Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
evidence that i am right about this issue first came when we got the fork caused by BIP66. the fork came about not from a bug in the BIP. it came about b/c miners did not actually upgrade their software despite indicating that they would and thus f2pool lost about 4-5 blocks in a row that they had SPV mined when the network had to revert the fork back into consensus. turns out a large % of large miners from China were defensively SPV mining esp when we started getting full blocks back in July.
if memory serves BIP66 has a quite high activation threshold in terms of hashrate (~75%). once 95% of the last 1000 blocks had produced with version. 3, all blocks with version lower than 3 had been considered invalid.

so f2pool had actually upgrade. this is a fact. the problem is that upgrading did not guarantee to avoid spv mining ill side effects.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@sickpig

Yes, you are correct.

After a bit more researching, here is a better explanation: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/38437/what-is-spv-mining-and-how-did-it-inadvertently-cause-the-fork-after-bip66-wa

Essentially pools use overlay software to bitcoind called stratum which allows hashers to pool their resources. I used stratum on a small scale back when I was solo mining with several Avalon and Bitfury rigs. When a block gets solved on the network by some pool, other pools can choose to be notified by bitcoind or stratum. Waiting for bitcoind through the p2p network is considered too slow. Instead pools choose to hook up and monitor each other's stratum block announcements which come quicker but with incomplete information. In this case, just the hash of the just announced block. f2pool and BTCCHINA took this limited block representation, just the hash, and then preceded to mine six 0-1 tx blocks on top of what turned out to be an invalid block that had been produced by 1 of the 5% of miners that hadn't upgraded to BIP 66, BTC Nugget. If f2pool or BTCChina had bothered to actually wait and verify the entire invalid block instead of just mining on top of it's hash, they would have realized it was invalid by virtue of the fact that it was broadcasting version 2 blocks instead of version 3 blocks and not bothered to build six 0-1 tx blocks on top of it and would not have been forced to give up the rewards in the subsequent reorg.

None of this changes the thrust of my prior post that propagation latency is a reality and is the major driver in decision making for miners and that core dev is certainly capable of misjudging the economic dynamics of the Bitcoin Network.
 
Last edited:

Aquent

Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
252
667
It seems that r/bitcoin has been transformed in 24 hours with theymos now having initiated a policy of seemingly permabans rather than temporary bans as used to be the case.

As such, at least for myself, I am now lucky to not have the temptation to visit r/bitcoin any longer as I can not comment there. So I guess at least I myself will now try to give r/btc and/or r/bitcoinxt a real shot and see if a new space can be created.

I guess I was naive to think that it did not have to come to this. These are some comments from gmaxwell back in 2013:

"and if that [1mb] protocol rule didn't exist? I would have never become convinced that Bitcoin could survive"

"The 1MB limit is not soft. I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that it was temporary from the start— and absent it I would have not spent a dollar of my time on Bitcoin"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.0;all

He is further on record stating that he proved a decentralised system like bitcoin was impossible. It seems that he became convinced of the actual proof that it is possible, and thus disproof of his proof of a negative, because and only because it had a 1mb limit, that is only if bitcoin can be kept tiny to such extent that almost no one uses it in the grand scheme of things.

I think that under that belief he probably formed blockstream with Adam to provide offchain/non proof of work, and therefore either not decentralised, trustless or secure, "solutions". The problem is that, regardless of whether he honestly holds that belief or otherwise, the practical effect is the creation of a bottleneck from which he stands to make millions if not billions at our expense.

So I suppose I should have seen that it could not be otherwise but with a fight.

I suppose Gavin would have foreseen this too, hence his choice of stepping down as a lead developer. I suppose he perhaps did not wish to force his decision, but create a competing client so that the supermajority can for themselves decide by action and therefore their aggregate numbers conclude this ever running debate. It is on principle the right decision, but whether it is the most effective choice I guess we will have to see with how this debate concludes next month. And I very much hope it does conclude in December as this can not continue any longer with the price seemingly inhibited by the transaction limit which is now fully consumed.

@Justus Ranvier thank's for the summary provided at r/btc which gave me the opportunity to go over some of the old comments and gain a clearer picture. It may perhaps be beneficial for someone to create a summary of the events from summer this year to have it all in one place for reference for newbs.

I wanted to say in regards to whether a government or some outside entity could be pitting the sides against each other. If that was the case, it may have started in 2013 with the propaganda video by Peter Todd, so it is possible, but anything is possible. Without any evidence I think it is best to judge the arguments being made as once one starts outright speculating, irrationality prevails.

