Of course, but it seriously depends on where you live. Unfortunately some people live in countries that don't advance in the same pace. Meaning that poverty is too high to be able to cope with the technological progress...
There are people on the planet ( close to 50% ) that have no pc or internet access . Does that mean that the network should stop because of that ? In case you are running a node , because someone else hasn't that comfort does it mean that you should stop having one too ? If we have to follow a standard let's follow the one of the most vulnerable and quit using our pc's or phones . That would be the most fair . I really don't get this logic . |
|
|
|
Και κατι που αφορα αυτο που ελεγα στο παρελθον πως θα εχουμε και regulations στο L1 , μιας και τα pools ειναι οικονομικες οντοτητες που ειτε θα ακολουθησουν κανονες ειτε θα αντιμετωπισουν συνεπειες . Οποιος δε θελει να αντιληφθει τι ερχεται απλα φοραει τις παρωπιδες του . But , but , decentralised . https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/?t |
|
|
|
More drama incoming ? DOJ live in few minutes Start Time: 3:00 p.m. ET Justice Department and Partners to Announce Significant Cryptocurrency Enforcement Actions https://www.justice.gov/liveEdit : 30 minutes delay , 3:30 p.m. ET |
|
|
|
But, I can ask you another question: if Satoshi wanted to fully use OP_PUSHDATA4, then why he limited MAX_SIZE of the P2P message into 32 MiB (0x02000000), and later limited block size into 1 MB (1000000)? Why November 2008 version was limited to only 32 MiB P2P message size? Yes, that November 2008 version, which contained quite huge Script support, what you can discover by exploring the Script of the coinbase transaction, used in that version (also note that it contained 100.00 BTC, expressed with 2-digit precision only as "10k satoshis", instead of 8-digit precision we have today, and that OP_CODESEPARATOR was mandatory at that time).
I can't get into the techinical details as i'm not educated in this . But , you can understand that at that time HDD's and broadband speed were not the same as today . Also the network was at it's infancy . Things changed since then . I'll quote satoshi :
The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of. The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time. It would have been an explosion of special cases. The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates. The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.
The script is actually a predicate. It's just an equation that evaluates to true or false. Predicate is a long and unfamiliar word so I called it script.
The receiver of a payment does a template match on the script. Currently, receivers only accept two templates: direct payment and bitcoin address. Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them. All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.
The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc. If Bitcoin catches on in a big way, these are things we'll want to explore in the future, but they all had to be designed at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later.
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
"Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that. Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments. " "Quote from: theymos on October 03, 2010, 08:28:39 PM Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients. +1 theymos. Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment. We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it."
And for the backwards compatibility part that most believe should not change , the moment satoshi proposed "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don’t have it are already obsolete. " the road for hard forks open . If satoshi was against it , he wouldn't post such a thing , but would propose something in a backwards compatible way . The whole Script is not necessary for Bitcoin to function. In the whitepaper, you have only P2PK, and nothing else. And it is still called Bitcoin, and people still check many coins if they implement everything from whitepaper, if they want to call something "the true Bitcoin" or not. Which means, your OP_PUSHDATA4 is not even mentioned there. We could start from P2PK-only system as well, and add commitments later, or even attach Schnorr signatures or TapScript later, directly into those public keys. Then, in such system, spending-by-pubkey would be always mandatory, but some keys (for example the private key equal to one) could require a commitment to some Script.
The answer is in the quotes above . Script is necessary for bitcoin to work as a network that apps and new type of transactions can be build upon . They're not necessary for bitcoin to work just as a medium of exchange . Edit: Also, Satoshi explicitly said something about uploading videos: I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...
That's one of the reasons for transaction fees. There are other things we can do if necessary. See? The answer was not "just use OP_PUSHDATA4, and upload it". The answer was "fees are needed to discourage that". And even more: "if fees will not be sufficient, then we can do something else to limit it further". That's what he said, as you can see above, and click on the link to the quote to confirm it. Nope , don't make words look like what you want them to be . He says "that's one of the reasons for transaction fees" . If you want to use the network that way you have to pay the price . Also states " There are other things we can do if necessary" . What he meant by that ? Who knows . He doesn't explicitly states that using OP_pushdata4 is forbidden like you make it look like . And to put it another way , if he didn't want it he wouldn't have added it to OP's . |
|
|
|
|
Just voted against blocksize increase , btc community made it's choice in the past to have a fee market on L1 and scale on L2 rather than scale on L1 . I think that this should never change and each user fight by all means anyone that brings any suggestion against that . UASF can be used at any time , every non miner should send those evil miners a message that in btc there's no PoW consensus but proof of most nodes . Their decision to accept more profitable transactions is insane and they should be pay the price . I think that other SHA256 will welcome them (miners/pools) with open arms , but their hashpower is insignificant compared to the number of rapspi's according to the spirit of btc community .
