Reddit User Account Overview

/u/

/u/jessquit
Redditor Since September 6, 2016 (1,505 days old)
Karma Posts: 44,603 Comments: 187,720 Combined: 232,323
Active in


https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/

This is rbtc, the subreddit for people who wanted to scale and improve Bitcoin but were censored out of rbitcoin. Recently, a fair amount of noise has been generated from a few comments made by Jonathan Toomim regarding reducing the block interval. Reducing the block interval is something that I and many others have assumed would eventually happen. Like the block size limit, the block interval is *not* a sacred cow variable, but is instead a "safe enough for now" guess that Satoshi pulled out of his ass. A few things should be said about the block interval: 1. **Can't do instant txns** - It probably *can't* ever be reduced low enough to permit reliable "instant" transactions without a significant penalty to orphan rate, which would be bad. 2. **Can be reduced without penalty** - It definitely *can* be reduced by several factors of two, and maybe even by an entire order of magnitude, without any significant penalty to orphan rate. 3. **Reducing block interval is a scaling improvement** - Reducing the average block interval by half offers an equivalent scaling benefit to doubling the block size. Reducing it by an order of magnitude offers equivalent scaling benefit to increasing the block size limit by 10x. A 10x improvement in block interval would be the equivalent to increasing the current BSL to 320MB. 4. **Reducing block interval is a usability improvement** - while it is true that reducing block interval is unlikely to facilitate "instant" transactions at the register, it is also true that many other applications would see a usability improvement. An easy example is more quickly moving coins on and off exchanges. But every transaction would see a reduction in confirmation wait times, which is an unqualified win, *even at the register*. Every application that uses the blockchain would see a UX benefit, however marginal, because other things equal, faster is always better. ____ Past this, I want to point out that, at this moment, there is literally no plan at all to reduce block interval. None. All that's happened is just the beginning of some discussion. That's it. A few comments in a reddit sub. Nothing more. Folks, we have to be able *discuss* improvements without people freaking out at the mere hint of discussion.

posted by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 08:04:02

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/giuee8/just_a_comment_about_the_twospace_thing_in_the/

So the thing that hung me up right away was all the attention paid to the fact that both Adam and Satoshi use two spaces after the period, because that's how I was taught to type. I thought back on it and remembered that my mother and her mother both taught me to type that way, as well as my high school typing class. I checked a bunch of old legal documents I have from the 60s and 70s and they're all typed with two spaces after periods. Turns out that *everyone*, **everywhere** used to be taught to use two spaces after the period. And in fact, in 2020 over 1/3 of people polled *still believe* it's the correct way to punctuate: https://www.instructionalsolutions.com/blog/one-space-vs-two-after-period If anything, the fact that Satoshi used two spaces after periods simply means he learned to type on a typewriter, not a computer. The world is simply full of people who were taught this practice and continue it to this day. The thing I want to call your attention to is that with hundreds of millions of people still doing this, and readily available information on the internet that explains the origins of the practice and how prevalent it still is, the makers of the video still seemed to believe that it was smoking gun evidence. They gave this topic a fair amount of time in the video. If they'd spent even a fraction of that time doing a Google search, they'd have realized it's utterly specious and proves nothing. I think maybe *Barely Sociable* (who made the video) didn't do much research, and was instead pushing an agenda.

posted by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 03:40:28

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/e04d5w/everyone_particularly_btc_fans_should_read_and/

*emphasis mine* INTRODUCTION Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted **third parties** to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for **small casual transactions,** and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non- reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party. What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to **transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party**. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer **distributed timestamp server** to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes. TRANSACTIONS We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership. The problem of course is the payee can't verify that one of the owners did not double-spend the coin. A common solution is to introduce a trusted central authority, or mint, that checks every transaction for double spending. After each transaction, the coin must be returned to the mint to issue a new coin, and only coins issued directly from the mint are trusted not to be double-spent. The problem with this solution is that the fate of the entire money system depends on the company running the mint, with every transaction having to go through them, just like a bank. We need a way for the payee to know that the previous owners did not sign any **earlier** transactions. For our purposes, **the earliest transaction is the one that counts**, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions. In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and decided which arrived **first.** To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced [1], and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of **the order in which they were received**. The payee needs proof that **at the time of each transaction, the majority of nodes agreed it was the first received.**

posted by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on November 22, 2019 12:42:23

https://imgur.com/0WE7dJn

posted by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on November 19, 2019 01:44:21

https://i.imgflip.com/3gfkpl.jpg

posted by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on November 15, 2019 04:41:23

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/drlozc/i_recently_recounted_the_history_of_the_block/

