sipa changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel is for discussing theoretical ideas with regard to cryptocurrencies, not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja
hashtag has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kaptah has joined #bitcoin-wizards
artifexd_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
null_rad- has joined #bitcoin-wizards
BlueMatt has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
s1w- has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
belcher has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
lomax__ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jlyndon has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
moa has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
kisspunch has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
MoALTz has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mhanne has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Luke-Jr has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
hopey has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
runeks has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tucenaber_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Xzibit17 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
bitkarma has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
artifexd has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
xaptah has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jl2012 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
null_radix has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
aj has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
bassguitarman has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Ylbam has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
CodeShark has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
harrow has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jrayhawk_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
PsychoticBoy has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
kisspunch_ is now known as kisspunch
tromp has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer]
<bramc>
There's some decent documentation of the data format at the top of the file
jlyndon_ is now known as jlyndon
harrow has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<adam3us>
brg444: happy retarget year 2016
artifexd_ is now known as artifexd
arowser has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
arowser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<adam3us>
so are people assuming with weak-blocks that there is any consensus enforceability of the weak blocks?
<brg444>
adam3us thanks! to you as well. also thank you for always being the voice of sanity.
<bramc>
adam3us, enforceability of what? Their acceptance threshold?
<alpalp>
adam3us: i made that mistake the first time
hopey has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE__ has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<kanzure>
bramc: booga booga?
<adam3us>
bramc: no BU seems to claim weak-blocks improve unconfirm tx security. but it seems to me the strong-block has no obligation to build on a weak block for similar reasons to IBLT being not secure in an adversarial sense
PsychoticBoy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
adam3us, My inclination is to stop listening at 'unconfirmed transaction security'
<adam3us>
it seems the main use of weak-blocks is to provide a despammed indication of what the network is mining which is in no way a guarantee of what will be in the next full block. eg i could mine one spend in a weak-block and then switch to double-spending it without penalty
<bramc>
kanzure, I always use that for writeme, because it's unambiguously syntactically invalid in Python. I don't know why I've always used that word.
<adam3us>
bramc: well that too. just trying to figure out if their logic makes sense modulo that being very best-effort
<bramc>
adam3us, If you have the logic in place that in the case of two real blocks arriving near each other in time the one with more weak blocks wins then weak blocks do increase the epsilon of security by some percentage
ggreer has quit [Changing host]
ggreer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<dgenr8>
adam3us: you do have to be a miner, making it similar to a Finney attack
<adam3us>
bramc: that would create progress in proof of work and break level playing field.
GGuyZ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
adam3us, It actually helps in defending against withholding attacks and I think overall makes things better for small miners.
arowser has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<bramc>
adam3us, although a strong argument can be made that it should only work as an overrule if one beats the other by too much and they arrive very close in time
<bramc>
Like, if a block arrives 5 seconds after the other but has 2 weak blocks on it then it wins.
<adam3us>
bramc: maybe. its pretty hard to get confidence in correctness of game-theory arising from rearranging or complicating consensus rules. most things end up worse or more complex to insufficient gain.
<adam3us>
bramc: a big miner could withhold weak-blocks more effectively and predictably as it has more hashrate.
BlueMatt_ is now known as BlueMatt
BlueMatt has quit [Changing host]
BlueMatt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
adam3us, Oh yeah, I hadn't thought about that.
<adam3us>
bramc: anyway i guess you are trying to repair something that is probably broken in the BU paper. i dont see such a rule, it's just a non-adversarial "miners are nice and cooperate" kind of argument i think.
<kanzure>
adam3us: surely you have seen the broken transaction fee market paper from the same author?
rustyn has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rustyn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
I continue to maintain that sticking with soft forks is working just fine
<bramc>
My prediction for bitcoin in 2016: Lots of good engineering, continuing sideways movement on consumer adoption
Guest80587 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lobito has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Ylbam has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Cory has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
Yoghur114_2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
oneeman has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Cory has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
Cory has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
Pasha has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Pasha is now known as Cory
rusty has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rusty2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty2 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
ielo has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
licnep has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Peter_R_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Peter_R_>
My prediction for 2016: Continued decentralization of development.
mpmcsweeney has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mpmcsweeney has quit [Client Quit]
sparetire_ has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
PRab has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-finch has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guest80587 has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Peter_R_ has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
nuke1989 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
pozitrono has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guest44384 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<midnightmagic>
my prediction for that IP address is about to come to pass
<fluffypony>
midnightmagic: what was the prediction?
MoALTz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Guest44384 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
NewLiberty has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pozitrono has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guest44327 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Guest44327 has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
droark has quit [Quit: ZZZzzz…]
droark has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
davec has quit [Quit: leaving]
davec has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-yuriy has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<eamonnw>
im guessing censorship
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-finch has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
GAit has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Client Quit]
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arowser_ has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
arowser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nuke1989 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moa has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
arowser has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
arowser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has quit [Changing host]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arowser has quit [Client Quit]
arowser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-finch has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guest33826 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Quanttek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arowser has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
arowser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guest33826 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Guest88082 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Quanttek has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Quanttek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw|zZz is now known as c0rw1n
Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
Burrito has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
brg444 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
SgtStroopwafel has quit [Quit: Fuck, SgtStroopwafel is down!]
oneeman has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Quit: Quitte]
licnep has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Newyorkadam has quit [Quit: Newyorkadam]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
satoshifanclub has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
GGuyZ has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
skyraider has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Newyorkadam has quit [Client Quit]
Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guest88082 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Yoghur114_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
trippysalmon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
satoshifanclub has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
skyraider has quit [Quit: Page closed]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Newyorkadam has quit [Quit: Newyorkadam]
amiller has joined #bitcoin-wizards
amiller is now known as Guest80305
GGuyZ has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
SgtStroopwafel has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AndChat|361524 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AndChat|361524 has quit [Client Quit]
c-cex-finch has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
zwischenzug has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zwischenzug has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
zwischenzug has joined #bitcoin-wizards
licnep has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Guest80305 has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
arowser has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
arowser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
JackH has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
dignork has quit [Quit: gone]
dignork has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ielo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
ielo has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-finch has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zwischenzug has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
Guest27263 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guest27263 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
giel__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
giel__ is now known as gielbier
gielbier has quit [Changing host]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
el33th4x0r has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
licnep has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Quent1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Quent1>
test
sparetire_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Quent1>
we can discus here too adam3us, although I would have preferred a forum where the discussion does not fleet away as on irc
<Quent1>
maybe you are now much aware about bitcointalk, but they do censor and feverishly unfortunately, that is why other forums had to be created, such as bitco.in/forum
<Quent1>
it is unfortunate that in 2015 we have had so much, but never in a forum, accessible, space, where the conversation can continue and the points narrowed down so reaching a public agreement
<Quent1>
I think it is time we do so...
<Quent1>
unless you'd rather continue with twitter propaganda or feel safe only in censored spaces adam3us
<Taek>
This channel is logged, all discussion persists. Please refrain from being inflammatory
<Quent1>
and there you go...
