|
Nice post, I think people are overlooking many aspects of bitcoin when they are focusing on most unimportant thing: Fee
There are more important things than fees:
Survival is the top priority
Security comes after
Stability is the third concern
People would still use bitcoin if the fee is 1% or even 10%, given that bitcoin's value rise 50% per year. However, if bitcoin's value drop by 50% each year, then even bitcoin transaction becomes free, people will drop it one by one: They don't lack of cheap means of doing transaction
The bitcoin's value is destined to rise long term wise because of its anti-inflation nature, so the fee will never be a problem to stop adoption. However if one of the fundamental issues like survival, security or stability is threatened, the adoption will stop
|
|
|
|
 Interesting image. If you look carefully at the graph (B) DECENTRALIZED, you may notice it may not be as decentralized as it looks: look carefully at the middle node, it's a single point of failure. Take him away and the "Decentralized" network is disrupted. Decentralization is very difficult to define and mesure, and a "decentralized" system may seem decentralized but actually contain hidden points of failure. The image in B is not really decentralized, a decentralized network would have many connections between those small local hubs, but the image has only one such connection between the top 2 nodes. This terrible picture shows that its author does not really know what he is talking about  |
|
|
|
wow so much fud coming out of your ass.....
You should write a book about this fud, ... genius AT work
You are exactly the type of human those economy books trying to modeling, and it seems their modeling works very well on you  The question is: Are you willing to be modeled by a group of economists so that they can precisely calculate your next move and profit from it? |
|
|
|
Each transaction has to be evaluated only once to see if all of its inputs are valid. The previous work of tracing back each input to its source in some coinbase transaction was done when previous blocks were verified by the node and there is no need to redo this work. If there are two transactions going into the same block where one spends the outputs of the other then this will require sorting the transactions (via a topological sort), so that one transaction can be processed at a time and the proper accounting of the UTXO set be performed (remove and add). Finally, the processing of each transaction will have to verify that each of its inputs is used only once in the transaction. This can be done together with verifying the presence of each input if an efficient data structure is used. With appropriate use of hashing there will probably not be the need for any sorting operations and performance can be O(N), at least with a very high probability. (If random access memory is limited, the worst case here requires sorting and this makes the overall operation order n log n, not order n^2 assuming competent design and programming.) Easier said than done, just import this private key and tell me how long it takes L5WfGz1p6tstRpuxXtiy4VFotXkHa9CRytCqY2f5GeStarA5GgG5 Notice that a transaction of 1MB containing 5000+ inputs are totally legal in today's system, so it already showed some incentive that attackers might be interested. If even under 1MB block size nodes already have to setup defenses against data flooding attack, then the current network is far from robust to go for higher block sizes |
|
|
|
IMO, supply/demand curve in a free market exists only on books of economy schools, it never really happens in reality because the reality is magnitudes complex than this too simplified model.
Are you saying that the Laws of Supply and Demand are not useful? Supply and demand theory is easy for economy students to understand. But humans are all complex, using a simple formula to describe all the different type of people's behavior without considering their personality and influence is just too simple that the model only works at academic level. Economy is not science but politics. A policy maker will never make an economy policy that is against his own interest/benefit |
|
|
|
If some miners don't want to do it (create a big block), they can, and if others won't, they won't.
Still don't see why we need a block cap to enforce what miners will do.
Those so called rational human in economy books are like animals, they only care about the profit. In reality human have more visions. Many miners build mining farms not for profit from mining blocks, but for constructing the infrastructure of a global independent financial universe, and there are many aspects have much more weight than the fee from a block (that's the reason the difficulty does not drop when it takes more money to mine bitcoin than its market price). Being agile and robust is always preferred |
|
|
|
its not a question of supply and demand, if miners know other miners will orphan his block if it take >a few seconds to validate then no reward is worth getting your block orphan cuz you don't get a reward if your block is orphaned.
i guess miners have to come up with some guide lines as to what constitutes a valid block, or more to the point what constitutes an invalid block.
