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
<amiller>
i don't know how to find news about spreadcoin
<amiller>
is it just that one bitcointalk thread?
<smooth>
amiller: forget it
<amiller>
no way, i'm interested
<smooth>
you're talking about a complete mess of ignorant people and scammers im afraid
<amiller>
lol
<smooth>
signal-to-noise will be off the charts
<AdrianG>
amiller: how's current reward not a large jackpot vs trickling stream?
<AdrianG>
coinbase rewards are huge compared to what a single mining unit produces.
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] sure but compare it to a lottery ticket, which would be life changing
<amiller>
i want to see a chance of winning tens of millions of dollars with a lucky reward
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] agree
<amiller>
(which i imagine exceeds spreadcoin's market cap)
<smooth>
just wait for btc price to go up :)
<bsm117532>
AdrianG: Mining decentralization requires smaller, more frequent payouts, as well as a reduction/removal of the variance of those payouts for small miners.
<amiller>
anyway i'm interested in following whatever happens to altcoins that try out various forms of nonoutsourceable puzzles)
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<smooth>
spreadcoin market cap is $169K
<amiller>
bsm117532, so, variance is just one value.... what i'm interested in is a payoff distribution that has low-variance consolation prizes in addition to high-variance jackpots
<smooth>
AdrianG: correct, that is why you cant use these coins as examples of anythig, other than perhaps looking at the code itself
<bsm117532>
amiller: Why would you want that? It flies in the face of using economically rational, profit-maximization as the mechanism for consensus.
<smooth>
from a point of view of incentives/economics/etc. they're just not meaningful
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] of course it is, but having a small market cap doesn´t automatically mean the tech is bad (in this case it is tho..)
<smooth>
othe: yes thats why i said possibly looking at the code is useful
<bsm117532>
amiller: those large jackpots will become the profit motive of large pools, and encourage centralization.
<AdrianG>
bsm117532: how can you possibly discourage centralization in mining with incentive?
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<AdrianG>
i dont know if this is possible in theory. it can be forced on miners, but i cannot see what could possible be a profit incentive.
<smooth>
bsm117532: his suggestion is to make the reward large, and possible to secretly steal
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] i don´t think so as large pools can lose a lot compared to the usual gamblers who bet only a bit
<smooth>
so no one would trust a pool
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<AdrianG>
oic smooth
<AdrianG>
you can win large, or you can steal small?
<smooth>
but i dont really buy it, because pools can undergo certification, licensure, etc. which is centralization in another form
<AdrianG>
so its better to win yourself, than for the pool to steal
<AdrianG>
?
<bsm117532>
AdrianG: Require every transaction to be mined before relaying. (no free relaying of transactions)
<AdrianG>
smooth: good point about auditing pools.
<smooth>
AdrianG: if you cant trust a pool then your choice is play the lottery yourself or dont play
<AdrianG>
bsm117532: isnt that too radical of a change?
<bsm117532>
AdrianG: Probably, yes.
<AdrianG>
smooth: can pools be made fundamentally unauditable?
<AdrianG>
so that nobody can ever audit them in real-time, even?
<bsm117532>
AdrianG: but there are a couple of proposals which reduce the number of tx's in a block (mine: braids, and bitcoin-ng) and accomplish the same thing.
<AdrianG>
designed to defaud TM
<AdrianG>
that would be a very high bar.
CubicEar_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
CubicEar_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
* adlai
realizes this may be off-topic, but does anybody here think monetized altcoins are a morally valid mechanism of live-testing experimental ideas?
<smooth>
Anyway i dont really get all of this. There is a huge portion of hash rate that is centralized by ownership and has nothign to do with pools. Bitfury, 21, and ???
<adlai>
"china" -_-
<smooth>
maybe most of it at this point, we don really know
Jeremy_Rand_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
adlai: I've given a lot of thought to that. Testing with a live coin makes my stomach churn. I may have honest intentions, but it will result in a net transfer of dollars from someone to someone else, for no good reason. OTOH the best way to test a system is to open it for attack, and give financial incentive for that attack.