What most defenders of the position that blocksize should not increase is that there is no transaction volume yet to do so . There are thousands of projects other than btc that have tremendous amounts of transactions . These people transact there because it's easier than transacting in LN . Btc maxis don't want bitcoin to work the way it was supposed to . If they open their eyes they will see that millions of people actually use crypto because the most famous doesn't work . If bitcoin scaled back then no other projects would have a reason for existence .
What you have achieved is to provide free profit to pools . Pools love that they don't have to spend a single penny for their infrastructure . Entities that earn tens of millions don't pay a single cent and users pay insane fees . This is the best way to maximise their profits , no one else wins . Of course , there are some users that love validating their transactions ( i wonder how many transactions these users do on L1 ) and they keep the network hostage to their nerdy needs . And these users are the new legendary legion that every newbie admires when entering this space .
No time to write more , i will respond to vjudeu at a later time .
Closing my message i would like to make it an open call to UASF . No more time should be spend .
PS. I don't use btc network for years , but i think i should remind the community what decision took some years back . Prove that you were right all the time and stick to your position .
|
|
|
|
Since I have to dot all the eyes and cross all the tees: Legitimate use is anything that is not a spam attack, meaning where people use bitcoin to transfer money or in other words when Bitcoin is the "peer to peer digital cash system" that it was intended to.
If the sole purpose of bitcoin was just to transfer money what's the role of OP_pushdata ? And especially OP_pushdata4 ? Seems that the creator had a different view than yours . |
|
|
|
Και φυσικά εδώ έχουμε μια απόδειξη του ναρκισσισμού/εγωισμού σου: Προβλεψη -και προειδοποιηση - Μετά από τόσα χρόνια στο internet βρέθηκε κάποιος να μπορεί να κάνει πιο επιτυχημένες προβλέψεις (και προειδοποιήσεις!) από εσένα που μονίμως πας κουβά από το 2017 και το έχεις πάρει κατάκαρδα... ο BHC που με διάβαζε σε άλλο forum (εσύ δεν ξέρεις ποιό) ξέρει αν πήγα κουβά ή όχι. Ακόμα κι εδώ μέσα το 2018 (που τότε εσύ πίστευες τον πορνόγερο clown τον Calvin Ayre ότι θα πάει στο μηδέν το BTC), εγώ ήδη από τότε μιλούσα για μεγάλο bull run το 2021 (όπως και έγινε). Λες δεν μπορεί; Από πού ξεφύτρωσε αυτός έτσι ξαφνικά; Γιατί με κοντράρει; (πάω στοίχημα ότι αν υποκρινόμουν ότι είμαι BSV lover/big blocker με κάποιο άλλο alias θα γινόμασταν τα καλύτερα «φιλαράκια», αφού θα έτρεφα τον ναρκισσισμό σου  ) Δυστυχώς ή ευτυχώς δεν μπαίνω για φιλίες εδώ μέσα, ούτε θα έκανα παρέα με nerds που θα με ρεζίλευαν με το social awkwardness τους στην πραγματική ζωή, με γυναίκες κλπ. Πλήρωσε 1 BTC και θα μάθεις ποιός είμαι και τι έχω γράψει αλλού, με ονοματεπώνυμο.  Αν τολμάς...  Ε ρε γελια , τωρα το ειδα . Ρε αγαπητε μου γιδογαμη , νομιζεις πως το προβλημα μου ειναι οι προβλεψεις ? Εσυ μπηκες στο btc για να κονομησεις και ακομα μονο αυτο σε νοιαζει , για εμενα ηταν διεξοδος της κοινωνιας για κατι καλυτερο . Ωραιο και το παω κουβα απο το '17 . Και πως ξερεις αγαπητε μου κλαπαρχιδα ποσο ειναι το net worth μου για να ξερεις αν εχω παει κουβα ? Οσο και να παλεψεις γλυκια μου δε μπορεις να με ιντριγκαρεις . Τα ξερω τα κολπακια σου στα forum και εχω αντιμετωπισει κατα καιρους παπαρες σαν και σενα . Οταν τους φερνεις λογικους προβληματισμους που δε μπορουν να απαντησουν ειτε λογω αγνοιας ( βλεπε coinbase tsansaction πηρε το ονομα απο το ανταλλακτηριο  ) ειτε λογω βλακειας περνανε σε ad hominem . Ε , εσυ ανηκεις και στις δυο κατηγοριες . Και ερχεσαι εδω με τις συνομωσιολογικες σου παπατζες να το παιξεις καμποσος . O ultegra ειναι εδω απο το '14 αγαπητε μου σωροπλυμε , εσυ που ησουν τοτε ? Μπας και ησουν απο τους ξυπνιους σαν το Παζο που θεωρουσαν το bitcoin αποτυχια και τωρα μας βγηκε υποστηρικτης ? Πριν να σε βαλω στο ignore ειχα διαβασει ολα σου τα posts , καθως και κατα πασα πιθανοτητα πολλα απο τα posts σου σε αλλα forum . Το χαρακτηριστικο σου ειναι πως επιτιθεσαι σε οποιονδηποτε εχει αντιθετη αποψη , οχι γιατι εχει αδικο αλλα γιατι αντιτιθεται στα δογματα σου αγαπητε μου φασιστακο . Α και κατι αλλο , ποτε δεν εχεις ζητησει συγγνωμη ακομα και αν σου εχουν αποδειξει τις παπαριες που λες . Δε θελω να σε βγαλω απο το ignore για να αρχισω να ποσταρω απο το ιστορικο σου γιατι θα σπαταλησω χρονο μαζι σου και ειλικρινα δεν αξιζεις ουτε δευτερολεπτο . Πολυ θα ηθελα να μη βλεπω και τα quote σου απο αλλους αλλα τι να κανουμε , αυτα εχει η ζωη . Και το λεω αυτο , γιατι δεν εχω να παρω την παραμικρη αξιολογη πληροφορια απο εσενα . Βλεπεις να ειμαι φιλαρακι με πολλους εδω μεσα ή να μοιραζομαι merit με οποιονδηποτε αγαπητε μου γλαροπουστα ? Σε αντιθεση με εσενα που μεχρι και να doxxαρεις to "φιλαρακι" σου επιχειρησες , με το οποιο συζητουσατε ακομα και για το πως εκμεταλλευεται τις συζητησεις για να ανεβαζει τα paid posts του . Και ποτε πηγες να τον βγαλεις στη σεντρα ? Οταν σου χαλασε τη ζαχαρενια και διαφωνησε με τις συνομωσιολογιες σου . Ξυπνα ρε γαϊδαρε , αν εισαι οσων χρονων λες , θα επρεπε να ντρεπεσαι γι'αυτο που πηγες να κανεις σε ενα νεο παλληκαρι , γιατι αυτος εχει δικαιωμα να κανει λαθη . Ερχεται ο καιρος θεωρω που καταλαβαινει με τι χατζηπαπαρα εμπλεξε . Αλλα προφανως τον εχεις κρατημενο απο χαμηλα . Εγω απο την αλλη , ο περιεργος , ο μαλακας , κοιταξα να τον χαρτζηλικωσω και να τον προστατευσω κι ολας . Αυτος τουλαχιστον σιγα σιγα αρχιζει να ανοιγει τα ματια του , εσυ φαινεται πως τα ματια σου τα εχεις εκει που τα εχει ο ξαδερφος του Τσακωνα ( αληθεια cryptosize , αθλεισαι κι εσυ ? απο καθαρο ενδιαφερον ρωταω ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va3dxjN4Ue8 Περασα τον μισο αιωνα εδω και χρονια και δεν εχω την αναγκη και την επιβεβαιωση κανενος εκτος του στενου μου κυκλου . Και σιγουρα δε θελω φιλιες και σχεσεις με γλοιωδη και τρισαθλια υποκειμενα σαν το ατομο σου . Ο καθε ανθρωπος , αγαπητε μου αρχιστοκε , μπορει να εχει οσα ψευδωνυμα θελει . Στο ενα φορουμ μπορει να γραφει μια αποψη και σε ενα αλλο ή ακομα και στο ιδιο μια αντιθετη . Ετσι οταν θελει να αποδειξει πως αυτος ειναι ο μεγαλος και ο τρανος βαζει το post που τον βολευει . Αν ειχες ενα τροπο να μου αποδειξεις ποια ειναι ολα τα ψευδωνυμα σου ετσι ωστε να μπορω να δω ολο το ιστορικο σου και τις αποψεις σου τοτε θα σου εβγαζα το καπελο και θα σου ελεγα "εισαι μαγκας και μετρας" . Αλλα η περιπτωση σου ειναι σαν τα χαλασμενα ρολογια , λενε σωστα την ωρα 2 φορες τη μερα . Και φαινεται ποσο "σωστος" εισαι στις προβλεψεις σου απο το χρονο που μπηκες στο bitcoin γνωριζοντας για το bitcoin απο το 2003 , πριν ακομα κυκλοφορησει . Ειλικρινα , δεν εισαι αστειος , εισαι γελοιος . Το προβλημα μου δεν ειναι να μαθω ποιος εισαι , στα παπαρια μου σε εχω γραμμενο αλλωστε . Να πληρωσω 1 btc γιατι ? Και αν τολμαω . Με τους φιλους σου ακομα μετρατε τις πουτσες ? ΥΓ . Συγγνωμη για το αγαπητε , μου βγαινει αυθορμητα |
|
|
|
Initial Blockchain Download takes more and more time. Today, fully synchronizing the chain could take one week. Before it took few days, and in the old times, you just needed few hours. And you have to download everything, even if you use pruning. Downloading everything once is still needed. And it can take a lot of time. And that is only getting worse.
Which means, it doesn't matter that you have to download 500 GB. Validation time is what matters the most. If you can download 1 GB in 10 seconds, it means 5,000 seconds for downloading 500 GB. But downloading is not a problem. Validation is. One week validation for 500 GB means around 1 MB data being validated every second. And this is too slow. It doesn't matter that after few hours, you will have the full chain, if you will spend many days validating it. And if you increase it into too huge values, then guess what: if your validation time is around 1 MB per second, it means you can validate 600 MB per 10 minutes. Which means, if you will have 1 GB every 10 minutes, you will never validate it, even if everything will be fully downloaded on your local disk.