<Quent1>
threat of censorship before the discussion has even began...
<Quent1>
if you are honest adam3us and not only engaging in propaganda come to an open, uncensored, free and accessible space, make a thread on bitco.in/forum and we can tackle all the issues in regards to the blocksize question in one continuous conversation, rather than politicking on tweeter or censored spaces
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Quent1>
you can't refuse it... you know what that would say to all, including your supporters
kyluke has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
Quent1: if you wish to discuss about theoretical ideas with regards to cryptocurrencies, please state the ideas and elaborate on them. Everything you have said so far is off topic.
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Quent1>
Taek, adam3us invited me here, mind putting down your hammer?
<Quent1>
and not threaten me...
<Quent1>
anyway
<brg444>
I kept track of the discussion. AFAIK he invited you to discuss technical matters wrt BU
giel__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
you are welcome here, just stay on topic. I have no administrative power here
kyluke has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<Quent1>
it is run by theymos afterall, I am not sure what you think your choice of posting a thread there tells everyone adam3us
<kanzure>
can you elaborate why you think your complaints about "censorship" are likely to improve the technical quality of discussion about BU here?
<Quent1>
especially when theymos has already invoked power in an academic debate
<adam3us>
Quent1: stop talking about censorship real or perceived, and talk about how BU works.
<kanzure>
do you think that "censorship" for some reason modulates the integrity of refutations? in particular, which integrity violation are you thinking of?
<Quent1>
if you worried about security, game theory, etc, then lets discuss this in an uncensored, free and accessible forum, where the discussion continues beyond 10 minutes or just one day...
<Quent1>
adam3us, I'm not going to talk in soundbites. Irc is not the right place for indepth discussion of complex matters, nor is reddit, nor is irc, nor is bitcointalk because it is censored
<kanzure>
to be more specific, it is more useful and productive to provide details rather than inflammation. if you are unwilling to do this then why are you here at all? :-)
<Quent1>
hence my invite to come to bitco.in/forum
<Quent1>
not sure why you scared to do so?
<Quent1>
anyone can sign up...
<Quent1>
it's open to all and NO one will be censored
<Quent1>
unless obvious spam etc
<adam3us>
Quent1: i am hesitant to participate in that forum for reasons given on bitcointalk.
<kanzure>
irc is perfectly fine for complex topic discussion. happens all the time.
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<adam3us>
if you want to say that gmaxwell would censor a technical discussion, I do not believe you.
<adam3us>
actually many highly complex things were invented on this channel.
<Quent1>
I don't think your thread on bitcointalk gives any explenation as to why you hesitate to come to bitco.in/forum
<kanzure>
Quent1: because he doesn't need to give a reason.
<Quent1>
it instead expresses a somewhat confused understanding of BU
<adam3us>
Quent1: "The idea was to have some technical focussed constructive discourse and this is a more neutral forum and also where more Bitcoin experts hang out."
<brg444>
Quent1 clear it up for us!
<Quent1>
adam3us, the blocksize question is not only technical
<adam3us>
"Perhaps they could start by explaining what it is & how it works. This might include unimplemented ideas, and a summary of what the code currently for download on the manifesto page does."
<Quent1>
it is also echonomical
<Quent1>
I want an open space accessible to all...
<Quent1>
an interdisciplinary approach
<adam3us>
ofc, go faster - people on here are bitcoin wizards - tech details pls.
<Quent1>
bitcoin is cash, that's economics, not just some code
<Quent1>
alright
<Quent1>
I'll just have to publicly call you to there on reddit...
<Quent1>
it seems clear you are somewhat scared to engage
<Quent1>
so...
<kanzure>
so no tech details are forthcoming in this conversation?
<Quent1>
maybe you can publicly refuse
<adam3us>
Quent1: are you going to post something technical or what?
<brg444>
welp
<Quent1>
fleeting irc is not a place to discuss what we have been discussing for 6 months
<adam3us>
Quent1: why is it such a redline for you that i should volunteer my time to help you and i have to do it on your terms on your forum so you can control the narrative and pick the audience?
<Quent1>
I don't want to go on an endless loop...
<brg444>
Clearly BU is based on economical motives but can we make an attempt to verify if it does what it claims on a technical basis?
<kanzure>
btw, i think that phantomcircuit nailed the nail on the head yesterday with his statement regarding no method of coming to consensus regarding consensus rules themselves (e.g. especially because of lack of sybil resistance for deciding consensus rules for sybil resistance in the first place). but i think that other network effects are still productive here.
<Quent1>
I want full considerations of the matter, in an accesible manner to all and where the debate does not just die in 10 minutes or 1 day and we just repeat what we said yesterday
<Quent1>
a forum is the place for that
<brg444>
Does it take several days for people to get a grasp of BU?
<Quent1>
bitcointalk is censored... hence not the right forum
<kanzure>
tech details are correct/incorrect independent of the forum or medium they are posted in
<adam3us>
Quent1: people quote IRC wizards logs years later because it is where things are often invented
<kanzure>
economics is not a special case
<Quent1>
bitco.in/forum is not censored, thus we can have a rational, academic, interdisciplinary approach, between coders, economists, etc, and continue the debate, until we reach the end point
<adam3us>
Quent1: either post on bitcointalk or here but you've kind of got us in suspense here
<Quent1>
I will to only explain what BU is
<kanzure>
how about this, quent1 can post his tech details on bitco.in, then he can link us to his posts (or he can copy/paste). that way, if he is "censored", his content is still available through the medium he prefers.
<adam3us>
Quent1: we dont want an advertisement for a project forum - you wanted review, so lets get to it
<Quent1>
Bitcoin Unlimited is an interdisciplinary approach to the blocksize question, it is bottom up, after taking into consideration the many points that have been raised in 2015 and it brings an insight
<Quent1>
miners do not want too high a limit
<adam3us>
Quent1: please understand it is extremely common in projects that people make their own forum so they can control the narrative.
<Quent1>
the economy does not want too low a limit
<kanzure>
the economy wants a lot of things :-)
<Quent1>
thus the limit should be just above demand, but demand moves, so the limit should be movable too
coinoperated has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Quent1>
we propose a way whereby consensus can be reached by all participants without an interveening third party
<Quent1>
and without any centralised controll or suggestion
<adam3us>
Quent1: nullcproposed this a while back - have you read the flex-cap proposal as written up by maaku he presented on it at scaling bitcoin HK
<Quent1>
by moving the limit from the centralised protocol layer to the transport layer
<Quent1>
the miners therefore can communicate the limit of the blocks they will accept
<kanzure>
Quent1: believe it or not, consensus among "all known participants" is not a hard problem. it's also not the problem that bitcoin solves.
<Quent1>
according to game theory, the miners will rally around focal points
<Quent1>
currently that focal point is 2mbs
<alpalp>
they have rallied around focal points: experts of Bitcoin :)
<Quent1>
therefore the miners start by signing their blocks with will accept blocks only up to 2mb
<Quent1>
once some 95% of them so sign their blocks
<Quent1>
all miners know it is safe to create a 1.1mb block for example
<adam3us>
Quent1: they wouldnt really need to sign as the PoW is a signature
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Quent1>
yes, they just communicating it
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<Quent1>
telling others, so others know what the limit the accept is...