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] adlai, personally i find this discussion nuts, theres nothing "morally" wrong with trying things out different using different technology... what i find morally not so cool is taking money from people in stuff like IPO/ICO or whatever the fuck they call it nowadays
<smooth>
adlai i think they are moral. No one is coerced, end of story. People have different systems of morality though. But that's almost certainly OT.
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] if u take monero; there is so much stuff we cant even test on a sidechain...
<smooth>
If you launch an altcoin and no one buys it, did the tree make a sound?
<adlai>
oh it's a perfectly good reason, i'd say i a) agcee with smooth, b) consider movement of value from dumb pockets to smart ones a rising moral imperative, c) take this discussion to #shitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<AdrianG>
smooth: smooth bitfure is still 16%
<smooth>
AdrianG: at a minimum
<AdrianG>
smooth: you think they mine via other pools as well?
<smooth>
i thought that was widely suspected but im not really so much in touch with that
<smooth>
but factually, it does seem to be a minimum
<smooth>
and 16% is still a lot imo
<AdrianG>
if the biggest pool would be at 16%, it would be much better than what we have now.
<AdrianG>
with hardware manufacturer, and their client, combined are at nearly 50% of the hashrate.
CubicEar_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
argh_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
argh_ has quit [Client Quit]
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
MrHodl has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fuc has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<ibrightly>
bsm117532 - if you make a non-live coin via testnet, someone else will instantly fork it into a 'live' coin anyway. There's no stopping the fact that if distributed, tokens with perceived scarcity will be assigned value and therefore will be traded.
Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
<adlai>
ibrightly: if you're genuinely concerned, start your own scarce network a few hours/months early, and boast to the world of your premine... doesn't prevent forkage, but fractures it into competing fractions a la von saberhagen
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<adlai>
lessens seemingly-high-signal noise, increases profit for the opportune harvester
<ibrightly>
adlai - doesn't that just peal away devs who would have contributed to the original coin by giving them an incentive to fork their own? For von saberhagen, it would have been far more impressive if BCN had been given a much less shady start.
<ibrightly>
launch a coin, ignore the markets, develop the features you think are interesting and let those that disagree fork away. so in answer to your question, I am not genuinely concerned. :)
<adlai>
nah, it's more impressive to express belief in the free market by letting it choose without blatant aristotelien first-mover prejudice
<ibrightly>
i agree with that, except there's no need to sabotage yourself off the bat. (BCN, DRK/DASH, etc)
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] what they did when they "launched" BCN was prolly the most stupid thing someone ever came up with...but thats ot i guess
<ibrightly>
MRL-Relay: I would say that it was deceitful, but not stupid. Clearly the goal was short term profit and to that end, it certainly worked.
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] no it didn´t like they wanted it to work out
el33th4x0r has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<ibrightly>
If they had grandiose designs on holding some giant pre-mine for the next multi-bn valued crypto token, then sure, it failed. But if they cashed out with what they got, they could easily have profited by several $m by now. Not bad for a bit of coding and design, no?
kang_ has quit [Quit: Page closed]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] no there was never enough trade volume to cash out that stuff, with whatever totally legal ipo they could have made more and totally legal... but it's too off topic now, so last thing I say
<adlai>
not to mention complete lack of burned bay-area bridges
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Ylbam has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Yoghur114_2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dEBRUYNE_ has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
stevenroose_ has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
el33th4x0r has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fuc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MrHodl has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
el33th4x0r has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bsm117532 is now known as Guest65074
bsm1175321 is now known as bsm117532
belcher has quit [Quit: Leaving]
RedEmerald has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
Jeremy_Rand_2 has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Jeremy_Rand_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
roman__ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
el33th4x0r has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RedEmerald has joined #bitcoin-wizards
el33th4x0r has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
roconnor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
brg444 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MrHodl has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fuc has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
p15 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
oneeman has quit [Quit: Leaving]
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
supasonic has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bsm117532 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pozitron has quit [K-Lined]
Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AmpEater has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
rusty has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AmpEater has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
el33th4x0r has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent_ has quit []
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Dizzle has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
el33th4x0r has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
markus-k has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
ghtdak has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ghtdak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
pozitron has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pozitron has quit [Killed (Sigyn (Spam is off topic on freenode.))]
