<HostFat>
"suppose no blocksize limit, and naughty miner makes a 10TB block this afternoon. what would happen?"
<HostFat>
someone will make a smaller block that will spread faster then the one of 10 TB
<HostFat>
and it will be the winner
<HostFat>
even if it was discovered after the one of 10TB
<HostFat>
miners will not release heavier blocks that can't spread faster on the network
<dgenr8>
okay, I will rephrase: "what very bad thing will happen?"
<HostFat>
maybe there aren't so much bad things as some are saying
Dr-G has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<HostFat>
if the bandwidth isn't enaught to spread faster blocks, and blocks aren't enaught large for every transactions, then there will be a marker of fees
<HostFat>
if there is enaught bandwidth, there will be a "market of blocks". miners will try to have bigger blocks, but at the same time will try to have them smaller enaught to spread faster then other miners's blocks
<HostFat>
I think that the limit of 20 MB is useless
<Taek>
HostFat: if blocks had no size limit, miners could intentionally release blocks that are too large to spread to all other miners before the next one is mined
<Taek>
As long as it reaches 50-70% of miners in time, it will be accepted on the main chain
Dr-G2 has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<HostFat>
it's the same for the nodes
<Taek>
those miners who are in the minority, have worse infrastructure, etc, will get left out
<HostFat>
I don't think so
<Taek>
and as a result they will have a much higher rate of stale blocks
<HostFat>
a smaller block will be faster to spread then the bigger one, even if the bigger was discovered then the smaller
<Taek>
yes, but not every miner has the same infrastructure
<Taek>
some can download a big block faster than others
<HostFat>
you have to think how the block spread to the nodes more then the miners
<Taek>
If I'm a malicious miner who can download big blocks very quickly, it's to my advantage to try and isolate the slowest 30-50% of the miners on the network by releasing blocks that they can't download inside of a few minutes
<Taek>
what are you arguing?
<HostFat>
how can you isolate other miners? if you are the only one that has received the big block
<HostFat>
the others have reaceived the smaller one, and they are mining it
<Taek>
you aren't the only one who has received the big block, 50+% of the network got the big block
<HostFat>
heavy block will be orfan
<Taek>
it's just the other 50% that got left behind
<Taek>
I'm not making a 10TB block, I'm making one that's just big enough to isolate a minority of miners
<Taek>
but a large minority
<HostFat>
if the block is eavier, it has less probability to spread faster then the smaller one
<Taek>
right, that's the entire goal
<Taek>
the big is going to have a head start most of the time because blocks on average only appear every 10 minutes
<Taek>
if a big + small appear at the exact same moment, the small will win
<HostFat>
so it's better to release smaller blocks
<Taek>
but if the big appears with a 5 minute propagation advantage, it's likely that it'll reach most of the faster miners before it reaches the slower miners
<HostFat>
even if there is no limit
<Taek>
no
<Taek>
it's better to isolate your competition
<Taek>
if my competition has a higher rate of stale blocks than I do, they will not be in business for very long
<Taek>
and since mining is a 0-sum game, that benefits me
<HostFat>
the bandwidth and the power of miners aren't directly related
<Taek>
correct
<Taek>
that doesn't matter
<Taek>
what matters is that some miners have better bandwidth/connectivity than others
<Taek>
that disparity is much easier to exploit when you get to choose your own block size
<HostFat>
so, more then then power, it will be important to have a good connection
<Taek>
no
<Taek>
no matter what your power is, it's important to have a good connection
<Taek>
your stale rate is directly related to your connection
<Taek>
when there is a 1mb cap, it's not that big of a deal, because a cheap connection vs an expensive connection is going to affect you not very much
<Taek>
a cheap connection is pretty much good enough
<HostFat>
but we are still talking about the miners, and not the nodes
<Taek>
why do the nodes matter/
<Taek>
*?
<HostFat>
nodes are more important than the miners
<Taek>
for what?
<HostFat>
they have the controll of the rules of the network
<Taek>
ok
<Taek>
are you arguing that nodes would arbitrarily enforce limits on the block size?