<kanzure>
if bitcoin consensus would have worked without a coordination protocol then there's no reason to bother with bitcoin software at all
<Quent1>
now common sense would say miners would keep their limit just above actual demand or thereabout
<Quent1>
now for example the limit would be 2mb - so they just gui menu configure the option from 1mb to 2mb
b_lumenkraft has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Quent1>
once demand picks up
<alpalp>
Quent1: can you define what you mean by "actual demand"?
<Quent1>
then the miners increase it to 3mb,
<adam3us>
Quent1: how is this different from bip 100?
<Quent1>
and so on
<Quent1>
bip100 limited the choice to miners alone
<Quent1>
BU includes the economy
<brg444>
right, I thought it had to do with individual nodes?
<Quent1>
as in all node operators set their own limit
<Quent1>
miners therefore can not play games
<brg444>
and then... miners pick a number?
<Quent1>
because they have to consider not only what limit other miners accept
<adam3us>
Quent1: but node operators are not miners and so their vote is not securely communicable
<Quent1>
but also what limit the businesses accept
<alpalp>
Quent1: So if I kick off 5000 nodes and say I want maximum 100KB blocks, miners see that somehow?
<Quent1>
adam3us, by node operators I meant miners
<Quent1>
that's the basics of BU
<Quent1>
it is difficult for us to project what the blocksize should be
<adam3us>
Quent1: so how is that including the economy? (vs addition to bip 100 including only miners)
<brg444>
Are you sure of that? Peter R seems to propose it empowers individual node owners, as in -not- miners
<Quent1>
should it be 8mb in 4 years? how do we know
<Quent1>
should it be 8gb in 20 years? we have no clue
<kanzure>
brg444: better to use his name (rizun)
<Quent1>
should it be 1mb right now? well there is unanimous agreement that it should not
<Quent1>
BU just brings the choice to the free market
<Quent1>
but in such a way as to perserve consensus
<Quent1>
and security
<brg444>
Wait a minute
<kanzure>
but you just said that it was miners only
<brg444>
Let's backtrack things up a bit. You just said miners only decide
<brg444>
how is that the free market?
<Quent1>
now, adam3us, come to bitco.in forum and lets have a real, academic, discussion
<kanzure>
brg444: it's the free market for those particular miner's block space :P
<adam3us>
Quent1: are you familiar with BIP 100?
<Quent1>
I invite all others to do so too
<Quent1>
we need to stop this politiking
<Quent1>
we need to bridge the gaps that have been created
<Quent1>
and move forward as one
<kanzure>
instead of responding to our objections you are politicking
<brg444>
... says the guy trying to have a one way discussion
<adam3us>
Quent1: i am not joining that forum. if you want to have a discussion bitcointalk is fine.
<Quent1>
the only way we can do so it by a public discussion in an appropriate manner
<Quent1>
lmao
<Quent1>
adam3us, why you not joinging that forum?
<adam3us>
Quent1: this is a public, logged channel.
<kanzure>
why would we want to have a discussion with someone who does not respond to objections?
<Quent1>
your friends can come too...
<brg444>
Quent1 do you intend on helping us figure it out? maybe you can invite Peter Rizun if you need help?
<Quent1>
no one stoping kazure
<Quent1>
or brg44 from joining too
<Quent1>
or gmax
<Quent1>
or anyone
<adam3us>
Quent1: i said above "The idea was to have some technical focussed constructive discourse and this is a more neutral forum and also where more Bitcoin experts hang out." and on bitcointalk
<Quent1>
its a 2second thing to register
<Quent1>
this is not a forum
<Quent1>
this is a chat
<Quent1>
we quickly talking here
<adam3us>
Quent1: please. is this a request for review or an advertisement for a project forum? do you know how many coin forums there are?
<Quent1>
a forum is essay writting considered stuff
<Quent1>
r/bitcoin is not that
<Quent1>
tweeter is defo not that
<Quent1>
a forum is that...
<kanzure>
you can request elaboration from us if there is something you don't understand, but no we're not going to write more words than necessary
<Quent1>
adam3us, I did not request a review
<Quent1>
I requested a rational debate...
<kanzure>
debate is not a productive way to communicate reason or respond to objections.
<Quent1>
I didn't ask you to create a forum post about BU
<Quent1>
I asked you to create a forum post about what you were saying on tweeter
<Quent1>
you know, how apparently only certain ppl are experts
<Quent1>
how apparently only certain people are aviator braintrusts or whatever it was
<Quent1>
how we need to be careful with security and game theory etc
<kanzure>
are you going to respond to any of our above objections?
<Quent1>
and how lightning is meant to function in a real life
<Quent1>
yes
<Quent1>
the issues you were talking about
<Quent1>
I don't think I mentioned BU once...
hashtagg_ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<Quent1>
anyway, it seems you are not interested in actual debate
<adam3us>
hmm you replied to this https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/683321835610574848 "can discuss tech any day on bitcoin IRC or reddit or bitcointalk. I would be interested to see BU survive peer review on wizards"
<kanzure>
okay, so just to keep things in line- we have heard your messages, we have read them and responded to them, and now you are stating a disinterest in continuing to talk about the details.
<Quent1>
yes, you brought it up...
<Quent1>
which is fine..
<Quent1>
I gave my concept of BU
<Quent1>
so let the wizards review it...
<brg444>
It seemed pretty confused :/
<Quent1>
where is the hole?
paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
besides the ones we pointed out?
<Quent1>
oh, see adam3us, I can't expect people to come on the spot with answers to what are difficult questions
<Quent1>
hence the need for a forum
<Quent1>
where the answers can be contemplated
<Quent1>
developed fully and articulated
<Quent1>
now,
<Quent1>
why you refuse adam3us ?
<kanzure>
which answers of ours do you think have not been articulated well?
<adam3us>
trust us, we think we can break it real time. go ahead :)
<kanzure>
was it the one about miners not substantiating an economic majority? was that not articulated well?
<brg444>
Quent1 Difficult question? It seemed pretty straight forward: how do you reconcile your claim that BU addressed the demand of the free markets by having miners only pick the size of the blocks?
<Quent1>
why you refuse adam3us ?
<adam3us>
wizards have short attention spans - go faster. are the nodes influencing size or only miners? if only miners how is it different from 100 and have you answered the know critiques of BIP 100?
<Quent1>
what is worrying you adam3us ?
<maaku>
#bitcoin-wizards-offtopic
<Quent1>
it's just a forum...
<maaku>
please leave comms channels open for their intended purpose
<Quent1>
sorry maaku, your boss thought it was the right place
<Quent1>
and keeps insisting on it...
<alpalp>
Quent1: it would if you spent time on topic instead of whining about censorship
<kanzure>
he was correct that it's the right place, but he was wrong that you would be willing to discuss details
<Quent1>
I just explained BU...
