well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS
Why on earth would they? Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee? I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that). most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease i sure as hell am not asking everyone on earth to run a full bitcoin node. i'm asking for ~10,000nodes. THE TX HASH IS ONLY USED TO COMMUNICATE BLOCK INFORMATION BETWEEN MINERS. ALL TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE TRANSMITTED BY THE NODES (BANDWIDTH), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO PROCESS (GPU), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO STORE (HD) GODDAMNIT YOU ARE STUPID YES I'M MAD  |
|
|
|
Pools are not centralizing Bitcoin, because they compete with each other and miners are free to choose with which pool they want to mine.
The problems created by excessive block sizes are far more serious, because this leads to a reduction in the number of all full nodes, not just miners. This would reduce the overall security of the network and make surveillance / blocking of nodes much easier.
ya.ya.yo!
let's say there are 0 full nodes only minners, how does this impact security? only total hashing power determines the level of security no? aside from the sybil attack there are no other problem about security if there are zero full node, miners are more important it's probably the reason why there are zero incentive for them, to run one  No problem about security other than arbitrarily double spending, issuing 100,000,000 coins for themselves, etc, etc. You realise ONE node has the ability to totally rewrite the protocol. Mining is without doubt second to nodes in terms of importance: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/ |
|
|
|
I agree, with 1MB block size , only transaction with higher fees will confirmed and a normal user can't pay big tx fes for their small transaction so it will make bitcoin a currency of big boys, but we always wanted bitcoin to be currency of everyone not of some rich guys who pay big tip for their transfer
So - you expect to be able to use Bitcoin to pay for you coffee but no-one is actually even paying you in Bitcoin (or wait for it...). How do you get your BTC for your coffees then (apart from having your rather obvious ad-sig)? I get it now - the people who want to make such small payments are all ad-siggers (it figures). I'd rather Bitcoin wasn't tailored for people spending most of their time making pointless posts in order to earn coffees (but maybe others think that is how the world should work). there is no reason we cant have bitcoin handle small and large TX tho. this thread attempts to prove its beneficial for decentralization that both small and big payments are allowed on the blockchain. Why won't you sit down, read this http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/ and figure it out already. Please stop everyone's time. |
|
|
|
This post would fit well here: If you can't understand that a 1MB chain favors the entire network and not only "a small minority" you are either being intentionally dishonest or outright ignorant. Let me spell it out for you: a 1MB block size guarantees access to the most open, private and secure chain. Open: every users has an ability to trivially run a node and store their wealth on that chain Private: relying on SPV means relying on a third-party to relay your transactions, there are considerable privacy risks. Secure: an ultra conservative block size allows the number of independent nodes in the system to grow infinitely, considerably increasing the strength and decentralization of the network. it enables possibilities like the commoditization of hardware such as the existing Bitnodes ( https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/hardware/) Now your obvious complain is that not everyone will get to transact on this chain since it might be considerably pricier. If we're being honest, that's not a problem. A strong & decentralized protocol layer will work as a guarantee that third-parties involved in superficial layers are being kept honest provided that their actions can be checked against the one absolute truth layer. That's the role you should expect Bitcoin to play in the future: CodeShark the blockchain is there to protect you in the event of an uncooperative counterparty
gmaxwell A more useful mental model for the system is that the network is a trustworthy AI Judge that makes sure you complied with the contracts specified in your contracts. Now, it's possible to transact by taking every contract to the judge, but this is inefficient.
CodeShark right, the blockchain is like a court
CodeShark you don't go to court over every contract you enter
CodeShark only the ones where there's a breach |
|
|
|
Yes, since I live in the most democratic democracy on this planet, I know what democracy is. The majority rules via institutions. That's similar in the Bitcoin-World. There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens. So please explain again how are votes distributed in this Bitcoin democracy? How do you determine "majority"? In the same way as in a democracy. Votes are distributed between miners, devs, nodes, merchants, users, bitcointalkers etc. Some have more charisma and influence, some less. there is no votes. what that over simplified brain dead analogy with your beloved democracy. pathetic statist. Can't you read, pathetic fascist? There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens.Bitcoin is human organisation. It is consensus driven. Thank you  |
|
|
|
but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares? the guy accepting your weird sidechain payment cares. then he best be able to run a bitcoin node else he's shit out of luck and has to "ask-a-friend" sidechain payments will be recorded on bitcoin's ledger? well you got me there, not necessarily. but the primary interest of sidechains are not payments so this is really not a great example. Lighning is the proper system to reference here and yes, all payments there can be referenced against a transaction in Bitcoin blockchain |
|
|
|
|
Capping the difficulty would screw the issuance schedule... this is non sense
|
|
|
|
but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now. If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares? the guy accepting your weird sidechain payment cares. then he best be able to run a bitcoin node else he's shit out of luck and has to "ask-a-friend" |
|
|
|
but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now. Why do you bother sharing opinions about things you don't understand? There is no such thing as a "sidechain node" |
|
|
|
Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making.
Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones.
sure thing, but also, the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node. why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on? To verify you've been paid. You might not use the Bitcoin blockchain to transact but you depend on it to validate that you actually own the money and not trust another person to do so. Even if most of your financial transactions are done using Layer-2 the whole system depends on the decentralization of the protocol layer. By running an node you exercise your right to enforce the network rules so that no one is able to cheat. |
|
|
|
Your logic is plain retarded, educate yourself: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/I think so: anyone, anywhere, would be able to make sure that they had gotten paid, without trusting a third party, or doing any other work whatsoever. And this option would be available to every human on the planet, no matter how oppressed/disadvantaged (and the only way for a government to “cut off the head” of the network would be to kill every human being on the planet).
On the other hand, what if the CONOP were expensive, such that only one agent in the entire world could run a full node (say, the United State Government)? This agent would control the network completely: perfect centralization. If someone “cut off its head”, this network would disintegrate. Cost of Node-Option
To “know you’ve been paid” (ie “P2P money”) you need to know that the software won’t lose your money. After all, the definition of “paid” implies that the money now belongs to you and is controlled by you exclusively. Whether you lose your BTC to theft, or you lose them because the entire network collapsed, “you” have been “unpaid” (and you instead “know that you’ve not be paid”).
On top of that, if “the network” (users, merchants, service providers, …) switches, you have no choice but to switch. If you refuse to switch, and stay on the minority network, your money will be useless and you will be “unpaid”!
So the cost of “knowing you’ve been paid” (the cost of “the option to run a full Bitcoin node”), necessarily now includes maintenance items, which YOU must pay if YOU are to KNOW you’ve been paid: [1] the cost of “validating” any new set of rules and [2] the cost of preventing other people from being deceived into accepting unproven rules.
Because you can only know you’ll be paid if the network uses rules that allow you to spend your future income. THE LAST DISCONTINUITY
Given our conclusion, the easier it is to start up a new full node, the more decentralized Bitcoin will be. How can we make full nodes cheaper?
I’d ignore mundane expenses like hardware and power. Instead, recall that, if a full node cannot be run anonymously, “the network” (full node entry) is effectively controlled by law enforcement, a central entity. Therefore, my view is that the current largest “cost” (and current bottleneck to Bitcoin scalability) is therefore the threat of persecution. |
|
|
|
Yes, since I live in the most democratic democracy on this planet, I know what democracy is. The majority rules via institutions. That's similar in the Bitcoin-World. There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens. So please explain again how are votes distributed in this Bitcoin democracy? How do you determine "majority"? |
|
|
|
@btcusury & MLauda
So we shouldn't allow miners to vote by choosing the software they run? (and how exactly are you going to dictate and prevent that?)
That was the core of my comparison. I never mentioned democracy, so let's get back on track.
Nodes run the software, not miners (although of course it is preferable that miners validate transactions they mine by also running full nodes themselves) |
|
|
|
Pools are not centralizing Bitcoin, because they compete with each other and miners are free to choose with which pool they want to mine.
The problems created by excessive block sizes are far more serious, because this leads to a reduction in the number of all full nodes, not just miners. This would reduce the overall security of the network and make surveillance / blocking of nodes much easier.
ya.ya.yo!
let's say there are 0 full nodes only minners, how does this impact security? only total hashing power determines the level of security no? I presume you suggest there is 1 node since 0 pretty much means the system is dead. So... 1 node servicing all of Bitcoin..mmmmm I wonder what could go wrong |
|
|
|
Geez, Newbie. It's a trivial matter to turn off the I.P. "blacklisting". It's just a feature for nodes that don't want to deal with slow-ass onion routing. These objections to larger block sizes seem disingenuous. It appears to be just a miner power grab, and a wrong-headed one at that. The real way to create a market for miner fees is to expand adoption, not squeeze the current users. Erhmmm How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying? |
|
|
|
You guys do realize that the people in control of Bitcoin and its future direction are not participating in this thread, right?
Just wondering.
thank god |
|
|
|
...and Peter responded to that already 9 pages ago.
He who yells loudest and last ain't right.
There is no "responses" or "arguments" to "that". These are facts. Peter is free to revise his paper by including these assumptions but I don't see how that would be productive. |
|
|
|
Obligatory response: Your paper is fundamentally flawed because it addresses nothing resembling the current dynamics at stake in Bitcoin. More precisely it ignores the incentives for miners to centralize (as they have shown to have) to mitigate propagation times. In effect your paper clearly demonstrates it is more profitable to do so under free-floating blocks and you essentially rely on their altruism to maintain the validity of your model to make decisions going forward. In short, your work might be sound from a technical standpoint but can not be used to construct security models that depend on worst-behaviours assumptions.
Relevant material: http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/2015-08-30/?msg=48477664&page=1http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010737.htmlEveryone is free to read and make their own judgment but considerable holes have been poken into Peter's work and he has often been urged to revise his conclusions. He is now parading his charts, illustration all over the forum in an attempt to obtuse the debate, confusing more impressionable users who do not have time, ability or care for validating his propositions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