Bitcoin development was initially led by an anonymous figure named Satoshi Nakamoto who created the project "[Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System](http://bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf)" The project mostly languished in obscurity until in late 2010 it was revealed that Bitcoin was being used to evade the ban on Wikileaks contributions. (A good summary of Bitcoin's early history can be found [here](https://www.wired.com/2011/11/mf-bitcoin/).) Satoshi was opposed to Bitcoin being used for something as controversial as funding Wikileaks, and in one of his last messages, wrote "It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us." ([link](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2216.msg29280#msg29280)). Satoshi vanished shortly thereafter. When Satoshi disappeared, he left the project effectively in the control of Gavin Andresen, one of the early contributors to the project. Gavin has been characterized as something of a naive academic. It wasn't long before Gavin had been approached by the CIA and [agreed to visit and do a presentation](https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=6652.0). So we know that Bitcoin was on the CIA's radar by 2011. Bitcoin-as-introduced had an Achilles heel. To prevent a specific kind of denial-of-service attack, Satoshi had added a "block size limit" to prevent flooding attacks. [Satoshi's plan was to raise the limit](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366) as usage increased. Satoshi and the early Bitcoiners such as myself did not envision that the limit might itself be a vulnerability. A near-complete history of the block size limit controversy is [here](https://hackernoon.com/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-debate-a-timeline-6108081dbada). I'll attempt to summarize my experience with some references. Now it's almost 2020, and by now we've all become much more attuned to the scope of what three-letter-agencies have been doing to manipulate social media platforms. But in 2012 that was tinfoil-hat stuff across most of the internet. In 2012, the Bitcoin subreddit was one of the key places people went for discussion about what was happening in Bitcoin. That, and the bitcointalk forum. The history of what happened has been well documented with sources in places like [here](https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43) and [here](https://archive.md/UMCyw). The TLDR is * "Theymos" gains control of r\/bitcoin and bitcointalk * Theymos receives a 6000 BTC donation (worth in the low millions of dollars at the time) to develop new forum software. [No software is developed.](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40tsj6/breaking_theymos_all_you_have_to_do_is_to_follow/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) * a company is created, "Blockstream" whose [mission depends on keeping Bitcoin's block size limit in place](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4zg7y9/what_exactly_is_blockstream_cores_excuse_for/d6vtj45?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share). Blockstream ostensibly plans to sell alternatives to using the Bitcoin blockchain when the blockchain becomes unusable due to congestion. Strangely, those alternatives all look suspiciously like "banking." * (2014) Blockstream gets ~$55M in initial seed funding and begins hiring Bitcoin Core (the main software repo for the Bitcoin software) developers. Developers who were formerly in favor of raising Bitcoin's block size strangely pivot 180° after gaining employment with Blockstream. Later it is revealed that the [overwhelming majority of contributors to Bitcoin Core code ultimately were Blockstream-funded](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7lio87/debunking_blockstream_is_3_or_4_developers_out_of/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) or funded through MIT Media Labs. * (2014) Trolling on social media pivots from "anti-Bitcoin" to "anti-raising-the-block-size-limit". Obstruction to raising the limit suddenly a serious conflict within Bitcoin Core development. * (2015) MIT Media Labs' Digital Currency Initiative hires Gavin Andresen and Wladimir van der Laan. Gavin and Wladimir are the two Core developers who have final authority over the Bitcoin Core software. * (2015) Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn become the leaders of a counter-Blockstream movement called Bitcoin XT. XT was a new Bitcoin client that would cause the block size to be raised if enough people used it. * (2015) Theymos famously begins banning everyone from r\/Bitcoin who supports Bitcoin XT, or who speaks out in favor of raising the block size, or questions the moderation policy, etc. This [temporary measure](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) continues to this day. * (2015) Banned OG Bitcoiners try to raise awareness by creating an uncensored subreddit r\/btc to expose the apparent takeover of the Bitcoin project by Blockstream * (2016) Blockstream CEO Adam Back travels to Hong Kong to convince of miners and other key Bitcoin stakeholders to sign [an agreement to run only Bitcoin Core software.](https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff) * (2017) XT has failed but a new alternative client, Bitcoin Unlimited, appears and [begins to see more popularity among miners than the Bitcoin Core alternative, Segwit.] (https://99bitcoins.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/miner-support.png) and it begins appear that Bitcoin Unlimited could activate, raising the Bitcoin block size limit. * (2017) a compromise (bait-and-switch) is suddenly proposed from nowhere and suddenly gains widespread support: Segwit2X. This will raise the block size limit by 2X, *but only after Segwit is activated.* Segwit activates, but support for the 2X block size limit increase quickly evaporates. Throughout all of this, Blockstream steadfastly argued that it didn't control the Bitcoin Core software. Blockstream pointed to Chaincode Labs who funded several key bitcoin developers and the MIT Media Labs "Digital Currency Initiative" who funded Gavin, Cory, and Wladimir. Gavin and Wladimir in particular had the authority to merge changes into the Bitcoin Core software and as such effectively could decide what did and did not go into the software. As an ostensibly academic organization, Gavin and Wladimir etc could act with intellectual honesty and without coercion. Except Gavin left the Digital Currency Initiative in 2017, saying that while he wasn't pressured to quit, he "[didn't want to feel obligated to any person or organization](https://mobile.twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/931529500235616256)." Fast forward to 2019, and we learn the fascinating news that the MIT Media Labs were funded in part by none other than Jeffrey Epstein, [who it turns out just so happened to be a staunch advocate of the Blockstream approach](https://coinspice.io/news/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-btc-maximalist-bitcoin-is-a-store-of-value-not-a-currency/). So really, Bitcoin development was corralled: Blockstream was paying a bunch of devs, and Blockstream-Friendly MIT Media Labs were paying the others. ___ If you're still reading this, you probably wonder what it is about the Blockstream strategy that is so "bad." Aren't they just proposing a different way to solve Bitcoin's problems? The original idea for Bitcoin was a "peer to peer cash system" - - the idea being that if Alice wants to buy something from Bob, she can just give him some tokens - - just like cash. The new vision of bitcoin promoted by Blockstream and Core is "store of value". Under this model, you buy Bitcoins like you might speculate on gold - you buy some and you hold it. Later, if you want to purchase something, you sell your Bitcoins for some other payment method (or use an IOU against a deposit, just like a bank), and use that for purchases. It should be apparent after a moment of thought that the original concept (Alice hands Bob some cash which Bob can then spend how he likes) is vastly more disruptive than the model in which Alice buys Bitcoin on a government-regulated exchange, holds them hoping they'll appreciate in value, and then sells them for Euros or dollars. In model one, the currency is essentially outside the domain of gatekeepers, and could completely disintermediate the entire existing financial system just like Napster for money. In model two, Bitcoin is no more disruptive than shares of a gold fund.

posted by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on November 4, 2019 13:21:18

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/cwllpj/showerthought_would_it_be_possible_to_build_a/

Problem: I have apartments and a website but if I accept Paypal or credit cards then I'm subject to chargeback fraud. If clients send cash or checks or crypto, they're at risk of me defrauding them. I could use Airb&b or another centralized solution, but these providers introduce gatekeeping and other friction into the process, and often take a hefty percentage. What is needed is a decentralized solution that protects me from chargebacks but also provides my guests with an assurance that I won't defraud them. Another problem with decentralized rentals is that the reviews left by guests on my website have no credibility. It would be useful if the solution could include a decentralized ratings system that would add validity and credibility to my guest's reviews. Solution: a smartlock that listens for and broadcasts onchain transactions can effectively serve as the oracle for a smart contract that enables the following basic logic 1. Client makes payment via txn to cashaddress Addr which corresponds to the apartment being rented. these funds are placed in blind escrow. txn contains the information needed by the smartlock, such as the checkin/out dates. 2. On date D1 the smartlock effectuates the user's entry code. the owner is not provided with this code. Only the renter receives this code. Thus the owner can only receive his funds after the renter arrives. 3. When the entry code is entered, the smartlock submits a txn that releases the payment to the landlord. 4. The smartlock disables the user's entry code after date D2. 5. Contract failure: in the event that the guest never arrives or the smartlock is not present, after date D3 the contract will automatically release the funds to the renter and the owner according to a predefined percentage (ie 50/50). Since the smartlock cannot know why the code was never used, the solution punishes guests who don't show; but also punishes owners if the smartlock is not present, for example. The system will depend on a reliable ratings system to quickly weed out bad actors. 6. the contract can comprehend a cancellation window. If guests wish to cancel by date D4 that is prior to D1, then they can submit a transaction which can release their funds (all or partial) back to them. 7. Offchain ratings systems can anchor their ratings to these contract transactions that pay to the smartlock's address. Therefore review fraud is greatly reduced, because it will be impossible to backdate fake reviews. Fake reviews will perforce have to be created one-by-one in realtime and will penalize the owner because his apartment will be booked / offline for the duration of the fake review he wishes to create. 8. The system would also support reviews of guests by owners to create a guest reputation system.