Bootstraping would significantly reduce that time from days/weeks to hours . |
|
|
|
Νεο whitepaper απο τον Linus , BitStream: Decentralized File Hosting Incentiviced via Bitcoin Payments https://twitter.com/robin_linus/status/1723343871067804060. Ο ανθρωπος ειναι τελικα διανοια και φοβερος πρωτοπορος . Ή μηπως οχι ? https://medium.com/coinmonks/netflix-over-bitcoin-payment-channels-ec55b3c242da ( Δεκεμβριος 2021 ) Φυσικα , θα βγει σε μερικες μερες και θα πει πως καμμια σχεση δεν εχει το ενα με το αλλο και σε τιποτε δεν αντιγραφει τον Xiaohui Liu . Και να μη ξεχασω το πιο σημαντικο , στο medium αρθρο θα καταλαβετε πως προασπιζουμε την ιδιωτικοτητα μας σε μια υπηρεσια οπως πχ το netflix μιας και δε χρειαζεται να δημιουργησουμε λογαριασμο και να δωσουμε τα στοιχεια μας για να λαμβανουμε υπηρεσιες . Αλλα αυτα ειναι ψιλα γραμματα μπροστα στο "decentralisation" . |
|
|
|
Εγώ θα σου επικεντρωθώ στις ταυτότητες. Δεν καταλαβαίνω, για ποιον λόγο ακριβώς είσαι κατά του νέου τύπου ταυτότητας; Όλα τα Ευρωπαϊκά κράτη, ακόμα και η Βουλγαρία, που θεωρητικά έχει χειρότερη οικονομία από εμάς, έχει ηλεκτρονικού τύπου ταυτότητες. Επειδή έχω δει πολλά παρόμοια σχόλια ότι τα άλλα κράτη δε σε υποχρεώνουν κλπ, δεν είναι επιχείρημα, εφόσον όλοι οι πολίτες ενός κράτους, πρέπει να έχουν ταυτότητα μετά από μία ηλικία. Δεν καταλαβαίνω λοιπόν το πρόβλημα. Τα διαβατήρια, σε ολόκληρο τον κόσμο, λειτουργούν με το ίδιο σύστημα. Καιρός ήταν να εκσυγχρονιστούμε, η Ελληνική ταυτότητα είναι αστεία, και όπου πας στο εξωτερικό, γελάνε ή ζητούσαν άλλο τρόπο ταυτοποίησης. Είναι εμφανές ότι δεν γνωρίζεις τι εστί CBDC, ούτε Digital ID. Ούτε το 2020 καταλάβαιναν πολλοί γιατί ήμουν εναντίον των lockdowns/μασκών/mRNA... τώρα που βλέπουν τις παρενέργειες στην οικονομία/υγεία καταλαβαίνουν. Δώσε 3 χρονάκια λοιπόν και θα «καταλάβεις» κι εσύ πολλά, απλά να θυμάσαι ότι είναι δρόμος χωρίς επιστροφή. Δεν θα υπάρχει χρονομηχανή να γυρίσεις 3 χρόνια πίσω να διορθώσεις το λάθος. Μεγάλα παιδιά είμαστε, κάντε τις επιλογές σας, απλά μετά μην σκούζετε. ΥΓ: Δεν είναι υποχρεωτικές οι ταυτότητες παντού (βλ. ΗΠΑ, ΗΒ). Ενημερώσου καλύτερα. Εσύ όμως που τα ξέρεις τόσο καλά, γιατί δεν τα εξηγείς και στους υπόλοιπους, εφόσον είσαι παντογνώστης; Ασε , αυτος φαντασου ειναι τοσο παντογνωστης που γνωριζε για το bitcoin πολλαααααααααα χρονια πριν αυτο δημιουργηθει , και επειδη ειναι τοσο μπροστα απο την εποχη του ασχοληθηκε μολις μια δεκαετια μετα το launch  . Προφανως ηταν τοσο αλτρουϊστης που ειπε να μεινει εκτος για να γινει καλυτερο distribution . Να σεβεστε λοιπον . Φημες λενε βεβαια πως ηταν εναντιον του ηλεκτρονικου χρηματος εκεινη την εποχη και κατεβαινε σε διαδηλωσεις του Χριστοδουλου . Αλλα ολα αυτα ειναι ανακριβειες , στημενες ιστοριες απο τους ιλουμινατηδες για να μας κανουν να αμφισβητησουμε το μεγαλειο του χρονοταξιδιωτη και να μην φορκαρουμε απο το ιστορικο ασυνεχες . |
|
|
|
I'll add some context and i'll let you decide if i'm wrong or the page . The whitepaper is written based on the premise that all nodes at that time were mining nodes , which the author of wiki doesn't take into account . There was no reason back then to have a "full node" as your node had high chances to earn rewards . Satoshi points that at version 0.1.0 https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/commit/4184ab26345d19e87045ce7d9291e60e7d36e096 " To support the network by running a node, select: Options-> Generate Coins " . He doesn't just say support the network by just running the client . It is also mentioned in the whitepaper , section 5 , what nodes do in the network . He didn't have another paragraph about what full nodes role is . "Network" : The steps to run the network are as follows: 1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes. 2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent. 6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hashAnd then the wiki author get's into what he thinks is decentralisation and why it should be rejected . "If Bitcoin were ruled by miners, then this would currently be quite terrible security-wise. As of 2017, less than 10 individuals command a majority of hashrate. This is probably far more centralized than even most fiat currencies, and completely defeats the main point of Bitcoin, which is to be decentralized money." How many individual entities with their own personal interests command fiat money of their own countries so that makes bitcoin even more centralised than fiat system ? Fiat is centralised because there's not a consensus between different economic entities with personal interest . So nonsense again . Let's move to "efficiency" . He says if you don't like what i've said so far then move to a chaumian ecash which is better by adding a taste of PoW . But bitcoin is the exact opposite of chaumian money . Not centralised , not just trust based , with a public auditable ledger . And PoW by whom ? Designated signers