<Quent1>
not heard a point yet
<adam3us>
Quent1: give details for review
<kanzure>
what have you heard, then?
<adam3us>
Quent1: "are the nodes influencing size or only miners? if only miners how is it different from 100 and have you answered the know critiques of BIP 100?"
<kanzure>
if anything this shows that adam3us is a hopeless optimist
<Quent1>
what you scared of adam3us ? why won't you come to a forum where the issues can be properly discussed?
<adam3us>
Quent1: it is ok if you dont know, that just means you need to go fetch someone who does.
Cory has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<maaku>
Quent1: BU does not achieve consensus. your view of the chain tip depends on what parameters you set. that would be utter mayhem in a real economy
<Quent1>
adam3us, it is different because the business nodes have a say too...
<kanzure>
have a say in what?
<Quent1>
alright
<maaku>
the only stable solution is to set parameters to infinity, so stable-BU truly is unlimited
<Quent1>
I'll have to make a reddit thread I'm afraid
<Quent1>
you can't just refuse to discuss in an uncensored space
<kanzure>
maaku: yes but to that i have been saying "it's obvious that we can already achieve consensus with a central PoW node anyway"
<kanzure>
maaku: so that's not a very interesting result from a bitcoin perspective :-)
<brg444>
go, right ahead, provide a link too just so people realize how dense you are ;)
<alpalp>
Quent1: actually, thats exactly what he did.
<Quent1>
where the matters can be thoroughly discussed
<Quent1>
not in 5 second chats as here
<Quent1>
which foster quick snap answers
<maaku>
kanzure: to many people it sadly not obvious that unlimited-size blocks would be centralizing :\
<Quent1>
the blocksize limit is not a quick snap answers question adam3us
<kanzure>
Quent1: do you think you would understand questions about bip100 and consensus if it took you 10x longer to understand?
<Taek>
maaku: it forces you to use social mechanisms to figure out what set of parameters are being accepted by the network. You can figure out parameters that are legal, but you're probably going to have to ask bc.i or coinbase, or whatever other powerful entities are forced to pick parameters together
hashtag_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<adam3us>
Taek: yes it seems like consensus via human coordination.
<Taek>
I believe you could have a reasonably stable system where the strongest economic powers are picking the parameters and telling everybody else to go along
<kanzure>
Taek: there are no existing social mechanisms that are sybil resistant for picking a max block size limit
<maaku>
Taek: the only setting that would guarantee I'm not on a lesser-work, unsafe fork would be MAX_INT
<brg444>
Taek like central banks :) ?
<kanzure>
yes centralized ledgers could trivially be "stable"
<maaku>
no social consensus required
<Taek>
It's not a system I would want to participate in. I would feel like I had no guarantees that the validation costs would stay within my own reach
<kanzure>
so since this log is going to be linked on reddit, let's at least point out the original existing peter rizun criticisms
<kanzure>
here is where peter rizun admitted that his assumptions in his "fee market" paper were totally broken: http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3
<kanzure>
this pastebin paste was made by the same person too
<adam3us>
it could also be noted that if only miners vote they could keep the consensus enforced block-cap artificially small to drive up fees. modulo their intrinsic 51% ability to do similar by censoring large blocks.
Guest59187 has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
Quanttek has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
_psztorc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
JackH has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
giel__ has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
gielbier has quit [Client Quit]
_psztorc has quit [Quit: Page closed]
Quanttek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<stonecoldpat>
"bip100 limited the choice to miners alone, BU includes the economy, as in all node operators set their own limit, by node operators i meant miners", i cant see the difference between his comment and bip100, except bip100 is more concrete
pozitron has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<alpalp>
stonecoldpat: I've tried to get to the bottom of it, and the best I could get was non-mining nodes try to communicate their preference, and miners can honor it or not. Basically BIP100 with a suggestion box.
belcher has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
b_lumenkraft has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
b_lumenkraft_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<stonecoldpat>
alpalp: ah ok thank you
<alpalp>
though theres no code, just a lot of handwaving and rhetoric, so hard to really know.
<alpalp>
I don't think its any kind of serious proposal, simply the Donald Trump of cryptocurrencies - says a lot of stuff to rile people up
moa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pozitron has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<Quent1>
lol, sorry, just reading back the log
<Quent1>
it's not miners only...
adlai has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.3]
<Quent1>
I mean you guys seem keen to look at holes which is good, but, BU does have a website.. bitcoinunlimited.info
<Quent1>
maybe read it?
<Quent1>
all node operators can decide their own limit
adlai has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Quent1>
but it is of corse only node miners who actually generate blocks adam3us
<alpalp>
Quent1: what does it mean to "decide a limit"?
<Quent1>
so the limit, as far as generation and acceptance is concerned, matters to node miners only in the first instance
<Quent1>
BU is about reaching consensus, not about *what* consensus is or should be
<brg444>
right....
<brg444>
so how does it go about doing this?
<Quent1>
the way to reach consensus in a decentralised fashion is by node miners communicating in their blocks the limit they accept
<alpalp>
brg444: by making pretty pdfs
<Quent1>
right now that would be say 2mb
<Quent1>
and once say 95% of miner nodes so communicate, then the limit is effectively 2mb
<Quent1>
the business miners of course can see these communications
<brg444>
you propose that individual non mining nodes somehow have a way to signal their "acceptable" limit, correct?
<Quent1>
so they set the limit to 2mb too...
<Quent1>
ergo, consensus
<Quent1>
with no intermediate, no central player
<alpalp>
Quent1: slow down for a second. What does it mean for a non-mining node to "decide" a limit?
<Quent1>
pure free market, fully decentralised
<brg444>
business miners/miner nodes
<Quent1>
and what is better, local
<brg444>
what is the difference?
<Quent1>
we can't know what the limit should be in 1 year, let alone 4 years
<Quent1>
only the free market can
<brg444>
right
<brg444>
but you propose that only miners decide...?
<brg444>
the miners != free market
<Quent1>
seems I miscommunicated earlier adam3us when I said by node operator I meant miner node...
<Quent1>
which strengthens my point that this place is not the right space
<Quent1>
to have such discussions
<alpalp>
so non-mining users basically have no block limit?
<Quent1>
they can choose what they want
<alpalp>
Suppose I set my limit as 100KB, what does that mean for me?
<Quent1>
bitcoin is based on incentives and rational acts
<Quent1>
because 51%
<alpalp>
a bunch of miners send me 1MB blocks, i reject them?
<Quent1>
alpalp depands what you are
<Quent1>
if you a miner it means you go bankrupt because you are too stupid
<Quent1>
and so deserve it
<Quent1>
if you are a business same thing
<alpalp>
Quent1: I am only talking about non-miners, the miner case is already covered in BIP100
<alpalp>
I can "set a limit", what does the limit that a non-mining node does?
<Quent1>
there are only two nodes that matter as far as the network is concerned
<Quent1>
miner nodes
<brg444>
Quent1 Forget about the miners, business. Where does the individual who run nodes come in?