justanotheruser has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
supasonic has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
nuke1989 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
DougieBot5000 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
licnep has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
LeMiner has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
CubicEar_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
sparetire_ has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
justanotheruser has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AmpEater has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has joined #bitcoin-wizards
julesxx has joined #bitcoin-wizards
julesxx has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
mrkent has quit []
bit2017 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
roconnor has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
moa has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
mrkent has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pozitron has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
stevenroose_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
melvster1 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
markus-k has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has quit [Client Quit]
pozitron has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
melvster1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
justice_ has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
CubicEar_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
PaulCapestany has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
Quanttek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<phantomcircuit>
jannes, it would be significantly worse than it appears without the relay network
<phantomcircuit>
notice how at 800-900 kB the relay time goes down relative to 700-800kB? that's because iirc 100% of miners mining >750kB blocks are on the relay network
<phantomcircuit>
but the relay network isn't a security measure
<phantomcircuit>
so their best-fit curve is off by a significant constant factor
c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|away
tucenaber has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tucenaber has quit [Changing host]
tucenaber has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jannes>
phantomcircuit: That's a cool little data point about >750kB.
<jannes>
phantomcircuit: Yeah I agree on your points about relay network. But even with that factor, this data already shows that for example 8MB is out of the question, right?
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Client Quit]
<phantomcircuit>
jannes, oh absolutely
<phantomcircuit>
im saying that they understate just how out of the question it is
<jannes>
Basically my question would be, can I use this data to prove to bigblockers that the problems are very real and any increase will quickly blow things up.
<jannes>
And if so, I'm wondering why this data is not referenced more often in the discussions. Or maybe there is an improved study that does take the relay network into account?
<jannes>
oh geez is Peter R related to tradeblock?
<kanzure>
sorry, "they" was not meant to refer to tradeblock, my bad
<kanzure>
i have no idea. probably not?
PaulCape_ has quit [Quit: .]
PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jannes>
oh ok... scared me there :) I get it, you meant "bigblockers". That's true.
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jannes>
But if the tradeblock results _include_ the relay network and they already show that 4MB is pretty much impossible. I guess they will argue that the "propagation to 3000 nodes" is not relevant, only "propagation to the 100 miner nodes" or some such excuse.
atgreen has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
se3000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<phantomcircuit>
jannes, they end up arguing for a system with a single central mining pool and removal of the 21 million bitcoin limit
K1773R has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
Erik_dc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: true, data that cannot be verified against known limits, is practically a removal of the limit
<kanzure>
since centralized mining pools (and central transaction processing) is so trivial to achieve (especially compared to bitcoin's network and decentralization and properties), i am curious why they continue to insist on using the bitcoin p2p network for that. why don't they use a sidechain or some other mechanism? they can still use bitcoin-denominated transactions.
<kanzure>
actually i guess one (perhaps uncharitable?) explanation could be that the resulting mining centralization is a clever game of KYC hot potato :-)
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot has quit [Changing host]
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Changing host]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jannes>
Sorry for bringing the blocksize debate into here. Certainly didn't intend to do that. :)
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
bsm117532 is now known as Guest70555
Guest70555 has quit [Killed (asimov.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
Guest65074 is now known as bsm117532
bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
kanzure, nsh: I appreciate the mixing of segwit and confidential transactions. Would like to see demo code.
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
melvster1 has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
murch has joined #bitcoin-wizards
melvster1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
el33th4x0r has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
arowser has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
arowser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hashtag_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
trippysalmon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Dizzle has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sparetire_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
brianhoffman has joined #bitcoin-wizards
brianhof_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
bit2017 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pozitrono has quit [K-Lined]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Yoghur114_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
voxelot has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
Yoghur114_2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Yoghur114_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<MRL-Relay>
[tacotime] you can, of course, do CT as a softfork if you add new a whole new chunk of external validation data to a block. it's been long discussed before this, but almost everyone agreed that it's unrealistic in the current atmosphere where issues surrounding scalability dominate.
