|submitted by SimonDixonBF to Bitcoin [link] [comments]|
|submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]|
|submitted by nevremind to Bitcoin [link] [comments]|
|submitted by nevremind to btc [link] [comments]|
|submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]|
|submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]|
submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAllTV [link] [comments]
submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAllTV [link] [comments]
|submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]|
submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAllTV [link] [comments]
submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAllTV [link] [comments]
|submitted by Sherlockcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]|
|Rate (per day)||2.75||237.19|
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
To detect and reject a double spending event in a timely manner, one must have most past transactions of the coins in the transaction, which, naively implemented, requires each peer to have most past transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of bandwidthThere it is. "Naively implemented" Bitcoin would require everyone to keep a record of all transactions - ie "everyone must run a full node."
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day.Aha! There is no real need for individuals to keep a copy of all transactions. Which makes sense - who wants to keep a copy of everyone else's transactions just to buy a coffee?
Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes.There it is folks.
Interesting point!— Ant-n
Th[is] really is [a] drastically different vision of what Bitcoin according to the core dev team...
It would be nice [if] they [wrote their] own "white paper" so we know where they are going...
"From a usability / communications perspective, RBF is all wrong. When the main function of your technology is to PREVENT DOUBLE SPENDING, you don't add an "opt-in" feature which ENCOURAGES DOUBLE SPENDING."— BeYourOwnBank
Still waiting for an answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?— tsontar
Lots of back and forth bit no answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?— tsontar
Intentionally doing zero-conf for any reason other than expediting a payment to the same recipients is nothing more than attempted fraud. There needs to be a good reason for enabling this, and last time I looked the case has not been made.— tl121
People with a black and white view of the world who believe "0 conf bad, 1 conf good" simply do not understand how bitcoin works. By its random nature, bitcoin never makes final commitment to a transaction. Even with six confirmations there is still a chance the transaction will be reversed. In other words, bitcoin finality is not black and white. Instead, there is a probability distribution of confidence that a transaction will not be reversed. Software changes that make it easier to defraud people who have been reasonably accepting 0 conf transactions are of highly questionable value, as they reduce the performance (by increasing delay for a given confidence).
If transactions with appropriate fees start failing to ever confirm because of "block size" issues, then bitcoin is simply broken and, if it can not be fixed bitcoin will end up as dead as a doornail.
Transactions spending the same utxo were (until now) not relayed (except by XT nodes). So it wasn't as simple as just sending a double spend, because the transaction wouldn't propagate. FSS-RBF seemed like a good option to get your tx unstuck if you paid too little. Pure RBF I'm not sure what the point of it is. What problem is it solving?— peoplma
When F2Pool implemented RBF at the behest of Peter Todd they were forced to retract the changes within 24 hours due to the outrage in the community over the proposed changes.— yeeha4
So the opposite is actually true. The community actively do not want this change. Has there been any discussion whatsoever about this major change to the protocol?
My business accepts bitcoin and helps people with minor cash transfers and purchases. Fraud has NEVER been an issue as long as the transactions have been broadcast on the blockchain with appropriate fees. We usually send people their cash as soon as the transaction is broadcast.— trevelyan22
Now we have to wait 10 minutes to avoid getting cheated out of hundreds of dollars, vastly increasing the service cost of accepting bitcoin. And we have to tell customers we promote bitcoin to that they are likely to be cheated if they don't wait 10 minutes while buying their bitcoin. It is such a spectacularly stupid thing to do, adding uncertainty and greater potential for fraud at every link of the transaction chain. Thanks a lot, Peter.
Jeez, we need to give this "zero-conf was never safe" meme a rest already. Cash was also "never safe", but it's widely used because it works reasonably well in the context it's used. These people would probably advocate for a cashless society as well.— imaginary_username
I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.— satoshi
The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate. When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first. If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.
A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.
The payment processor has connections with many nodes. When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends. If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad. A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it. The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.
