point is a home node having 60+ peers is nutty
Well... my goal was to share information with whomever asked for it without abusing the offer. Apparently that's crazy! it is! you're probably forwarding TX's to all your peers most of whom probably already received those TX datas from the other 60+peers Their connected to. and that sir is called resilience by redundancy |
|
|
|
point is a home node having 60+ peers is nutty
Well... my goal was to share information with whomever asked for it without abusing the offer. Apparently that's crazy! You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you for your services. That's the problem with most of the rugrats in here: they don't realize the sacrifices needed for the Bitcoin network to operate. |
|
|
|
What are the use cases of frictionless programmable money? Why is it important? Why do we need to put those transactions on the same block chain that provides us with censorship-proof money? Does frictionless programmable money require the overhead of a permanent distributed ledger?
It is important because it opens up new business and trade opportunities and can lift up the financial situation of people specially in times of financial crisis. Does frictionless programmable money require the overhead of a permanent distributed ledger? Well yes or unless you know any other kind of technology than can achieve this other than bitcoin? Most things (possibly everything) come with a trade off. If creating a good frictionless programmable money harms the censorship resistance, which do we choose?
We choose both because bitcoin already does both and we should work toward that goal. Adding censorship adds a layer of friction and going offchain also adds frictions. If bitcoin could scale from 0 to now by offering both then I don't see why it cannot continue to scale and still offering both.
Because you suck at engineering.  Bitcoin is first and foremost about censorship resistance and decentralization. The rest is bells and whistles. |
|
|
|
first off you remove 1 one only part of the network goes down
second if a point is comprised a new one can take its place.
third this is just an example there might be a need for more than 1 point connecting to other parts of the network
point is a home node having 60+ peers is nutty
Here, with color :  I can't believe you've gone so far into the Bitcoin experiment and only now realize how inefficient the decentralized model is so you'd like us to change it because it doesn't fit your misconceptions of what Bitcoin should become. Truly disturbing. |
|
|
|
Isn't that the distributed model? Too many possible points of control. It wont work for bitcoin - nodes need to have the choice of getting to any node to be worthwhile. i disagree as long as the network can re-adjust if they find a node is not behaving properly, this works just fine  we should look to get a decentralized model not distributed Would you look at the picture you've just posted? I can remove one little point and kill the whole network. |
|
|
|
Right but what's the point of financial freedom if you have no freedom to use your coins the way you want? Financial freedom is more than just escaping financial controls IMO.
All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile. But bitcoin is not just about being censorship resistant. It's also about being frictionless programmable money. Both are equally important. Frictionless programmable money is impossible without censorship resistance |
|
|
|
its only taking days to sync because i need to work all day on my computer and i cant have core eating 90% cpu while i work.
also i turn off my machine at night because it's hot in my room.
i think your exaggerating the resources core takes and that's why i'm sycning a full node, once the full node is synced i will see first hand if this hurts my streaming. You have to run 24/7 to see Core use the resources I'm talking about here. You need to have 60+ peers connected to you which you will never achieve if you constantly shut your node down. You need about a month of 100% uptime to get those results. I have no reason to exaggerate Adam. I'm a Bitcoin enthusiast and I want this system to be robust. I would venture to guess that Bitcoin impacts my current and future financial situation far, far more than most people posting on this forum. But more important than that, I want the freedom to do as I see fit with my money. I'm not here calling for mainstream adoption so I can cash out and get rich. Not that I wouldn't mind Bitcoin being valued at what I think is appropriate for the utility it provides. i think your pushing the "war" thing a little to far, right now mostly all governments are OK with bitcoin.
Let's not be naive and ignore the fact that increasing capital controls continue to be implemented by governments around the world. 60+ peers that's the problem  we need to take the bitcoin network from this:  to this:   Seriously... stop drinking. |
|
|
|
You're welcome. Bitcoin is now NOT Fidelity coin and not subject to the whims of politicians and regulators. It is still policy neutral and decentralized.
If bitcoin can't be used by businesses because it has capacity problems then bitcoin is going nowhere. That's nothing to do with being Fidelity coin or whatsoever. Bitcoin is not there to serve consumerism and businesses. If you think it needs to fold to demands of corporations to succeed you never understood it in the first place. For capacity there's FidelityCoin or VISAchain. Then enjoy your worthless Uselesscoin. Right... digital gold... so useless. You shills never cease to amaze me  |
|
|
|
You're welcome. Bitcoin is now NOT Fidelity coin and not subject to the whims of politicians and regulators. It is still policy neutral and decentralized.