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nabu has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
Yoghur114_2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Yoghur114_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<nsh>
(domination by volume does not equate to prevailing rationality)
<nsh>
(but i agree with the assessment, sadly)
Yoghur114_2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Yoghur114_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
erasmospunk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<phantomcircuit>
bsm117532, it's possible but probably not a good idea for a number of reasons
<bsm117532>
Eventually we'll get them both...
nabu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot has quit [Changing host]
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
trippysalmon has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
ebfull has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Erik_dc has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<coinoperated>
blockchain braids sounds like the beginning of a block fabric
* coinoperated
reminds himself to scroll down before responding next time
<bsm117532>
coinoperated: If you set the difficulty very low you get a lot of interconnecting beads. Let's call it a Quilt.
<phantomcircuit>
bsm117532, i can see ct being in a sidechain that is merge mined
<phantomcircuit>
i dont think we'll see ct in bitcoin core unless/until lightning (or whatever) takes a huge amount of the load off
<kanzure>
hmm i guess we should start preparing proposals for drop-in api-compatible lightning stuff....
<bsm117532>
Different way of plotting the same low-difficulty braid. Genesis on left, braid-tips on right. Each horizontal set of beads is one node (each have different difficulty targets). http://imgur.com/q6O3Eyo
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
atgreen has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
A high-difficulty braid: http://imgur.com/H1ynirs Only a handful of beads have siblings (analogs of orphans)
<bsm117532>
Throw questions about this at me...good ones will get answered in my paper.
<coinoperated>
looks "intuitively" cool, guess i need to read another paper
ebfull has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
bsm117532: in your hong kong presentation you claimed that block size problems are mostly about and that work solves the contributions of block size to orphan rate. i think you should include text describing assumptions about why you think this is true, and how braiding changes network shape and friction contributed by bandwidth asymmetries. if your contention is that the utility function needs to make a decision about minimum resource ...
<kanzure>
... requirements for validators, then i think you should explicitly state this (and discuss this).
<kanzure>
*and that your work solves
* nsh
is more interested in robust decentralised steganographic channels than efficiency of trade so pretty biased towards CT
<nsh>
the worst thing about bitcoin is all this capitalism nonsense
<nsh>
:P
<kanzure>
nsh: you mean all the p2p stuff....?
<kanzure>
nsh: transactions should only be authorized by the mother nation during five-year plans? :-)
<bsm117532>
kanzure: Yes I discuss it, thanks for the reminder. The problems with large blocks are really about latency and validation. Dividing the validation and propagation work smoothly over the entire 10 minute interval makes communication less "spiky" and doesn't max out the bandwidth, like trying to quickly transmit a 1MB block does. 1MB/10min is not a large bandwidth.
<kanzure>
what do you mean by "is not a large bandwidth"?
<bsm117532>
1MB/10min = 1.7kb/s.
<kanzure>
large is relative; this sort of assumption needs to be elucidated and discussed.
<bsm117532>
If that data were smoothly distributed over the 10 min (as it would be with braids), the bandwidth requirements are modest.
<kanzure>
implications of existing asymmetries, implications of kicking off certain nodes from the network, etc. implications of breaking backwards-compatibility and how this effects currency value, validation, reasons for mining. on the surface this probably seems irrelevant to you for your work, but there's very little reason for mining (or for a miner to bother mining) without an interest in these other aspects :-).
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
also this applies to other validation cost metric stuff in the utility function you proposed
<bsm117532>
As a practical matter, I'm leaning toward building this as a patch to bitcoin core that operates as a collaborative pool, like p2pool.
* bsm117532
takes notes, will go over your comments again as I edit the draft. Thanks!
<kanzure>
wasn't there something about the contributions of block size to orphan rate to already be minimal in situations involving the existing relay network?
luigi1111w has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<kanzure>
(while block size wasn't the motivation for your work, orphans and propagation were...)
<erasmospunk>
kanzure, the relay network helps but it is not part of the p2p network
<phantomcircuit>
erasmospunk, it is actually a p2p protocol
<bsm117532>
Yes it's clear regardless of infrastructure (relay network), as the block size goes up, orphan rates go up. You can temporarily mitigate it with faster networks, but the effect is fundamental.