Zero conf was always dangerous, true, but the attacker is rolling a dice with a double spend. And it is detectable because you have to put your double spend transaction on the network within the transaction propagation time (which is measured in seconds). That means in the shop, while the attacker is buying the newspaper, the merchant can get an alert from their payment processor saying "this transaction has a double spend attempt". Wrestling them to the ground is an option. Stealing has to be done in person... No different then from just shop lifting. The attacker takes their chance that the stealing transaction won't be the one that is mined.— kingofthejaffacakes
With rbf, the attacker has up to the next block time to decide to release their double spend transaction. That means the attacker can be out of the shop and ten minutes away by car before the merchant gets the double spend warning from their payment processor. Stealing is not in person and success is guaranteed by the network.
Conclusion: every merchant and every payment processor will simply refuse to accept any rbf opt in transaction. That opt in might as well be a flag that says "enable stealing from you with this transaction"... Erm no thanks.
There might be a small window while wallet software is updated, but after that this " feature " will go dark. Nobody is going to accept a cheque signed "mickey mouse", and nobody is going to accept a transaction marked rbf.
Strangely, that means all this fuss about it getting merged is moot. It will inevitably not be used.
This opens up a new kind of vandalism that will ensure that no wallets use this feature.— DeftNerd
The way it works is that if you make a transaction, and then double spend the transaction with a higher fee, the one with the higher fee will take priority.
RBF as released is a really, really stupid policy change that will open up Bitcoin to blackmail and wholesale theft of transactions.— laisee
Bitcoin XT can easily be better than the confused, agenda-ridden rubbish being released by Blockstream and their fellow-travellers.
This is truly unprecedented. There is MAJOR MONEY and MAJOR FORCES trying to destroy Bitcoin right now. We are witnessing history here. This might completely destroy the Bitcoin experiment— scotty321
I [too am] curious as to why Todd has been pushing that hard for RBF. People can double-spend if they really want to already, without any help from BS implementation.— thaolx
"opt-in" is a bit of a red-herring.— tsontar
As I understand: say I'm a vendor who doesn't want to accept RBF transactions. So I don't opt-in. I'm still stuck accepting RBF transactions because the sender, not the receiver, has the control.
bitcoin is a push system.— tsontar
how do I opt-out of a transaction generated and confirmed entirely outside my control?
You are right you cannot opt-out.. You will have to wait ten minutes if you have recived a RBF Tx..— Ant-n
The user experience doesn't seem to be a priority for the core dev team...
It's opt-in in theory, but that means everyone in the community who writes software which deals with transactions now has to develop code to deal with the ramifications.— discoltk
Yes it is opt-in, which means I have to anticipate ... congestion beforehand to use it. This has caused me troubles recently. Normally I use low-fee mode to transact and switch mode when the network is congested. A few times either I did not know about the congestion or forgot to switch mode and my txn got stuck for 12-48h. So for me this opt-in does nothing of help. If I was conscious about the congestion I would have switch to high-fee mode, no RBF needed.— thaolx
...Or I have to enabled RBF for all my txns. Then there's problem of receivers have to all upgrade their wallet after the wallet devs choose to implement it. And just to add one more major complication when consider 0-conf.
What is the point of opt in rbf if it's not a good way to pay lower miner fees? According to nullc, if you guess too low then you end up paying for two transactions— specialenmity
"Hopefully this will give Bitcoin payment processors a financial incentive to support Lightning Network development."https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/
It seems to me like RBF is addressing a problem (delays due to too-low fees) which would not exist if we had larger blocks. It seems fishy to make this and lightning networks to solve the problem when there's a much simpler solution in plain view.— ganesha1024
We should set the bar for deceit and mischief unusually high on this one bc there is so much at stake, an entire banking empire.
RBF seems at best to be a duct-tape solution to a problem caused by not raising the block size. in the process it kills zero conf (more or less).— rglfnt
PT [Peter Todd] is part of a group of devs who propose to create artificial scarcity in order to drive up transaction fees.— tsontar
IOW [In other words], he's a glorified central planner.
A free market moves around such engineered scarcity. See also: the music business.
tl;dr stop running core.
This maybe a needed feature if Bitcoin get stuck with 1MB..— Ant-n
You might need to jack-up the fee several time to get your fees in a blocks in the future..
It seems that 1MB crrippecoin is really part of their vision.
RBF makes sense in a world where blocks are small and always full.— tsontar
It creates a volatile transaction pricing market where bidders try to outbid each other for the limited space in the current block of txns.
It serves the dual goals of limiting transactions and maximizing miner revenue resulting from the artificial scarcity being imposed by the block size limit.
