frib 2017-01-15 22:45:16
for on-chain transactions....
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:45:36
frib: And either that has a meaning in terms of an economic impact, or it's just an observation as to the reality which has been with us for years.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:45:49
The difference these days is, people can now control their participation in the bidding process.
frib 2017-01-15 22:46:15
i was simply looking for confirmation of that observation, sorry if it bothers you
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:46:18
frib: If it's just an observation, then, yeah, sure. Transaction volume is close to capacity and has been for years.
frib 2017-01-15 22:46:30
thanks, that's all I wanted to know
frib 2017-01-15 22:46:49
not everyone is up to date on these things
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:47:29
I mean we could stuff more into it if people adopted a better sense of transaction hygiene, and there are other optimizations that can be made to stuff more in there. And at some point there is technology which can cut through multiple transactions and collapse them into singular events which will make *effective* capacity significantly higher.. but.. meh. There's no rush.
mryandao 2017-01-15 22:48:52
are there some example transactions in the blockchain that are committed to the Liquid sidechain? anyone?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:49:11
mryandao: I don't know much about blockstream products I'm afraid. Sorry, I wouldn't know.
frib 2017-01-15 22:49:13
well actually can you be so sure? until now people may have been using offchain bookkeeping perhaps voluntarily. but we have not yet seen what happens when people are forced to. i.e. transaction times and fees will likely increase drammatically, no?
frib 2017-01-15 22:49:44
maybe that will be the needed stimulus for segwit / hygeine?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:49:59
How can I be so sure about what?
frib 2017-01-15 22:50:09
that there is no rush
frib 2017-01-15 22:50:28
on-chain transactions are soon to reach a maximum
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:52:57
I don't think it's sound to rush to accommodate people who feel what is basically an unnecessary need.
frib 2017-01-15 22:53:52
actually I don't think you could even if you wanted to
frib 2017-01-15 22:54:35
besides which fact they already have the means don't they? segwit? mimblewimble?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:54:46
I've been telling you.. on-chain transactions have been at a maximum for years.
frib 2017-01-15 22:55:02
midnightmagic, then why are they increasing in the graph?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:56:05
frib: Miners are finding ways to stuff more in, and miner policy is slowly reaching universal acceptance of maximizing block capacity.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:56:30
frib: Also it is an unfortunately *very* serious sign of miner concentralization.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:56:38
-con
frib 2017-01-15 22:56:53
yeah, is that a real danger?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:57:00
Ya.
frib 2017-01-15 22:57:31
in your view is bitcoins destiny a centralized system?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:57:54
Of course not. Centralization would imply its death.
frib 2017-01-15 22:58:04
well isn't it relative?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:58:09
It isn't.
frib 2017-01-15 22:58:17
i mean isn't there always a balance between decentralization and centralization?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:58:54
I'm asserting that at some point, centralization will lead to Bitcoin's *extremely* rapid demise.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 22:59:32
Worse, since we don't know what point that is, we must avoid it at significant cost to the system.
frib 2017-01-15 23:00:03
is it not possible that big miners would just keep it on the brink of becoming "too" centralized so that they can still profit from it, but at the same time "too little" decentralized to allow for maxmimally low fees and fast transactions times?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:00:22
It is not up to the "big" miners.
frib 2017-01-15 23:00:32
who is it up to?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:02:07
People who run full nodes, the engineering process (and I might add, not even a significant portion of the people who contribute to it), and the people whose money exists in it and who consider bitcoin to have a value.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:03:21
That is, if nearly all of the current developers did something to break bitcoin horribly, it would survive, and the engineering process would likely survive them.
frib 2017-01-15 23:03:40
i think developers are almost entirely irrelevant
frib 2017-01-15 23:03:52
and most people do not see it that way
frib 2017-01-15 23:04:16
i guess that is kind of what you're saying though
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:04:27
.. uh. No, that's not what I'm saying. Developers are critical to the functioning of the system.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:04:49
I'm saying it doesn't matter quite so much who they are--rather what the results of the process are.