If bitcoin can't be used by businesses because it has capacity problems then bitcoin is going nowhere. That's nothing to do with being Fidelity coin or whatsoever. Bitcoin is not there to serve consumerism and businesses. If you think it needs to fold to demands of corporations to succeed you never understood it in the first place. For capacity there's FidelityCoin or VISAchain. |
|
|
|
bottom line, we need improvements, But still the answer is No you shouldn't aim for running full nodes while running a full household worth of devices. I believe we should keep the limit such that a typical home connection can handle it with about 80% of the its bandwidth being utilized. this will be the upper limit which should never be crossed. and at the same time offer simi-full nodes that do something useful with only 10-20% of a typical home connection.
some improved incentives will also help, what's the point of running a "super node" that relay GB's of data per day? maybe miners would be willing to pay a small fee to connect to this node so that it gets blocks faster? or something!
Again, my connection and my hardware are no where close to "typical". You are, two days later, still syncing from 1 year behind? I sync the entire chain in 14 hours. My other household uses (frequent web browsing, occasional gaming and streaming video) take nowhere near the resources of Core. If a Bitcoin enthusiast like myself, who spends money on hardware specifically to run a node, who has top tier internet speeds, can't run a full node at full capacity (without a dedicated line), I would say that the decentralization of the network has been harmed. (Of course, I am currently running multiple full nodes, but not at full capacity. My concern is increasing the data a node should share before making the system as efficient as possible.) If you want to take off the training wheels, let's talk about it after we've got the pedals, chain, handlebars, and shifters in fantastic working order. You envision a network where there are multiple implementations of the software based on the resources at hand. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless it raises the bar so much that the end user can no longer access the full censorship-proof nature of Bitcoin. I envision a network that is able to function in a possible future where governments force ISPs to audit or even censor Bitcoin traffic. I don't think we will have truly censorship-proof money until the Bitcoin network is not only able, but actually functioning, on a global wireless mesh network that is entirely out of the reach of any entity that would wish to control it. I want Bitcoin to function in a worst case scenario. This isn't a war to see who can provide the cheapest, most convenient transaction for buying a glass of wine, this is a war for financial freedom. its only taking days to sync because i need to work all day on my computer and i cant have core eating 90% cpu while i work. also i turn off my machine at night because it's hot in my room. i think your exaggerating the resources core takes and that's why i'm sycning a full node, once the full node is synced i will see first hand if this hurts my streaming. agreed we need improvements done before we up the limit. i think your pushing the "war" thing a little to far, right now mostly all governments are OK with bitcoin. How can you be so naive? By exaggerating do you suggest Holliday is lying? What he's saying sounds plausible to me and certainly not anecdotal, there have been many reports of node owners experiencing similar problems. Planning for "the war thing" is how you build security systems: assuming worst-case scenarios. Today's reality might be quite different from tomorrow's. Do you really expect governments of the world to let Bitcoin take over the world without putting up a fight? honestly I expect them to embrace bitcoin as the banksters monopoly money fails them. They've already starting to embrace it but much like everything they prefer to control it and there are quite some ways they can go about doing this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish |
|
|
|
bottom line, we need improvements, But still the answer is No you shouldn't aim for running full nodes while running a full household worth of devices. I believe we should keep the limit such that a typical home connection can handle it with about 80% of the its bandwidth being utilized. this will be the upper limit which should never be crossed. and at the same time offer simi-full nodes that do something useful with only 10-20% of a typical home connection.
some improved incentives will also help, what's the point of running a "super node" that relay GB's of data per day? maybe miners would be willing to pay a small fee to connect to this node so that it gets blocks faster? or something!