<HostFat>
yes, wait .. :)
<HostFat>
what I'm saying is that, even if miners will find the bigger block at first, they will choice to use the smaller one
<Taek>
the nodes will choose to accept the set of blocks that have the most pow
<HostFat>
because they know that nodes will get it first, so it will be better for them (for the miners) to start mining on the next of the smaller
<Taek>
which blocks the nodes have *right now* has no bearing on what choices the miners will make
<Taek>
miners only care about getting their block onto the longest chain
<HostFat>
miner want to be first than the other miner to find the next block
<Taek>
and they care about the longest chain being accepted *eventually* by the nodes
<Taek>
so they won't make invalid blocks, but that doesn't mean they are compelled to make small blocks
<HostFat>
if there is a block of 1 mb, and one block of 20 mb, the miner will chose to mine after the block of 1 mb, because he know that nodes have already received it
<Taek>
why?
<HostFat>
because the block of 1 mb spread faster
<Taek>
you're missing something in your logic
<Taek>
the miner is going to choose to mine on the block that's most likely to be extended
<Taek>
and the block that's most likely to be extended is the block that most other miners have seen first
<Taek>
nodes have nothing to do with it
<Taek>
if 51% of miners are already mining on the 20mb block, there's absolutely no reason to switch to mining the 1mb block
rht_ has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<HostFat>
miners need to be sure that the block of 20mb has been recevied from the majority of the nodes
<HostFat>
if they are sure about this, than it's ok
<Taek>
_no_they_don't_
<Taek>
the speed at which the nodes receive blocks is not related to which blocks the miners choose to mine
<Taek>
it's okay if the nodes are several minutes behind the miners
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<HostFat>
if 51% of miners are mining the 20mb, and only 10% of nodes has it, but the 90% has the 1mb blocks, than the miner that will mine after the 1mb has more possibility to get the next block (if it is smaller) validated from the network
<HostFat>
he will probably mine a block smaller than 1mb :D
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
HostFat: that's simply not how validation works
<HostFat>
the validation comes from nodes
felipelalli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
the nodes have no input into *which* chain is the longest, they merely verify that the longest chain doesn't violate any consensus rules
<gwillen>
HostFat: the only thing that affects what's in the longest chain is the miners
<gwillen>
non-mining nodes have no way to control what chain ends up longest
<gwillen>
if they get a block first, but that block doesn't end up in the longest chain, they will all eventually reorg that block away
<gwillen>
so they _will_ briefly use it, but it won't matter in the end
GGuyZ_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<HostFat>
yes, nodes doesn't know that the miners are mining actuly, they only get blocks, and these blocks need to be connected with the past one
shen_noe has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shen_noe has quit [Client Quit]
<HostFat>
so if the minority of nodes haven't the bigger block, but they know the smaller one, than a miner will try to give them (to the nodes) a new block connected with the smaller one, because he know that there is an higt probability that the majority of the nones know the smaller block than the bigger block
<HostFat>
because, the smaller block spread faster
GGuyZ has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<gwillen>
you haven't explained why you think the miner would care what nodes get his block
<gwillen>
the only thing he cares is whether his block ends up in the longest chain
<gwillen>
and that is only affected by what other miners get his block
<HostFat>
as I said there will be a "market of blocks", where miners will try to find the bigger BUT faster block that can spread on the majority of the network
<gwillen>
the non-mining nodes have no effect on whether his block ends up in the longest chain
<HostFat>
the chain of the smaller blocks is faster of an heavy chain of bigger blocks
GGuyZ_ is now known as GGuyZ
<HostFat>
it's faster because smaller blocks spread faster, just this
<HostFat>
if 51% or even more of miner will start to ming blocks of 1 GB, and the minority will mine blocks of 1 mb, the minority will probably win on the long run
<gwillen>
HostFat: that _could_ be true but it's only affected by how long it takes block to get to _other miners_
<gwillen>
if those 51% all have very fast connections to each other, they will always win
<gwillen>
if they don't, they could have problems
<HostFat>
to get to the nodes, nodes are more important than the miners
<HostFat>
they are chosing the chain
<Taek>
why are you so certain that the nodes are more important?