frib 2017-01-15 23:05:04
when was the last time there was a network-wide client upgrade?
frib 2017-01-15 23:06:33
who they are does not matter, that's for sure. the results matter only insofar as they appeal to enough of the network to be adopted. and that's how it should be
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:06:56
eh.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:07:00
No, appeal is irrelevant also.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:07:26
If appeal matters, Microsoft wouldn't have become the dominant software manufacturer. lol
frib 2017-01-15 23:07:30
by appeal I mean they are going to download it and use it
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:08:04
Ah.. that is not IMO tied to appeal.
frib 2017-01-15 23:08:33
ok then not appeal
frib 2017-01-15 23:08:41
whatever word fits that definition ;)
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:09:00
More like.. agreement I guess? Convinced of the rational choice?
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:09:01
Microsoft (Windows) became mainstream because Microsoft cut deals with computer manufactures
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:09:09
to have their OS pre-installed as factory default
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:09:27
Most users, unaware they are able to install any OS they want, just use the default without thinking
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:09:34
cannon-c: People would have stuck with .. e.g. Commodore if they didn't *choose* to flock to the utility of Micro$oft.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:09:41
and so familiarity is the basis of Microsoft windows loyality
frib 2017-01-15 23:09:42
cannon-c, which is ironically similar to bitcoin in a way...
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:10:16
frib what is similar to bitcoin in a way and how?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:10:17
No, bitcoin's engineering process is basically the fount from which flows most of the security of (by numbers) almost every altcoin that exists.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:10:43
Microsoft's lack of appeal didn't prevent it from achieving market dominance.
frib 2017-01-15 23:10:58
because there was no comprable alternative
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:11:32
A choice to use e.g. bitcoin-core is a rational decision not based on how easy it is to use the base software, but because it is literally the best-maintained and least problematic choice there is.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:11:51
bitcoin though has all the development efforts, and stability
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:11:59
it is tried and battle tested
frib 2017-01-15 23:12:01
if it is then people will come to that conclusion on their own
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:12:30
most alts are just fragmentation of development efforts and progress
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:12:42
usually with pump/dump intentions
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:13:08
while bitcoin is not perfect, and any design can always be made better. Bitcoin works, and works really well
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:13:30
and can only be improved over time as more dev efforts carry out
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:13:49
like IRC, decades old but we are using it because it works
Lauda 2017-01-15 23:13:51
99.9% alts are shitcoins.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:14:01
I am a fan of namecoin though
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:14:07
decentralized DNS
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:14:18
is its intention
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:14:27
cannon-c: Almost always with pump/dump intentions.. it slays me with amusement when I see Dash pumpers, for example, try to argue away the "accidental" premine and the likely rapid subsequent centralization of the master nodes.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:14:47
but for use of currency, financial network, bitcoin is king and I believe always will be
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:14:51
Yeah. I also like namecoin. Hope it survives.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:15:17
or at least bitcoin will always co-exist with any other, just like gold still exists with paper and plastic
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:15:18
Not sure it will, but I don't mind helping them.
frib 2017-01-15 23:15:18
anyway... if bitcoin miners are accepting block maximization, and that is a sign of centralization... and centralization means the death of bitcoin... then what can one logically predict will be the source of pushback towards more decentralization (if it is to survive that is) ?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:15:29
frib: No it isn't.
frib 2017-01-15 23:15:39
what isn't what
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:15:45
frib: A sign.
frib 2017-01-15 23:16:01
i thought I Was just repeating what you said
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:16:06
Ah, I see.
frib 2017-01-15 23:16:17
Also it is an unfortunately *very* serious sign of miner concentralization.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:16:30
No, I meant that the average number of transactions increasing is a dangerous sign because it implies far fewer orphans. Fewer orphans implies centralization.
frib 2017-01-15 23:16:54
orphans being??
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:17:13
Or.. I guess "extinct" blocks.
frib 2017-01-15 23:17:15
orphaned blocks?