<phantomcircuit>
it just so happens matt is the only one running nodes
<erasmospunk>
phantomcircuit: obviously I am referring to the Bitcoin p2p network
<erasmospunk>
the spiky full block propagation is the big stressor to the nodes
<erasmospunk>
that's why increasing the block size is a bad idea
<bsm117532>
And decreasing it is a good idea. ;-) But you can't use a "chain" anymore if you do that.
<nsh>
> data were smoothly distributed over the 10 min # would weak blocks work for this too?
<bsm117532>
nsh: Yes they do.
<erasmospunk>
nsh: yes
<phantomcircuit>
erasmospunk, the better argument is that the relay network doesn't improve worst case behavior and thus provides zero additional security
<bsm117532>
Weak blocks essentially pre-compute the block validation, and pre-relay the majority of the block.
<kanzure>
i don't think it's possible to claim pre-consensus for adversarial conditions
<kanzure>
or, such claims would be nonsense
<erasmospunk>
phantomcircuit: the worst case is a block that is propagated by a >30% miner via the slow p2p network that contains transactions that were never broadcasted before
<erasmospunk>
kanzure: it is possible with a soft fork
<phantomcircuit>
erasmospunk, yeahhhh it's worse than that with miners doing stratum "validated" mining
Guest43031 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guest43031 has quit [Changing host]
luigi1111w has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guest43031 is now known as luigi1111w
<kanzure>
erasmospunk: many things are possible with a soft-fork. are you talking about "authorized" pre-consensus schemes?
<kanzure>
also, "authorized pre-consensus" is incapable of enforcing adversary compliance, i think.
<erasmospunk>
kanzure: thanks, for some reason I don't get notifications for gists :(
<erasmospunk>
kanzure: "the argument for smaller blocks is not just bitcoin p2p consensus latency" here you mean the ever growing blockchain size?
<erasmospunk>
what is the advantage of smaller block sizes except lower lag and compact blockchain?
<bsm117532>
erasmospunk: If those smaller blocks are mined, you get faster confirmations too.
<kanzure>
as requirements increase in the upward direction, you increase the minimum requirements for using bitcoin itself, which can have negative impact on compatibility with existing bitcoin nodes
<bsm117532>
erasmospunk: Since smaller blocks (probably) have lower difficulty targets, it gets smaller miners back into the game and helps decentralize mining.
<erasmospunk>
bsm117532: smaller blocks as in size?
<bsm117532>
We still need to shard the blockchain, to reduce bandwidth and storage requirements of nodes, but that's a separate problem.
<bsm117532>
erasmospunk: yes.
<kanzure>
most validating nodes are outside of the direct proof-of-work consensus; or at least, the cost of a vlaidating node is presently cheaper than participation in mining consensus.
<erasmospunk>
how smaller size lowers the difficulty?
<kanzure>
well, presently cheaper than relevant participation in mining consensus. well, i mean, more than having one block every umpteen billion years.
<bsm117532>
Smaller blocks must come more frequently. With constant global hash rate, mined smaller blocks must have a lower target.
<erasmospunk>
also regarding validation, you don't need to re-validate transactions that were in the mempool
<kanzure>
you can't get stuff into the mempool if your connection is already saturated
<erasmospunk>
bsm117532: ok, I understood what you mean. I don't think we will ever get rid of the 10min block interval
Guest43031 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luigi1111w has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
Guest43031 has quit [Changing host]
Guest43031 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guest43031 is now known as luigi1111w
<bsm117532>
erasmospunk: No, the 10m block interval must remain because it is the payout schedule. However we can decouple it propagating and validating transactions.
<erasmospunk>
kanzure: for 100tx/s you need 50KB/s if we assume 500b average tx size
<kanzure>
erasmospunk: yes i'm aware that we can calculate constants and values for these. but i don't think that's interesting :-).
<kanzure>
it would be surprising if we couldn't, heh
<kanzure>
i would say the actual values are irrelevant, but that to increase the number of participants capable of validation you generally have ot keep requirements low, or generally decreasing, or always increasing slower than technology development and perhaps even accruing benefits from tech development over time.
<erasmospunk>
bsm117532: ok. In that case do we need to include the transactions in the smaller blocks or referring them with tx ids?
