You can't copy the brain.
A brain is something made out of matter. Are you saying it is theoretically impossible (nevermind for now how difficult it would be in practice) to create a duplicate of a piece of matter that consists of the same kind of atoms in the same state? FFS This isn’t nerdtalk.org.  You sure you know where you're at? |
|
|
|
Here's my 2 cents: If Bitcoin breaks $5,280 today or tomorrow, then by April 14th we might be in the $5,400–$5,500, otherwise Bitcoin will retreat to $4,800–$4,900 range during the week.
Good NEEWS everyone. Bitcorn has broken $5280. |
|
|
|
I am only 4.5BTC away from 10btc. It'll take a while if bitcoin keeps rising like this. 5 was my first target and I accomplished it a few weeks ago. 10 is next. 21 is after that. I'll probably cash out to lambo (by lambo i mean whatever i like) before I reach 21 but who knows.
Tone Vays says sub $3k, even sub 2k is still possible. I might get 4-5 coins instantly if that happens.
What's the deal with 21? Confirminati illumed? It’s Wednesday my man.
The third day in a seven day week? 21? We don’t talk about big blocks or BCH on Wednesdays. For reasons. Instead we post pictures of ladies rock climbing. Big Blocks FTW, mothafuckah. |
|
|
|
PANTS RECEIVED
09/12 gembitz
09/12 cAPSLOCK
09/12 jojo69
09/12 RealMachasm
09/12 Lauda
09/12 d_eddie
09/12 xhomerx10
09/12 kurious
09/12 'TheMajor'
*Now accepting short pants, track pants and trousers.
Updated. NB. Socks sent to the pants address will not be credited to your account and will be effectively lost. Mayor Bitcorn took a lot of peoples pants in Sept 17 w a price of about 3800. We then had the parabolic run up to 20k. Perhaps next go around he will abscond with WO hats and then we blast off to 100k. Maybe the pants were collateral for Tether printing. We may never know. Still unknown: Whether or not SorosShorts coughed up pants. |
|
|
|
also in the good news department tonight.... 'Stamp got their NYC bitlicense finally.
SkepticalFrye.png |
|
|
|
yes totally agree with you on your last point....
The highway analogy was not about space to build the highway, but rather it doesn't matter how many lanes are built, it will still eventually get to the same outcome as a 1 lane highway. You will still end up with traffic congestion, nothing has been solved. I was merely trying to associate with the fact bitcoin developers was not concerned with building more lanes, ie increase block size, but focusing on alternate transport methods or alternate transport habits. ie layer 2 scaling.
As I pointed out earlier, and I quote: Stupid analogy is stupid. There also comes to a point where you may never be able to run full node from scratch. Based on a 30sec a 1MB validation time
According to statement by gmaxwell, Core 'nodes' do not verify back to the genesis block, relying instead upon checkpoints. I deigned to just accept his assertion on this point - it may be incorrect. and i have read somewhere that it may be quadratically longer the bigger the block.
Yes. Operative word is _may_. One is able to construct an aberrant block that requires quadratic time to verify. Fortunately, this is a self-rectifying non-problem. Just to confirm the 30sec theory, i'd shutdown my Bitcoin Node, was 8 blocks behind, fired it back up and it took about 5mins to catch up 10 blocks, two blocks was found while validating/catching up.
Folly of trying to limit the performance of our lifetime's second most significant technological achievement, only in order to satisfy having essentially zero skin in the game, is duly noted. |
|
|
|
1. Database Size
Lets assume Bitcoin is now the standard peer-to-peer payment method. for Simplicity, let assume there will be 1,000,000,000 Transaction a day.
Visa's average sustained throughput is about 150 Million tx/day, according to Visa itself. So much for your first assumption. Do we want to be bigger than Visa? Of course we do. But let us start there. Each transaction is approx 250b. (assuming there is only one input and one output). 41,666,666 6,250,000/ Hour or 6,944,444 1,041,667/10Mins
Average throughput is what is of concern here. Spikes can wait, as long as blocks are not persistently full. 37.5 GB/day, not 250 GB/day. This will mean we need a min of 1.736GB 156MB blocksize to accommodate the transactions.