Again, my connection and my hardware are no where close to "typical". You are, two days later, still syncing from 1 year behind? I sync the entire chain in 14 hours. My other household uses (frequent web browsing, occasional gaming and streaming video) take nowhere near the resources of Core. If a Bitcoin enthusiast like myself, who spends money on hardware specifically to run a node, who has top tier internet speeds, can't run a full node at full capacity (without a dedicated line), I would say that the decentralization of the network has been harmed. (Of course, I am currently running multiple full nodes, but not at full capacity. My concern is increasing the data a node should share before making the system as efficient as possible.) If you want to take off the training wheels, let's talk about it after we've got the pedals, chain, handlebars, and shifters in fantastic working order. You envision a network where there are multiple implementations of the software based on the resources at hand. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless it raises the bar so much that the end user can no longer access the full censorship-proof nature of Bitcoin. I envision a network that is able to function in a possible future where governments force ISPs to audit or even censor Bitcoin traffic. I don't think we will have truly censorship-proof money until the Bitcoin network is not only able, but actually functioning, on a global wireless mesh network that is entirely out of the reach of any entity that would wish to control it. I want Bitcoin to function in a worst case scenario. This isn't a war to see who can provide the cheapest, most convenient transaction for buying a glass of wine, this is a war for financial freedom. its only taking days to sync because i need to work all day on my computer and i cant have core eating 90% cpu while i work. also i turn off my machine at night because it's hot in my room. i think your exaggerating the resources core takes and that's why i'm sycning a full node, once the full node is synced i will see first hand if this hurts my streaming. agreed we need improvements done before we up the limit. i think your pushing the "war" thing a little to far, right now mostly all governments are OK with bitcoin. How can you be so naive? By exaggerating do you suggest Holliday is lying? What he's saying sounds plausible to me and certainly not anecdotal, there have been many reports of node owners experiencing similar problems. Planning for "the war thing" is how you build security systems: assuming worst-case scenarios. Today's reality might be quite different from tomorrow's. Do you really expect governments of the world to let Bitcoin take over the world without putting up a fight? |
|
|
|
Yes, otherwise Xapo would not prefer Switzerland, the most direct democracy. That's always producing better results than feudalist/elitist/sociopath ruled territories. OK, let's add geography and politics to the list of things about which Zarathustra knows very little. Switzerland is a confederacy, not a direct democracy. The have multiple sub-jurisdictions and ultimate power resides in the heavily armed populace of the cantons. That's all to deal with the fact that majority rule doesn't scale beyond groups of ~100 people (because we can't remember more names/faces and tragedy of the commons + negative marginal returns ensue when we try). Zar, please say less and listen more, because your colossal ignorance is an embarrassment to the forum, your fail-teachers, and your fail-parents. Let Popescu tell him: http://trilema.com/2015/why-representative-democracy-doesnt-work-and-doesnt-make-sense/ |
|
|
|
One more thing.
Evolutionary stage transition we are currently facing with Bitcoin is where "sheer quantity" (of full nodes) becomes "higher quality" (of fewer ones). That's why evolution doesn't progress in a smooth linear way and has stages instead (nothing grows in a straight line). It has its own cycles and the limit in question serves as a barrier of some sort.
If we look at how stars operate (in outer space), we will see that they need to accumulate enough mass and build up enough pressure in order to be able to contain higher energy reactions and therefore produce heavier elements. At certain point they throw off their outer shell and begin attracting and accumulating new mass on the next level of their evolution.
Home-based demographic might constitute that outer shell for the transition process, but that's not the end of it, read on. Please define "higher quality" nodes? Without the limit the most productive players in the ecosystem will begin losing the background (against which they used to show how good they are) and instead form (and consolidate around) new clusters of gravity not accessible by the majority of Bitcoin's user-base. That's where the star of Bitcoin would begin falling apart. If instead of removing the limit we simply move the existing one far (but still safe) enough (like 8MB), we will outline the new barrier to which all the players would rush racing against each other. Some will get there faster than others, but because the limit is static and firmly cemented into the brand (while the technology continues to improve), the rest of the user-base will eventually catch up and begin accumulating even bigger mass to facilitate the next stage transition. And so it goes...  I wouldn't say 800% increase qualifies as "safe". |
|
|
|
In five years of using bitcoins to purchase all kinds or goods and services, not once has it seemed important to me to purchase a cup of coffee or a similarly trivial item.
It was pretty cool at the Scaling Bitcoin reception to be able to pay for a glass of wine with Bitcoin. I suspect that many people who wish to purchase coffee with bitcoin are more interested in the novelty of the experience of using bitcoins to purchase something familiar. They're missing the big picture.
I ordered at the same moment as another guy who was paying with Bitcoin. I paid cash and it took seconds to proceed. For dude's payment the barmaid had to call up "the bitcoin guy" and have him process the transaction. All of which took at least a couple more minutes. |
|
|
|
Fedwire is a gross settlement network, not at all what bitcoin is supposed to be. A single settlement tx could reflect millions of other transactions - out of band from that network. I think that is the ultimate goal for yourself and the MPfags on here. Your dream is that all sidechain/LN activity will have to be settled with bitcoins, and of course the wealthy bankers will have to come to you on bended knee in the hope you might sell them for the equivalent of the GDP of a small country. Sorry, aint gonna happen. Its such a ludicrous vision. All the talk of economics and miner behavior is a side show. There will be a use case for side chain like features in bitcoin ( implemented by alt-coins) in the future, but that is years ahead, and it will be implemented in the context of blocks and transaction rates that will grow with adoption. YES! Better start buying Banks have a scarce history of giving poor people huge quantities of their money, but this time its different, right? But I applaud your optimism, even if it is foolhardy. Why would you think banks don't own a shitload of Bitcoin already? Who do you think has been buying all the coins dropped by the weak hands over the last year and a half? |
|
|
|
But let me point out that the maxblocksize controversy is not about economics. It's about security, censorship-resistance and permissionlessness.
