@jake wow that post about replay protection is a good one! It really helped clarify my own thinking about the issue. I definitely think that should be re-posted in more places.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
Perhaps the craziest aspect of Lightning to me (and that's really saying a lot!) is that in the end, assume everything works exactly like how they claim, assume routing isn't a problem, assume enforcing channels on the blockchain is never a problem, assume outsourcing channel enforcement works great, assume it turned out decentralized instead of hubs....
The entire scheme is dependent on the bootstrapping of network effects that we don't necessarily know even exist, and it cannot even begin to serve as a functional payment system at all until market penetration is overwhelmingly ubiquitous.
The entire scheme is dependent on the bootstrapping of network effects that we don't necessarily know even exist, and it cannot even begin to serve as a functional payment system at all until market penetration is overwhelmingly ubiquitous.
I got he feeling they were "fear priced". Another opportunity for the brave/stupid
@jake Re: Replay Protection
I'm overall very wary of the idea that making splitting away harder is good. It's quite a different thing to say "the minority should fail when it is exposed to market sentiment" than to say "the minority should be prevented from ever getting a chance to be exposed to market sentiment." The latter seems to be Dave's aim.
If we cannot have peaceful divorce (usually, yes, resulting in death of the minority) then there is no mechanism for making those who are misguided pay for their errors and for reabsorbing their wealth back into the hands of those who understand Bitcoin.
Core has been taken over by Bitcoin skeptics and there are many skeptics among the hodlers. The more clueless hodlers we have, the less intelligent Honey Badger becomes. But of course we don't want them to dump BTC as that hurts us; we want them to dump the bigger block BTC in favor of the smaller block BTC and have the latter go to zero, as that process doesn't hurt us. In fact it helps us as they sell us their larger block BTC for cheap.
For example, if economically half the holders are diehard small blockers willing to sell all their big block BTC, they lose all their money to us in fork trading. We double our wealth.
Now futures trading, if *everyone* participates, has the same effect (assuming we win). And then the replay issue is moot because the minority will have already given up. So the best outcome of all is for there to be widespread futures trading - enough to harvest the money of all the hardliners and take it for our own.
The catch is that it is conceivble for futures trading to result in like an 80/20 split, meaning we actually *should* have two coins because the market wants it. In that case there does have to be a way to split the chains or else the market will not be as happy as it could be and we won't be as wealthy as we could be.
In short, to put it crassly, we need *some* mechanism to allow the fools to jump ship and leave their wallets behind, whether it's fork trading after the fork or fork futures before the fork. We need some way of concentrating the wealth in the hands of the people who get it and bankrupting those who don't.
See this post but applied to bigblocks BTC specifically: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=678866.msg7696175#msg7696175
I'm overall very wary of the idea that making splitting away harder is good. It's quite a different thing to say "the minority should fail when it is exposed to market sentiment" than to say "the minority should be prevented from ever getting a chance to be exposed to market sentiment." The latter seems to be Dave's aim.
If we cannot have peaceful divorce (usually, yes, resulting in death of the minority) then there is no mechanism for making those who are misguided pay for their errors and for reabsorbing their wealth back into the hands of those who understand Bitcoin.
Core has been taken over by Bitcoin skeptics and there are many skeptics among the hodlers. The more clueless hodlers we have, the less intelligent Honey Badger becomes. But of course we don't want them to dump BTC as that hurts us; we want them to dump the bigger block BTC in favor of the smaller block BTC and have the latter go to zero, as that process doesn't hurt us. In fact it helps us as they sell us their larger block BTC for cheap.
For example, if economically half the holders are diehard small blockers willing to sell all their big block BTC, they lose all their money to us in fork trading. We double our wealth.
Now futures trading, if *everyone* participates, has the same effect (assuming we win). And then the replay issue is moot because the minority will have already given up. So the best outcome of all is for there to be widespread futures trading - enough to harvest the money of all the hardliners and take it for our own.
The catch is that it is conceivble for futures trading to result in like an 80/20 split, meaning we actually *should* have two coins because the market wants it. In that case there does have to be a way to split the chains or else the market will not be as happy as it could be and we won't be as wealthy as we could be.
In short, to put it crassly, we need *some* mechanism to allow the fools to jump ship and leave their wallets behind, whether it's fork trading after the fork or fork futures before the fork. We need some way of concentrating the wealth in the hands of the people who get it and bankrupting those who don't.
See this post but applied to bigblocks BTC specifically: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=678866.msg7696175#msg7696175
Last edited:
"If we cannot have peaceful divorce"
Small block fundamentalists go peacefully I'm not going to force you to stay married to the network, if you want to leave, leave. (no alimony for you.)