So...
Every Block: 1.736GB 156MB
Every Hour: 10.416GB 936MB
Every Day: 250GB 22.5GB
Every Year: 91,250GB 8.2TB
is added to the blockchain
[I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader] So just to recap the above,
You would need to buy a machine capable of handling 1TB of RAM and possible a RAID Storage that can handle 91TB of Hard Drive Space
Yes, today the demands to be a fist-class citizen of the worldwide network of all money would seem to be daunting. Today. Tough titties. Sucks to be you. It's as if you have never heard of Moore's 'Law', nor Nielsen's 'Law'. It is not as if we're going to displace Visa tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. In the meantime, Blocapocalypse II will be here with the next FOMO spike. |
|
|
|
I can't agree enough. What kind of sickness is it for people like roach, stolfi, jbreher, etc to come here and spout their non-stop garbage
I wouldn't bundle jbreher with stolfi. And The Roach is just on another plane of existence. I'm not saying they are the same. What I mean is the constant posting about the same topic over and over again that has already been answered by everyone here many times over. It seems like very obsessive behavior, especially since they know they can't convince anyone here of anything they say. Well, I may not be the best arbiter of my own behavior. However, it seems to me that these argument-storms always start when someone takes one of my posts that has nothing to do with the topic, and feels compelled to reply with some nonsense that is clearly incorrect about the characteristics of either BCH or SV (or, as often, counterfactual nonsense about BTC itself). As if to publicly shame me for some aspect of 'The Other Bitcoins'. If you have not yet learned, I am not going to allow such bullshit to be the unchallenged record. The obvious solution is obvious: don't spout lies that might require me to correct. jbreher in particular is bad with this. Why does he keep posting his so called technical comments here, when he could be posting them in the development area of the forum or github. Perhaps because he is full of shit and knows it.
Quite the contrary. The technical issues are trivial and fully understood by the technocrats. It is the economic assumptions and game theory assumptions that are completely flawed. The technical sub-forum is dedicated to SW implementation, and occasionally to protocol implementation to hew to economic decisions that are outside the scope of that sub-forum. Accordingly, my comments are fully out of scope for the technical sub-forum. I have always stated freely that I find the devs pretty much capable within their technical areas. But a bulletproof and faithful SW implementation of an inherently flawed design is still inherently flawed. |
|
|
|
Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind.
You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit. What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.
Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up. I see where you're at, but I have a problem with the "bankers" (miners) being able to set technical parameters without the users' (user nodes) consent. 'Consent' of the users is always required. If the users will not accept what the miners are creating, they can abandon that chain. For better or for worse, this is the exact balance of power that was bequeathed to us by satoshi's design. Indeed, it is still the only check users have to this day, whether BTC, BCH, or SV. And the number of fully-validating non-mining wallet clients has fuck-all to do with this balance of power. I know your opinion that "fully validating user nodes", or whatever you call the non-mining nodes, add no value to the network. I beg to differ. They can and will ignore malformed blocks. They verify.
Yes, and if they detect blocks that they refuse to accept, their only power is to ostracize themselves from the network that accepts that chain. That does not affect the network in the slightest. Sure, if some other chian is being built, they can be configured to follow that other chain. But that is their only option. They by definition cannot build the chain they desire. And "verify don't trust" is probably the strongest of bitcoin's values. When that verification goes away, we - the bitcoiners, including yourself by your own definition - are going to have to fall back to trusting the "bankers".
This I would agree with whole-heartedly. But my ability to verify the chain is completely independent of any outside influence. There is no barrier for me to operate in such a trustless manner. As long as there is no prescribed barrier to such trustless operation, the network is as decentralized as it need be. That's why I am unable to understand the philosophy/motivations behind your stance.
Perhaps because you do not yet see that your desired implementation details do not support the objectives you claim to espouse. |
|
|
|
Further Bcash technology (BCH and SV) is inferior, because its security model is weak.