posted by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on August 28, 2019 10:31:24
Top
/r/InternetIsBeautiful/comments/jdpj1k/a_statistically_proven_method_to_find_out_which/g9b0rho/

Luna is my favorite character from the novels. I would like you.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/InternetIsBeautiful on October 19, 2020 04:24:18
/r/btc/comments/jbnp2o/taproot_inching_closer_for_btc_another_pr_merged/g97u5dm/

I see that /u/poopsnposts deleted their message, but here it is anyway. > I can't speak for the client they're speaking of but I can attest that 0.3.19 can sync. That's from 2010 and posted by Satoshi. Are you saying I have done the impossible? Yes, you have done the impossible, which is probably why you deleted your post. Please don't gaslight here. Here's a description of the incompatibilities between the older node software and current Bitcoin protocol: > First of all, the network version is so old that no modern node software will accept connections from it. Furthermore, the format of the network messages has changed since the first release so that it now contains a checksum of the message. The first version of the Bitcoin client did not have a checksum for messages. This difference in the network protocol will result in messages that do not make sense to either node in a connection. > >In addition to the network message change, the original Bitcoin client will be unable to find nodes to connect to. It was only able to connect solely through using IRC node discovery which has since been disabled and removed. So you will need to specially construct the peers.dat file so that it will be able to find a peer to connect to. > >Lastly, the original Bitcoin client will be unable to sync past the 2013 fork unless the number of BDB locks is increased. Using the default settings, it will run out of locks when it reaches around that time and thus fail to sync.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 18, 2020 09:07:44
/r/AskReddit/comments/jddf8o/what_is_the_single_biggest_dick_move_in_all_of/g97qb3j/

Can't tell if serious or parody.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/AskReddit on October 18, 2020 08:34:03
/r/AskReddit/comments/jddf8o/what_is_the_single_biggest_dick_move_in_all_of/g97q4v0/

Yeah every time I hear about "prosperity gospel" or the all-loving God who just wants what's best for you, I am reminded of the time God decided to relentlessly torture his most loving devotee just to prove a point.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/AskReddit on October 18, 2020 08:32:32
/r/AskReddit/comments/jddf8o/what_is_the_single_biggest_dick_move_in_all_of/g97pwyp/

How about the perfect, all powerful, all knowing deity who almost destroyed the entire world in a massive flood because he apparently fucked it up and wanted to take a mulligan on creation, but then decided it was a mistake, so he created rainbows as a reminder to himself not to flood the world again, just in case he should get the itch.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/AskReddit on October 18, 2020 08:30:44
/r/btc/comments/jbnp2o/taproot_inching_closer_for_btc_another_pr_merged/g97olgm/

BTC cannot sync a Satoshi client without modification. So according to your logic, even BTC isn't Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 18, 2020 08:19:26
/r/btc/comments/jbnp2o/taproot_inching_closer_for_btc_another_pr_merged/g9350qm/

It's hard to imagine that this really needs explaining, but I'll try. Again, we have to ask, why it is that in the two major Bitcoin subs (one heavily censored, the other basically wide open to any topic) Most of the people in this sub support [Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System](http://bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf) and many or most were summarily booted out of rbitcoin during the takeover of rbitcoin by the people who hijacked the Bitcoin development process. In fact this sub wouldn't even be a relevant Bitcoin sub with any significant activity at all, except for the mass banning and censorship by the BTC hijackers. All of us would be discussing Taproot and Lightning **and** CashFusion and xthinner in rbitcoin, except for the mass bannings and censorship. As such there aren't a lot of BTC supporters here, and a fair number of people who are openly hostile to itg, and downvote content related to it because of the animosity generated by the censorship and bannings. So, again, the root of your problem is that BTC supporters tend to congregate in the sub that utilizes heavy censorship and bannings. Why they aren't here is YOUR problem to solve. They are most certainly permitted to post here and upvote, as your post itself shows. Surely you believe there are more BTC supporters than BCH supporters. If the BTC supporters were here, instead of in the censored sub, their opinion would be dominant and your taproot post might have made it to the front page for days. So, answer the question and solve your problem: Why do BTC supporters congregate in the "safe space" of price memes where challenging viewpoints are removed en masse (rbitcoin) instead of in the community in which all views are permitted?

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 17, 2020 04:45:54
/r/btc/comments/jc4akk/george_donnelly_receiving_death_threats_i_find/g930epx/

Gee, a certain someone in this thread due seems to be working double overtime to smear a certain other person, what could that be about.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 17, 2020 03:23:25
/r/btc/comments/jc4akk/george_donnelly_receiving_death_threats_i_find/g930cqw/

I usually hate this thing but /u/cryptochecker

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 17, 2020 03:22:29
/r/btc/comments/jbnp2o/taproot_inching_closer_for_btc_another_pr_merged/g92zth8/

And my point is that is a reflection of who occupies the uncensored Bitcoin sub and who instead remains in the curated cesspool. What can I say? You should encourage more like minded people to come here, instead of hiding in rbitcoin. Nobody will ban them for posting about any bitcoin technology, unlike in rbitcoin. Then you'll have the votes you want.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 17, 2020 03:13:25
/r/btc/comments/jbnp2o/taproot_inching_closer_for_btc_another_pr_merged/g8zho1u/

> If you wanted to actually see BTC content that you should encourage it rather than discourage it. I upvoted your post. I have only one vote to give. >My post is massive news, yet is has 0 votes. What can I say? You should encourage more like minded people to come here, instead of hiding in rbitcoin.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 16, 2020 04:54:25
/r/btc/comments/jbnp2o/taproot_inching_closer_for_btc_another_pr_merged/g8xcpwm/

This sub has had downvote bots running on all the content for months. A lot of my stuff is downvoted to zero. Past that, I guess the answer to your question is, why do BTC users prefer to hang out in the censored sub instead of here? They're welcome here, and would surely outnumber all the rest of us if they came, but they don't. They stay in the curated number go up meme sub. BCH support is what happens when you take Bitcoin and remove the censorship.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 15, 2020 14:56:46
/r/btc/comments/jbnp2o/taproot_inching_closer_for_btc_another_pr_merged/g8xbrvr/

Ok, now I can say that 99% are "number go up" and 1% have to do with Bitcoin tech. Yay!