Partly true, if all the miners have an agreement that refuse to relay a block that takes bigger than a few seconds to validate. However, some of the super nodes might have 10 times more capacity that can verify it 10 times faster. And F2pool does not need other miners to relay his blocks, he just need to mine continuously two blocks in a row to write his block permanently into the blockchain, it happens quite often https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC |
|
|
|
If you dilute it, you fuck everything up, except yourself, temporarly, but after the house of cards collapse, the elite will lose quadrillions of $ too.
The amazing thing is, if you dilute it, you become the hero, because now those excessive products will find some buyer and companies can start to produce more and hire more People will work more when they see more money, so the more money printing will create more productivity. As long as people trust their fiat money, money printing works perfectly And elite have all turned their printed money into hard assets, even the fiat money collapsed, they won't get hurt |
|
|
|
if Peter R is correct with his free market hypothesis, then your concern johnnyj is a moot point because miners won't broadcast blocks that take hours to confirm. Pretty simple concept don't you think?
IMO, supply/demand curve in a free market exists only on books of economy schools, it never really happens in reality because the reality is magnitudes complex than this too simplified model. I have pointed several weaknesses in his modeling https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179712.msg12417772#msg12417772Back to the topic, Mark also said the nodes can limit maximum size of transaction to reduce the relay chance of such transaction. However, this 1MB transaction was intentionally made by F2pool to sweep the dust in those addresses (they contain more than 0.5 btc). And what if someone put 5 BTC in those dust addresses? Then every miner will try to include this mega transaction and cause the network to hiccup. So it only takes 5 BTC to disturb the bitcoin network if every miner is just aiming for the best economic interest |
|
|
|
I'm more interested in this
30 seconds to verify a transaction on one node! And to relay that block to all nodes you need at least 4-5 hop, that adds up to 2-3 minutes, I believe that we are going to see some serious problem when we reach the 2MB block size limit (If it ever get that large)
Actually I'm getting more cautious after more evidence showing that the blockchain does not scale at current technology, not even to 2MB if you want to have some safety margin
If the slide is correct and Core actually takes O(N^2) to verify a block then the software has a serious performance bug. There is no excuse for this. If this is true it calls into question the competence and credibility of the core developers. I would have expected better from "experts" with PhD degrees in Computer Science who are supposed to be operating in the real world of product development. It would be interesting to hear what the Core developers have to say about this issue. (And other developers who are working on alternate code bases.) (My apologies if this report proves false.) This is a nature result of how bitcoin works. For validation of each transaction, you must validate all of its unspent output all the way down to its root, when the unspent output are all dust coming from thousands of other dusts and dusts several layers down, the time to validate the transaction rises exponentially Just try to import a private key from coinwallet give out and see how long it takes on your machine to get an idea why 1MB block can even be deadly sometimes https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175321.msg12390644#msg12390644 |
|
|
|
Link is in the top of this thread, time in the screenshot is clear |
|
|
|
|
There are more evidence from this workshop showing that the blockchain does not scale at current technology, not even to 2MB if you want to have some safety margin
So the scaling is definitely going to need another layer. If you study the current monetary system of US, Fedwire system that handles settlement between thousands of member banks in US have a transaction capacity of 4 TPS, exactly like bitcoin
A network of thousands of nodes that each works as a small bank-like institution sounds enough decentralized to me. There will be bitcoin bank failures and no one is going to bailout them, but that's also the reason people should only put coffee and beer money in a bitcoin bank
|
|
|
|
I'm more interested in this  30 seconds to verify a transaction on one node! And to relay that block to all nodes you need at least 4-5 hop, that adds up to 2-3 minutes, I believe that we are going to see some serious problem when we reach the 2MB block size limit (If it ever get that large) Actually I'm getting more cautious after more evidence showing that the blockchain does not scale at current technology, not even to 2MB if you want to have some safety margin |
|
|
|
I don't know why most people are saying that money is debt, maybe because they have never created money, but only borrowed money
For money creators, money is not debt but asset. I think every bitcoin miner understand that