<kanzure>
*accruing unused benefits
<bsm117532>
erasmospunk: Implementation detail. You can do it both ways. In the latter case you depend on the p2p relay network to transmit tx's. But it's also possible to build a network *without* that layer and only relay mined tx's. It's also possible to have a blockless system...
<erasmospunk>
kanzure: I agree. We are wasting bandwidth today with re-broadcasting transactions together with the full blocks
<bsm117532>
I'm a fan of stripping out the p2p relaying of umined tx's. It's a DDoS target.
<phantomcircuit>
bsm117532, there's code to do that in core already
<erasmospunk>
bsm117532: interesting, how your transactions will reach the miners in that case?
<phantomcircuit>
with the mempool limiter it's not really an issue any longer though
<phantomcircuit>
bsm117532, -blocksonly
<bsm117532>
erasmospunk: Everyone has to be a miner. Or, make an arrangement to mine on behalf of someone else. But that doesn't have to be a core functionality.
<bsm117532>
phantomcircuit: That's not really what I meant. I meant a PoW hash for every tx.
<bsm117532>
e.g. hashcash everything you send me or my node will reject it.
<phantomcircuit>
bsm117532, oh, yeah that's something people have thought about, mostly for the connection eviction logic though
<erasmospunk>
bsm117532: something like a POW fee for your transaction, right? Sounds like BitMessage
<gavinandresen>
bsm117532: transaction fees are exactly the same as POW hashes. They're tiny pieces of POW hashes, re-circulated through the network
fuc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
gavinandresen: Exactly. You can imagine a network where there's a back-and-forth between the PoW hash and tx fee. Pay the tx fee with mining, or mine a tiny bit and include a tx fee for someone else to mine.
jannes has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gavinandresen>
bsm117532: how is that any different from what we have right now?
<bsm117532>
gavinandresen: Right now we relay tx's by p2p for free.
<bsm117532>
gavinandresen: The effect comes out in aggregate, once you integrate over mining pools (which don't need to exist for this idea)
MrHodl has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Burrito has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<phantomcircuit>
gavinandresen, it's different but only just slightly
<phantomcircuit>
some sort of micropayment system for nodes relaying transactions might be preferable but isn't reasonable today
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<bsm117532>
Thank -wizards for being unreasonable. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- G. B. Shaw
matsjj has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<gavinandresen>
I've never seen a good explanation of why relay nodes are necessary, in an ideal network transaction creators and recipients would talk directly to each other and would just directly give transactions to miners. And miners (and whoever else was interested in doing full validation) would talk amongst themselves.... I don't see a "relay" function needed when we have a lower level network perfectly able to relay information to any co
<gavinandresen>
mputer anywhere in the world.
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
Relay nodes centralize mining. Every relay node should be a miner. This one way Satoshi set up the system for mining centralization. :-/
<phantomcircuit>
gavinandresen, there's a number of reasons not the least of which is that the p2p network provides a significant amount of resistance against detection of mining nodes
<bsm117532>
Satoshi's original idea was that all nodes would be mining nodes though...
<gavinandresen>
bsm117532: ummm... no... he said most nodes would be SPV nodes.
<phantomcircuit>
can we agree to stop trying to quote war satoshi?
<phantomcircuit>
it's not useful
<bsm117532>
Ok true, but he didn't envision non-mining, non-spv nodes that the majority of the network is composed of now.
<gavinandresen>
bsm117532: if relay nodes centralize mining... then mining would be decentralized if we got rid of relay nodes?
<phantomcircuit>
our understanding of the system has advanced significantly since that time
<bsm117532>
gavinandresen: Yes. I'll only relay your tx if you mine it a little bit. (at which point it can be added to a DMMS like a blockchain or braid)
<gavinandresen>
phantomcircuit: mining nodes hiding among lots of nodes for DoS resistance is a good point. But it probably makes more economic sense for them to just spin up a few hundred nodes instead of trying to find a scheme to incentivize people to run relay nodes.
<gavinandresen>
(note I said probably, I could easily change my mind)
<phantomcircuit>
gavinandresen, ddos filtering for bitcoin traffic is crazy expensive
<gavinandresen>
Maybe not a coincidence that btcc just announced they're running a bunch of full nodes....