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 15, 2020 14:48:57
/r/btc/comments/jbnp2o/taproot_inching_closer_for_btc_another_pr_merged/g8xb539/

Stop calling me. You aren't my girlfriend anymore. We broke up. Get over it.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 15, 2020 14:43:43
/r/btc/comments/jb30tk/greg_maxwell_engaging_in_gaslighting_and/g8vrueh/

whynotboth.gif

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 15, 2020 04:51:28
/r/btc/comments/jb30tk/greg_maxwell_engaging_in_gaslighting_and/g8vrsi2/

Remember that time I told you that if you don't want people thinking that you're Greg, you should try not to act so obviously like Greg? This is that.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 15, 2020 04:50:28
/r/btc/comments/jb30tk/greg_maxwell_engaging_in_gaslighting_and/g8vrk12/

Me too. The events of the last six or so years have been very depressing, though enlightening. The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 15, 2020 04:45:58
/r/btc/comments/jb30tk/greg_maxwell_engaging_in_gaslighting_and/g8vpm61/

>> A lot of early Bitcoiners knew this and spoke clearly about it, but somehow as waves of new people came in 2013 where 99% of their experience with money was 'payments' This is literally the first sentence of the [Bitcoin white paper](http://bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf): > A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow **online payments** to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution /u/nullc is gaslighting like a mofo

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 15, 2020 04:08:58
/r/btc/comments/ja2v79/mildly_interesting_during_3_years_of_trolls/g8oa8rh/

BCH can have higher price and more accumulated hashrate than BTC for 10 years and it will still be "bitcoin cash" in the public eye. Meanwhile BCH is "Bitcoin" already to most of us because we remember that Bitcoin is an idea for a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System and BTC stopped trying to be that 3-4 years ago.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 13, 2020 03:53:42
/r/btc/comments/j8iacl/i_dont_know_or_think_much_about_the_proud_boys/g8gy3he/

>> That's called "the free market." > >Phone companies and Electric companies don't have that luxury (perhaps they should). The point of my post is that the OP holds strong ancap views and AFAIU believes there should be absolutely no government interference in commerce. The point of my comment was to show him that by his own logic, it's perfectly acceptable (even good) that businesses have decided they don't want to do business with certain groups. I'm more in your camp: in a civil society, the conversation is more nuanced. That said, while I don't always agree with OP, I strongly respect the fact that he's always willing to tolerate disagreement.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 11, 2020 07:15:35
/r/btc/comments/j917ia/algorithm_for_starting_to_accept_payments_in_btc/g8gsax0/

>> 3) BTC has a security vulnerability known as RBF which cause merchants to lose money. Bitcoin Cash is more secure because it doesn't have RBF. > >I think we should drop this talking point or change it Correct. The correct argument is that BTC has a policy of "always full blocks". The "always full blocks" policy means that it's never safe to accept an unconfirmed transaction, because the merchant has no idea when, if ever, it will confirm.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 11, 2020 06:28:16
/r/btc/comments/j8iacl/i_dont_know_or_think_much_about_the_proud_boys/g8gravg/

Simple questions time. Have you ever once been asked for identification before making a purchase? Yes or no will suffice.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 11, 2020 06:20:22
/r/btc/comments/j8iacl/i_dont_know_or_think_much_about_the_proud_boys/g8g6rb8/

And the winner of the 2020 Olympic Jumping to Conclusions event is... >So by your logic, in allowing pseudonymous transactions rather than authenticating identity, aren't Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash interfering in "the free market" online and isn't cryptocurrency therefore a bad thing in your eyes, as it can easily prevent someone from being "free to decide which customers to serve"? No. > If not, why not? Because I can always ask you for ID before doing business with you, if I want. Or not, if I don't. > As a corollary: why isn't USD cash itself a corruption of your 'free market', since it carries no identity information? Same as above. This is ridiculous.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 11, 2020 03:18:11
/r/btc/comments/j85ryk/bitcoin_cash_prefork_trading_is_live_on_poloniex/g8d1xmx/

They refer to BCH both pre and post-fork as "BCHABC" https://m.poloniex.com/learn/bch-fork Don't let anyone tell you that exchanges aren't being paid to sabotage Bitcoin Cash.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 10, 2020 16:03:37
/r/btc/comments/j8iacl/i_dont_know_or_think_much_about_the_proud_boys/g8by1hh/

Yes, everyone should be free to decide which customers to serve, and which customers they don't want to serve. If a company thinks that the Proud Boys are too controversial and therefore bad for business, they have every right to terminate their business agreement. That's called "the free market."

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 10, 2020 11:33:12
/r/btc/comments/j50l1v/is_it_time_to_adjust_your_btc_portfolio/g7s781t/

The only posts we ever see on BTC are silly price predictions made by drawing hopeful lines on charts. Meanwhile BCH is advancing the technology of [Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System](http://bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf) every day.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 5, 2020 08:42:00
/r/btc/comments/j5hsgq/recurring_triangle_pattern_indicates_a_possible/g7s75rw/

The only posts we ever see on BTC are silly price predictions made by drawing hopeful lines on charts. Meanwhile BCH is advancing the technology of [Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System](http://bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf) every day.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 5, 2020 08:41:23
/r/btc/comments/j5h1qd/bitcoin_gears_up_for_another_attempt_at_moving/g7s74f3/

The only posts we ever see on BTC are silly price predictions made by drawing hopeful lines on charts. Meanwhile BCH is advancing the technology of [Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System](http://bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf) every day.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 5, 2020 08:41:01
/r/btc/comments/j576m8/bitcoin_is_estimated_to_consume_more_electricity/g7rn1ya/

I think it would be valued based on its comparative utility. Name one thing it does better than a competing token?