that "as long as a majority of signers are honest, the system remains secure . What do these signers have to lose ? Who decides if they are trusted ? What's the mechanism to punish the non trusted ? No mention , just believe what i say . His thought process is for laugh . Let's move to legal issues . "If it is possible to say that some group of 10 or so miners control Bitcoin absolutely, then these miners may be viewed from a legal perspective as issuing a currency, transmitting money, etc., which are often highly regulated activities." . There's no such case as mining nodes do nothing other than adding and confirming transactions into blocks . They don't tranfer anything , they are just confirming change of ownership by timestamping it ( i guess you understand UTXO model far better than me ) . Fincen was specific https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FIN-2014-R001.pdf . So all that wiki author wants is just to demonise pools . Why ? Because it fits his narratives of what he wants bitcoin to be . And just to sum up . Who do think that has more interest in bitcoin . Those who just run a "full node" and have spend 100 dollars or someone who has spend hundreds of millions and want to gain profit from it . Don't forget that an attack to the network just gives you the opportunity to double spend your own money , you can't steal other's . So would you as a pool risk to have your block rejected by other pools ( and not "full nodes" ) as they would be the first in the network to see your invalid block ? And also lose the work committed to that block ? And face the chance to lose your trust and future income if you were a honest node so far ? An attempt of such a double spend would have to involve several millions . And who would accept all of those millions with just 1 conf or 0 conf ? No one . So to my conclusion , the page is wrong in many fields . This is the problem. Validation takes a lot of time. I can run two nodes on localhost, and let one empty node to be synchronized from another one. Guess how long it would take? Most of the time will be spent on validation. Downloading will be instant, because data on localhost are transferred with maximum available speed, that can be simulated by your computer. They can be even on the same disk! If validation would be simpler, you could have it as fast, as just making a copy of some folder! But for some reason, it can take a lot of hours. Which means, bandwidth is not the biggest issue.
Have you ever tried to bootstrap to have your new node synced faster ? When your node is synced , how much time it takes to validate a new block ? Does it take hours , minutes , seconds ? Are you running in a high end pc , rapsi or what ? Of course full nodes. The more independent full nodes you have, the more decentralized the whole system is. And obviously, they should be owned by independent people, and controlled from independent machines. Which brings us back to the first quote: if you think that miners can "vote", and full nodes can "only observe", then what kind of decentralization is present in your model?
So, my definition of decentralization is quite simple: you count all full nodes, and you count, how many of them are owned by independent people. The more such nodes you can find in the wild, the higher the whole decentralization is. If you don't like this definition, then give a better one, because you cannot beat something with nothing.
How do you confirm in bitcoin that nodes are operated by independent people ? As far as i know , there's no way to do that . So , by default , there's always a chance , as "full nodes" are anonymous that even if there are thousands of nodes one single entity could control them . Wouldn't that open an attack path to the network that costs far less than a 51% attack ? Which means, three Byzantine generals are 3x less decentralized than nine generals.
So , decentralisation with more nodes gives a different outcome ? Decentralisation is not about quantity . It's about the outcome . PoW is just a timestamping machine , nothing more nothing less . It doesn't matter if the timestamp was made by 10 or 100 entities or 10000 entities . I'm glad that you mention byzantine generals . Have you ever consider why the problem is about generals and not soldiers ? A general has multiple entities under it's command . How many entities have your "full node" under it's command ? How many entities does a pool have ? Which one would you call a general ? Of course, because in my definition I mentioned about the number of independent nodes. Which means, 10000 nodes won't help, if they are owned by a single entity. And because you can never prove, that any two nodes are independent, it is hard to measure. But you can judge by their behavior, just observe the nodes you connect with, and make your own conclusions, based on what you can observe in the wild.
