Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Richy_T]

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

Perhaps. But it's becoming more clear to me that it was probably inevitable anyway. It's just a shame it's about some shitty temporary restriction.

 

[cypherdoc]

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.

no, there would be no minimum blocksize.

"narrow marginal victory"- b/c it's always been about 51% majority determining the longest chain. that's already embedded in the protocol. if miners want to mine a series of 1.1MB blocks followed by an SPV block or 900kB block, fine. but they will have to be using Classic software to do it or any software that has a higher or no limit. you'd think they'd have already used BU but i think that has suffered from too many insignificant unknowns. but Classic is a totally different story and has a significant level of support still.

 

[Richy_T]

No, it's a trap and a diversion.

As was Classic, in my opinion. Though I don't blame them for trying.

 

[Richy_T]

no, there would be no minimum blocksize.

"narrow marginal victory"- b/c it's always been about 51% majority determining the longest chain. that's already embedded in the protocol. if miners want to mine a series of 1.1MB blocks followed by an SPV block or 900kB block, fine. but they will have to be using Classic software to do it or any software that has a higher or no limit. you'd think they'd have already used BU but i think that has suffered from too many insignificant unknowns. but Classic is a totally different story and has a significant level of support still.

I think what Jonny is saying is that even if you get that 1.1MB block in, there's still a chance, depending on the ratio and time to next difficulty that the <50% could produce a longer chain. However, that there are these variables thinks his 20% at 75% may be a worst-case scenario.

Your position, if I am correct, is that many of the <50% would jump on board and make this a non issue. I happen to agree but I think there is room for disagreement there. The point of market forces is doing, not talking after all.
[doublepost=1465144274][/doublepost]

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

Do you have a particular block height in mind?

 

[xhiggy]

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

This is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, either you are a fool or you are trying to persuade fools.

 

[cypherdoc]

@jonny1000

you keep framing "consensus" as some sort of a process that needs to happen ahead of time before a new software release is put into play into the free market. the problem with this strategy is that it totally ignores the posturing and politics that go into that process. esp when there is alot of money involved. such as what we've seen over the past year with censorship, secret meetings, filtering of presentations (@Peter R), personal attacks, agreements btwn dipshits, etc. you'll never get a clear picture of where ppl stand until they're forced to make a choice which usually happens when money is immediately on the line.

the only way to force that is to release an option that we feel everybody will really want in the end. and i think that is a software version that allows growth. and by growth i mean growth of users and miners. bigger or unlimited blocks facilitate that by allowing tx's to remain cheap and fast, unlike the shitty situation our kore devs have created. plus, it will push demand from ppl all over the globe which will solidify Bitcoin's security model by the decentralization of demand that Satoshi envisioned. reference Uber. the epitome of centralized command a full node (30 employees in a room last i heard) yet widespread successful global demand b/c they've understood that growing the userbase of drivers and riders was paramount to decentralized success.

unlike the bullshit you're promoting.

 

[Erdogan]

I think what Jonny is saying is that even if you get that 1.1MB block in, there's still a chance, depending on the ratio and time to next difficulty that the <50% could produce a longer chain. However, that there are these variables thinks his 20% at 75% may be a worst-case scenario.

Your position, if I am correct, is that many of the <50% would jump on board and make this a non issue. I happen to agree but I think there is room for disagreement there. The point of market forces is doing, not talking after all.
[doublepost=1465144274][/doublepost]

Do you have a particular block height in mind?

Everybody should prepare to accept a large block in the chain, even if they continue generating smallblocks for now. Everybody know we need larger blocks and we will get them. The die is cast. Regard this as a grace period.

 

[Peter R]

"Everybody should prepare to accept a large block, even if they continue generating smallblocks for now.. Everybody know we need larger blocks and we will get them. The die is cast. Regard this as a grace period." -- @Erdogan

Exactly. Nodes can already run code that permits blocks greater than 1MB and still be guaranteed to follow the longest chain. There is no need to wait for an activation threshold or a flag day for a node to loosen its acceptance criteria.

In fact, this seems like the responsible/pro-active course of action. I wish Coinbase/BitPay/Xapo etc. would announce that they've modified their nodes to accept larger blocks today (either by running BU or with a 1-byte change to Core).

 

[cypherdoc]

@Peter R

what's this concept of a 1 byte change to Core i think i keep hearing?

 

[freetrader]

Do you have a particular block height in mind?

I hope you don't mind, I took this discussion on the details to the other thread:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/announcement-bitcoin-project-to-full-fork-to-flexible-blocksizes.933/page-9#post-21603

 

[Erdogan]

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

It is 5 dollars, about 1 percent. Maybe they think the unintended revaluation of the yuan on friday will reverse.

 

[Melbustus]

...For every person who hates Greg Maxwell, there are another 2 or 3 people on IRC who still idolize him. I think a big part of the reason why these people have so much influence with the miners is because they all know each other in real life, and also on IRC. I used to be really into IRC when I was in high school. IRC is a lot different than forums. IRC friendships are much deeper than forums friendships. This is because IRC is a much more intimate setting. So many miners and major players in the bitcoin world are the kind of people who spend 10 hours a day on IRC.

Well, if that's true, then Bitcoin has already lost to whatever alt-coin comes about that satisfies sound money properties while *not* carrying the baggage of being run by a bunch of incredibly narrow-minded teenagers.