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 5, 2020 04:12:43
/r/btc/comments/j576m8/bitcoin_is_estimated_to_consume_more_electricity/g7rkk8w/

That's because it's horrendously overvalued

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 5, 2020 03:24:27
/r/btc/comments/j5em71/bitcoin_will_rise_to_over_1_trillion_in_next_ten/g7rkiuc/

The only posts we ever see about BTC are crack smoking price predictions. BTC is a dead coin walking.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 5, 2020 03:23:42
/r/btc/comments/j4r5cx/listen_guys_if_you_cant_move_your_funds_because/g7novj8/

If what you're saying is true, the pets.com must be a great place to buy pet supplies

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 4, 2020 06:15:15
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7m7r0o/

No. It doesn't have anything to do with their hash rate.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 4, 2020 00:31:35
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7hptox/

Then no token is safe

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 3, 2020 02:42:40
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7fhf2a/

"big" in terms of #blocks (because they happen more often) , but not "big" in terms of elapsed time or #txns confirmed

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 2, 2020 14:53:57
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7fha0j/

In an outright 51% attack, then yes, you could unwind the entire blockchain if you have enough hashpower. But that's not a real world consideration in a world with fairly distributed mining pools. Which is why exchanges need about thirty minutes of confirms for BTC, but only 8 minutes for ETH.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 2, 2020 14:52:55
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7fg47k/

AFAIK the overhead is the block header. 80 bytes.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 2, 2020 14:44:34
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7dq4ef/

Exchange transfers.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 2, 2020 04:01:09
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7dq2rf/

You literally missed the point entirely. > If they aren't happy with 1 conf with 10 minute blocks, then they will require 10 times as many confs with 1 minute blocks. The point is: this is completely false.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 2, 2020 04:00:21
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7dq0qx/

There have been downvote bots working this sub for months, according to one of the mods.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 2, 2020 03:59:21
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7c39jz/

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. I'm using this https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/trading-and-funding/sending-or-receiving-cryptocurrency/why-is-my-transaction-pending Coinbase requires 2 Dash confirmations, which means an expected wait time of 5 mins. They require 35 ETH confirmations, or an expected wait time of 8:45. So Dash would be 3:45 faster than ETH, not 10:00. Kraken requires 6 Dash confirms.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 17:55:06
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7c2hrz/

Six confirmations isn't in the graph. The graph stops at 1200 secs (two confirmations). And the graph clearly shows that with 17 sec blocks you get that "2-conf" equivalent finality in about a minute. It also shows that you get effective irreversibility in about 90 secs. I don't think you're reading the graph correctly.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 17:48:23
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7c235q/

FWIW I've seen the same comments for two years now from Chinese users that George is talking about. I brushed it off at first, but the longer I've sat with it, the more it rings true. Arbitrage traders use tokens like ethereum. Why? Because it reaches finality faster. Actual cash transactions are irreversible instantly. We can't do that, but if our goal is to be "money" then we should still strive to be as irreversible as possible as quickly as possible.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 17:44:48
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7c1dm1/

Have you noticed the downvote bots?

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 17:38:25
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7c1977/

Fantastic counterargument. I wish the downvote bots would fuck off. This is good discussion.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 17:37:19
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7c0zs8/

I stand by my statement. Producing two (or ten) 32MB blocks every ten minutes is equivalent to doubling (or 10x ing) the block size limit. If you think you can demonstrate that the optimum block interval is ten minutes, then please present your work. If not, then why defend it? You should be as interested as the rest of us to study this and learn where the optimum performance / risk / cost tradeoff lies.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 17:35:03
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7c0ggc/

Every comment in this sub starts at zero. Downvote bots are active today!

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 17:30:22
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7c00eb/

Nobody does 1-conf trading. You can only trade once your transaction can be presumed irreversible. [That is called "finality" and it is achieved much faster with faster block times.](https://blog.ethereum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2.png) For example, the graph posted shows that with 17-sec blocks, you achieve the equivalent finality of 2 10-min blocks in about one minute. > The results can be understood mathematically. At 17 seconds (ie. 100% of the block time), the faster blockchain gives a probability of ~0.56: slightly smaller than the matheatically predicted 1-1/e 0.632 because of the possibility of two blocks being created at the same time and one being discarded; at 600 seconds, the slower blockchain gives a probability of 0.629, only slightly smaller than the predicted 0.632 because with 10-minute blocks the probability of two blocks being created at the same time is very small. Hence, we can see that faster blockchains do have a slight disadvantage because of the higher influence of network latency, but if we do a fair comparison (ie. waiting a particular number of seconds), **the probability of non-reversion of the original transaction on the faster blockchain is much greater.**

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 17:26:26
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7bwkhd/

As far as actual use cases, there is a very clear one that has been mentioned many times, but I'll do it again, and that's exchange transfers. There is a reason why people use ethereum for this. It's because it's fast. If you're doing arbitrage, you need to move funds from one exchange to another as fast as possible. Ethereum reaches finality far faster than any bitcoin derivative. It may not be your dream use case, but I can say for certain • at this point in time, exchange arbitrage is a bigger market for crypto than buying drugs • and it's actually a money use case, unlike apps like memo, which are a major distraction from the money use case, but which get a lot more attention from our community than this current, pressing market demand. I think [/u/georgedonnelly](https://www.reddit.com/u/georgedonnelly) might want to chime in here.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 16:57:06
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7bwchd/

Please feel free to share links to your research.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 16:55:18
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7bux79/

Well, it's clearly explained, along with a [nice graph](https://blog.ethereum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2.png) from which you can clearly see that, assuming all other things are equal, a 17-sec block interval reaches equivalent finality to a single 10 min block in well under a minute. > The results can be understood mathematically. At 17 seconds (ie. 100% of the block time), the faster blockchain gives a probability of ~0.56: slightly smaller than the matheatically predicted 1-1/e 0.632 because of the possibility of two blocks being created at the same time and one being discarded; at 600 seconds, the slower blockchain gives a probability of 0.629, only slightly smaller than the predicted 0.632 because with 10-minute blocks the probability of two blocks being created at the same time is very small. Hence, we can see that faster blockchains do have a slight disadvantage because of the higher influence of network latency, but if we do a fair comparison (ie. waiting a particular number of seconds), **the probability of non-reversion of the original transaction on the faster blockchain is much greater.** As far as actual use cases, there is a very clear one that has been mentioned many times, but I'll do it again, and that's exchange transfers. There is a reason why people use ethereum for this. It's because it's fast. If you're doing arbitrage, you need to move funds from one exchange to another as fast as possible. Ethereum reaches finality far faster than any bitcoin derivative. It may not be your dream use case, but I can say for certain * at this point in time, exchange arbitrage is a bigger market for crypto than buying drugs * and it's actually a money use case, unlike apps like memo, which are a major distraction from the money use case, but which get a lot more attention from our community than this current, pressing market demand. I think /u/georgedonnelly might want to chime in here.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 16:44:03
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7btxmf/