It is easy for example to say, like Adam Back did, that all those who disagree with him are bots, or shills, thus dismissing their arguments through emotional dehumanisation. I'd rather look at the arguments themself and think that gmaxwell is fundamentally wrong with his belief that bitcoin can only operate because of 1mb and it seems to me that the fact he has now doubled down on that belief by forming his own company means that he is unlikely to change his mind. As such, we have no choice, but to route around the stupidity, mistaken belief or even intentional bottlenecking (whichever it is) of one man who thinks that he can prove a negative and that satoshi is/was wrong.
 

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
I wanted to say in regards to whether a government or some outside entity could be pitting the sides against each other. If that was the case, it may have started in 2013 with the propaganda video by Peter Todd, so it is possible, but anything is possible. Without any evidence I think it is best to judge the arguments being made as once one starts outright speculating, irrationality prevails.
There's another phenomenon to consider - it's far more exciting to invent something new than to refine and maintain something that someone else invented.

I'd be shocked if that effect wasn't a large driving force toward the push for off-chain solutions.

Turning Satoshi's prototype into a finished product is a difficult and frequently boring job. Building a new protocol means you get to have your name in the headlines.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
It seems that r/bitcoin has been transformed in 24 hours with theymos now having initiated a policy of seemingly permabans rather than temporary bans as used to be the case.

As such, at least for myself, I am now lucky to not have the temptation to visit r/bitcoin any longer as I can not comment there. So I guess at least I myself will now try to give r/btc and/or r/bitcoinxt a real shot and see if a new space can be created.

I guess I was naive to think that it did not have to come to this. These are some comments from gmaxwell back in 2013:

"and if that [1mb] protocol rule didn't exist? I would have never become convinced that Bitcoin could survive"

"The 1MB limit is not soft. I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that it was temporary from the start— and absent it I would have not spent a dollar of my time on Bitcoin"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.0;all

He is further on record stating that he proved a decentralised system like bitcoin was impossible. It seems that he became convinced of the actual proof that it is possible, and thus disproof of his proof of a negative, because and only because it had a 1mb limit, that is only if bitcoin can be kept tiny to such extent that almost no one uses it in the grand scheme of things.

I think that under that belief he probably formed blockstream with Adam to provide offchain/non proof of work, and therefore either not decentralised, trustless or secure, "solutions". The problem is that, regardless of whether he honestly holds that belief or otherwise, the practical effect is the creation of a bottleneck from which he stands to make millions if not billions at our expense.

So I suppose I should have seen that it could not be otherwise but with a fight.

I suppose Gavin would have foreseen this too, hence his choice of stepping down as a lead developer. I suppose he perhaps did not wish to force his decision, but create a competing client so that the supermajority can for themselves decide by action and therefore their aggregate numbers conclude this ever running debate. It is on principle the right decision, but whether it is the most effective choice I guess we will have to see with how this debate concludes next month. And I very much hope it does conclude in December as this can not continue any longer with the price seemingly inhibited by the transaction limit which is now fully consumed.

@Justus Ranvier thank's for the summary provided at r/btc which gave me the opportunity to go over some of the old comments and gain a clearer picture. It may perhaps be beneficial for someone to create a summary of the events from summer this year to have it all in one place for reference for newbs.

I wanted to say in regards to whether a government or some outside entity could be pitting the sides against each other. If that was the case, it may have started in 2013 with the propaganda video by Peter Todd, so it is possible, but anything is possible. Without any evidence I think it is best to judge the arguments being made as once one starts outright speculating, irrationality prevails.

It is easy for example to say, like Adam Back did, that all those who disagree with him are bots, or shills, thus dismissing their arguments through emotional dehumanisation. I'd rather look at the arguments themself and think that gmaxwell is fundamentally wrong with his belief that bitcoin can only operate because of 1mb and it seems to me that the fact he has now doubled down on that belief by forming his own company means that he is unlikely to change his mind. As such, we have no choice, but to route around the stupidity, mistaken belief or even intentional bottlenecking (whichever it is) of one man who thinks that he can prove a negative and that satoshi is/was wrong.
yes, thanks for the link. yours and @Justus Ranvier links are providing great look backs into the thinking of involved players. gmax certainly had a bearish vision of Bitcoin from the start of his involvement coinciding to a degree even many years before that of him thinking a system like Bitcoin was impossible. seems like he never really got rid of that thinking and now has "doubled down" on that vision, as you succinctly described, by forming a corporation named Blockstream to take advantage of this 1MB handicap/choke. he is thoroughly entrenched and cannot possibly compromise w/o losing his investors money and probably much of his own. don't expect anything more than obfuscation coming out of HK next month.
[doublepost=1446999269][/doublepost]gmax's real handicap is that imo he has created products like SC's and LN that are not workable and are certainly vapoware/works in progress at this point. i can't see how spvp SC's can work depending on merge mining as we saw with OneName along with all the other reasons i've advanced in the past. LN maybe, but even that is exceeding complex and centralizing while taking tx fees away from mining.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu and solex

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
 

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
Wow where has this thread been all my life? This is full of the people whose opinions I actually respect.