And what happens if i flood the network with sybil "full nodes" like in elliptic attack . How do you come up to a conclusion ? If an entity controls the majority of "full nodes" isn't his "truth" yours too ? In such a case , wouldn't you reject pools blocks even if all the pools were honest ? Doesn't that force your node to propagate false information even if you want to act honestly ? Having a huge hashrate is not enough to rule the world. You can have quite impressive hashrate, but you will have no impact on BTC, if you mine BCH. Which means, you have to produce blocks, that are accepted by the users. Which also means, you don't have to be the miner to "vote". Why? Because miners alone, could for example decide, that they want 50 BTC forever, and that halvings should be disabled. If they theoretically could do that, then tell me, why it is not the case? The answer is simple: because it is all about connections between users, miners, developers, and all other people involved in Bitcoin. As I linked at the very beginning of this post, "Bitcoin is not ruled by miners".
Why so far pools haven't voted or tried to increase the supply ? They could of even propose it so far . Miners are happy to generate income for their businesses and they don't want to kill the golden goose . As subsidy goes to zero miners have to earn income from fees . With the fee market structure only big entities will be able to afford transacting ( banks , states , billionaires ? ) . So we want to make bitcoin become a tool for the same status quo ? On the contrary , core members have proposed/thinking increase in supply just to keep fee market alive . Those who have nothing to lose . A lot of people value backward compatibility more than you can imagine. We still use IPv4, even if IPv6 was deployed. We started from ASCII, and UTF-16 was created before UTF-8, but finally, UTF-8 seems to be winning side. Because of backward compatibility. And I can tell you more: in the context of Bitcoin, we started from P2PK, and now, P2TR is more similar to P2PK than to P2SH. We have just public keys with commitments. Because this is backward-compatible. And we could end up with a single address type, that is P2PK, and attach everything else through commitments, if the whole system would support that from the very beginning! And when it comes to hash functions, even collisions for SHA-1 didn't stop people from using it, and instead they created "hardened SHA-1", which is still used by "git". Guess what: because it is backward-compatible!
The world is "unupgradable", and the sooner you accept it, the easier your life will be. Because then, you will understand, why some countries have quite advanced banking, and why in some other places, you can still use cheques. If you have nothing, then your new system could be built from scratch, without any serious limitations. But if something is already there, then upgrading it is very hard. Extremely hard, so you will lose a lot of customers, if you will break backward-compatibility.
I'm a windows user . By your logic should i stay in windows xp and never upgrade ? Why do i upgrade ? Because of the benefits . If someone decides to stay in xp that doesn't mean that all of the world should follow him . That's how real world works . You mess protocols and networks . There are not 2 global internets . Bitcoin is a network and a protocol . If you want to stay on the network you have to follow the rules of the protocol . It's on you to decide if you are able to follow the rules . Not you posing the rules that the network should follow . You want a network that fits your needs . I want a network that anyone can use it . Satoshi was clear what will happen if network wants to hit big scale https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306 The system is not about "the weakest" or "the worst". It is about "compatible" vs "incompatible". You could have terabyte blocks, here and now. But please, compress your terabyte-sized blocks, and include some proofs, to not force absolutely everyone to process that. Make it as a commitment. Guess what: the block header has 80 bytes. Does it mean that you can process 80 bytes per 10 minutes? No, you can process a lot more. And the same is true here: just commit your terabyte-sized network to the existing 4 MB witness, and you are good to go. Also, by tweaking public keys, you won't need any additional on-chain bytes to form a commitment. Taproot can show you that: you have 256-bit public key, no matter, how big Ordinals are behind a single address. And in the same way, the network can process much more than 4 MB per 10 minutes, without any hard-fork or soft-fork, if you know, how to make a commitment.
Compatible or incompatible for whom ? Pools/nodes that have economic interest or a user with a rapspi ? I don't follow you on the rest , not techy enough . |
|
|
|
Απ' την άλλη στο παραπάνω quote που βρήκες ο satoshi απαντάει λίγο σαν Πυθία.
Αλλά για να πάμε στο 3 απαιτείται και το 2 και δεν καταλαβαίνω αν αυτό ήταν το επιθυμητό αποτέλεσμα ή παράδειγμα προς αποφυγήν.
Διαβασε ολο το thread , και θα καταλαβεις πως ειναι απολυτος σε οσα γραφει . Θα δεις και για ποιο λογο δε μπορει να γινει double spend στο παραδειγμα του bitcoin snack machine , απο τη στιγμη βεβαια που το δικτυο δουλευει οπως εχει σχεδιαστει αρχικα και οχι με ολες τις "πατεντες" που εφευρεθηκαν στη συνεχεια ( "full nodes" mempool limit 300 Kb και RBF ) . |
|
|
|
Pardon me ser, but Bitcoin is NOT a Democracy where there its participants vote for something to be activated. It's a Proof Of Work system that requires nodes to do "the work" and solve "math problems" to mine blocks/verify transactions.
Although in your definition, organizing for a proposal to be heard, IS part of the Democratic process.