<phantomcircuit>
i suspect that had something to do with trying to improve relaying of their pools blocks
<phantomcircuit>
i also suspect it wont do that but whatever
<phantomcircuit>
gavinandresen, DDoS protection for anything except http/https is very very expensive
<kanzure>
why would micropayments work for transaction relaying? wouldn't most people just use free relays? or is the idea that all the free relayers would evaporate over time?
<phantomcircuit>
it's pretty cheap if nobody can figure out how to target you though
<kanzure>
the reason why relay nodes are necessary is because you don't necessarily know the next miner
<kanzure>
"resistance against detection" seems like a backwards reason to me :P
Logicwax has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<kanzure>
if you know the set of miners who will in 99.99999999% likelihood generate the next block, then something has gone terribly wrong i think
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, also that
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, resistance to detection is also important though
Guest53483 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<kanzure>
yea i agree, but i think it wont communicate anything meaningful to gavinandresen :-)
<phantomcircuit>
you can buy a ddos from shady .su sites for like $5 that will knock out most servers
<kanzure>
oh right.
<phantomcircuit>
ironically they all only take bitcoin now
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Guest53483 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
seems sort of self-defeating
<bsm117532>
This argument is circular: you need a relay network to protect (centralized) miners from DDoS, but you only get mining centralization if you have a relay network. If everyone HAD to mine to participate in the network, it would be more decentralized, and you wouldn't need free relay.
<bsm117532>
Outsourcing mining is left as an exercise to the reader.
<gavinandresen>
bsm117532: you're ignoring the possiblity that if everybody HAD to mine to participate, you'd end up with nobody participating.
<gavinandresen>
I'm not saying that's what WOULD happen....
* nsh
nods
<bsm117532>
I'd participate.
* bsm117532
strokes his cute little 21.co mining computer on his desk.
<bsm117532>
gavinandresen: I'm not saying that all fees must be paid by mining. I'm saying everyone must mine a *little* (even if it's CPU mining). That incentivizes everyone to up their mining game, at the edges of the network.
<nsh>
'everyone' precludes any thin-clients / spv nodes etc.
<nsh>
which is a big pain in the arse for PoS and other use-cases
<bsm117532>
nsh I'm excluding spv nodes from this argument.
<nsh>
ok
<bsm117532>
That's a different threat model.
<nsh>
the threats have an annoying indifference to which way they're modelled in practice :)
nabu has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
erasmospunk has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
arubi has quit [Quit: Leaving]
PeterR has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nuke1989 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<PeterR>
Jannes: using estimates for average network latency and propagation impedance from G. Andrew Stone's recent paper, orphan rate would be ~20% with 8 MB blocks.
<bsm117532>
*sigh* I'm gonna have to read those, aren't I...
<PeterR>
Mine has pretty pictures :-)
<bsm117532>
PeterR you and I are going to end up debating subchains vs. braids soon.
<PeterR>
Yes, I'm quite interested in braids actually. Planning to learn more about them in the next few weeks...
psztorc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gavinandresen>
... I'll bring the popcorn and see if the GHOST protocol and Emin/Ittay will debate, too....
psztorc is now known as Guest37592
erasmospunk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
I'm pretty down on GHOST and related papers because of selfish mining.
Guest53483 has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
Guest37592 is now known as Guest53483
<gavinandresen>
I keep getting distracted, but I've been meaning to try to get together a data set that could be used as a common measuring stick for different ideas for how to optimize information propagation across the network and the process of coming to consensus
arubi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<nsh>
a data set? i'd have imagined a dynamic simulation would be necessary in most cases
<nsh>
or do you mean to a data set to use in simulation?
<gavinandresen>
a data set to use in simulation, so apples-to-apples comparisons can be done.
MrHodl has joined #bitcoin-wizards
* nsh
nods
<gavinandresen>
Ideally a data set that reflects actual transaction volume patterns....
<gavinandresen>
(or IS actual transactions)
<nsh>
right. good idea
<bsm117532>
Someone has a large dataset...mentioned at Scaling Bitcoin...trying to recall who it is. kanzure do you have the link?