The unfortunate side effect is that day to day P2P transactions on the Bitcoin network will become relatively expensive and will be forced onto another layer, or coin.
RBF offers nothing in a world where there is always a little extra space in the block for the next transaction. It only makes sense in a world where blocks are full.— tsontar
Unless your goal is to harm bitcoin.— Anen-o-me
To say it a bit harsher but IMO warranted: P. Todd seems to be busy inventing useless crap and making things complicated for wallet devs...— awemany
First-seen-safe restricts replace-by-fee to only replacing transactions with the same output (prevents double spending).— tytyty_
The reason this feature is being added is they see Bitcoin as a settlement network, so when there's a backlog users should be able to replace their transaction with a higher-fee one so it's included. It's to deal with the cripplingly low blocksizes.
Someone should just implement and merge first-seen-safe, since that's much more non-controversial. Keeps 0-confs safe(r) while enabling re-submitting transactions.
I would have preferred first-seen-safe RBF, certainly. It can be a useful tool to just bump the transaction fee on an existing transaction.— coinaday
Ok, so if the only benefit of RBF is to unstick stuck transactions by increasing the fee; why did you use "Full RBF" instead of "FSS RBF"? Full RBF allows the sender to increase the fee and change who the receiver is. FSS (First-Seen-Safe) RBF only allows the sender to increase the fee, but does not allow the sender to change who the receiver is.— todu
Tldr: FSS RBF should be enough to enable your wanted benefit of being able to resend stuck transactions by increasing their fee, but you chose Full RBF anyway. Why?
— Kazimir82The benefit of opt-in RBF:If this was the actual problem at hand, why not restrict the RBF to only increasing the fee, but not changing the output addresses.
Now, when a transaction is not going through because fee was accidentally made too low or if there is a spam attack on the network, a user can "un-stuck" his/her transaction by re-sending it with a higher fee. No more being held to the mercy of miners maybe confirming your transaction, or not. The user gets some power back.
RBF in it's current form is nothing but a tool to facilitate double spending. That is, it lowers the bar for default nodes to assist facilitating double spending. Which is VERY BAD for Bitcoin, imho.
Serisouly, I don't know what's gotten into those devs ACK'ing this decrease in Bitcoin's trustwortiness.
Destroying something just because it isn't perfect is stupid. By that logic we should even kill Bitcoin itself.— kraml
How did a troll like peter todd get in control of bitcoin? This is fucking unbelievable.— Vibr8gKiwi
And what if some/all miners simply hold RBF-enabled transactions into a separate pool and extract maximum value per transaction i.e. wait until senders cough up more & more ...— laisee
A very dangerous change that will actively encourage miners to collaborate on extracting higher fees or even extorting senders trying to 'fix' their transactions.
Peter Todd has a history of loving Game Theory, but he hasn't really applied those principals to the technological changes he's unilaterally making.I don't understand how so many people could have been driven away or access removed so now he's able to make these changes despite community outcry.
A miner could simply separate all RBF-enabled TX into a separate list and wait for higher and higher fees to be paid. It's kind of like putting a "Take my money, Pls!!!" sign on your forehead and and going shopping.— laisee
opens door for collusion and possibly extortion ... sender has flagged willingness to pay more.— laisee
It's not uncontroversial. There is clearly controversy. You can say the concerns are trumped up, invalid. But if the argument against even discussing XT is that the issue is controversial, the easy ACK'ing of this major change strikes many as hypocritical.
There is not zero impact. Someone WILL be double spent as a result of this. You may blame that person for accepting a transaction they shouldn't, or using a wallet that neglected to update to notify them that their transaction was reversible. But it cannot be said that no damage will result due to this change.
And in my view most importantly, RBF is a cornerstone in supporting those who believe that we need to keep small blocks. The purpose for this is to enable a more dynamic fee market to develop. I fear this is a step in the direction of a slippery slope.