<Quent1>
and business nodes
<brg444>
uh
<Quent1>
the rest are of benefit only to the individual who runs it and have no effect on the network as a whole
<Quent1>
that is why there is no direct incentive to run a node
<brg444>
that's not true :/ there are privacy and network decentralization incentives
<alpalp>
what is a business node?
<Quent1>
coinbase's nodes...
<Quent1>
business.. you know.. the trading ppl
<alpalp>
How do I distinguish a business node from a non-business non-mining node?
<Quent1>
why do you want to?
<pigeons>
]another useful channel ruined by this nonsense
<alpalp>
apparently you are distinguishing them, so I am trying to understand that.
<belcher>
pigeons +1
<Quent1>
exactly pigeons
<Quent1>
this place is not the right space for this discussion
<Quent1>
adam3us, should make a forum thread, laying out his points, and we can have a proper discussion
<belcher>
how about we all go to ##bitcoin to carry on
<Quent1>
not in fleeting irc
<Quent1>
or soundbite propaganda tweeter
<Quent1>
or 1day attention span reddit.....
<brg444>
So I can go on record on reddit : "BU proponent propose that individuals' right to run a node does not matter"?
<alpalp>
Quent1: good discussion was going, lets take it to ##bitcoin, I'll make a summary of it even!
<Quent1>
I'm banned there belcher
<TD-Linux>
yes it's not. BU has already been discussed to death aelsewhere
<Quent1>
censorship everywhere!
<Quent1>
no wonder adam3us is scared to discuss in daylight
<pigeons>
lol he is such a troll he is banned from ##bitcoin
<Quent1>
he hides behind censorship
<Quent1>
as if people can't see it
<Quent1>
even his own supporters can see it...
<Quent1>
anyway
<Quent1>
I just wanted to clarify that node point...
<Quent1>
all nodes choose their own limits
<Quent1>
but cus game theory emerging consensus
<Quent1>
it's simple... almost childlishly simple
<alpalp>
Quent1: go to #bitcoin-unlimited-super-awesome-fun-time-uncensored
<alpalp>
we can talk there, Im not scared.
<TD-Linux>
alpalp, don't feed the troll.
<belcher>
channel name too long, i suggest #bitcoin-unlimited
<alpalp>
unfortunately he was specifically invited to discuss this
<kanzure>
"game theory emerging consensus" is not a suitable answer. we already know that a bunch of miners can agree to deprecate the bitcoin system in favor of a more centralized system. but wouldn't it be more productive to do this in a way independent of whether there is a block size limitation?
<Quent1>
and how you propose that is done?
<Quent1>
by a centralised committee?
<kanzure>
first, describe the ideal scenario you want
<Quent1>
the blocksize is a living, breathing, thing...
<Quent1>
it responds to demand, technology, etc...
<kanzure>
no, i mean the ultimate scenario you want for bitcoin. forget about block size.
<Quent1>
no committee can be better placed to decide what it should be than the individuals most affected
<Quent1>
the ideal scenario I want is a limit just above demand
<kanzure>
demand for what?
<alpalp>
quent1: what do you mean by "demand"?
<Quent1>
as in, a limit to protect from attacks... not a limit to limit demand
<kanzure>
attacks against what?
<Quent1>
lol
<kanzure>
your lack of clarity should not be amusing
<alpalp>
Quent1: demand is a curve, not a fixed point. Which point in the curve?
<Quent1>
sorry wizards for disturbing your channel
<Quent1>
it was adam3us who invited
<Quent1>
I'm out
<alpalp>
well, bye
<Quent1>
if you guys are honest, the place for discussion is uncensored forums
<Quent1>
if you want to continue with 140 characters tweeter propaganda then go ahead...
<kanzure>
irc does not have a 140 character limitation
<kanzure>
btw, multiple times now you have said you are leaving, but you have not.
<Quent1>
it does have idiots who ask what is demand however
<brg444>
...
<kanzure>
we are asking you because we want you to realize that you can't answer the question
<alpalp>
Quent1: We are trying to understand what you are talking about.
<coinoperated>
@kanzure every single discussion about bitcoin should lead with a statement about discussants' opinion on bitcoin's ultimate direction. most of the S/N ratio problems in this community come from everyone talking at cross purposes and being coy about why they want the changes they want.
<Quent1>
well exactly kanzure
<Quent1>
I can't answer the question
<Quent1>
the free market can
<Quent1>
that defeats your own point of choosing the blockzise by comittee
<kanzure>
what committee?
<Quent1>
there are only two ways
<Quent1>
decentralised decision making - free market
<Quent1>
or centralised decision making - committees
<Quent1>
a committee can not know what demand is
<kanzure>
if you are unable to answer questions regarding the security guarantees of a protocol, why would you want to use the protocol?
<adam3us>
Quent1: you are extremely vague in the way you answer so it is very hard to determine what the design of BU actually is. is there someone else you have who can explain or join bitcointalk ?
<Quent1>
or what the blocksize should be
<Quent1>
bitcointalk is censored
<Quent1>
not sure why you keep condoning it...
<Quent1>
what did you mean by reddit moderator policy adam3us ?
<Quent1>
that you were respecting it
<Quent1>
what reddit moderator policy are you respecting?
<kanzure>
this is unrelated to bitcoin technical details
<kanzure>
can we focus please?
<Quent1>
sorry
<Quent1>
you gone censor?
<adam3us>
in my several years of using bitcointalk i have never once seen gmaxwell who is the dev moderator delete a technical post.
<Quent1>
am I limited on what I can say in a debate?
<kanzure>
this is not a debate
<Quent1>
mind laying your barriers kanzure ?
<alpalp>
Quent1: Can you explain what you mean by "supply always above demand"? Does this mean if someone wishes to backup their harddrive for 1 penny, there is demand?
<Quent1>
well then shut up and stop telling me what is on or off topic
<coinoperated>
Quent1 why don't you seem concerned that the "variable" block size aspect being gamed to force it into a range that prevents a given class of actors from participating? IoW Why won't those with access to gargantuan bandwidth realize they can monopolize the network by installing hashpower on their connections and advertising ever-larger blocks
<Quent1>
ive said this is the wrong space...
<Quent1>
you guys insisit...
<kanzure>
this is the correct space for technical discussion regarding theoretical ideas with respect to cryptocurrencies
<Quent1>
if you insist then don't tell me what I can or can not say
<Quent1>
bitcoin is not just technical
<pigeons>
but this channel s
<Quent1>
its cash
<Quent1>
cash is economics
Quent1 was banned on #bitcoin-wizards by gwillen [*!*@unaffiliated/quent]
Quent1 was kicked from #bitcoin-wizards by gwillen [Quent1]
<gwillen>
problem now solved
<pigeons>
sure wasnt going anywehre useful
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<belcher>
thanks
<belcher>
even 4chan is moderated.... or censored if you prefer
<gwillen>
as far as I know that guy is banned from every bitcoin channel
<gwillen>
not sure how he snuck in here
<coinoperated>
is he the same as the reddit poster aquent?