<HostFat>
because this is how it works bitcoin, nodes are where the bitcoins are spent, where tx are checked
<HostFat>
they check the blocks and the chain
<gwillen>
but they will always choose the longest chain no matter what
<HostFat>
it is impossible to make an hard fork without changing the nodes
<gwillen>
so if one group of miners can produce a longer chain, the nodes will always choose that chain
<gwillen>
_always_
<gwillen>
so what you have to figure out is who creates the longest chain
<HostFat>
the longeest that they get, and if the nodes have a modem of 56k, they will get the chain of smaller blocks
<gwillen>
even if a node accepts one block over another, it will discard that block again if it's not in the longest chain
<HostFat>
it seems easy to me ..
<smooth>
dgenr8: the bad thing that will happen is that miners will be able to control who is able to access the network
<gwillen>
HostFat: that would only be true if their connection were so slow that they _never_ get the bigger blocks
<gwillen>
HostFat: as long as they _ever_ get the bigger blocks _eventually_, and that chain is longer, they will switch to it
<Taek>
and in that regard there's a consensus risk
<Taek>
because faster nodes may end up picking a different chain
<gwillen>
right, if fast nodes use one chain and slow nodes use another, then you get in real trouble
<HostFat>
if they will get the bigger block, than it's ok, the miners are chosing to relase a right block, of the right size, for the majority of the notes
<HostFat>
than it will be ok
<HostFat>
the miner want to relase a block for the majority of the nodes, because he wants to have a network that works, that gives money to him
<HostFat>
miner will "always" chose to relase the "right" block for the majority of the nodes
<HostFat>
if the majority have a 56k, then the majority of the miners will chose to relase smaller block, even if all of them have 1000 GB of connection
<HostFat>
because, nodes are more important than the miners
d1ggy has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
shen_noe has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shen_noe has quit [Client Quit]
<smooth>
there is to be fair some logic in that
<smooth>
i think it might be work short term, but longer term i think miners and big nodes will want to restrict access and charge those without the ability to operate nodes
<amiller>
BlueMatt, how is the mining backbone going?
<BlueMatt>
amiller: seems most miners use it, software has stabilized mostly
<amiller>
any stats on it?
<amiller>
which miners?
<HostFat>
"i think it might be work short term, but longer term i think miners and big nodes will want to restrict access and charge those without the ability to operate nodes"
<HostFat>
maybe, even if I understand that miners want to restring the network from other miners, but I can't find why some big nodes will want to do the same
<HostFat>
nodes aren't getting any income to be nodes ...
<smooth>
HostFat: they will get income if you cant operate your own node but still want to transact
<smooth>
e.g. coinbase
<HostFat>
hmm
<HostFat>
yes ... this can be a problem if will be difficult to be nodes, or ... of users will prefer to use coinbase than SPV client
<BlueMatt>
amiller: not readily at the moment...I need to fix one more bug then I want to reset and gather stats for a month
<smooth>
HostFat: nodes don't have to provide SPV service for free either
<BlueMatt>
amiller: afaik pretty much all miners with big chunks of hashpower use it +/- one or two
<HostFat>
yes, true ... but they it doesn't cost so much, even less if there are many nodes (and pruning will help to get this)
<amiller>
BlueMatt, ok. i'd be interesting in seeing any stats or info you have about how much it's used and like which miners use it
<HostFat>
it's late here, good night!
<BlueMatt>
amiller: yea, I want to reset everything and see what happens
<amiller>
ok :) (though resetting is unrelated to publishing more about it anyway)
<BlueMatt>
amiller: well, trying to parse out the stats right now would be a pita as there'd be a lot of false sources when nodes were acting up
jae_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HostFat has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
rht_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DrWat has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gmaxwell has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
Is anyone aware of a web block explorer front end for bitcoin that only uses the rpc? (like the ncurses tool)-- I mean something that lets you explore blocks using getblock / gettransaction verbose exclusively, not something that does its own block parsing. And I don't care if it doesn't have address indexing.