>Changing basics of Bitcoin (such as 10 min interval, issuance schedule, 21 million limit) are highly political and dividing issues. It's important to separate the aspects of Bitcoin that affect money soundness (like the inflation schedule) from the aspects that govern performance (like the block size limit). Obviously, a change in the block interval must be accompanied by a change in the per-block reward incentive, so that the inflation schedule, and therefore money soundness, is unchanged. But assuming this, the time between blocks is not a change to the money property of the token, any more than a change to the block size was. I think our community should be ready - eager, even - to accept changes to the protocol that improve UX without changing the money soundness of the token. We can agree that, if we want to reduce block interval, copious clear communication will be needed on this issue in order to gain consensus. >Perhaps we should work on **unity** for **at least a year** (better would be 2) and then, when current team is proven and battle tested - then we can do risky, dangerous, unpopular and political stuff. Sure, there is no proposal at all on the table for reducing block interval. I can't imagine it happening inside of a year.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 16:37:21
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7bsms3/

>I'm talking about double spending unconfirmed transactions. If it costs less to mine a block, it costs less to violate the first seen rule. It can't "cost less," because it costs **nothing** to violate the first seen rule. There is **no** penalty for replacing one unconfirmed transaction with another. If you're bribing a miner to replace a *confirmed* block, you're talking about 1-conf security.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 16:28:26
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7brxad/

>I don't want a reduction in block time. Even if it can be shown to leave everyone better off and nobody worse off?

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 16:23:39
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7brrzo/

I think you know what I meant by that, but I'll restate it. As a simple thought experiment, it's very easy to see that after five mins, a txn with 5 1-min confirms is far less likely to be reversed than a txn with zero 10-min confirms, even if both have exactly the same amount of hashpower mining their chains. Did you read the linked comment, and the article in the ethereum blog?

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 16:22:38
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7bf3at/

https://towardsdatascience.com/the-poisson-distribution-and-poisson-process-explained-4e2cb17d459#:~:text=watching%20meteor%20showers.-,Waiting%20Time,every%2012%20minutes%20on%20average.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 14:57:24
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7berzx/

Yes, every meaningful improvement risks a potential split. That is exactly the point of my post. If you think we should stop talking about improvement, just because some people won't agree, then this is not the place for you. I didn't call you stupid, and I've no doubt that you understand that changing the block interval with a corresponding change to the reward represents zero change to the inflation schedule.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 14:55:15
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7befb6/

These are all valid points. In fact the point of my post is not to pitch a block time reduction, but to encourage the community to discuss ideas and not shut them down. I think any actual block interval reduction must be accompanied by real world data and peer reviewed math. I wouldn't support any proposal that wasn't based on real world data and peer reviewed math. Conversely, I think all of us should be asking for exactly that data, and that math. Maybe it'll turn out that 10 mins is actually really close to perfect. But I think everyone should agree that if meaningfully faster block times are feasible, that would be a good idea. My main point is to call out the people who are arguing that no such discussion should take place and that no such changes should be made, period. That's not why we're here.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 14:52:48
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7bde4y/

I'm of the opinion that people are smart enough to understand that what matters is the rate of inflation, and that a change from 10 min blocks that pay 6.25 tokens to 1-min blocks that each pay 0.625 tokens represents no change to the inflation schedule. I don't agree that we shouldn't change things that stupid people might misunderstand. In fact, if a change causes stupid people to exit, I'd argue that's proof it's a long term benefit to the token.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 14:45:37
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7bcnbj/

>Exchanges who operate with >1 confirmation now will just increase their confirmations accordingly. Accumulated PoW is what matters for security, not how many times you actually stamp the transactions into a block. I used to think exactly as you do, until it was pointed out to me that it's actually not the case. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/j13r3k/according_to_george_donnelly_the_chinese_bch/g6xq6tw As a simple thought experiment, it's very easy to see that after five mins, a txn with 5 1-min confirms is far less likely to be reversed than a txn with zero 10-min confirms, even if both have exactly the same amount of work behind them.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 14:40:03
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7bcbbn/

>> Why wouldn't we reduce block intervals, > >Because of high orphan rates. So it turns out that the relationship between faster block intervals and orphan rate is not linear, but is a curve with a knee in it. You can reduce intervals with very little penalty in orphan rate until you hit the knee of the curve, at which point further reductions produce ever larger orphan rates. Our goal should be to understand that curve, and optimize for the knee. >Also exchanges will just require more confirmations, as they do with Litecoin. They will not accept the same number of confirmations they do now. Yes, that's probably true. But I think if you do the research, you'll find that in practice, reducing the block interval by 1/X does not increase the required confirmations by X. >Also, for retail purchases it does not matter whether the block time is 2 minutes or 10 minutes. It is still too long. Agree. >ALSO decreasing interval between blocks will increase the size of blockchain as a whole so it may decrease scalability overall. I doubt this topic has been researched a lot. Agree. I'm not making a proposal. I'm asking the community not to shut down ideas out of hand. Any proposal for reducing the block interval must be backed by real world data and peer reviewed math. I would never support a proposal that wasn't. But we should all be open to a proposal that does.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 14:37:36
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7baye0/

It's not a bell curve. That's the point. At *any* moment in time, no matter when the last block was found, the correct answer to the question "when will the next block be found" is *always* "in about 10 mins." Counterintuitive, but true.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 14:27:44
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7bas6p/

Emission will be unchanged. Rewards and halvings would be adjusted to compensate.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 14:26:28
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7baip7/