Does anyone know how RBF activates? I mean if wallets are not upgraded this could be very dangerous for users. Because even if its opt-in this could kill zero confirmation for good.— seweso
the solution to all this, is actually rather simple. Take the power away from these people. Due to the nature of bitcoin, we've always had that power. There never was a need for an "official" or "reference" implementation of the software. For a few years it was simply the most convenient, the mo[s]t efficient, and the best way to work out all the initial kinks bitcoin had. It was also a sort of restricted field in that (obviously) there were few people in the world who truly understood to the degree required to make a) design change proposals, and b) code for them (and note that while up until now this has been the case, it's not necessary for these 2 roles to be carried out by the same people). The last few months' debates over the blocksize limit have shown and educated thst a lot of people now truly understand what's what. And what's more one of the original core-devs (Gavin), already gave us the gift of proving in the real world that democracy in bitcoin can truly exist via voting with the software one (or miners) runs, without meaning to.— redlightsaber
BitcoinXT was a huge gift to the community, and it's likely to reach its objective in a few months. It seems an implementation of bitcoin UL will test the same principle far sooner than we thought.
So the potential for real democracy exists within the network. And we're already fast on our way to most of the community stop[p]ing using core as the reference client. Shit like what Peter pulled yesterday, I predict, will simply accelerate the process. So the solution is arriving, and it's a far better solution th[a]t it would be to, say, locking Peter out of the project. Thi[s] will be real democracy.
I also predict in a couple of years a lot of big mining groups/companies/whatever will have their own development teams making their internal software available for everyone else to use. This will create an atmosphere of true debate of real issues and how to solve them, and it will allow people (miners) to vote with their implementations on what the "real" bitcoin should be and how it should function.
Exciting times ahead, the wheels are already in motion for this future to come true. The situation is grave, I won't deny that, but I do believe it's very, very temporary.
Yeah I think the time has come to migrate away from "core". There's obviously fishiness going on with the censorship and lack of transparency.— loveforyouandme
Vote with your feet: don't run Blockstream Core.— SatoshisDaughter
I was planning to submit a pull request to the 0.11 release of Bitcoin Core that will allow miners to create blocks bigger than one megabyte, starting a little less than a year from now. But this process of peer review turned up a technical issue that needs to get addressed, and I don’t think it can be fixed in time for the first 0.11 release.In other words, Gavin proposed a hard fork via a series of blog posts, bypassing all developer communication channels altogether and asking for personal, private emails from anyone interested in discussing the proposal further.
I will be writing a series of blog posts, each addressing one argument against raising the maximum block size, or against scheduling a raise right now... please send me an email ([email protected]) if I am missing any arguments
A common argument for letting Bitcoin blocks fill up is that the outcome won’t be so bad: just a market for fees... this is wrong. I don’t believe fees will become high and stable if Bitcoin runs out of capacity. Instead, I believe Bitcoin will crash.He also, in the latter article, explained that he disagreed with Satoshi's vision for how Bitcoin would mature:
...a permanent backlog would start to build up... as the backlog grows, nodes will start running out of memory and dying... as Core will accept any transaction that’s valid without any limit a node crash is eventually inevitable.
Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy.Gavin continued to publish the series of blog posts he had announced while Hearn made these predictions. 
Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this mailing list in several years as far as I can tell...Shortly thereafter, Corallo explained further:
So, at the risk of starting a flamewar, I'll provide a little bait to get some responses and hope the discussion opens up into an honest comparison of the tradeoffs here. Certainly a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase.
Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code simpler).
This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo
The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block sizes are no where near compatible with what allows the network to continue to run in a decentralized manner.Tier Nolan considered possible extensions and modifications that might improve Gavin's proposal and argued that soft caps could be used to mitigate against the dangers of a blocksize increase. Tom Harding voiced support for Gavin's proposal
explore all the complexities involved with deployment of hard forks. Let’s not just do a one-off ad-hoc thing.Matt Whitlock voiced his opinion:
I'm not so much opposed to a block size increase as I am opposed to a hard fork... I strongly fear that the hard fork itself will become an excuse to change other aspects of the system in ways that will have unintended and possibly disastrous consequences.Bryan Bishop strongly opposed Gavin's proposal, and offered a philosophical perspective on the matter:
there has been significant public discussion... about why increasing the max block size is kicking the can down the road while possibly compromising blockchain security. There were many excellent objections that were raised that, sadly, I see are not referenced at all in the recent media blitz. Frankly I can't help but feel that if contributions, like those from #bitcoin-wizards, have been ignored in lieu of technical analysis, and the absence of discussion on this mailing list, that I feel perhaps there are other subtle and extremely important technical details that are completely absent from this--and other-- proposals.Gregory Maxwell echoed and extended that perspective:
Secured decentralization is the most important and most interesting property of bitcoin. Everything else is rather trivial and could be achieved millions of times more efficiently with conventional technology. Our technical work should be informed by the technical nature of the system we have constructed.
