Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 14, 2015, 05:38:56 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 14, 2015, 02:27:03 PM

Quote from: solex on July 13, 2015, 07:39:50 AM

(Matonis is clueless to claim there is a fee-market - though my estimation of him is now down to zero as he talks about monkeying with the 21M limit).
+KB blocks now.

his whole thesis is, "ZOMG, if we yield on the block size limit, it's a foregone conclusion we'll get a supply increase!"

furtheremore, listening to him dissemble over the technicalities of the block size limit is painful to listen to. as little understanding as iCEBlow.

...says the hobbyist who frequently argues unsuccessfully with core devs about how Bitcoin works under the hood.

you mean the parts where nullc says, "UTXO is not in RAM", but yet we see this from him just 2 mo ago?:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35asg6/gavin_andresen_utxo_uhoh/cr2za45

or this part?:

Quote from: Peter R on July 09, 2015, 12:19:04 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on July 08, 2015, 11:26:59 PM

Quote from: Peter R on July 08, 2015, 07:34:14 PM

OK. Provide me with your estimates for the following (and explain how you arrived at your numbers) and I'll update my table using your numbers:
1. The cost per node to store 1 GB of additional blockchain data for 5 years, assume the outputs are spent.
2. The cost per node to store 1 GB of additional blockchain data for 5 years, assuming the outputs are unspent.

I may be missing the context as this thread is high volume and I've not read any of the backlog...

But for a full verifying node, the on-going cost cost of 1GB of additional transactions with all outputs spent is 0; all the cost related to that 1GB of data is related to the bandwidth to get it to you and the verification cost, and for short term storage until its burried, after that it need not be stored.
The cost for unspent is some non-zero number which depends on your estimation of storage costs.

This thread can be hard to follow if you're not following it all the time!

The question was in reference to a debate I was having with Odalv about these "order of magnitude" estimates shown in this table. I was suggesting that, under the conditions considered in the table, it is cheaper for miners to write the spam to the Blockchain and more costly for the spammer, than continually rejecting it:

Quote from: gmaxwell on July 08, 2015, 11:26:59 PM

Quote from: Peter R on July 08, 2015, 08:50:15 PM

Does CreateNewBlock currently take longer to execute if there are more TXs in a miner's mempool to pick from? If so, this would add credence to Cypherdoc's hunch that miner's are producing more empty blocks when mempool swells.

Yep, I already pointed that out to you specifically! It's superlinear in the mempool size (well, ignoring caching) But thats unrelated to f2pool/antpool and the other SPV miners, as they're not ever calling createnewblock in that case, as they're mining without even validating. One can mine on a validated chain with no transactions while waiting for createnewblock (which is what eligius does, for example).

Sorry, yes I know you explained that. The point I'm trying to make is that if CreateNewBlock is super-linear in mempool size, then it would not be surprising to see more empty blocks (what Cypher was calling "defensive blocks") when mempool swells (the miners are mining on an empty block for longer while waiting for CreateNewBlock to finish). This was Cypher's point from the very beginning that many people, including myself, were suggesting was probably not the case!

Furthermore, how can f2pool/antpool mine a non-empty block without calling createnewblock?