<alpalp>
yes
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gwillen>
yeah, same guy
<gwillen>
he used to be aquent on here
<coinoperated>
ah.
<gwillen>
but that nick is banned so he switched
<gwillen>
I thought he was banned as quent, also
<gwillen>
might be why he went to 'quent1'
<kanzure>
is this aquentin?
<alpalp>
kanzure: yes
<coinoperated>
seems so
joesmoe- has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<gwillen>
yeah, it's all the same guy
<gwillen>
he just keeps switching names because he gets banned places
<alpalp>
Also Aquentys on twitter
<kanzure>
yep i have written lots of text to him on reddit, he seems to remember none of it, so therefore it seems utterly pointless to keep talking with him
<alpalp>
kanzure: he is more interested than writing than reading
<coinoperated>
if its aquentin then he may be thinking "business" = "day trader" or service for day traders.
<coinoperated>
for a userbase of supposedly 1m+, you sure see a lot of the same faces over and over in bitcoin
<adam3us>
sorry about that i had assumed he would know how BU worked as he wanted to discuss it. it seems likely that he doesnt know.
<pigeons>
peter r alleges that he knows how it works
<pigeons>
but i doubt the conversation would be any more fruitful
<alpalp>
adam3us: I don't think anyone knows.
GGuyZ has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
<coinoperated>
you can pick your nodes, and you can pick your friends, but you can't pick your friend's nodes
<kanzure>
afaik there is no good way to estimate the value of the economy that you might be removing from the network by increasing the minimum resource requirements too high
<gwillen>
coinoperated: rofl.
<coinoperated>
there's no agreed upon metric for valuing "decentralization", it's pretty subjective
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
also, when increasing the minimum resource requirements, you are effectively increasing the minimum cost to participate in the bitcoin system. as a consequence this should ultimately override any concerns about increases in minimum transaction fees, because even if transaction fees are zero you might have an extremely unusably high minimum resource requirement for participating in p2p bitcoin.
b_lumenkraft_ has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft_]
<coinoperated>
kanzure, mfw people talk about bitcoin like there are two or three bounding parameters to the contour of the network, when it's really dozens
<coinoperated>
block size debate is rather like opposing parties trying to gerrymander a voting district to ensure that each side stays elected
<kanzure>
characterizing it as a debate is silly... debate is for legislations and assemblies and committees.
<kanzure>
also, bitcoin resource requirement growth (due to linear blockchain growth) can be seen as a random walk of some kind. ideally the rate of technology development and cheapning better tech keeps up with the linear blockchain growth rate. however, if the blockchain linear grwoth was to ever catch up to that technology development rate, then we would have lots more problems for decentralization. important to let optimizations and scaling ...
<kanzure>
... and capacity increases accrue in favor of being able to tolerate random walk encroachments on higher resource requirements.
GGuyZ has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
GGuyZ_ is now known as GGuyZ
<el33th4x0r>
coinoperated: there are metrics that capture some of the centralization-related concerns
<yoleaux>
.@olivierjanss there are literally more smart-people with interesting question-hours per year than core developer hours. that is a problem. (@adam3us, in reply to tw:683239060895363072)
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
tripleslash has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<el33th4x0r>
The blocksize debate needs much more quantitative metrics. Quent wasn't making his case well, but I also have not seen the countercase made quantitatively.
<brg444>
^ that's quite the understatement (re: quent)
<el33th4x0r>
:-)
<el33th4x0r>
I didn't bother to read the whole mess, so I'll understate.
<el33th4x0r>
it got strange towards the end
<coinoperated>
I am starting to think that "troll", in the local bitcoin dialect, means something like "one who asks the right kinds of questions, but gives the wrong kinds of answers"
<el33th4x0r>
sadly, that word has been rendered useless by the typical Bitcoin usage of "you raise points that I cannot rebut with what I can parrot from Andreas"
<el33th4x0r>
Every bitcoin discussion seems to end with a trolling accusation. It's like Godwin's Law, but with trolls.
<el33th4x0r>
On the more germane topic: we are building a measurement testbed at Cornell with 500 nodes, 4000 cores.
brianhoffman has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<el33th4x0r>
The idea is to recreate an exact replica of the Bitcoin network, one sim node for every real node out there.
<coinoperated>
you got someone to do a bc-themed diss?
brianhoffman has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<el33th4x0r>
We are not quite there yet in terms of deployment and calibration, but we'd be happy to work with various different groups who want to evaluate ideas.
<coinoperated>
how will you model latency
<fluffypony>
el33th4x0r: eugh, such FUD
<fluffypony>
/s
<fluffypony>
:-P
<el33th4x0r>
by configuring network links with measured latency and bw parameters.
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] do you know shadow (https://shadow.github.io/) ? tor, i2p etc use it for network simulations
<el33th4x0r>
shadow looks cool, thanks for the pointer.
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] theres a bitcoin plugin for it
<el33th4x0r>
it looks like it emulates the app, simulates the network.
<el33th4x0r>
we run a full emulation.
<el33th4x0r>
so we cannot do identically reproducible runs like they can.
<el33th4x0r>
but we can run much faster at higher scale
brianhoffman has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<el33th4x0r>
(i.e. that's what I'd expect, not what I have compared and measured)
<el33th4x0r>
ah, I knew it sounded similar to Andrew's work, but I was confused because the paper they had on their website didn't have his name on it.
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<el33th4x0r>
Yes, we're very familiar with this. Excellent work. Our focus is on a much faster emulation-only platform that can run large batches of experiments fast.
<el33th4x0r>
coinoperated: that is by far the best game I played last year.
<coinoperated>
el33th4x0r: $3m NSF, nice work! the space needs more academic attention for sure.
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
oneeman has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Guest76880 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guest76880 has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
GGuyZ has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
A funny thing with bitcoin, I haven't had much urge to run simulations. Everything is so dominated by asymptotics that there doesn't seem to be much need.
<kanzure>
well, testnet
<kanzure>
and regtest
<bramc>
There might be a parallel with my earlier work. BitTorrent had no simulations at all, just the occasional real-world test to see what kind of grotty stuff turns up. My newer p2p live streaming the very first thing I did was write an emulation environment and start using it to great effect right off the bat.
brg444 has quit [Quit: Page closed]
<kanzure>
why does bittorrent not suffer from constant protocol invalidity and brokenness? or why aren't there other people writing backwards-incompatible protocols?
<kanzure>
oops i mean backwards-incompatible variants of the protocol
<bramc>
kanzure, Because there aren't any compelling fixes which that could achieve
<kanzure>
pfft
<bramc>
BitTorrent does one thing, does it well, and its performance is dominated by asymptotics. Bitcoin does one thing, does it badly, and its performance is dominated by all kinds of garbage.
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
oneeman has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GGuyZ has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
<TD-Linux>
kanzure, bitcoin does have multiple incompatible protocols
<TD-Linux>
err bittorrent
<coinoperated>
what is the one thing bitcoin does?