There's no doubt in my mind that bitcoin will always see the most extreme campaigns and the most extreme misunderstandings... for development purposes we must hold ourselves to extremely high standards before proposing changes, especially to the public, that have the potential to be unsafe and economically unsafe.
There are many potential technical solutions for aggregating millions (trillions?) of transactions into tiny bundles. As a small proof-of-concept, imagine two parties sending transactions back and forth 100 million times. Instead of recording every transaction, you could record the start state and the end state, and end up with two transactions or less. That's a 100 million fold, without modifying max block size and without potentially compromising secured decentralization.
The MIT group should listen up and get to work figuring out how to measure decentralization and its security.. Getting this measurement right would be really beneficial because we would have a more academic and technical understanding to work with.
When Bitcoin is changed fundamentally, via a hard fork, to have different properties, the change can create winners or losers...Peter Todd also summarized some academic findings on the subject:
There are non-trivial number of people who hold extremes on any of these general belief patterns; Even among the core developers there is not a consensus on Bitcoin's optimal role in society and the commercial marketplace.
there is a at least a two fold concern on this particular ("Long term Mining incentives") front:
One is that the long-held argument is that security of the Bitcoin system in the long term depends on fee income funding autonomous, anonymous, decentralized miners profitably applying enough hash-power to make reorganizations infeasible.
For fees to achieve this purpose, there seemingly must be an effective scarcity of capacity.
The second is that when subsidy has fallen well below fees, the incentive to move the blockchain forward goes away. An optimal rational miner would be best off forking off the current best block in order to capture its fees, rather than moving the blockchain forward...
tools like the Lightning network proposal could well allow us to hit a greater spectrum of demands at once--including secure zero-confirmation (something that larger blocksizes reduce if anything), which is important for many applications. With the right technology I believe we can have our cake and eat it too, but there needs to be a reason to build it; the security and decentralization level of Bitcoin imposes a hard upper limit on anything that can be based on it.
Another key point here is that the small bumps in blocksize which wouldn't clearly knock the system into a largely centralized mode--small constants--are small enough that they don't quantitatively change the operation of the system; they don't open up new applications that aren't possible today
the procedure I'd prefer would be something like this: if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk. Hardfork changes should only be made if they're almost completely uncontroversial--where virtually everyone can look at the available data and say "yea, that isn't undermining my property rights or future use of Bitcoin; it's no big deal". Unfortunately, every indicator I can think of except fee totals has been going in the wrong direction almost monotonically along with the blockchain size increase since 2012 when we started hitting full blocks and responded by increasing the default soft target. This is frustrating
many people--myself included--have been working feverishly hard behind the scenes on Bitcoin Core to increase the scalability. This work isn't small-potatoes boring software engineering stuff; I mean even my personal contributions include things like inventing a wholly new generic algebraic optimization applicable to all EC signature schemes that increases performance by 4%, and that is before getting into the R&D stuff that hasn't really borne fruit yet, like fraud proofs. Today Bitcoin Core is easily >100 times faster to synchronize and relay than when I first got involved on the same hardware, but these improvements have been swallowed by the growth. The ironic thing is that our frantic efforts to keep ahead and not lose decentralization have both not been enough (by the best measures, full node usage is the lowest its been since 2011 even though the user base is huge now) and yet also so much that people could seriously talk about increasing the block size to something gigantic like 20MB. This sounds less reasonable when you realize that even at 1MB we'd likely have a smoking hole in the ground if not for existing enormous efforts to make scaling not come at a loss of decentralization.
In short, without either a fixed blocksize or fixed fee per transaction Bitcoin will will not survive as there is no viable way to pay for PoW security. The latter option - fixed fee per transaction - is non-trivial to implement in a way that's actually meaningful - it's easy to give miners "kickbacks" - leaving us with a fixed blocksize.Some developers (e.g. Aaron Voisine) voiced support for Gavin's proposal which repeated Mike Hearn's "crash landing" arguments.
