Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rocks]

@Peter R
Agree we won't see miners build larger blocks for some time, they need IBLT or something similar first. But I see this playing out differently long term.

Fundamentally I disagree with the concept of breaking consensus between miners and nodes. Miners are the only true source of votes in the system. If you want a say, then produce blocks. Anything else is opening bitcoin up to consequences we do not fully understand.

When BU was first proposed, it was stated that it was going to be positioned as a "single issue" proposal on block size. Well breaking consensus between miners and nodes is a separate issue. I am aligned with the first, but not with the second. If others feel as I do, that weakens BU's ability to promote larger blocks.

I'd recommend keeping BU "single issue" and only support larger blocks. After that is achieved and bitcoin is unconstrained, then everyone can fork again in their own preferred direction on various other topics.

 

[Peter R]

@rocks

I don't see this as "breaking consensus" between nodes and miners in any way. When Bitcoin was released in 2009, the consensus layer involved:

Original consensus layer:
- All transactions must be valid and not already spent
- PoW must meet difficulty target

Over time, "patches" were added strictly to address physical limitations:

Present-day consensus layer:
- All transactions must be valid and not already spend
- PoW must meet difficulty target
- Block size limit (added in 2010 by Satoshi)
- Max # SIGOPs (added ???)
- Max # bytes hashed (added in 2015 by Gavin to XT)

One of the ideas behind Bitcoin Unlimited is that the rules shown in purple were never consensus rules in the first place. Bitcoin was intended to be unlimited and we want to return it to that state. The difficulty is that from a practical point of view any given node is limited--no node has infinite memory/bandwidth/etc. So all we are doing is allowing nodes to express these real physical limits in a graceful way that provides feedback to the rest of the network (nodes tri-state to "don't know" for excessive blocks thereby increasing their orphaning risk). Bitcoin Unlimited is still unlimited.

One final point is that the Berkley DB fork of 2013 taught us that we need to deal somehow with the "don't know" case anyways. Even if our hardware was infinitely capable, because our software might still have bugs, the "don't know" case can never be eliminated. I say we embrace it.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Physical block limits are mostly an artefact of the fact that block propagation is performed in the least-optimized, simplest-thing-that-could-possibly-work manner.

In the long term, nodes need relaying decision granularity at the transaction level and at the set reconciliation atom level (however this ends up being implemented), not at the block level.

Blocks as big chunks of data that a miner doesn't start broadcasting at all until he finds a valid proof of work won't survive more than maybe a single order of magnitude increase in transaction throughput

 

[cypherdoc]

so now we have a Dow Theory non confirmation going in the other direction; up. the $DJI has broken back above it's SL while the $DJT has failed to do so and is badly lagging behind. my feeling is that until and if we get a full primary bull confirmation of these 2 indices, the overall long term bias is still DOWN:

[doublepost=1445442096][/doublepost]still looking good. starting a new roll:

 

[cypherdoc]

caught btwn a rock and a hard plate:

"What the future brings is yet to be seen but some important questions still remain–like in the case of the internet, should the United States be the country that provides the most supportive environment for incubating and maturing Bitcoin-related innovation? Or should we take a wait and watch attitude and let others capture the lion’s share of value creation, which could be significant in the years to come? Given the potential of the technology to disrupt both the financial services and technology industries, a case can likely be made for industry groups, policy makers and regulators to drive collaboration and a unified dialogue at the national level."

http://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/regulatory/bitcoin-at-the-crossroads.html#

 

[lunar]

Moving forward with mempool! PR 6722 merged into bitcoin core

yet again, it seems controversial

This attempt at artificially creating a fee market seems to be pulling everyone in different directions. It's hard to watch.

 

[solex]

@lunarboy

Thanks for posting these links.
I think this change is net positive for Bitcoin in providing better management of unconfirmed tx. It is however a complex area and clearly the PR is a grand compromise with many voices having input. Jeff's tx expiry which he has wanted from day 1 is IMHO a must for making Bitcoin a serious global real-world payment system. The fact that tx can languish for an indeterminate period is too fuzzy for mainstream finance. Jeff wanted 48 hours, which seems best, although the other devs have made it 72 hours.

The code for an artificial fee market is not a problem in itself, even the thermos has a valid point that the network cannot handle infinite volume. This change does set the stage for the real battle which is between (a) those that have the settlement layer fantasy keeping a small block limit and implementing RBF scorched-earth, abandoning zero-conf, betting the farm on off-chain solutions; and (b) the rest of us who subscribe to the white paper, XT and BU ideals including the preservation of zero-conf and a priority for main-chain scaling where off-chain has to succeed on its own merits.