<TD-Linux>
most bittorrent modes implement multiple protocols.
<TD-Linux>
*nodes, wow I can't type
Guest50709 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
TD-Linux, What are those protocols?
<bramc>
Technically speaking bittorrent has had a hard fork because the DHT is basically required now
<bramc>
coinoperated, Maintain a database of balances
<bsm1175321>
I'm going to quote bramc on this: "BitTorrent does one thing, does it well, and its performance is dominated by asymptotics. Bitcoin does one thing, does it badly, and its performance is dominated by all kinds of garbage."
<TD-Linux>
bramc, the traditional TCP one and the UDP based uTP one
<TD-Linux>
oh, and yeah there are several tracker protocols in addition to DHT
<AdrianG>
monero is planned to become a bitcoin sidechain?
<bramc>
TD-Linux, There's fallback to TCP for everything supporting utp. The things which would make an original bittorrent client not work on a current torrent have to do with the tracker protocols, which there are, uh, three.
<bramc>
And also the 'compact' flag, which at some point became mandatory, because duh.
<coinoperated>
bramc: why would you say it does it badly? Sorry for the dumb sounding questions, but my working assumption is that Bitcoin has to be inefficient, it's the price of decentralization. But "badly" could mean a lot of other things than "inefficiency", thus the question..
<bramc>
coinoperated, There are some good-ish reasons for it doing it badly. It still does it badly.
<bramc>
Also almost all the details can be improved on, including stuff fixed by p2sh, segwit, maybe a new peer protocol...
trippysalmon has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<coinoperated>
so badly means kludgey, for absolute values of bad
<bramc>
kludgey and with high latency and inefficiency
<AdrianG>
and probably will never be fixed
<bramc>
Basically for every benchmark of how well a payment system works, if bitcoin were a centralized one it would get an F
<bsm1175321>
coinoperated: Bitcoin doesn't need to be inefficient. But we are all noobs at making efficient decentralized systems.
<bramc>
AdrianG, Some of them are getting fixed, some of them can be fixed, and a great big central thing might be completely unfixable.
<bsm1175321>
(1) Get rid of orphans (2) move mining to the edges (mining decenralization) and (3) sharding.
<bramc>
AdrianG, some aspects of latency can be fixed. Depending on what latency you're talking about weak blocks, a new peer protocol, and micro channels can all bring dramatic improvements.
<coinoperated>
at the risk of an offtopic warning from kanzure, much of this seems to depend on the eye of the beholder. if you want a decentralized SWIFT (which is already decentralized but ehh...) then 12 hours to confirm an OP is a step up.
<AdrianG>
swift is decentralized?
<bramc>
bsm117532 I disagree with you about the desirability of sharding. Orphan rates can definitely be reduced. Mining decentralization seems unlikely to happen because mining centralization seems to mostly come from there being places where there are otherwise fairly useless sources of power
<bsm1175321>
bramc: By sharding I mean that each node keeps only a fraction of the blockchain.
<bsm1175321>
why would you disagree with that?
<bsm1175321>
Or fraction of the UTXO or Address space...
<bramc>
bsm117532 Yes I know what sharding is. I think it only adds an order of magnitude or two to scaling at best and introduces massive potential attack surfaces
<bsm1175321>
(There has been some argument as to what sharding means...)
<bsm1175321>
bramc: It certainly introduces new attacks and must be approached carefully. But I'd kill for a couple of orders of magnitude of scaling. Also it makes scaling easier by just adding nodes, which more people would do if it were easier.
<bramc>
I view micro channels enabling net settlement as a much better way to go for scaling.
<bsm1175321>
bramc: I think we need both.
<AdrianG>
bsm1175321: nobody would add nodes just like that. there are no incentives.
<coinoperated>
AdrianG SWIFT is a protocol of shared numbering and coding systems
<el33th4x0r>
AdrianG: on the latency front, NG offers latencies proportional to network diameter (a few seconds), with security better than 0-conf.
<bsm1175321>
The estimations from the Lightning network folks indicate that their upper limit is well below what is needed to make Bitcoin a global payment system.
<bramc>
We call them 'micro' channels because they support large amounts of transactions. Like how we call it 'slow' start because it's fast.
<bsm1175321>
el33th4x0r: So would braids...
<coinoperated>
a bunch of lookup tables sort of like BGP, but much more manual. There's no central hub that things go through, it's old school p2p
<AdrianG>
bsm1175321: i dont see why everyone expects bitcoin to become the sole global payment network
<AdrianG>
that is a simply mind-boggling expectation.
<coinoperated>
el33thax0r is latency to network diameter best case or usual case?
<bsm1175321>
el33th4x0r: One thing I learned at Scaling Bitcoin is that most of the mining hardware is targeted to the 10m block interval. (Which is braindead engineering IMHO)
<el33th4x0r>
yes, we're talking to bob mcelrath about evaluating the braids idea
<AdrianG>
there is nothing wrong with centralized payment services here and there.
<bsm1175321>
AdrianG: If it isn't bitcoin, then I will switch to working on something that can become a global payment network, and watch bitcoin slowly die.
<el33th4x0r>
coinoperated: usual case.
<el33th4x0r>
coinoperated: worst case is back to 10min latency, if a miner crashes.
<el33th4x0r>
bsm1175321: NG builds on the current mining hardware. absolutely no changes necessary. minimal changes to the protocol.
<coinoperated>
el33th4x0r: thats as good as we're going to get if so. Unless sharding/braiding/making-more-than-one-blockchain-but-using-a-clever-name-ing
<bsm1175321>
el33th4x0r: Yep I see that.
<bsm1175321>
The actual physical limit is the radius of the network, so we're talking ~second at worst. 10m is a very large factor to slow the thing down because of a bad design.
<bsm1175321>
Then to have mining hardware designed so you can't reset it except every ~minute even though it's running at ~GHz is mind boggling...
hopey has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
hopey has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<coinoperated>
bsm1175321: radius of the network isn't a point to point affair though
<bramc>
bsm117532 Mining hardware is basically disposable. It's made as quickly and cheaply as possible because it becomes worthless after a year or so
<bsm1175321>
bramc: I know. I want to incentivize the creation of faster mining hardware, so we can make a faster network. Otherwise the fundamental settlement time can't decrease...
<coinoperated>
diameter of the network (* 2 for RT, which i think would be the minimum flight time for a signal to be validated)
<bramc>
bsm117532 Mining hardware will always follow the incentives, no point in trying to do things the other way around
<bsm1175321>
coinoperated: A better optimized p2p network with links and hubs (rather than random connections) could bring it a lot closer to the ideal.
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175321>
bramc: It's the incentives that create consensus, and we have to ensure those incentives aren't perverse.