Even a relatively small increase to 20MB will greatly reduce the number of people who can participate fully in Bitcoin, creating an environment where the next increase requires the consent of an even smaller portion of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Where does that stop? What's the proposed mechanism that'll create an incentive and social consensus to not just 'kick the can down the road'(3) and further centralize but actually scale up Bitcoin the hard way?
I am - in general - in favor of increasing the size blocks...Mike Hearn responded:
Controversial hard forks. I hope the mailing list here today already proves it is a controversial issue. Independent of personal opinions pro or against, I don't think we can do a hard fork that is controversial in nature. Either the result is effectively a fork, and pre-existing coins can be spent once on both sides (effectively failing Bitcoin's primary purpose), or the result is one side forced to upgrade to something they dislike - effectively giving a power to developers they should never have. Quoting someone: "I did not sign up to be part of a central banker's committee".
The reason for increasing is "need". If "we need more space in blocks" is the reason to do an upgrade, it won't stop after 20 MB. There is nothing fundamental possible with 20 MB blocks that isn't with 1 MB blocks.
Misrepresentation of the trade-offs. You can argue all you want that none of the effects of larger blocks are particularly damaging, so everything is fine. They will damage something (see below for details), and we should analyze these effects, and be honest about them, and present them as a trade-off made we choose to make to scale the system better. If you just ask people if they want more transactions, of course you'll hear yes. If you ask people if they want to pay less taxes, I'm sure the vast majority will agree as well.
Miner centralization. There is currently, as far as I know, no technology that can relay and validate 20 MB blocks across the planet, in a manner fast enough to avoid very significant costs to mining. There is work in progress on this (including Gavin's IBLT-based relay, or Greg's block network coding), but I don't think we should be basing the future of the economics of the system on undemonstrated ideas. Without those (or even with), the result may be that miners self-limit the size of their blocks to propagate faster, but if this happens, larger, better-connected, and more centrally-located groups of miners gain a competitive advantage by being able to produce larger blocks. I would like to point out that there is nothing evil about this - a simple feedback to determine an optimal block size for an individual miner will result in larger blocks for better connected hash power. If we do not want miners to have this ability, "we" (as in: those using full nodes) should demand limitations that prevent it. One such limitation is a block size limit (whatever it is).
Ability to use a full node.
Skewed incentives for improvements... without actual pressure to work on these, I doubt much will change. Increasing the size of blocks now will simply make it cheap enough to continue business as usual for a while - while forcing a massive cost increase (and not just a monetary one) on the entire ecosystem.
Fees and long-term incentives.
I don't think 1 MB is optimal. Block size is a compromise between scalability of transactions and verifiability of the system. A system with 10 transactions per day that is verifiable by a pocket calculator is not useful, as it would only serve a few large bank's settlements. A system which can deal with every coffee bought on the planet, but requires a Google-scale data center to verify is also not useful, as it would be trivially out-competed by a VISA-like design. The usefulness needs in a balance, and there is no optimal choice for everyone. We can choose where that balance lies, but we must accept that this is done as a trade-off, and that that trade-off will have costs such as hardware costs, decreasing anonymity, less independence, smaller target audience for people able to fully validate, ...
this list is not a good place for making progress or reaching decisions.Peter Todd then pointed out that, contrary to Mike's claims, developer consensus had been achieved within Core plenty of times recently. Btc-drak asked Mike to "explain where the 12 months timeframe comes from?"
if Bitcoin continues on its current growth trends it will run out of capacity, almost certainly by some time next year. What we need to see right now is leadership and a plan, that fits in the available time window.
I no longer believe this community can reach consensus on anything protocol related.
When the money supply eventually dwindles I doubt it will be fee pressure that funds mining
What I don't see from you yet is a specific and credible plan that fits within the next 12 months and which allows Bitcoin to keep growing.
We've successfully reached consensus for several softfork proposals already. I agree with others that hardfork need to be uncontroversial and there should be consensus about them. If you have other ideas for the criteria for hardfork deployment all I'm ears. I just hope that by "What we need to see right now is leadership" you don't mean something like "when Gaving and Mike agree it's enough to deploy a hardfork" when you go from vague to concrete.Some suspected Gavin/Mike were trying to rush the hard fork for personal reasons.