I think Adam Back is taking the carpetbagger moniker to heart, astroturfing some really disingenuous pointless manufactured discussion today:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3s063r/what_are_bitcoins_most_important_differentiating/

Adam is like that one friend on Facebook you don't particularly know well in real life, but somehow ended up adding, who constantly posts inane hypothetical questions to generate traffic. Bitcoiners, Herr Doktor Adam Back Ph.D. here, if you could have a superpower, what would it be?
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
great discussion. Noosterdam's got it:


 
  • Like
Reactions: rocks and Peter R

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
As I get to know the Core devs and BS folks, their personalities, and their historical positions, I'm starting to wonder if this is Gmax's war. He's the most "towering" intellectual among them and and you can tell that many of the devs look up to him, plus he's been dead set on 1MB from the start.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
here's another problem for spvp SC's.

given Marshall's total disrespect and enthusiasm for tx fees, why would he or any other mining pool bother to merge mine SC's whose only payout mechanism is tx fees (no rewards)? at least in the short and medium term (a long time).
[doublepost=1447005150][/doublepost]"This is a technique that has been deployed to reduce orphan rates in response to increased time to propagate and validate blocks (e.g. see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3658)."


we now know for sure that gmax & Adam know that miner's, large or small, first priority is to avoid orphaning. the largest of miners, all in China, cannot and will not perform a large block attack vs small miners. don't let the small blockists keep advancing this FUD as an argument against bigger blocks.
 
Last edited:

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
There is a battle going on of which the whole censorship situation is weaponry being unleashed. The battle is for control of the reference client.

If XT gains 75% threshold and big blocks are allowed, then XT determines the majority chain, and it also becomes the default reference client because it is installed on the majority of node instances.
Control of the reference client is needed to implement OP codes for LN, SC and other off-chain implementations. No surprise that Mike Hearn wants a hard-fork as the price of "consensus" on CLTV.

@cypherdoc mentions 1MBers talking about BIP102 (the weakest of all block limit solutions). It shows that they are cracking under pressure.

Core Dev need to make a decision: Allow >1MB blocks or give up control of the reference client, before the market makes this decision for them.

They know which is most important.
You are describing exactly what is going on. This is a simple power play for control of the reference client that sets the rules for the protocol. If an alternate client (say XT) rises to be dominant then the core developers become an irrelevant side note in bitcoin.

I view this as war. And this viewpoint explains clearly why Theymos is fighting so hard to keep any mention of alternative clients out of his subreddit and btctalk, even to the absurd degree of banning coinbase.

The market, the ecosystem and the user base want bitcoin to scale. If core don't sort this out quickly then another reference client will take over rendering Theymos and his clique powerless.
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
 

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
WRT BIP102,103 10whatever we need to be very careful that a divide and conquer, or divide and delay strategy is not used like it was with BIP100.

I'd suggest that the large blocker message (to small blockers or others saying "what about BIP10X") be "Get Gmax and the other key small blockers to publicly agree to adopt it and at that point we'll consider it. Otherwise we're not even going to discuss it with you. BIP101 exists, works and any guess about the future is pretty much as good as any other. Especially in the context of years of operation during which the 1MB limit was orders of magnitude greater than the use but nobody abused it."
 

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
@Zangelbert Bingledack

Charles Lee, founder of Litecoin is also a 1MBer. He and Warren Togami are being disingenuous about this because the LTC block limit is effectively four times larger (4 blocks per 10 minutes). They should be saying that Bitcoin needs a 4MB limit to level the playing field.

Fortunately an accident of history might just make the difference. Nearly all PoW alt coins are scrypt-mined. The Bitcoin miners are trapped supporting Bitcoin or another SHA256 coin. Are they going to let tens of millions of dollars of hashing power go to waste, or find another SHA256 coin with a bigger limit? Or will they take the easiest route and adopt a client with a patch like BIP101 and rescue their business models?
 

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
Fortunately an accident of history might just make the difference. Nearly all PoW alt coins are scrypt-mined. The Bitcoin miners are trapped supporting Bitcoin or another SHA256 coin. Are they going to let tens of millions of dollars of hashing power go to waste, or find another SHA256 coin with a bigger limit? Or will they take the easiest route and adopt a client with a patch like BIP101 and rescue their business models?
I agree with that except for the "accident of history" part.

Scrypt was chosen very deliberately based on the belief that industrialization and specialization of mining was a trend to be fought rather than embraced.

Whatever happens, one of two incompatible world views is going to be validated and the other discredited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
Indeed, Scrypt was deliberately chosen, but the accident of history is the sheer preponderance of alt-coins preferring it. Presumably many of them were afraid of being 51% attacked by some Bitcoin miners, although quite a few alt-coins have been 51% attacked by scrypt miners.