Incorrect. It is SegWit that has an inferior security model. Its security model is weak for a number of reasons, all of which come back to a lack of effective decentralization.
I might agree that BCH and SV's currently actualized security is below that of BTC. As it is secured with less hash power. Which, to the extent that such might be the definition of 'decentralization' you are employing, comports with your statement. But that is not the same as a deficient security model. |
|
|
|
The _protocol_ needs no maximum on the block size. The miners, being the ones who are affected by the block size, can set it without your soviet. At whatever point makes sense from a market demand and supply perspective.
Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind. You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit. For such is exactly equivalent to a centrally-planned production quota. And production quotas -- to the extent that they are enforceable -- are invariably economically inefficient, ensuring crappy outcomes for most participants. In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible. At 1MB in size, blocks are so trivially small that miners' only consideration was in maximizing tx fees in the blocks they are building. Leading to blocks not being persistently full until the number of txs desired by the community became in excess of the block size limit. Obviously, such an issue can be solved by increasing the block size limit. Of course, at some size (specific size thereof unknowable to the central planners), block size will be problematic. But the market will solve this issue. At the point where block propagation increases due to size leads to a higher incidence of orphaning, that is where the equilibrium point for block size will be set. Again, assuming no centrally-planned max, and that sufficient txs are available to build such large blocks. What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.
Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up. and what would you do when groups spam the blocks to make them large and reduce the number of nodes? What would you have me do? For the eleventy-bajillion-and-oneth time, a large number of so-called 'nodes' provide no value to the network as a whole. Of course, I'll probably continue to run a full-validating, non-mining wallet client or three for myself, as I like to be able to create txs that need no intermediaries.
What will you do when groups spam your small blocks, leading to the txs you desire unable to get included in the chain in under weeks, and even then at a cost of $thousands?
Is anyone going to pull you up on this one? Look above, you said you advocate for larger blocks. And now you advocate for a dynamic block, only after i mentioned dynamic block, which you never mentioned previously. What, are you arguing in bad faith, trying to trip me up in semantics? Your supplied definition of 'dynamic block size' (underlined above) as one that "Miner's [sic] will set themselves" does not comport to the long-accepted definition of the concept of 'dynamic block size', the accepted definition being a block size limit determined algorithmically via the protocol, set to some value dependent upon some previous set of mined block sizes. Which is certainly not equivalent to "Miner's [sic] will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter." I just papered over this gaffe of yours in order to move the discussion along. I see now you are more interested in a game of cat and mouse rather than any actual discussion of value. What I have agreed to above is not your misuse of the term 'dynamic block size', but rather the concept that miners set the size of the block they produce with no protocol-imposed limit (i.e., your 'definition's' dependent clause). As I have said over and over (and over and ...). If that is the case and it is dynamic blocks and not bigger blocks, then you also must support the current and smaller block size as it fits within your framework of a dynamic block.
That is just stupid. Miners have always been able to mine blocks smaller than any protocol limit. The thing is, when mining a block it doesn't matter what size the block is, the cost to generate such blocks are the same.
Absolutely false. Not all blocks take the same amount of time to validate, and not all blocks take the same amount of time to propagate. To a first order approximation, the block size is a major determinant of these times. I shudder to think that I need to explain this to you. If a block takes longer to process -- such that a block that was solved later by a competing miner is accepted into the blockchain sooner -- that former block is orphaned. The loss of income from that orphaning process is a very real cost. Whether you recognize it as such or not. Production Quota are economically inefficient?
Yes. Read some economics, ignoramus. You talk about the market this, the market that, the market will, well the market has spoken mate! and You and BCH/BSV and what every other shitcoin you represent are the weakest link!
The last refuge of the loser: spout an irrelevancy intended to insult the other party. Good Bye!