Honestly, I have had the same opinion for many years. Only in the last year has my opinion shifted on this. >Reducing block interval increase will not bring much benefits.. That's your assumption, and for a long time, mine too. But ask yourself, why do people so heavily use tokens like ETH, which isn't even supposed to be a "money" token, for things like exchange transfers? The answer is very simply that it's faster. A person shouldn't have to use a nonmoney token as money because the money token doesn't work for them. Real cash is instantly irreversible. We can't ever be instantly irreversible, but we should strive to be as irreversible as possible as fast as possible. 1st confirm is part of that. Note: exchanges are extraordinarily unlikely to ever use unconfirmed txns. >No matter how short the block interval is, you cannot have instant tx Maybe, maybe not. In my op, I said the same thing, but there has been reasonable counterargument to that. >Reducing block interval increase the data size of the blockchain Yes, agreed. >Disrupt anyone that have build smart contracts relying on future block height calculation and will break the trust that block height can be used to reliably measure time in the future. This can and would be addressed by adjusting prefork contracts. If a contract would have expired in 10,000 blocks, and we halve the block interval, then the new expiration would be 20,000 blocks away. This seems reasonable and not difficult. >And might create problems if BCH scale to massive blocks.. You're going to have to be more specific. This is hand-wavy.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 14:24:28
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7b9g7y/

No. Reverted blocks allow double spending of *confirmed* txns, not unconfirmed ones, and block reversion is not a feasible means of attack for a typical brick and mortar txn. It really doesn't enter into it.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 14:16:33
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7b2c2v/

I suspect by the time we are able to reach consensus on a change like this and get it implemented, these will be very standard performance norms.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 13:25:10
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7b1qwg/

1. Bitcoin blocks arrive according to a poisson distribution. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the **expected wait time** for the next arrival in a poisson distribution is always a constant, in our case, 10 mins, not 5. 2. We don't design software UX based on what people will tolerate. If that were true, we'd all still be using greenscreens and text only UIs and we'd all still be in BTC. Crypto users have essentially infinite choice and will (and do) switch to a token that offers better UX.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 13:20:48
/r/btc/comments/j37x8q/mainnet_library_update/g7b19ts/

So cool. Great work!

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 13:17:19
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7b0ynk/

>10 confirmations in 10 minutes (assuming 1 minute block intervals) is the same amount of security as 1 confirmation in 10 minutes (assuming 10 min block intervals). >/u/jtoomim can chime in. He's the one who pointed out my error when I said the same thing to him that you just said to me. He's right, and I was wrong, as are you. Please try to stay civil. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/j354ww/z/g7a1rah Edit: this is the link I meant to post https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/j13r3k/according_to_george_donnelly_the_chinese_bch/g6xq6tw

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 13:14:56
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7ani0j/

>Interesting. I'm checking that out. BTW, If block times were shortened, should halvenings be extended keep them at the same real-time schedule Yes.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 11:36:49
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7an8qi/

Here's the thing. First off, 30 sec still doesn't get us to "instant." So Bobtail is not "solving" zero conf, in the way that other approaches claim to. Secondly, Bobtail has basically the same orphan / speed tradeoff that the main blockchain has. Namely, you can reduce block interval fairly painlessly until you hit an inflection point, at which point further reductions increase orphan risk counterproductively. Thirdly, implementing a layer like Bobtail is a lot more code, complexity, and risk than just reducing block interval on the main chain. It's a lot of extra overhead. Whereas reducing block interval is basically zero extra overhead - once you perform the conversion steps, it's the same software you're running today, with a few different variable settings. As a counterargument, what do you think would be the benefit of 30-sec bobtail blocks over just having 1-min main chain blocks?

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 11:34:59
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7am9r1/

> Are you suggesting everyone arguing for shorter block intervals is also arguing for changing the coin supply schedule? No, exactly the opposite. **You're** the one suggesting that shorter block intervals implies changing the coin supply schedule. Which of course you already know is nonsense, and you're just trolling.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 11:27:56
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7alpg4/

Thanks for your opinion. It's fine to disagree. I'm not calling out people who are opposed to some specific change. I'm calling out the people who have been calling for an end to changes, on the basis that the protocol should be "locked down."

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 11:23:53
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7aldut/

Yes, of course coinbase rewards would have to be adjusted in accordance with the reduction in block intervals (ie, if the interval is halved, then the reward would be halved).

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 11:21:31
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7al5wi/

What about all the other applications that still require confirmation?

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 11:19:53
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7akxla/

Far and away, this is the most salient argument against reducing block interval. Have my upvote. Now comes my counterargument :) If typical network speed and storage costs reduce, then we can safely reduce block interval with no reduction in SPV usability. We're still running with 2010 assumptions, in a world where phones have 128GB and are on 5g networks.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 11:18:09
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7akcgy/

Okay. Is the block interval too short then? Why not? How could the 10 minute interval simultaneously be the optimum interval both during Satoshi's time when everyone was a miner on a dsl and also now that there are only a few dozen block producers all on ultrafast networks? The good news here is that before any such change is made, first, someone will have to present their math, and it will be peer reviewed. Then we can discuss if the interval should be changed, and to what. But I think your argument is a bit disingenuous. While the throughput difference may not be purely linear, it is still a true statement that producing two (or ten) 32MB blocks every ten minutes is equivalent to doubling (or 10x ing) the block size limit.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 11:13:56
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7ajel1/

Tell us when we're supposed to discuss enhancements. FFS

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 11:07:10
/r/btc/comments/j2wz8h/current_price_on_futures_markets_on_coinex/g7aj2dt/

You just crossed the line from "user repeatedly asking dumb questions" to straight up trolling. Here. Since you can't be bothered to use Google. ABC stands for "Adjustable Blocksize Client". Get it? The block sizes are **adjustable.** Bonus round. "BU" stands for "Bitcoin Unlimited." as in, it removed the block size LIMIT. It's pretty hard to imagine that anyone can hang out here for very long and not know what the names of the two most used clients mean. Now. If you have actual questions, go ahead, but otherwise, please stop bothering me about this issue.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 11:04:44
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7aiiiv/

No, that's not how this works. Run along, troll.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 11:00:40
/r/btc/comments/j354ww/all_ideas_seem_to_be_back_on_the_table_again/g7aifn6/