I totally agree that bitcoin is not democratic , that's why i put quotes . In bitcoin you only vote with your associated hashpower as a mining pool . Full nodes don't vote/play part in consensus . They are just observers of the outcome ( block creation ) that mining nodes do . I think we agree on that ? It's my thread, and I won't consider it a derailement if it's a debate where we could learn from each other. Please enter into a greater detail. The article is based on one argument . That bigger blocks will create problem to propagation and decentralisation . What it should do is first define propagation and decentralisation . Propagation with nodes that are on what bandwidth ? And with what specs ? The average download speed globally is more than 50 Mbps and upload is close to 30 ( source https://www.broadbandsearch.net/blog/average-internet-speed-around-the-world ) . Let's see how fast a 1 MB block is downloaded with 50 Mbps ( that's a speed an average user has currently ) . We will use https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/download-time . So for 50 Mbps the time to download 1 MB blocks is under 1 sec ( website says 0 sec ) . For 10 MB blocks download time is again under 1 sec ( website says 0 ) . For 100 MB blocks download time is 2 sec . Time to propagate these blocks to it's connected nodes will probably be the double . All that process is under 10 seconds for 100 MB blocks . Offcourse nodes need time to validate blocks . If i try to do it with hand it will take much time , if i try with rapspi that's the most common for btc it will be faster , and if i do it with high end machines it will be really fast . The problem is that the author doesn't consider the third option at all . So does most of the btc community . The belief is that even a user with a low specs machine and an awful bandwidth should be able to validate transactions . And all the other users should suffer high fees , accept adoption limits , wait for years for L2 solutions that doesn't work etc because someone who might never use or use occasionally the network wants to validate it's own transactions . Now let's get to decentralisation . Who defines what is decentralisation ? And how much decentralised or centralised a network is ? Common question i make , can a 5 nodes network be decentralised and a 10000 nodes network be centralised ? Decentralisation doesn't come from the number of nodes . Decentralisation comes from the economic incentives participants have . Being an active node offers to that , and that's achieved only through PoW . At some part the article says that soft forks are inclusive while hard forks are exclusive . Why ? Because he thinks so . That's the whole article , his opinion without any scientific facts . Soft forks ( easy path ) makes certain that no one is out of the network , even if he doesn't update . Who do you think would be interested more than anyone to stay on the network ? Those who profit from it , not by speculation on prices but from providing real services . Miners would do it . Listening nodes that can profit would do it . But , we want to protect the most lazy , the most cheapskate user and i don't know what else definition i can give " because decentralisation " . Decentralisation is not a new concept . Tocqueville wrote his book " Democracy in America " close to 1830 . In that book he writes about the importance of participation , voluntary structures , local government and more . If all these were done by following what the most weak person wanted then there couldn't be decentralisation ( and that's why current "democracy" sucks ) . This would be a race to the bottom as everyone should follow what the worst person wants and usually the worst person wants to do nothing and have anything . Bitcoin is a race to the top . If you want to be a participant in the network that provides work you have to learn to cooperate . Look how pools were created . You have to be honest . Look how many dishonest pools dissapeared . You gotta learn to trust . Look how miners get paid for their shares because pools earned their trust . Listening nodes would be more expensive , yes . But that doesn't mean that there can be collaborative nodes . In an environment such as btc has become where no one trusts anyone that is a no option . And the fun part is that this forum has a trust evaluation system . And taking that a little further the one of the key elements in finance , trade and much more is trust . That article mentions about the internet rules and if you change the rules you create a new network , so no one would ever do a hard fork to change it's rules . Imagine an internet that only 7 users per second could use it . There would be no online commerce . There would be no fast innovation as information/knowledge would be limited . And i can't even think what else wouldn't be possible . In summary that author provides examples without any reasonable facts behind . He just express his opinion which is pure nonsense . |
|
|
|
|
Επισης , να εχεις μια υπεροχη μερα !
|
|
|
|
Καλά το λέει, το Bitcoin είναι distributed ledger. Σύμφωνα με το whitepaper: "To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions". Το ίδιο πράγμα με τον satoshi λεει. Άρα δεν άλλαξε κάτι. Πάνω στο Bitcoin υπάρχει το native coin BTC. Με βάση τα attributes του Bitcoin και τις σταθερές μεταβλητές του, η μόνη χρήση που πρέπει να έχει το bitcoin είναι το BTC, δηλαδή οι ηλεκτρονικές συναλλαγές. Προσωπικά, όπως έχω πει, είμαι ενάντια σε inscriptions, ordinals και οτιδήποτε άλλο πέρα από financial usage.