Thank god. Your arguments are inane, disingenuous, ineffectual, and dishonest. I'm more than happy to not have to counter your bullshit any longer.edit: strikethrough immediately preceding. While this particular post was indeed 'inane, disingenuous, ineffectual, and dishonest', I see a subsequent post actually contained an argument. Unpersuasive though it be, it still addressed points of substance. |
|
|
|
OK, JJG. Tell me what the plan is to deal with the fact that once blocks are persistently full, then average fees rise uncontrollably, average wait times raise uncontrollably, LN channel openings and closings get economically prohibitive, and number of new entrants gets hard-capped.
What is the plan, JJG - what is the plan?
The blocksize will be increased when necessary. Double the size, double the transactions. Not yet, though. The possible benefits are still outweighed by the risk of spam, which we all have seen. We haven't seen persistently full blocks eyt, though. So that's why it hasn't happened yet. Personally, I agree with you that the block size limit will at some point be increased. Either that comes about, or BTC loses use case after use case to more capable blockchains. However, my observation is that such an increase will be too little too late. How long do you think it will take to overcome the inertia already nurtured within the community -- who have been taught that large blocks are a detriment -- to accept the inevitability of such larger blocks? And after that, how long will it take to push out such a change? And preceding the above, how long will it take for the devs to lose their blinders on the topic, especially having to publicly admit they were wrong about the need to keep blocks small? Besides, daily use of LN for a vast majority of transactions might make it less necessary to open and close channels frequently. And bulk channel openings have been in development for a while already. Some are well past the proof of concept stage (alpha,beta, testnet? I'm not up to date on that ATM).
We were all supposed to be routinely using LN 'in six months' two years ago. Again, too little, too late. N ot to mention the fact that persistently full blocks breaks lightning. Schnorr sigs are coming. They improve on-chain privacy, save block space, and they will make coinjoin-like transactions easier - including aggregation of LN channel open/close operations.
A viable small scaling solution that will be routine sometime in the next four to six years. All this might not amount to a detailed plan, but it does look like a friggin' good approximation in my opinion.
It ain't even an approximation of a plan until it has been clearly articulated and absorbed by the bulk of the community. When do you suppose the next FOMO spike ends up forcing the community's hand? |
|
|
|
Off topic, but...
Word around the campfire has it that Rosewater appears to be suffering from protracted post acute benzodiazepine withdrawal. It's all quite heady and complicated. Lots of ins. Lots of outs. Akathisia, some hallucinations. GABA receptor down-regulation. This on top of tardive dysphoria and that wheat thing, to the best of my knowledge. At any rate, doctors orders. The line between iatrogenic physical dependence and full blown pill sick smack-houndery is a bit unclear. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.
'tis a fine line to thread, indeed. Now where's my hat?
Dunno. Where's all the pants? |
|
|
|
@jbreher So what is likely to happen if BCH-ABC or SV wants to implement another improvement of the protocol that a significant portion disagree with? Are groups of miners going to square off on two or more camps
To the extent that each side is entrenched in their way forward, this would seem likely. Just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp. and cause more forks,
Perhaps. If one side defaults on the approach satoshi suggested -- colloquially known as a hash battle -- than a fork would seem inevitable. Again, just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp. each fork being less secure since each have less hash rate?
If neither side capitulates, yes. Again, just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp. Of course, with a fairly pervasive narrative within Core of 'miners are evil', BTC may find other ways to lose hash security. But a schism for BTC is less likely ... A schism for BTC is the exact thing that birthed Bitcoin Cash. |
|
|
|
@jbreher So what is likely to happen if BCH-ABC or SV wants to implement another improvement of the protocol that a significant portion disagree with? Are groups of miners going to square off on two or more camps
To the extent that each side is entrenched in their way forward, this would seem likely. Just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp. and cause more forks,
Perhaps. If one side defaults on the approach satoshi suggested -- colloquially known as a hash battle -- than a fork would seem inevitable. Again, just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp. each fork being less secure since each have less hash rate?
