan, and announce so at this end of the month.

I think only when Bitcoin and Ethereum get to equal market cap will we see some doubts on part of the miners.

 

[cypherdoc]

i doubt @Jihan would be stupid enough to wait all the way to 2017.

 

[freetrader]

We should make that activation exactly coincident with SegWit.

Well, we did think about adding SegWit pre-emption code. "Exactly" would be much too risky (*), so we thought of activating the fork within a safe distance (e.g. 10%) of SegWit activating.

This idea has been dropped for several reasons:

i) it requires more code bloat to handle the SegWit activation tracking
ii) you can never really be safe with this sort of thing. We don't know what a "safe margin" is, and how much hashpower can suddenly flip to supporting SegWit. And we don't want to lose sleep.
iii) SegWit, as recent speculation has it, may activate FAR too late to be acceptable to our timeframe. We think Bitcoin is already bleeding users, and this bleed needs to be stopped without waiting on Core's delayed shipment of narcotics.

So, it's going to be a true hard fork in the spirit of Satoshi. Block height triggered.

(*) I don't mind SegWit, but I won't have SWSF transactions thank you. I think TM fixes are great, and other goodies have been requested by hardware wallet vendors to allow them to scale better.
A well-designed SegWit HF implementation would be nice. Oh how this makes me wish we could get on a sensible annual or bi-annual HF process like other coins.

 

[cypherdoc]

Even 75% is too gratuitous.

Here's what to do: Prepare for larger blocks. If you are afraid of being kicked out of the relay network or being ddosed, just covertly add the one byte patch. Keep a bitcoin unlimited node close to your mining node. Keep talking. Keep yourself informed of the opinion of other miners, including under four eyes.

And verification node operators: Keep your XT, Classic and Unlimited nodes running. We are about to win.

A little more pressure from the market... and snap.

yes, i'd like to thank @jonny1000 for bringing this to our attention. please inform your kore gang that you've been successful in educating us.
[doublepost=1465138442][/doublepost]

 

[jonny1000]

So @jonny1000, please take my suggestions back to your kore gang for consideration.

What suggestion? Does your suggestion still involve locking in 25% miner opposition at the time of activation?

release a fork that will kick in once 51% of hashpower mines a 1.1MB block conforming to it's rules.

I am not sure exactly what you mean here. I think a 51% threshold with a voting window is better than 75% at any time, as at least this allows the possibility of a strong 95% or more victory.

By the way, @cypherdoc, I hope you do understand the asymmetric nature of the event. Remember if 51% of the mining power is supporting the fork, if a block contains 1.1MB, 51% of the hash-rate may build on top of it. If there is 0.9MB block, 100% of the hash-rate may build on top of it.

For example:

• The first 1.01MB block is mined
• 51% of the hash-rate try to mine on top of the 1.01MB block
• 49% of the hash-rate try to mine on top of the old block, less than 1MB
• If 49% chain, gets a lead at any point, it gets 100% of the hash-rate.
  
• Therefore a 51% hardfork attempt will almost always lose and become the shorter chain

Even with 75% of the hash-rate supporting the fork, they still have a c21% chance of becoming the shorter chain and losing to the 25%.

I hope you guys all understand this, typically advocates of locking in 25% miner opposition have not thought all the maths through. This is an asymmetric fork where the status quo has a huge natural built in advantage, by design. This is why you need a massive mining majority to win.

(Please note the above is based on statistics/combinatorics rather than blocksize politics)

 

[cypherdoc]

i don't know why you keep mentioning this "locking in opposition". if 51% of miners decide to start building 1.1MB blocks (with a 2MB limit in Classic's case) on a consistent basis, the rest of the miners will have to switch to that chain. certainly most users will and they are what determine Bitcoin's future ultimately; tx's will be cheaper with no delays unlike what we have now on the 1MB crippled chain. even big hodlers will support the new 2MB chain b/c they understand, from an economic perspective, that a growing userbase that's starts extending to the far corners of the Earth (will require blocks >2MB) will provide the most liquidity and decentralization for the protection and value of their coins.

i hope you and kore gang understand this. the status quo will get forked off as they suffer from a huge economic disadvantage.

 

[jonny1000]

if 51% of miners decide to start building 1.1MB blocks

Statically the 1.1MB chain will lose around 70% of the time, each time this defeat occurs miners will be less and less willing to mine 1.1MB blocks, due to the increased orphan risks. This will make it even harder to do a HF.

My advice once again, stop trying to win by the narrowest of margins, that is how you lose in Bitcoin, its how Bitcoin was designed. Go for the massive, resounding and ruthless victory. Then you will win.

Let my try to put this in language you may better understand and appreciate:
Aim for a massive, humiliating, total and utter annihilation of "Kore" and the 1MB limit. You will then win, with my support. If you keep trying to get scrape a tiny marginal victory over "Kore", by trying to get statically lucky, you will lose and I will oppose you.

Do you understand the statistics here and how I calculated the 21% probability, even at 75%?

 

[AdrianX]

@cypherdoc it's not that they "have too" it's that if they want to maximize profits they'll want to switch.

It's only Core that see this as being forced.

 

[cypherdoc]

your math wizardly doesn't matter in my scenario. if 51% of the miners decide they want to mine 1.1MB blocks, that will represent the new consensus as that chain starts extending. other miners and users will build on that chain out of economic necessity and motivation.

 

[jonny1000]

if 51% of the miners decide they want to mine 1.1MB blocks

Are you saying there would be a minimum blocksize?

Please answer me, why do you want to score such a narrow marginal victory over "Kore"? Why won't you aim for a large victory, to let me and community join you? This narrow victory idea is not tolerable to the miners and the economic majority.