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:17:32
https://blockchain.info/pools does not appear to be centralized right now
piqure 2017-01-15 23:17:33
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:17:56
however, how many of these are running hardfork risk rules i.e. bitcoin unlimited etc...?
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:18:08
(and miners blocking segwit)
frib 2017-01-15 23:18:08
midnightmagic, what does transaction volume have to do with orphans?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:18:27
Eh, most of those kinds of charts (and blockchain.info's in particular, I might add) don't really tell us much about the *control* of the hashrate, since I know for a fact some larger miners spread their hashrate out amongst multiple mining pools and then claim that it the same thing as ownership decentralization.
frib 2017-01-15 23:19:14
well if it is in their interest to make it seem that way then they will do it.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:19:14
frib: A fewer amount of extinct blocks implies more effective global communication e.g. centralization or cabal formation.
Belxjander 2017-01-15 23:19:31
midnightmagic: so they are really just relabelling how they try for more income from mining generally?
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:19:42
Would I even be helping out with decentralization at all if I am running a terra-hash?
frib 2017-01-15 23:19:54
midnightmagic, what?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:19:58
Belxjander: In order to prevent a hashrate majority risk panic.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:20:14
even if say 100,000 people ran a terrahash of mining power, If Im correct still would not even help with decentralization
frib 2017-01-15 23:20:19
aren't orphaned blocks extremely rare?
Belxjander 2017-01-15 23:20:45
oh... hiding how much centralization has actually occured?
frib 2017-01-15 23:20:53
doesn't it take like no time at all to comunicate proof of solving a block?
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:20:59
;;difficulty
gribble 2017-01-15 23:21:00
Error: "difficulty" is not a valid command.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:21:05
;;hashrate
gribble 2017-01-15 23:21:05
Error: "hashrate" is not a valid command.
haakonn 2017-01-15 23:21:45
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty -- difficulty projected to rise by 13% next week
piqure 2017-01-15 23:21:46
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:22:02
cannon-c: Hrm. Well current hashrate is 2,755,277,043 GH/s, or 2,755,277TH/s. So 100,000 people running 1TH/s would increase that by about 3%? Or so?
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:22:39
yeah so very very hard to help with mining decentralization even if everyone ran alot of mining power
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:22:51
correct me if im wrong
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:23:05
Well right now a group-buy of some bitfury containers would probably still be profitable if it were done properly.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:23:14
esp. with the rise in price.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:23:14
i'd be interested
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:23:32
I think each container is.. what now? Like $1m ? Eh I forget.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:23:42
how much is a container?
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:23:52
in
frib 2017-01-15 23:23:52
i think mining was a dumb idea, but what do i know
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:24:15
15PH/s apparently.
Lauda 2017-01-15 23:24:19
Correct, you don't know nothing. :D
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:24:40
frib mining is neccesary to how bitcoin works
frib 2017-01-15 23:24:45
Lauda, i appreciate the double negative, it leaves me with hope :D
Lauda 2017-01-15 23:25:00
Next target 1 Zettahash.
frib 2017-01-15 23:25:01
cannon-c, says satoshi nakamoto
frib 2017-01-15 23:25:21
or should i say, necessary to how bitcoin doesnt work
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:25:35
huh?
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:26:28
@Lauda I predict computer science will need to create a term for describing 1,000 yoda because of bitcoin hashrate
buZz 2017-01-15 23:26:44
how many yodas do you need?
wingman2 2017-01-15 23:27:16
zeta?
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:27:21
lol meant yotta
frib 2017-01-15 23:27:28
mining capability is directly proportional to capital, which means that sooner or later it will move towards centralization of power, not entirely but to the extent that bitcoin will have sacrificed the features that made it revolutionary
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:27:38
1000 kB kilobyte 10002 MB megabyte 10003 GB gigabyte 10004 TB terabyte 10005 PB petabyte 10006 EB exabyte 10007 ZB zettabyte 10008 YB yottabyte
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:28:02
arghhh irc didnt copy correct, the numbers after the 1000's are to the power of
wingman2 2017-01-15 23:28:26
huh you're right
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:28:37
"mining capability is directly proportional to capital, which means that sooner or later it will move towards centralization of power, not entirely but to the extent that bitcoin will have sacrificed the features that made it revolutionary
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:28:52
This I can agree is a concern
buZz 2017-01-15 23:28:57
after yotta; bronto, after that, gego
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:29:02
cannon-c: It can be corrected.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:29:06
how?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:29:13
cannon-c: The cost is high though. ASIC Doomsday.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:29:37
referring to change of POW algo?