<gmaxwell>
(basically I want exactly the ncurses tool, but in web form. :)) ... bit handicapped with bitcointalk and the wiki being down.
jae_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
tcrypt has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<www>
is this the same Luke-Jr here who put CATHOLIC prayers into bitcoins chain?
nubbins` has quit [Quit: Quit]
<Luke-Jr>
fluffypony: I'm biased. Ought he be +q'd?
<fluffypony>
if he shuts up or leaves of his own accord then no, but if he carries on blathering then yes
<fluffypony>
now let's make that a smart contract and put it on the blockchain
<fluffypony>
:-P
<Luke-Jr>
:p
<www>
have fun guys
www has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
NkWsy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
roconnor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NkWsy has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
spinza has quit [Excess Flood]
zmachine has joined #bitcoin-wizards
spinza has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GGuyZ has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
NkWsy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeapingLennie has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeapingL_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeapingLennie has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
kmels has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeapingL_ has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
NkWsy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
arubi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sbos99 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
arubi_ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
NkWsy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NkWsy has quit [Client Quit]
hearn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nubbins` has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nubbins` has quit [Client Quit]
maraoz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
gill3s has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
arubi has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
nubbins` has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rht_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nubbins` has quit [Quit: Quit]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
davispuh has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
davispuh has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeapingLennie has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeapingLennie has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
hashtag_ has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
sbos99 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jae has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HostFat has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jae is now known as Guest79919
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hashtag_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hashtag_ has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
hearn has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
nubbins` has joined #bitcoin-wizards
antanst has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
LeapingLennie has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeapingLennie has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
hulkhogan_ has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
hulkhogan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hulkhogan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hulkhogan_ has quit [Changing host]
hulkhogan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rustyn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dc17523be3 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dc17523be3 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zmachine has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
superobserver has quit [Quit: Leaving]
afk11 has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
rustyn has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
sparetire_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
afk11 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
superobserver has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HostFat has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
LeapingLennie has joined #bitcoin-wizards
superobserver has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
sbos99 has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
LeapingLennie has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
superobserver has joined #bitcoin-wizards
superobserver has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
hearn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rht_ has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
hashtag_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kyletorpey has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dc17523be3 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dc17523be3 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kmels has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nubbins` has quit [Quit: Quit]
b_lumenkraft has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft]
jtimon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
LeapingLennie has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeapingLennie has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE__ is now known as dEBRUYNE
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
luny has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
superobserver has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
maraoz has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
antanst has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Logicwax has quit [Quit: rm -rf /]
AnoAnon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AnoAnon has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
rustyn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
licnep has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeapingLennie has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Logicwax has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
maraoz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
maraoz has quit [Client Quit]
LeapingLennie has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
nuke1989 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
luny has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nubbins` has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Burrito has quit [Quit: Leaving]
nubbins` has quit [Quit: Quit]
tcrypt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|sleep
Logicwax has quit [Quit: rm -rf /]
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GGuyZ has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
Logicwax has quit [Quit: rm -rf /]
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeapingLennie has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeapingLennie has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
Logicwax has quit [Quit: rm -rf /]
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Logicwax has quit [Client Quit]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Logicwax has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Logicwax has quit [Client Quit]
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Logicwax has quit [Client Quit]
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Logicwax has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HostFat has joined #bitcoin-wizards
davispuh has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Guest79919 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jae has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jae is now known as Guest1212
antanst has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<akrmn>
I wonder if Bitcoin core devs restrict what they say publicly to avoid being targeted by a hitman hired by a powerful entity, or something like that
kmels has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<nsh>
(you can wonder about that in #bitcoin)
<akrmn>
nsh: I thought it was on topic, because of the large proportion of Bitcoin devs here, but ok...
<akrmn>
also, no mods here :)
LeapingLennie has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<akrmn>
o ok
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<nsh>
on-topic is vaguely defined, but if you wanted to enquire of the devs, perhaps the via the mailing-list. on-topicness seems to have a preference for conceptual/theoretical/technical aspects of blockchain and related technologies, over more social or hypothetical topics. but it's elastic, hence i made the suggestion parenthetical :)