Oh, so your answer to "bitcoin will eventually need to live on fees and we would like to know more about how it will look like then" it's "no bitcoin long term it's broken long term but that's far away in the future so let's just worry about the present". I agree that it's hard to predict that future, but having some competition for block space would actually help us get more data on a similar situation to be able to predict that future better. What you want to avoid at all cost (the block size actually being used), I see as the best opportunity we have to look into the future.
this is my plan: we wait 12 months... and start having full blocks and people having to wait 2 blocks for their transactions to be confirmed some times. That would be the beginning of a true "fee market", something that Gavin used to say was his #1 priority not so long ago (which seems contradictory with his current efforts to avoid that from happening). Having a true fee market seems clearly an advantage. What are supposedly disastrous negative parts of this plan that make an alternative plan (ie: increasing the block size) so necessary and obvious. I think the advocates of the size increase are failing to explain the disadvantages of maintaining the current size. It feels like the explanation are missing because it should be somehow obvious how the sky will burn if we don't increase the block size soon. But, well, it is not obvious to me, so please elaborate on why having a fee market (instead of just an price estimator for a market that doesn't even really exist) would be a disaster.
No. What I meant is that someone (theoretically Wladimir) needs to make a clear decision. If that decision is "Bitcoin Core will wait and watch the fireworks when blocks get full", that would be showing leadershipJorge Timón responded:
I will write more on the topic of what will happen if we hit the block size limit... I don't believe we will get any useful data out of such an event. I've seen distributed systems run out of capacity before. What will happen instead is technological failure followed by rapid user abandonment...
we need to hear something like that from Wladimir, or whoever has the final say around here.
it is true that "universally uncontroversial" (which is what I think the requirement should be for hard forks) is a vague qualifier that's not formally defined anywhere. I guess we should only consider rational arguments. You cannot just nack something without further explanation. If his explanation was "I will change my mind after we increase block size", I guess the community should say "then we will just ignore your nack because it makes no sense". In the same way, when people use fallacies (purposely or not) we must expose that and say "this fallacy doesn't count as an argument". But yeah, it would probably be good to define better what constitutes a "sensible objection" or something. That doesn't seem simple though.Mike Hearn again asserted the need for a leader:
it seems that some people would like to see that happening before the subsidies are low (not necessarily null), while other people are fine waiting for that but don't want to ever be close to the scale limits anytime soon. I would also like to know for how long we need to prioritize short term adoption in this way. As others have said, if the answer is "forever, adoption is always the most important thing" then we will end up with an improved version of Visa. But yeah, this is progress, I'll wait for your more detailed description of the tragedies that will follow hitting the block limits, assuming for now that it will happen in 12 months. My previous answer to the nervous "we will hit the block limits in 12 months if we don't do anything" was "not sure about 12 months, but whatever, great, I'm waiting for that to observe how fees get affected". But it should have been a question "what's wrong with hitting the block limits in 12 months?"
There must be a single decision maker for any given codebase.Bryan Bishop attempted to explain why this did not make sense with git architecture.
We got results back. They are more or less on line with the simulations I didn't realize this, but we don't get the real chips back for 3 more weeks. The ones we've been testing are hacked together into a DIP package (they are BGA chips) that really screws up the results There's a decent chance that the full bga chips perform better For the time being though, we're pretty much on track for the hashrates estimated on the website (slack, Apr 12)And regarding the June delivery date:
We're still on track for batch 1. We've ordered most of the parts we'll need, including the chips. We've got working chips, we've got test boards, test units, test everything. We've signed manufacturers to produce everything. Obelisk is going strong. (reddit, Apr 23)We are thankful for his updates in our #pow-mining channel and hope other ASIC manufacturers will also join.
emiliomann: On April 2nd @Rhama will launch the first BR exchange of altcoins with fiat market and totally within the laws of the Brazilian government. Decred will have the two markets DCBTC and DCBRL. It’s very difficult to fulfill all the legal requirements and get authorization to work with FIAT here.The exchange turned out to be Profitfy. Profity is innovating by using dcrtime for their blockchain ID login via Original My. Great to see this deeper engagement with the tools that Decred provides, and not a surprise that it comes from @Rhama, who has been a community member since day one.