Gold, silver and bitcoin are money, but fiat currencies aren’t money, fiat currencies are borrowed into existence that’s why some people call this as debt. Anyway it’s better to have fiat than to not have it. "borrowed into existence" is a typical misleading explanation trying to confuse people. Banks can not lend out something that they don't have. If that money does not belong to bank, the borrower does not have to return the loan, this will cause the system to crash So banks must first create the money and claim the ownership of those money, only after that they can start to lend out money |
|
|
|
ASIC miner warmed garage is the best investment |
|
|
|
To be honest, there is really no known good way of communication in a decentralized society, people just won't listen to any one but themselves (No authorities) An uncensored forum is the best possible place to collect all the views from different sides |
|
|
|
|
I think there should be a mechanism to let you cancel the transaction and rebroadcast with a higher fee. At least you should get a market feedback of the ongoing fee rate depends on the network load
|
|
|
|
|
Basically nothing new here, the ideas like NG has been discussed long time ago without any major breakthrough, because any split of the block and broadcasting will have security risk
I think the progress on those kind of meetings are much slower than forum, where all kinds of ideas can be exchanged and discussed in real time
I recently read Peter R's paper on supply and demand model without block size limit, I think he has done quite some research in writing that paper. And I want to point out that for each different miner on the network, he's view of supply and demand is not the same as another guy with a totally different set of hardware and network infrastructure
For example, a large group of chinese miners on very slow connections might choose to mine extremely small blocks to reduce their orphan rate. However since they command majority of the hash power, the whole network capacity will be limited by their choice, even others on high speed connections consider that mining larger block is profitable. So it is very difficult to get a supply demand picture for the whole network when the nodes have vastly different infrastructure. Notice that those slow connection area typically have the lowest electricity/labor cost
The supply and demand model works when every participants are following their best economy interest. However, if there are some actors intentionally causing problem for the network because they have some other interest beyond the bitcoin economy, for example banks who want to cripple the bitcoin network to reduce competition, then the security is the first priority. The latest spam attack simulated such a possibility. In fact banks can cripple bitcoin network if they want, but it is just too small to raise any concern for them right now
|
|
|
|
|
Localbitcoins works better, ATMs are too legacy, do not fit in a mobile and digital era
|
|
|
|
Devs can also improve their knowledge in other area, but that will also cost a lot of time. If it takes 10 years for a smart person to become an expert in coding, then it might take 20 years for him to become an expert in economy and finance, simply because the society and economy is not really a science, they are much more difficult to learn and understand, everything in those area are highly political and full of illusions
Strongly disagree. There are 2 academic disciplines that are often cited as being the most employable: Mathematics and Philosophy. These two subjects are said to bestow their adherents with the most flexible (and most abstract) reasoning capabilities. And so the abilities of people well versed in either to take on a wholly new subject matter and understand & learn it are naturally advantaged over those that are untrained. Take fiat money for example, why people blindly trust those pieces of paper even they knows that central banks print those notes faster than printing books? Andreas just revealed part of the reason: We live in an era where fear has overcome reason. It is difficult to understand fiat money's value without taking enough time to dig into the psychology root of each people's unconscious behavior. However, if you fail to understand how the value of a currency is based on, then your decision might destroy a currency like many currency makers did during past several hundred years
I think we can find easy ways to explain monetary theory to people. It's tough to get your head around hihg level explanations, but I've succeeded in finding ways of explaining it to some fairly simple minded people. Using examples (and choosing the example carefully) is often what works. If you can use a mathematical formula to calculate the finance market, then you are already the world richest by trading options or foreign currencies, because you will calculate out the exact price of tomorrow and always double your money in a couple of hours The difficulty with economy and finance is not that you don't have enough skill, but you don't have enough information. All the information you can collect are misleading, purposely |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
