Please share your vision of Bitcoin succeeding because I'm so curious about it.
Thats my point.. I dont have a 'vision'. Or at least i dont indulge myself with that kind of egomaniac thinking. I'm just a part of it. Having fun. Learning. Some people "have fun" due to the fact they have a vision and they are passionate about it. That said I dare to remind you humanity is what it is precisely because of the visions great people had/have. Enjoy the ride in the way you prefer and don't blame other people way's, otherwise you're not actually enjoining your ride  |
|
|
|
I really don't get it. You guys in the pro side help me understand your position.
Because for me the choice is very clear:
1) We don't necessarily abandon the microtrasactions (trying to develop them with sidechains) AND keep the security and decentralization;
OR
2) We embrace the microtransations AND centralize hoping this wouldn't be a security issue.
For now I have no doubt in being anti-fork.
Not trying to derailing the debate or anything, but some prominent members of the community are clearly against sidechains due to the fact that they would undermine btc sound money functions and/or change miners incentives in a way that would in turns decrease the network security (if you have time just dig into @cypherdoc's Gold thread starting from here). Just to say that even side chains are a quite controversial concept. |
|
|
|
All I was trying to do was to figure out if you were unable to comprehend IBLT's impacts on block size, or whether you were deliberately ignoring them because they (probably completely) nullify the argument you were trying to make and figured your target audience would be ignorant of them.
Not that it matters much...both possibilities suck for you.
Wrong on all counts. You'd know that if you'd bother to read. You're just setting yourself up to look even more ridiculous. The profligate nature of your writing and speaking is eclipsed only by the content-less nature of both. I swear to Christ I've never gotten so little out of a one hour podcast as I did with that thing I listened to the other day. I'm not going to track down all your spam so pop up a link if you have one. Speaking of the podcast (with some fake accent guy who spent the last 10 minutes of his time doing jl777 a solid), what was really funny was that even with 40 minutes or so to burn you still deferred on trying to explain the OT thing because, supposedly, it was to complicated or some such. Signing an XML is complicated? Or tracking some sigs with a centralized server system? Ya, OK. Occam's razor suggests that you didn't want to try to describe it because it is lame and mostly useless. I'm going to give you guys a little help understanding what is missing. OK, so I make a 'contract' and break it. What are you going to do? Kick me out of your Ayn Rand fun-fort? You need some sort of enforcement. Fiat has it because they have a court system. Bitcoin has a proof-of-work. As far as I can see, OT has bunkus unless you somehow major visibility and I don't see that happening. Maybe you could attach to someone with a user tracking and validation charger (e.g., CoinValidation) but I suspect they'll tell you to piss up a rope and just role their own instead of working with you. You might offer your solution to Blockstream to try out for their federated kludge. A proof-of-concept which does something useful probably wouldn't hurt OT any. Podcast? http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/ |
|
|
|
He made a technical error in the article; a low hashrate of a fork wouldn't extend the time between blocks. It only would make them less secure.
really? I would had thought it would be the case at least until the next diff re-target, no? |
|
|
|
Besides, the average cost per GB now is 0.03$. Storage is the cheapest system upgrade that one can get.
Do you have any idea how much time is required to bootstrap a full node? A lot. With the upcoming 0.10 release bootstrap time will be reduced significantly, though. |
|
|
|
But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.
But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.
Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid. Maybe this is an impertinent question, but isn't the main goal of lifting the max block size increasing the # of tx/s? (Avoiding raising fees is a side effect at best, no?) And more to the point, it seems to me that 1MB limit was introduced as countermeasure against potential network flooding, am I missing something obvious? |
|
|
|
By the way, part 2 will be out... soonish. Great! I'm waiting for it eagerly. |
|
|
|
Whilst I am not against raising the 1 MB limit I do think that this idea that their should be "only 1 chain" is actually rather "stupid".
The very point of decentralisation is not to have a single point of failure - yet this is constantly what Bitcoin is trying to do (set itself up as the single point of failure).
I don't see the future as being just Bitcoin but in fact numerous blockchains that you'll use if you want (making this whole storage issue really a pointless argument).
Trying to have Bitcoin solve every single problem is just silly - it will never suit all purposes and this is why we will have many blockchains.
From the bitcoin dev mailing list quoting Wladimir van der Laan1: The block chain is a single channel broadcasted over the entire
world, and I don't believe it will ever be possible nor desirable to broadcast all the
world's transactions over one channel.
The everyone-validates-everything approach doesn't scale. It is however
useful to settle larger transactions in an irreversible, zero-trust way.
That's what makes the bitcoin system, as it is now, valuable.
But it is absurd for the whole world to have to validate every purchase of
a cup of coffee or a bus ticket by six billion others.
Naively scaling up the block size will get some leeway in the short term,
but I believe a future scalable payment system based on bitcoin will be
mostly based on off-blockchain transactions (in some form) or that there
will be a hierarchical or subdivided system (e.g. temporary or per-locale
sidechains).