If neither side capitulates, yes. Again, just as would be the case for a schism within the Bitcoin Core camp. Of course, with a fairly pervasive narrative within Core of 'miners are evil', BTC may find other ways to lose hash security. |
|
|
|
This entire discussion is irrelevant it's the Bitcoin Wall Observation not the bastard alt fork wall thread.
This entire discussion is a result of you wading in quizzing me about what I think about CSW in response to this post of mine: Blocks become persistently full. LN not ready for mass adoption. Bitcoin in its BTC form sheds economic support for use case after use case, until the point where the only use case supported is banks making international SWIFT-like settlements.
In the face of this, it becomes evident to the world at large that satoshi was right and Blockstream was wrong. In case you have forgotten, The SegWit Omnibus Changeset was also a change to to protocol. You don't get to claim that this was not a change. In what way does my quoted post have anything whatsoever to do with anything but BTC? The answer is obvious to all. It is absolutely, positively, completely on this topic of BTC. It was you whom inserted the irrelevancy of CSV, thereby using it as a wedge to insert your inane views on BCH and SV into the conversation. Your. Fucking. Doing. |
|
|
|
Well I'm more about that irrelevant shit
So I am coming to know. Now these developers must believe he is Satoshi right?
I imagine some do, others do not. In fact, I am quite certain of that. If not then why would they follow his ideas and paths on Bitcoin while all under the title of Satoshi's Vision?
Why do you assert they are following CSW's ideas and paths? One does not need to believe CSW is satoshi in order to believe that the original design of the Bitcoin protocol was correct. Working to maximize SW that interacts through that protocol is fully orthogonal to any belief of CSW-satoshi equivalence. Now, would you like to talk about the scenario I have been challenged to outline -- upon which you have waded in with non-sequitur -- or are you just going to throw even more irrelevant shit? |
|
|
|
Describe the scenario that would allow any of the other current "brands" of bitcoin to take over dominance without destroying global faith in the market.
Blocks become persistently full. LN not ready for mass adoption. Bitcoin in its BTC form sheds economic support for use case after use case, until the point where the only use case supported is banks making international SWIFT-like settlements. In the face of this, it becomes evident to the world at large that satoshi was right and Blockstream was wrong. In case you have forgotten, The SegWit Omnibus Changeset was also a change to to protocol. You don't get to claim that this was not a change. That would destroy all faith in the system. Conclusion requiring support of facts not yet entered into evidence. IOW, 'Sez you'. It ... may. Unlikely. More likely, it would destroy all faith in the Core-ian vision. Of course, seeing as SV and BCH both hew more closely to the original definition of Bitcoin than does BTC (especially SV), this provides a reasonably sound counter-narrative against 'Oh noes! Core is broken, so all Bitcoin was inherently doomed from the start'. Nay, such a situation would vindicate the large block position. The position that did not throw the baby out of the pram. The position that carried satoshi's experiment into the future without fuckitating it. You didn't even mention how any of the other brands would improve the situation.
I described it over and over (and over, and...) BTC is the only Bitcoin fork that exhibits this flaw of a centrally-planned production quota capping persistent block size, let alone one set deliberately below any rational demand for tx capacity. So your only scenario is a complete collapse of blockchain technology as we know it?
In order to make this assertion, you're either not reading what I am clearly articulating, or you are not thinking about those writings. (Or you are stupid, or dishonest - but that can't be the case, can it?) |
|
|
|
Describe the scenario that would allow any of the other current "brands" of bitcoin to take over dominance without destroying global faith in the market.
Blocks become persistently full. LN not ready for mass adoption. Bitcoin in its BTC form sheds economic support for use case after use case, until the point where the only use case supported is banks making international SWIFT-like settlements. In the face of this, it becomes evident to the world at large that satoshi was right and Blockstream was wrong. In case you have forgotten, The SegWit Omnibus Changeset was also a change to to protocol. You don't get to claim that this was not a change. Oh are you claiming Craig is Satoshi? Again? We've been over this. Several times. No, I am not claiming such. Relevance? None that I can see. Now, would you like to talk about the scenario I have been challenged to outline, or are you just going to throw more irrelevant shit? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