Oh What! you want to keep using the network protocol - and if I don't pay alimony you will mess with the transactions. Thanks for reminding me - yes I'll change the locks when you leave - ( - mine empty blocks on the minority chain.)
There will be no divorce the value is in the network, you can just leave whenever you want however you want. The incentive to stay has always been self evident and the rules were decided when bitcoin was launched. - if you don't like it sell - that's how you signal miners. or Fork off and - you'll btw you better change PoW.
Small block fundamentalists go peacefully I'm not going to force you to stay married to the network, if you want to leave, leave. (no alimony for you.)
Oh What! you want to keep using the network protocol - and if I don't pay alimony you will mess with the transactions. Thanks for reminding me - yes I'll change the locks when you leave - ( - mine empty blocks on the minority chain.)
There will be no divorce the value is in the network, you can just leave whenever you want however you want. The incentive to stay has always been self evident and the rules were decided when bitcoin was launched. - if you don't like it sell - that's how you signal miners. or Fork off and - you'll btw you better change PoW.
Divorce and die, yes, but do divorce. Otherwise we can't get their money.
We have political differences and ideological differences, but the one thing we have in common is the maximize the return on out BTC and see it grow sustainably for more to enjoy.
The last thing I want to see is discrimination, I will tolerate a lot of abuse but I, draw the line at ditching our common interest in favor of some meaningless political or ideological argument.
The network will always be free - you can try and take it but you can't have it without a fight. You can join in or leave on your own free will, but it belongs to the users - Divorce and die, Fork off, or enjoy bitcoin with the freedom to come and go as you please - even join any other network, have network babies for all I care.
The last thing I want to see is discrimination, I will tolerate a lot of abuse but I, draw the line at ditching our common interest in favor of some meaningless political or ideological argument.
The network will always be free - you can try and take it but you can't have it without a fight. You can join in or leave on your own free will, but it belongs to the users - Divorce and die, Fork off, or enjoy bitcoin with the freedom to come and go as you please - even join any other network, have network babies for all I care.
BCUs just doubled in price, and BCCs are tanking. Looks like one whale making moves.
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
mean while BU is crashing
altho i re-started and set xthin off
in bitcoin.conf add:
and it appears as tho i'm not crashing anymore
and another hot fix
altho i re-started and set xthin off
in bitcoin.conf add:
Code:
use-thinblocks=0and another hot fix
Last edited:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1836672.msg18284517#msg18284517
So Roger accepted Loaded's bet offer of 40k BTC. Some side action going on. I've made a number of bets myself. I am very excited to see the wealth transfer based on the outcome of these bets. Something about putting your money where your mouth is and profiting by being right and losing by being wrong seems so incredibly interesting.
So Roger accepted Loaded's bet offer of 40k BTC. Some side action going on. I've made a number of bets myself. I am very excited to see the wealth transfer based on the outcome of these bets. Something about putting your money where your mouth is and profiting by being right and losing by being wrong seems so incredibly interesting.
@AdrianX
1. From an investor-ledger perspective is no way to stop people from splitting away (and diehard big blockers taking the diehard small blockers' money) since they can just use a spinoff, where replays are impossible.
2. Everything I said about them applies to us from their perspective. They want a chance to take our money. That is what fork trading is all about. It's what happened in ETH/ETC. Consider: if we are the ones that lose and the market says "no way" to bigger blocks (imagine), will we want to walk away or feel discriminated against? Will we feel it is unfair if we bet everything and go bankrupt? I certainly won't.
[doublepost=1490157376,1490156723][/doublepost]
@Peter R did it the correct way by specifying a chain containing a >1MB block (nothing to do with Core or BU) for the bet, but loaded confirmed he doesn't understand because he said he considered the bet "a vote of no confidence in BU software."
Weirder still, on reddit we have Gmax perpetuating and failing to correct this bizarre notion that chains are somehow tied to specific implementations. Gmax, Bitfinex, loaded, Nick Szabo... am I the one who has this wrong?? Can @Justus Ranvier or someone else technical confirm or deny my understanding?
Though in Gmax's case I think he gets that this is all just for show and is playing along for PR fronting purposes.
Anyone know loaded's position on blocksize?
1. From an investor-ledger perspective is no way to stop people from splitting away (and diehard big blockers taking the diehard small blockers' money) since they can just use a spinoff, where replays are impossible.
2. Everything I said about them applies to us from their perspective. They want a chance to take our money. That is what fork trading is all about. It's what happened in ETH/ETC. Consider: if we are the ones that lose and the market says "no way" to bigger blocks (imagine), will we want to walk away or feel discriminated against? Will we feel it is unfair if we bet everything and go bankrupt? I certainly won't.