<gavinandresen>
rusty has mempool data
<gavinandresen>
(that includes when his nodes first saw transactions, if I recall correctly)
<gavinandresen>
CoinScope project has a lot of data, too.... as I said, I keep getting distracted, haven't put it together....
<PeterR>
gavinandresen: good idea. There are lots of performance metrics: orphan races, marginal orphaning risk (fee density), zero-confirm security (if any), selfish mining deterrence.
eudoxia has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
I'm pretty sure it was jtoomim.
<PeterR>
Would be good to compare each under apple-to-apples conditions.
<kanzure>
which is definitely not the one you are thinking about
erasmospunk has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
brianhoffman has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sipi has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Emcy has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
paveljanik has quit [Quit: Leaving]
zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Jeremy_Rand_2 has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
GAit1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Xzibit17_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PsychoticBoy_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lmatteis_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
runeks_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lmatteis has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
harrow has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mr_burdell has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
lmatteis_ is now known as lmatteis
e0 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
hopey has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Xzibit17 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mr_burdell_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wpalczynski_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
e0 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
PsychoticBoy has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
aj has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
runeks has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mr_burdell_ is now known as mr_burdell
hopey has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ylbam has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Fredaz has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Jaamg has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Xzibit17_ is now known as Xzibit17
Jaamg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
runeks_ is now known as runeks
mr_burdell is now known as Guest31456
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
wpalczynski has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
aj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
harrow has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wpalczynski_ is now known as wpalczynski
PsychoticBoy_ is now known as PsychoticBoy
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
erasmospunk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
melvster1 has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
Emcy_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy_ has quit [Changing host]
Emcy_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Fredaz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw|away is now known as c0rw|scrollback
melvster1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
brg444 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Quit: :)]
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy has quit [Changing host]
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
Emcy_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
c0rw|scrollback is now known as c0rw1n
<bsm117532>
Ledger Journal (ledgerjournal.org) has extended the submission deadline for the inaugural edition to Jan 15. For those of you working on papers. Hop to it!
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PeterR has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Heliox_ is now known as Heliox
eudoxia has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<PeterR>
bsm117532: to clarify, the editorial team *may* consider submissions up to Jan 15 for the first edition, contingent upon timely peer review, and whether the paper helps to "balance" the spectrum of topics covered.
<moa>
bsm117532: anonymous review?
<PeterR>
Single-blind
<PeterR>
High-quality papers are always welcome of course!
rusty has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<moa>
like with colourful animations and etc?
<PeterR>
:-)
<bsm117532>
PeterR: my braids paper is coming your way.
<bsm117532>
Just trying to stir the pot and get more things in this space peer reviewed. ;-)
<PeterR>
Looking forward to it!
<bsm117532>
Also would be happy to review...
<bsm117532>
You've got a pretty big editorial board though, I imagine you've got it covered for the inagural issue ;-)
<moa>
peer-to-peer review
<PeterR>
Are you registered as an author already? If you're not, please do so and send me a note with your reviewing interests, and I will add you to our reviewer database.
JackH has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<bsm117532>
I am registerd.
<PeterR>
Let me know your name and I'll add reviewer credentials to your account.
<PeterR>
Acutally, I just figured who you were out on my own :)
<bsm117532>
sending you a mail. I haven't been hiding my identity really...
<AdrianG>
PeterR: PeterR when is the first edition comping out
<AdrianG>
coming out*
<PeterR>
OK, you're now in our reviewer database. It would be great if you could login and add your "reviewing interests" to your account.
JackH has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<PeterR>
AdrianG: We're aiming for the spring. April or May. But since this is our first time, we're unsure how long it will take to push everything through peer-review and through copy-editting.
Emcy_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy_ has quit [Changing host]
Emcy_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
oneeman has joined #bitcoin-wizards
stevenroose has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
stevenroose|BNC is now known as stevenroose
stevenroose has quit [Disconnected by services]
<moa>
PeterR do you need a copy-editor?
Emcy has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
PeterR has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Erik_dc has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
murch has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
erasmospunk has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
smk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has quit []
DougieBot5000 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]