Αφηνεις το programmable απ΄εξω , μαλλον επιτηδες αλλα θα το παραβλεψω . Γιατι λοιπον αφου ειναι μονο οι ηλεκτρονικες συναλλαγες ο σκοπος , ο ιδιος ο δημιουργος εκανε πρωτος διαφορετικη χρηση εγγραφοντας το timestamp message πανω στην αλυσιδα ? Γιατι ειχε βαλει το OP_pushdata4 με δυνατοτητα να μπορεις να κανεις push 4 GB ? Εδω σε θελω καβουρα .... |
|
|
|
No need for me to organise anything , that will be a "democratic" decision of the btc community . If community thinks that the fee problem will disappear in a magic way then it doesn't see the future coming . As soon as BitVM starts to gain traction and DeFi enters the market a couple of thousand dollars per transaction will be the norm for a long time . It happened in eth with faster blocks , i can't even imagine the magnitude in btc . As per the article , most of the things it mentions are nonsense . I would enter into greater detail but i would derail the thread entirely . In short , if you think that 1 MB limit is sensible in our times , then i don't know what to say . Even Back in 2016 was pro increasing the blocksize . Lopp too . If their "proposal" was accepted , blocksize today would be 16 MB at least . Community was pro a fee market and now takes a taste of it's own medicine . |
|
|
|
We can't do anything with that, only the miners can do such with that I can give you a guarantee that miners are not going to do that. They are not making much when there is no congestion. This is an opportunity for them to make some profits; I doubt they will miss that. I can already imagine the smile on phillipma1957's face. The developers are no interested in fixing these things. So the only way for Bitcoiners is to pay high fees if you want to do a transaction or wait until these stupids stop doing shit. Another way is to switch to the lightning network. But the problem is it's not widely used yet. There is a another option , activate UASF , it worked in the past . These evil greedy miners should learn that their behavior to expect profit from their investment is hurting stacking sats mentality . Really , why no one mentions UASF ? Or it is too early yet ? That way , core and miners would be forced to change their minds . Win win situation ? |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/criptoluis/status/1721563407596355650Lopp σε συνεντευξη : "CriptoLuis: I just had an interview with the guys from Simple Proof, they used the Open Time Stamp Protocol to check on the elections of Guatemala. What do you think about these kinds of applications and potential applications? Lopp: Yeah, I mean at a very low technical level, Bitcoin is not money. We use Bitcoin as money because of the interesting attributes that the system has. But ultimately this is a distributed programmable database.And while the functionality that the protocol in the database allow you is very limited on purpose to give you a strong level of security, there is still some flexibility in what you can do. And over the years what we found is there's almost an element of discovery of what happens in this ecosystem. And there's very creative people come along and they find ways to use the protocol that others didn't even envision. So that's what we're seeing happen, people continuing to build new utility, new applications." "CriptoLuis: So in that line of thought, what do you think the future of #Bitcoin is going to be? Lopp: Well, I certainly have my optimistic takes of where I would like to see it go. I obviously want to see adoption continuing. The main thing that I'm focused on is making it easier and easier for people to take self-custody. That's always going to be a challenge where we're facing these third-party custodians who have a massive advantage. The advantage that they have is at least two-fold. One, it's where a lot of the on ramping is still happening. So it's the sort of default where a lot of people are coming into Bitcoin. I am optimistic. I've been seeing, especially with Lightning, more people directly receiving Lightning payments. If you're getting paid in Bitcoin, then you're less likely to, I think, have that go to a trusted third party. The other thing is that the technology is going to continue to evolve faster and faster as more developers come in. So it's not even really possible for us to envision what the world might look like 10 years from now. But I do think that people are going to find ways to leverage this distributed database to secure a variety of different things beyond just money." Ε ρε , πως αλλαζουν οι καιροι κι απ'το να εισαι κατηγορος σε αυτα που ελεγαν αλλοι πριν χρονια πλεον να τα ασπαζεσαι . Αλλα ετσι θα γινει με τους maxis , δυστυχως δε θα εξαφανιστουν απο ντροπη αλλα θα περασουν σε "νεες" νοοτροπιες κουβαλωντας παντα την ηλιθιοτητα για τις "πρωτοτυπες" ιδεες τους μιας και ως γνωστον " ο εξυπνος παραδεχεται , ο πονηρος δικαιολογειται , ο ηλιθιος επιμενει " . Ισως μετα απο χρονια να ξαναανακαλυψουν τον τροχο .
|
|
|
|
With the current situation, having the ability to insert garbage into the blockchain, and then having greedy miners that don't care whether legitimate Bitcoin users are suffering or not from increased fees, then on top of that having different opinions about censorship etc, it seems such systems where any change is dependent on consensus is proving to be a failure, unless they wake up to see the consequences of not stopping these garbage transactions. BUT GREED, YOU KNOW?
As a normal ONLY BITCOIN user, when I see how banks/central dictators( dictators controlling central banks) are taking advantage of us, I can think of miners the same, so should we consider them to be the same only with different names? I guess Satoshi never thought about this, where ever is money, greed follows, whether it be governments, or miners.
The problem you mention isn't created by the design of the network but from the democratic decision to not increase the blocksize and have a fee market . You can blame UASF if you want , it's more appropriate . If full nodes in btc made a decision to spend more money for data storage and bandwidth that problem wouldn't exist in that scale . You use the term greedy . They are entities investing for profit , is that so strange ? And not expecting profit by just holding coins , but providing security to the network while continuously investing to stay in the game . Isn't that the purpose of PoW ? Satoshi thought exactly of that , how to make greed work for the whole . If community changed the rules of the game then community should take the blame . |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