1 Bitcoin core maintainer |
|
|
|
Giving the network more capabilities doesn't change the lying fundamentals of Bitcoin nor the protocol.
Didn't Satoshi consider the 1MB a temporary limit as well?
Except it's not just about "giving the network more capabilities". Referring to satoshi's supposed authority by the means of your personal interpretation is no argument. I think that these two examples leave no room to interpretations, sure one can disagree but... Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section  to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node. The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices. If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal. 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.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
|
|
|
|
New Hampshire Bill Backs Bitcoin for State Taxes. A New Hampshire State bill seeks to chip away at the Federal Reserve’s effective monopoly on US currency, and not with gold. Republican Representative Eric Schleien’s HR552, first introduced on January 8, would mandate that the state treasurer “develop an implementation plan for the state to accept bitcoin as payment for taxes and fees.” http://panampost.com/belen-marty/2015/02/04/new-hampshire-bill-backs-bitcoin-for-state-taxes/ |
|
|
|
From the bitcoin dev mailing list quoting Wladimir van der Laan: The block chain is a single channel broadcasted over the entire
world, and I don't believe it will ever be possible nor desirable to broadcast all the
world's transactions over one channel.
The everyone-validates-everything approach doesn't scale. It is however
useful to settle larger transactions in an irreversible, zero-trust way.
That's what makes the bitcoin system, as it is now, valuable.
But it is absurd for the whole world to have to validate every purchase of
a cup of coffee or a bus ticket by six billion others.
Naively scaling up the block size will get some leeway in the short term,
but I believe a future scalable payment system based on bitcoin will be
mostly based on off-blockchain transactions (in some form) or that there
will be a hierarchical or subdivided system (e.g. temporary or per-locale
sidechains). |
|
|
|
Just for the sake of being OT  2nd Workshop on Bitcoin Research is a very interesting event organized at "Financial Cryptography and Data Security 2015" conference. And more to the point the proceedings is freely available, really interesting stuff, just to name a few talks: - On the Malleability of Bitcoin Transactions
- Trends, Tips, Tolls: A Longitudinal Study of Bitcoin Transaction Fees
- Privacy-Enhancing Overlays in Bitcoin
@zooko is even sharing his workshop minutes on twitter. |
|
|
|
@davout: In the parallel universe (a forked chain if you wish) where the failed raid 1+0 array thing didn't happen, a post if yours where you gave me link to an interesting thread still exists. Such a thread should had been the proof that satoshi was not an half-god Unluckily my memory failed to remember any details of the actual thread contents. The only thing I know was that satoshi and others were arguing about a code change. Could you please provide me the link again? Thanks in advance. It was the discussion about adding an API method to list transactions since insert some previous transaction here. The idea is that it would be easy to get only transactions that you didn't know about yet. Sadly the search is not working, so I can't dig up the specific thread / post anymore. many thanks. I'll find it. edit: found https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=611.msg6706#msg6706 |
|
|
|
Thoughts from 2013 (Outside the current emo-drama) ... http://blog.oleganza.com/post/43677417318/economics-of-block-size-limitCan any members of the self appointed Plutocratic League for Ending Bitcoins Servicability please provide references to any post of Satoshi's that emphatically states that the block size is intended to be a hard limit? ... annnnd don't do a cut and paste cherry pick, link it so we see it in context. He put the limit in the source code. It's up to you to find a quote of him suggesting it'd have to be removed. 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.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
@davout: In the parallel universe (a forked chain if you wish) where the failed raid 1+0 array thing didn't happen, a post ifof yours where you gave me a link to an interesting thread still exists. Such a thread should had been the proof that satoshi was not an half-god Unluckily my memory failed to remember any details of the actual thread contents. The only thing I know was that satoshi and others were arguing about a code change. Could you please provide me the link again? Thanks in advance. edit: fixed typo |
|
|
|
Thoughts from 2013 (Outside the current emo-drama) ... http://blog.oleganza.com/post/43677417318/economics-of-block-size-limitCan any members of the self appointed Plutocratic League for Ending Bitcoins Servicability please provide references to any post of Satoshi's that emphatically states that the block size is intended to be a hard limit? ... annnnd don't do a cut and paste cherry pick, link it so we see it in context. He put the limit in the source code. It's up to you to find a quote of him suggesting it'd have to be removed. 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.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
|
|
|
|
Peter Todd talking about incentives, bitcoin mining and sidechains at TNABC : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCACPwpYlIY<=490I show up [a slide about] Blockstream as an example, they're working on sidechains.
Many aspects of SC, I think, are quite good...
... merge mined SC, to make a long story short, involves mining in a very
specific way, indeed add a lot of incentives to mining, and already mining
it's kind of dodgy whether or not it works, so by adding more complexity
to the incentive.. can you reason about it? I'm not sure...
ps @stellar69 just in case, sorry for the OT. |
|
|
|
Was just wondering that where are you taking this discussion? Sorry I'm not a native english speaker and I'm not sure about the meaning of what you said. Any chance you're saying that the content of my post is OT? |
|
|
|
Thanks for the link, appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