[doublepost=1490157376,1490156723][/doublepost]
Has the community gone mad? How does someone like loaded not realize ***there is no such thing as a BU coin (or a Core coin for that matter)***?
@Peter R did it the correct way by specifying a chain containing a >1MB block (nothing to do with Core or BU) for the bet, but loaded confirmed he doesn't understand because he said he considered the bet "a vote of no confidence in BU software."
Weirder still, on reddit we have Gmax perpetuating and failing to correct this bizarre notion that chains are somehow tied to specific implementations. Gmax, Bitfinex, loaded, Nick Szabo... am I the one who has this wrong?? Can @Justus Ranvier or someone else technical confirm or deny my understanding?
Though in Gmax's case I think he gets that this is all just for show and is playing along for PR fronting purposes.
Anyone know loaded's position on blocksize?
I'm all for spin-offs. future contracts not what bitfinex is offering though. In a spin-off the original chan carries on no change.
In one word Yes, how does Roger not realize that either. This whole community is going mad. This is such a stupid bet it's just ego, there will be no BTU and BCC there is just BTC for now and the the predictable future.
That's over $12,000,000 on the line they're both must be betting nothing is going to happen, nothing but bad PR.
No way in hell I'm getting behind any of this nonsense Roger just lost a lot of credibility in my mind.
Honestly! Core too if they'd get off there high horse, work through the objection so we can concluded bitcoin is broken doesn't work and give it to the smartest guys in the room or concluded there are no more reason to limit transaction capacity and work through the technical implementation and move forward.
Special thanks @Peter R for that great talk at least one person in this mess is keeping me sane.
.
In one word Yes, how does Roger not realize that either. This whole community is going mad. This is such a stupid bet it's just ego, there will be no BTU and BCC there is just BTC for now and the the predictable future.
That's over $12,000,000 on the line they're both must be betting nothing is going to happen, nothing but bad PR.
No way in hell I'm getting behind any of this nonsense Roger just lost a lot of credibility in my mind.
Honestly! Core too if they'd get off there high horse, work through the objection so we can concluded bitcoin is broken doesn't work and give it to the smartest guys in the room or concluded there are no more reason to limit transaction capacity and work through the technical implementation and move forward.
Special thanks @Peter R for that great talk at least one person in this mess is keeping me sane.
Last edited:
@AdrianX For various reasons, a lot of people have a massive ego investment in the infallibility of Core.
They will resist acknowledging that Core is wrong about this issue as if their life depended on it, because at some level it's true.
They will resist acknowledging that Core is wrong about this issue as if their life depended on it, because at some level it's true.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Yes, Satoshi's Software had more bugs and attack vectors than the implementations of the J.P. Morg, Axa and the Goldman Sachs, but ....
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
All this bug / attack things ...
It is no secret that core devs do know the bitcoin c++ code better than Unlimited devs. It is also no secet that Core devs had way more time to establish quality control. And that they have way more funds by Blockstream and MIT. And that they are more.
But this is neither a reason for Core's scaling roadmap being god or for Unlimited's scaling roadmap being bad. It just shows that the Bitcoin ecosystem has become open to blackmail.
It is no secret that core devs do know the bitcoin c++ code better than Unlimited devs. It is also no secet that Core devs had way more time to establish quality control. And that they have way more funds by Blockstream and MIT. And that they are more.
But this is neither a reason for Core's scaling roadmap being god or for Unlimited's scaling roadmap being bad. It just shows that the Bitcoin ecosystem has become open to blackmail.
@Christoph Bergmann
Yes! And it is crazy, that people refuse to write down a standard for the Bitcoin protocol, because "the code is the protocol".
They were close to installing themselves as the gatekeepers for Bitcoin instead of being developers for a single implementation. The C++ code is a mess and I'm not sure, that that isn't, at least partly, on purpose. At least they don't want to make it easy for other people to get involved.
And I'm open to the idea, that Blockstream has their personal, closed source, testing suite for core..
Any way, thanks for fixing the bug @freetrader (I think)!
edit: wrong information
Yes! And it is crazy, that people refuse to write down a standard for the Bitcoin protocol, because "the code is the protocol".
They were close to installing themselves as the gatekeepers for Bitcoin instead of being developers for a single implementation. The C++ code is a mess and I'm not sure, that that isn't, at least partly, on purpose. At least they don't want to make it easy for other people to get involved.
And I'm open to the idea, that Blockstream has their personal, closed source, testing suite for core..
edit: wrong information
Last edited:
I won't blame Greg for the @Peter Tschipper 's recent bug as I think that would be unfair.