 

[Peter R]

"The code for an artificial fee market is not a problem in itself, even the thermos has a valid point that the network cannot handle infinite volume."

But remember, as long as the marginal cost for a miner to add a new TX to a block is nonzero, then the free-market equilibrium block size will be finite (even without a protocol enforced limit). Since a natural fee market exists, an artificial one is not necessary in order to avoid "infinite volume."

 

[solex]

Indeed, you are right about the fee-market for block space, however, this patch enables a fee-market for mempool space. It would be a dormant market normally as the total size of unconfirmed tx is well below node mempool limits. This market becomes effective in the situation where the network is being massively flooded. I suppose it is thermos-FUD to call that "infinite".

 

[Peter R]

Oh yes, of course; my apologies. I've conditioned myself to think "block size limit" whenever I read the words "fee market." A Pavlovian-dog effect, as it were.

 

[sickpig]

fwiw

 

[Peter R]

@sickpig

"Currently 5 moderators. BtcDrak, me [Rusty], G1lius, Kanzure and Johnathan"

Who's Johnathan?

To me it feels as though Core is isolating themselves.

 

[sickpig]

@Peter R sorry no idea.

On the broader matter I have to say that during the last few months there were a lot "shower thoughts/wild speculation" cluttering the list. That said I hope that this won't be used as a further censorship mechanism.

For now I withhold my judgement, the only thing I can say is that I trust both Rusty and Jeff ("who will have final say") form past experience.

 

[lunar]

Good news for European transactions. No VAT
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/22/bitcoin-tax-eu-idUSL8N12M28Y20151022

I believe? Germany and Denmark also has no bitcoin Capital Gains tax. Things are looking up.

 

[cypherdoc]

Fantastic

 

[Mengerian]

Less than a million bitcoins to go till the next halving

http://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/

 

[sickpig]

 

[rocks]

@rocks
I don't see this as "breaking consensus" between nodes and miners in any way. When Bitcoin was released in 2009, the consensus layer involved:

Original consensus layer:
- All transactions must be valid and not already spent
- PoW must meet difficulty target

Over time, "patches" were added strictly to address physical limitations:

Present-day consensus layer:
- All transactions must be valid and not already spend
- PoW must meet difficulty target
- Block size limit (added in 2010 by Satoshi)
- Max # SIGOPs (added ???)
- Max # bytes hashed (added in 2015 by Gavin to XT)

One of the ideas behind Bitcoin Unlimited is that the rules shown in purple were never consensus rules in the first place. Bitcoin was intended to be unlimited and we want to return it to that state.

Yes, the rules in purple were added over time after Satoshi left. My question continues to be why add a new purple blocksize rule for individual nodes? Nodes reject blocks by not passing them on. Adding a new relay limit is in effect making it possible for nodes to reject blocks over some level. That is not unlimited.

If the concern is network limitations for non-mining nodes, then add upload/download parameter limits. But don't enable what is essentially a new block rejection rule based on size.

I also continue to believe that non-mining nodes should either "keep up" with the longest valid chain or drop off. Rejecting larger blocks (which is what not relaying is), is counter productive to the BU concept IMHO. Non-mining nodes simply should not be able to influence what is consensus over size, they do not participate in the POW work mechanism and thus are Sybil attack vectors.

This will be my last post on the topic. I understand you guys see it differently, but I continue to be concerned over adding what looks to be a new path to reject large blocks and see adverse effects, effects we probably won't see in the next few years, but will see over time.

Edit: Remember, guys like LukeJr have stated they think 1MB is too large. What if a bunch of them spin up 10,000 BU nodes with a relay limit of 100K? We just made it easy to hold things back.

 

[molecular]

Good news for European transactions. No VAT
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/22/bitcoin-tax-eu-idUSL8N12M28Y20151022

I believe? Germany and Denmark also has no bitcoin Capital Gains tax. Things are looking up.

slight correction regarding germany: technically it's not a capital gains tax, but if you sell a coin you've bought less than a year ago for profit, that profit is income-taxable.

 

[rocks]

Here is the 3 year log price chart.
http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg1460ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zvzl

Looking at the three previous major ramps in mid-2012, early-2013 and late-2013, they each had the following characteristics:
1) There was a multi-month period of price stability,
2) Followed by an increase in volume that roughly aligned with the next exponential run

The current price increase is finally following the same pattern. We had several months of stable prices, but more importantly have a stable increase in volume starting in aug/sept aligned with the start of the current price increase. This multi-month volume increase is what we have been missing before.

Our long wait may finally be over.