<bramc>
bsm117532 The overall design of the network is secondary to much messier protocol issues when it comes to latency
<coinoperated>
bsm1175321: But Bitcoin isn't p2p its 51% to 51%, just notifying an endpoint isn't enough. Everyone else in between needs to know and ACK as well. Bitcoin is a chatty protocol, maybe the chattiest one ever designed
<bsm1175321>
bramc: i'll defer to your expertise there. However direct measurements indicate that the fundamental latency of distributing information to all nodes is ~1s.
hopey has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
hopey has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
The fundamental limits are probably somewhere around there. Right now it's down to a few seconds because of the relay network. It should be possible to get it down to a few seconds with a real p2p protocol.
<bsm1175321>
I'm arguing that we don't fundamentally need the extra factor of 600, not trying to get it down to ~200ms which is the p2p theoretical minimum...
<coinoperated>
bsm1175321: I don't understand how fundamental latency can be ~1s, this is only true for a 2-node network on opposite sides of the planet, with a single link between the two, no? In reality things are much messier and suboptimally connected
<el33th4x0r>
bramc: right on about the depreciation curves for mining hardware. it turns completely over every 1.5 years
<bsm1175321>
90th percentile with existing bitcoin network is ~5-10s.
<bsm1175321>
p2p optimizations could certainly bring that down to 1s.
Guyver2 has quit [Quit: :)]
<bsm1175321>
600s is large.
<coinoperated>
bsm1175321: those are tidy blocks space 10m apart. if you had to confirm each and every Tx individually the total for a block's worth of Tx would be much greater than 10-15s, each one would take at minumum 1-2s
<bramc>
coinoperated, Making 'reasonable' assumptions about having to pass data between multiple nodes brings latency from ~250ms (the distance from new zealand to spain) to ~1000ms
<bramc>
Assuming you don't bother optimizing peer connections for their physical location and that you need some failover gets you to around 5 seconds, maybe 10 if you're trying to optimize for bandwidth.
<bsm1175321>
coinoperated: So with an optimal p2p network and 6 confirmations, the confirmation time could theoretical be brought down to the realm of 10s instead of 3600s. Bitcoin is slower than necessary by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
<bramc>
For context the p2p live video streaming thing I made gets end to end latencies of around 5 seconds at scale
<bramc>
But that is, ahem, a bit of an outlier.
c-cex-finch has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
el33th4x0r has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
hopey has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<bsm1175321>
This slowness manifests itself as orphans, which create perverse incentives like selfish mining.
<coinoperated>
bramc: this is per message right? so if the message to be propagated is a block of say 1000 Tx, assuming sufficient bandwidth at all nodes it can be propagated to all of them in ~1000ms
<bramc>
bsm117532 orphans can be avoided by special casing complete blocks to be spammed out to everybody. Weak blocks can fairly easily get them down to 1-2 seconds
<coinoperated>
if the message is, OTOH, a single Tx, the propagation time would still be ~1000ms, right?
<bramc>
coinoperated, Not sure what you're saying. Trying to have real congestion control throws a monkey wrench into everything.
<bsm1175321>
bramc: Orphans are a fundamental consequence of causality. Two miners on opposite sides of the globe cannot possibly know about each other. Therefore they cannot possibly be removed. So, we should accept them and remove the associated perverse incentives (e.g. allowing one of the miners to "win" and deny the other profit).
<bsm1175321>
coinoperated: yes. ~1ms for a single tx with an optimal network.
<bramc>
bsm117532 Yes I know you're preferred approach to fixing that issue. For the time being we're working on just getting the latencies down.
<coinoperated>
I'm trying to understand why blocks exist at all, I thought they were created as a way to quiesce the set of Tx that needed to be confirmed. Like a 10 minute settlement window to make sure all miners are working from the same mempool.
<bsm1175321>
bramc: One thing at a time. Reducing latencies is good.
tulip has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<tulip>
< bsm117532> One thing I learned at Scaling Bitcoin is that most of the mining hardware is targeted to the 10m block interval. (Which is braindead engineering IMHO)
<bramc>
coinoperated, Mining is there to create real security on top of zeroconf/bitpeso
<tulip>
that doesn't sound right. no hardware I know of has hardcoded difficulty limits.
<bsm1175321>
coinoperated: Blocks are not necessary. We could mine tx's instead. This would move mining to the edges of the network, but everyone would have to buy ASIC's to participate, or pay someone with an ASIC to broadcast their tx.
hopey has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175321>
tulip: Not difficulty limit, reset time. (load a new work unit)
<bsm1175321>
tulip: I really need some numbers on this and have bought some hardware for testing. But if others have numbers I'd be happy to hear.
<tulip>
bsm1175321: all current hardware has a latency of milliseconds flushing new work.
<bsm1175321>
tulip: That's what I would have expected, but I've heard that Antminers in particular are much worse than that?
<tulip>
I don't think so.
<tulip>
remember a piece of hardware like the Antminer S7 needs new midstates at tens of kilohertz.
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175321>
tulip: I've been trying to understand specifically why everyone thinks they're loosing money on p2pool. AFAICT it's some combination of a misunderstanding of how it works and some hardware taking a long time to flush work.
<bsm1175321>
tulip: I've been unable to find specific data to back this up. I'm working on a proposal which specifically incentivizes fast block creation and fast transmission.
<tulip>
bsm1175321: no, that's not correct. the software configuration is the problem. by default they use cgminer with an option which cases it to discard valid work. in normal operation the mode is supposed to drop all found shares once they see a new highest block on the network rather than submitting things that will be rejected by the pool. on p2pool the share chain advances every 30 seconds, a stale p2pool share can be a valid Bitcoin block, which
<tulip>
will be thrown out because it's "stale" in respect with the pool.
<bsm1175321>
tulip: Do you mind if we take this to #p2pool?
<tulip>
bsm1175321: I've got other things I need to be doing. it's a well known property that's discussed in the p2pool thread on bitcointalk.org.
<bsm1175321>
tulip: Ok thanks, I'll look it up!
<tulip>
bsm1175321: good search term is "--no-submit-stale"
rusty has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
gentoognuhurd has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<tulip>
coinoperated: Bitcoin makes zero assumptions about peoples mempool contents. realistically you don't need to have a mempool, it's a historical appendage from a time where every Bitcoin node was a miner.
tulip has quit []
<bramc>
Widely distributing transactions is a useful service
RedEmerald has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
<coinoperated>
@tulip: I am thinking in terms of mining nodes only, from my understanding there are few if any reasons for full nodes to exist in a future highly-adopted Bitcoin ecosystem. Only mining nodes and SPV clients, as there are few economically rational reasons to run a full node that doesn't mine (there are altrustic reasons for doing so though)
RedEmerald has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<coinoperated>
i mean, full nodes that don't mine. All the baggage of decentralization, with very little of its incentives other than ideological satisfaction, which is hard to put a price on.
adam3us has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
adam3us has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<pigeons>
coinoperated: but still you dont need mempool agreement if all full nodes are miners
<pigeons>
and not being lied to and defrauded is sometimes an economically rational reason to run a full node
<bramc>
Running a mempool is also a good way to get full blocks at lower latency, because you'll already have downloaded a portion of them.