But I don't think that's true. At least to the extend that the surrounding community in Bitcoin is much larger (and wealthier) than the miners and hardCore folks you reference. The problem is that this wider community of users, investors, and critically, businesses, has yet to flex any muscle in a sufficiently aggressive way.

 

[awemany]

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

I hope you are right, of course.

 

[Erdogan]

@Peter R

what's this concept of a 1 byte change to Core i think i keep hearing?

whatever@perle:/tmp/bitcoin$ git diff
diff --git a/src/consensus/consensus.h b/src/consensus/consensus.h
index ad9cc26..de58c2b 100644
--- a/src/consensus/consensus.h
+++ b/src/consensus/consensus.h
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
#define BITCOIN_CONSENSUS_CONSENSUS_H

/** The maximum allowed size for a serialized block, in bytes (network rule) */
-static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
+static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 2000000;
/** The maximum allowed number of signature check operations in a block (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/50;
/** Coinbase transaction outputs can only be spent after this number of new blocks (network rule) */
whatever@perle:/tmp/bitcoin$

 

[Peter R]

@Peter R

what's this concept of a 1 byte change to Core i think i keep hearing?

The block size limit in Core is set by a directive that looks like this:

#define MAX_BLOCK_SIZE 1000000

This tells the compiler to substitute 1000000 whenever it sees the string MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. By changing a single byte (each character is 1 byte), namely the "1" to a "2" (or a "4" or whatever), and then recompiling, your node would accept larger blocks just fine.

#define MAX_BLOCK_SIZE 2000000

EDIT: Based on Erdogan's post, it looks like it's a static variable. But the idea is the same.

 

[cypherdoc]

It is 5 dollars, about 1 percent. Maybe they think the unintended revaluation of the yuan on friday will reverse.

here's the 1h. it looks bullish to me. it's my contention that since we successfully punched thru 470 & 500, major ceilings of resistance built up for the last 7 mo, we are now essentially floating in free space. the upside resistance is negligible like a rocket having just left the atmospheric ceiling and floating around in the stratosphere priming to head upwards in fits and starts:

[doublepost=1465148161][/doublepost]

The block size limit in Core is set by what's called a directive that looks like this:

#define MAX_BLOCK_SIZE 1000000

This tells the compiler to substitute 1000000 whenever it sees the string MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. By changing a single byte (each character is 1 byte), namely the "1" to a "2" (or a "4" or whatever), and then recompiling, your node would accept larger blocks just fine.

#define MAX_BLOCK_SIZE 2000000

EDIT: Based on Erdogan's post, it looks like it's a static variable. But the idea is the same.

huh, i've always read that out as a number: like 1 million bytes or 2 million bytes. changing the 1 to a 2 i thought would've been described as a 1 million byte change as opposed to a 1 byte change.

 

[Peter R]

...For every person who hates Greg Maxwell, there are another 2 or 3 people on IRC who still idolize him. I think a big part of the reason why these people have so much influence with the miners is because they all know each other in real life, and also on IRC. I used to be really into IRC when I was in high school. IRC is a lot different than forums. IRC friendships are much deeper than forums friendships. This is because IRC is a much more intimate setting. So many miners and major players in the bitcoin world are the kind of people who spend 10 hours a day on IRC.

I agree with @Melbustus.

I remember when Greg had a meltdown last year (December 2015 IIRC) and stopped posting to Reddit, he was also largely absent from the #bitcoin-wizards IRC channel. I remember that I was posting there more often and most of the people were actually being amicable to me whenever I showed up.

My hunch is that Greg's presence controls the dynamic to a very significant extent. People over there walk on grEggShells to stay on his good side, and thus avoid calling him out on his nonsense. When the downfall of Saruman is finally upon us, I bet a significant portion of the #bitcoin-wizards will suddenly seem like reasonable (and actually pretty smart and interesting) guys.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Peter R there you go, bingo.
[doublepost=1465149303][/doublepost]hmm, this is kinda weird. what's the likelihood that both Julian Assange & Jacob Applebaum are both sexual assault offenders?:

http://techcrunch.com/2016/06/04/tor-project-developer-steps-down-amid-sexual-mistreatment-allegations/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Techcrunch+(TechCrunch)&sr_share=twitter

 

[cypherdoc]

/u/jratcliff outed on this one:

[doublepost=1465155056,1465154314][/doublepost]

/u/jratcliff outed on this one:

this one is made worse b/c /u/nullc has been quoting /u/jratcliff incessantly on this 2MB number the last several days.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Does anybody know where one can get the daily (or so) number of Ethereum transactions as CSV data? And other altcoins (except Litecoin)?

hmm, this is kinda weird. what's the likelihood that both Julian Assange & Jacob Applebaum are both sexual assault offenders?:

Zero. But, in Appelbaums case, that's sadly the unavoidable outcome if you welcome SJW's with open arms to your project. Each feminist nutcase increases the probability for a false allegation and in this light it's remarkable how long TOR run without great interferences of that kind.

And it's easy to infiltrate your organisation with these people. There was a slide in the Snowden leaks IIRC from the GHCQ about how to discredit people and one example was to set up a blog and post anonymous stories about sexual misbehaviour. Exactly what happened with Appelbaum.

Something like this will happen in Bitcoin sooner or later if people aren't careful. Linus Torvalds management is a good example how to avoid these cancerous people. If you give them an inch they will take a mile.