I agree with most of your views but I think this is stretching the importance. If you remove political reasons there is basically one reason for the block debate and that is transactions per second. As much as someone may or may not see it as a scalability issue now or in the future, the block size is the [other] easy way to increase transactions per second if there is a limit imposed.  I think you can see that if the dream of 4000 tx/sec is ever to be realised then 1 or 8 MB is rather moot if you cannot change the 10 minute interval. Where Peter comes in, this limit (whatever it may be) creates a market which he is attempting to analyse. That's fine. But it is an artificially created market due to a design decision. Where I sit (and I think you do to) is that we need to remove the temporary spam limit which would remove his market and a different analysis would come into play - one of optimum block size for best return (blocks size vs orphans). His analysis also covers that, I believe but the buzzword at the moment is the "fee market" which is artificial, to you and I, and more of a bug that needs to be fixed rather than exploited. One way we might be able to remove the limit completely might be to not allow miners to increment the coinbase integer and instead they must include new transactions to change the hash. This would create a demand for any transaction, not just paid-for ones and make spam/dust/small transactions useful for miners to move forward. They would have to consume any and all transactions just to produce a new hash but can choose a strategy that fits their bandwidth, mining power and other physical and financial constraints but ultimately serving the network rather than the network serving them. Again this ignores the nodes. Our goal should not only be to optimizes miners revenue but to do so in context of the costs externalized to nodes. If we remove this limit the blockchain will grow too fast for nodes to keep up and within 15-20 years no new nodes will be able to enter the network. |
|
|
|
... MPfag crud .... Bingo! Listen. 7 transactions per second. Repeat that to yourself a few times until it sinks in. 7 transactions per secondGlobal reserve currency? @ 7tps, for who exactly? What a joke. Fedwire & TARGET2 run at 4 TPS  We will see in due time if we can scale this a bit. For now, we need to decruft the turd of its inefficiencies and build the eco-system it will support. Fedwire is a gross settlement network, not at all what bitcoin is supposed to be. A single settlement tx could reflect millions of other transactions - out of band from that network. I think that is the ultimate goal for yourself and the MPfags on here. Your dream is that all sidechain/LN activity will have to be settled with bitcoins, and of course the wealthy bankers will have to come to you on bended knee in the hope you might sell them for the equivalent of the GDP of a small country. YES! Better start buying |
|
|
|
which defeats the whole purpose of Bitcoin that you should trust no one to validate the entirety of your coins history
That is not true. A pruned node downloads and validates the whole history since the genesis block. (Sync is identical to a normal node) It simply doesn't save it all to disk. pruning is not the same as a checkpoint which is what Adam proposed. either way it still has to sync entirely as you've mentioned so: |
|
|
|
Well I have an average connection for Europe and i could easily support two gigabyte blocks from home, eight megabyte blocks would not be a problem at all. This person in Florida needs to either get a new internet provider or update his client by the sounds of it. lol
Did you read my posts in this thread? I've had to drastically reduce the connectivity of my full node (latest Core release) running on it's own dedicated hardware (modern quad-core CPU, 16GB RAM, SSD) in order to keep the home network functional for other daily use demands. My node will happily eat as much upload speed as I give it and I have top 10% home internet speeds (probably better). It can bring simple web surfing to a standstill if I let it. Nodes don't just accept blocks. Most of my bandwidth use is on the upload side (sharing data with other peers)! Larger blocks will obviously have a direct impact on the amount of data shared. Do you run a node or are you just guessing? should bitcoins traffic limits be based on what 10% of typical home connection can handle? maybe 20% ? maybe 50%? surly anything demanding 20-10% isn't going to impact number of full nodes. in anycase i feel that there can be much improvement as to how data is shared across the network to dramatically decrease bandwidth use for full nodes, which should allow for proportionally bigger blocks. I know someone that turns on his full node like once a week, just to download the lastest blocks and then turns it off again, so that when he makes a TX it doesn't take him long to sync up first. is this node useful? should ALL users be asked to run a full node? Bitcoin traffic should be limited based on capacity of anonymous bandwidth growth. what if new node run with pruned versions of the blockchain? maybe we could have a sort of yearly checkpoint, we no longer ask nodes to download data that is >1year old and base verification of off these yearly checkpoints. Doesn't that violate the whole point of being a node? Having a complete copy of the blockchain? Not saying that is bad but just bringing up a point. It is absolutely bad. A checkpoint implies someone somewhere is holding the full history. Who would that be? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