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:29:51
That would be a hardfork that miners would not play by
frib 2017-01-15 23:29:52
midnightmagic, how
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:30:05
cannon-c: Not a big one.
Lauda 2017-01-15 23:30:12
cannon-c yottabytes exist, not sure what they will have to create.
frib 2017-01-15 23:30:22
cannon-c, miners are not necessary for consensus if difficulty can be lowered
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:30:30
cannon-c: And it is irrelevant what the miners do-- since the existential risks are what they created to begin with.
Lauda 2017-01-15 23:30:43
brontobyte = 1000 yottabytes
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:31:03
brontohash / second
frib 2017-01-15 23:31:08
midnightmagic, could you elaborate on ASIC doomsday?
Lauda 2017-01-15 23:31:23
There's even something above that
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:31:54
frib: Smart silicon that knows its owner, and signature PoW algos that the network can detect are from equipment type X or equipment type Y, basically.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:32:34
frib: Leased hardware which can't be subverted.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:32:40
Only destroyed or disconnected.
frib 2017-01-15 23:32:42
yeah you los tme
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:33:08
taling about that new VPS thing ?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:33:11
"A way to identify what hardware produced a block, plus hardware that only does work that its owner approves of."
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:34:28
That kind of hardware could be (more) safely rolled out to a datacentre. And the successful silicon manufacturer would essentially benefit from being a hashrate monopoly.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:34:34
Why it hasn't been done yet is totally beyond me.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:34:37
is this related to FlexVer?
frib 2017-01-15 23:35:11
midnightmagic, doesn't that just make the problem worse?
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:35:13
I dont like the idea of a decentralized protocol being reliant on machines outside of users possession
mryandao 2017-01-15 23:35:23
midnightmagic: how is that even possible? if that was the case, surely there'd be plenty of miners spoofing their hardware identifier
mryandao 2017-01-15 23:35:32
just like how MAC addresses can be spoofed
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:35:55
and such layer of complexity would be bad idea
frib 2017-01-15 23:36:14
definitely not a fan of complexity
frib 2017-01-15 23:36:27
hence my comment on mining
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:37:04
then when flaws found with flexver, in which FlexVer is used for purpose not originally created for (i.e. forced remote mining)
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:37:31
there will likely just be another complexity layer on top of that creating a slippery slope rabbit hole
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:37:39
of complexity made up of layers.
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:38:12
No, it would correct the problem for about as long as each successive ASIC generation was possible, multiplied by how many backup algorithms were locked in prior generations' circuitry.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:38:56
midnightmagic is there a whitepaper with such idea?
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:39:05
I'd be interested in hearing the technicality of it
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:39:45
And is this simple solution?
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:39:58
cannon-c: No, unfortunately. No whitepaper. Nobody wants to make enemies of miners who are, for the moment, at least pretending to make an effort to be honest.
cannon-c 2017-01-15 23:39:58
as in lacking in complexity
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:40:26
Plus wrecking a multi-million dollar industry like that given e.g. KnC widely and directly was willing to defraud their customers is dangerous.
quirkygoofy 2017-01-15 23:40:38
notice how they didnt call for an end to self interest NGO propoganda http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/breakingnews/30304200
piqure 2017-01-15 23:40:39
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:42:12
quirkygoofy: Why are you posting that in here?
quirkygoofy 2017-01-15 23:42:32
money is coins
midnightmagic 2017-01-15 23:43:12
quirkygoofy: No, technically that's offtopic. Don't do that, plz. You're also combining it with contentious political trolling.
quirkygoofy 2017-01-15 23:44:15
oh