However there are things to consider when you look at this calmly:
- If the preliminary analysis from yesterday is correct, ptschip basically made the same mistake twice. He assumed a certain behavior of assert(..) (a well-known C/C++ function with a standard behavior) to not matter in RELEASE builds (when you make the software and release it to the whole world) but only to be active in DEBUG builds (when you are testing the code). This is the STANDARD behavior.
- Greg Maxwell in 2013 changed Bitcoin so that all asserts happen as if they would in DEBUG builds. There are (somewhat) valid reasons to do this, but it is more a 'hot fix' and if he would have done it the right way, he would have deprecated and removed assert(..) altogether from the code and replaced it with an explicit function, like "fail_if_not(..)". It is basically a psychological issue here, like so much is in programming: People blackbox certain behavior, assume standard behavior, and then it is super-easy to fall into the trap that non-standard behavior can cause.
This is also a fine example on the kind of 'special Bitcoin knowledge' and barrier to entry Core amasses by introducing non-standard quirks into the Bitcoin code or build process.
As it was done by Greg back in 2013, I do not want to assume malice here.
But again, I do think it is a fine example of the kind of uphill battle that results from these kinds of changes.
And I do want to state that, although BU owns the actual bug, Core owns the culture and the idiotic assert policy that made this bug possible in the first place.
- I said after the last bug to have a closer look at all assert()s, especially those in BU. I am sure others said and thought the same. I am also sure that our devs started to look into exactly that. However, this takes time. Our enemy (and I think it is unfortunately 100% correct to call them that at this stage) likely prepared a whole string of exploits along the above assert(..) The only good thing is that they'll eventually run out of those. Bugs in stable code are a finite 'resource'.
Last but not least, I am thankful for our devs and I can see the immense pressure that they are under now.
I said that BU started with somewhat of a Cowboy mentality ('move fast') when it came into being - also somewhat out of necessity. From my casual glances at the current code, I have to say, however, that indeed quite a lot of work was done to clean up the code by our team (both on BU and Core parts) and I think everyone is taking the right approach now.
However there are things to consider when you look at this calmly:
- If the preliminary analysis from yesterday is correct, ptschip basically made the same mistake twice. He assumed a certain behavior of assert(..) (a well-known C/C++ function with a standard behavior) to not matter in RELEASE builds (when you make the software and release it to the whole world) but only to be active in DEBUG builds (when you are testing the code). This is the STANDARD behavior.
- Greg Maxwell in 2013 changed Bitcoin so that all asserts happen as if they would in DEBUG builds. There are (somewhat) valid reasons to do this, but it is more a 'hot fix' and if he would have done it the right way, he would have deprecated and removed assert(..) altogether from the code and replaced it with an explicit function, like "fail_if_not(..)". It is basically a psychological issue here, like so much is in programming: People blackbox certain behavior, assume standard behavior, and then it is super-easy to fall into the trap that non-standard behavior can cause.
This is also a fine example on the kind of 'special Bitcoin knowledge' and barrier to entry Core amasses by introducing non-standard quirks into the Bitcoin code or build process.
As it was done by Greg back in 2013, I do not want to assume malice here.
But again, I do think it is a fine example of the kind of uphill battle that results from these kinds of changes.
And I do want to state that, although BU owns the actual bug, Core owns the culture and the idiotic assert policy that made this bug possible in the first place.
- I said after the last bug to have a closer look at all assert()s, especially those in BU. I am sure others said and thought the same. I am also sure that our devs started to look into exactly that. However, this takes time. Our enemy (and I think it is unfortunately 100% correct to call them that at this stage) likely prepared a whole string of exploits along the above assert(..) The only good thing is that they'll eventually run out of those. Bugs in stable code are a finite 'resource'.
Last but not least, I am thankful for our devs and I can see the immense pressure that they are under now.
I said that BU started with somewhat of a Cowboy mentality ('move fast') when it came into being - also somewhat out of necessity. From my casual glances at the current code, I have to say, however, that indeed quite a lot of work was done to clean up the code by our team (both on BU and Core parts) and I think everyone is taking the right approach now.
@Justus Ranvier
http://www.bitfinex.com/cst_token_terms
Like in these terms, they tie the chains people are betting on to the Core and BU repos. Makes no sense, does it?
http://www.bitfinex.com/cst_token_terms
Like in these terms, they tie the chains people are betting on to the Core and BU repos. Makes no sense, does it?
@awemany
That sounds like a fair summary how and why these (very similar) bugs happened.
No long beta testing, the genesis block is the genesis block, regardless of the zillion bugs that have been found since then.
That sounds like a fair summary how and why these (very similar) bugs happened.
Sound like an opportunity for BU to replace the asserts in question to make the code more standard conforming?
Just like Bitcoin did.
No long beta testing, the genesis block is the genesis block, regardless of the zillion bugs that have been found since then.