That's a neat quote, but Satoshi was quite simply dead wrong. If you take the block size limit out of Satoshi's client, the thing still maxes out at well under 10tps, because in the real world, software and hardware isn't unlimited, and his client was very poorly optimized. You seem to imagine that if the limit way raised to 1tb that it would magically be possible to start building 1tb blocks every ten minutes. But countless real world tests demonstrate that the software we use has bottlenecks. Which is entirely predictable, because all software has bottlenecks. So even if you (unwisely) deleted the block size limit from the software, there would still be a limit to the number of txns the network could handle. And that is why zero conf is not a substitute for onchain scaling. You can't accept more txns than you can confirm, and confirmation is limited by software and hardware limits even without a block size limit.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 11:00:04
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7agtwz/

Help me out in understanding what would be the real world difference. Assuming everyone's using a common block compression technique, so that clients are already mostly in sync and all known txns are already validated when a new solution is found. When that solution is found, the solution needs to be validated, and unknown txns have to be fetched and validated. If block interval is 1 min (BTW I'm not proposing a 1-min interval, but just using this as an example that lends itself to easy math), then there are 10x more solutions to validate, but this happens insanely fast. There are also ~1/10th as many unknown txns to fetch and validate, so that part is about 10x faster. I'll concede that the larger the blocks, the greater the effects of compression and parallelization, but these strike me as fairly minimal, assuming that mempools are already in sync. If you think I'm significantly mistaken, then I will play Devils advocate and make the counter-case that perhaps the block interval is too short! Why not?

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 10:48:10
/r/btc/comments/j2wz8h/current_price_on_futures_markets_on_coinex/g7af2o7/

No, you're arguing. "asking" was some time ago. Then I answered. Now you're just beleaguering the point. Did you research what "ABC" stands for? Why not? It annoys me that you're more willing to keep peppering me with questions instead of doing your own research. You claim you want no hard coded block size, where the limit is set through community consensus. We've got that. We've always had that. Every single BCH client has, and has always had, a user configurable block size limit. So, you already have what you want. Be happy about that. Have a great day!

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 10:35:08
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7aewfq/

>valid point, but do you really think this is the right time to discuss contentious topics? There is literally no plan to decrease the block interval. No proposal is on the table. No date has been set. This is literally just kicking an idea around. Therefore, yes, "the present" is a perfect time to do so.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 10:33:49
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7ae0n5/

>Why would we reduce block intervals? Bad question. Why **wouldn't** we reduce block intervals, if it means better UX across the board, and can be done in a way that doesn't break anything? Even with Avalanche (assuming it can even be made to work) there are still many applications that require confirmations. All of them will benefit from faster blocks. Besides. Avalanche is a far more contentious consensus change, involving far more unknowns, than faster blocks. Reductions in block interval is basically an entirely understood technical challenge and is nowhere near as drastic a change as Avalanche.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 10:27:11
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7adahm/

No offense to you, but this is a really disingenuous argument from the Bitcoin wiki. Yes, there is a tradeoff between work wasted while learning about a new block and the number of blocks per hour that are produced. But the time required to learn about a new block isn't one minute. It's not even ten seconds in most cases. It's usually on the order of a few seconds. Miners are connected to each other using ultrafast relays. Claiming that Satoshi "specifically chose" the 10 min interval is a huge stretch at best. He definitely never showed any work to justify it. Moreover, important assumptions have changed drastically since Satoshi's time. We're a long long long way from the time when every node was a miner If every node is a miner, then yeah, it'll take a long time for all the nodes to be in sync. But that's not at all the case anymore, and hasn't been for most of Bitcoins existence. And the technology is vastly improved. In Satoshi's time, each client had to download the entire block each time a block was discovered. We have technology like graphene and xthinner now that reduce that time by over 99%. And as we implement technologies like mempool synchronization, parallel validation, and blocktorrent, the time required to get the network in sync is reduced even further.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 10:21:51
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7abptf/

Yes, it's not as simple as just changing a variable. Smart contracts would need to be modified to adjust their termination dates based on the new block heights. It's not a change that one should make lightly. But I think it's an entirely doable change.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 10:09:35
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7abaol/

"we shouldn't improve the protocol because otherwise some people might misunderstand and talk badly about us" is not an argument against improving the protocol. It's an argument for better communication and community education.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 10:05:48
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7aan1f/

But this is a poor argument. Zero conf security is not based on the difficulty of reverting found blocks. Nobody steals back their grocery bill by orphaning a found block. That's not at all how this works. Of the three types of 0-conf fraud, two are already solved by Tom Zander's dsproofs. The remaining form (the miner bribe) exists equally no matter how much pow is behind the block.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 09:59:30
/r/btc/comments/j2wz8h/current_price_on_futures_markets_on_coinex/g7aa85i/

**Go look up what the acronym "ABC" stands for. I think the answer will surprise you.**

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 09:55:32
/r/btc/comments/j2wz8h/current_price_on_futures_markets_on_coinex/g7a9vs6/

They're talking about the very thing you say you want: a market and social agreement not handed down from a central planner. The block size limit in every bch client is **user configurable.** User. Configurable. But they still should be in consensus, lest some miner accidently invalidate a block that everyone else thinks is acceptable. You're wasting my time by arguing about something that it's increasingly evident you don't understand.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 09:52:15
/r/btc/comments/j2wz8h/current_price_on_futures_markets_on_coinex/g7a9jqr/

There has never been a hard coded block size limit on any BCH client, period.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 09:49:12
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7a9c6p/

>3. How does reducing the block time improve scaling? How is it than if I'm barely able to sent 1x 22MB block every 10 min suddenly I am able to send two 22MB blocks in the same time? You can't, and I didn't claim otherwise. My point is simply that decreasing the interval is equivalent to raising the limit. I'm sure you understand that. >4. I call bullshit. In the end it comes down to POW IF you do 1PH 10 times or 10PH one time is the same security. I used to think this was the case, but it turns out that I was mistaken. 10 1-min blocks have more finality than 1 10-min block. And everyone can agree than 5 1-min confirms is far less reversible than 0 10-min confirms.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 09:47:16
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7a7v51/

"we shouldn't improve the 1-conf UX because if we do people might think they need confirmations" is not an argument for keeping things the way they are, but instead for better communication and education of the user base.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 09:32:40
/r/btc/comments/j378w8/if_scaling_improvements_to_the_protocol_concern/g7a7a7y/

This is true. And there is currently no plan for any additional onchain capacity improvement. So my statement is also true. We agree. Have a good day.

Commented by /u/jessquit in /r/btc on October 1, 2020 09:26:41
Top