emiliomann: Hey guys, this is a poll of the biggest Bitcoin exchange in Brazil that is planning to open altcoins markets. Please, help the Brazilian community by voting for Decred! Just one click. Thank you! https://twitter.com/mercadobitcoin/status/981602483268194307Finally,
viniciusfrias: We're excited to announce PagueCripto.com, a Brazilian crypto-to-fiat payment gateway which accepts Decred among other cryptocurrencies for Brazilians to pay daily bills, such as credit cards, energy, rent, etc, and also to make local bank transfers. Our service is both a web platform and an Android app, and as our community is relevant in Brazil, we are offering a discount coupon (50%) in service fees using DCR until May 14, 2018. Check it out at paguecripto.com and in Google Play Store. (slack)Moving to other countries, good news from Canada:
michae2xl: Decred is now available on @ezBtcCanada, an exchange with DCCAD trading pair. From Toronto – ezbtc.cai2Rav announced i2trading.com, a new trading desk that will be offering DCEUR pair:
Eventually we hope to offer the pair in GBP and YEN as wellchangenow.io, a non-custodian exchange for fast conversions, added DCR.
RAurelius: I think that a law firm accepting Decred is a worthy distinction from other previously publicized companies that accept Decred for typical consumer products. Legal services are severely lacking in the Crypto-sphere, so the publicity is good for everyone in this arena.Great to see business owners reaching us directly in chat.
emiliomann: VotoLegal, a Brazilian project that uses blockchain technology to allow election campaign funding to be transparent and that all transactions conducted are tracked and made available to the citizens, now uses dcrtime and Decred blockchain. https://twitter.com/decred_bstatus/986610826051276800 (slack)
With the YBF Ventures partnership, Decred hopes to grow their Australian contractor network and scale their operations throughout the Asia-Pacific region. (btcmanager.com)
We specifically chose Decred for a more robust corporate partnership, and it is the first time that a decentralised autonomous organisation is partnering with a ‘traditional’ organisation in such a capacity. (ybfventures.com)
Decred is soliciting the input of our user community. In order to better understand you, what you think of Decred, and where you would like it to focus its efforts, we've come up with a short (4 minute) survey. Your input of all varieties is most appreciated https://www.surveymonkey.com/2LHK3FVApril targeted advertising report released (previous March report here). Reach @timhebel for full version.
Back in January 2015, Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn launched a BTC-powered crowdfunding application called Lighthouse, and cryptocurrency enthusiasts were Note that Mike Hearn is now lead platform engineer at R3 (consortium of 40+ banks exploring Blockchain) after joining the startup in November 2015. Hearns writes what was meant to be a new, decentralised form of money that lacked “systemically important institutions” and “too big to fail” has become something even worse: a system completely controlled by just a handful of people. Mike Hearn declaring Bitcoin dead is the same as you or I declaring Bitcoin dead. It means absolutely nothing. The only reason anyone is paying attention is because some journalists and news organizations have zero integrity and still have a ways to fall before everyone stops paying attention to them. From where I stand it has all the markings of a premeditated attempt at price manipulation on ... limit my search to r/Bitcoin. use the following search parameters to narrow your results: subreddit:subreddit find submissions in "subreddit" author:username find submissions by "username" site:example.com find submissions from "example.com" url:text search for "text" in url selftext:text search for "text" in self post contents self:yes (or self:no) include (or exclude) self posts nsfw:yes (or ... Bitcoin core developer Mike Hearns recent blog post is the latest hot topic in the bitcoin space. Hearn made several accusations and claimed that Bitcoin has failed. He said that the system has ...
[index]          
WATCH LIVE DAILY: https://ivanontech.com/live 🚀 FREE ALTCOIN WEBINAR: https://academy.ivanontech.com/alts ️ START TRADING (get great starter deals): https... Withdraw Bitcoins Funds Directly into American Bank Account instantly, Bitcoins wallet to bank account transfer, Cashout Bitcoin Money Directly into US Bank Account with No Fee, simplest way to ... Bitcoin price has pushed up a pretty good bit which put us only hours away from red ring on a specific BTC chart. Guys have that chart up and pay attention as we approach and when cross red ring ... best way to withdraw Bitcoin, Coinbase Withdraw to Bank Account, Withdraw Bitcoins from coinbase, Connect Coinbase to Your Bank Account, Convert Bitcoins int... How to Buy and Sell Bitcoin Via Coinbase in the BitPay Wallet App - Duration: 1:52. BitPay 21,076 views. 1:52. HOW TO MOVE MONEY FROM YOUR COINBASE TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT ...