|
what's this Bitcoin Core 0.9.4 update notification i'm getting from Ubuntu? it's from Launchpad Bitcoin PPA. what do we do with it?
|
|
|
|
Just saw this RT'd on Twitter.
Bryce Weiner @BryceWeiner Jan 11
It hasn't been announced yet, but it's pretty clear that @Blockstream is going to take over core development from the @BTCFoundation
Yeah, i saw that bullshit earlier. |
|
|
|
This is what sidechains mean to me.
Side chains are not even the slightest bit needed to use BTC as a reserve currency. It's nearly prefect the way it is. 7 tps is plenty for that. Probably an order of magnitude or two overkill in fact. Unfortunately, the 7 tps is an old estimate, and the reality of large blocks is that 2400 tx is maximum, or 4 tps. However, even this is too large because some miners still turn out near empty blocks, and would do so even if the network had a severe backlog. So 3 tps is a more accurate working number. i never heard of why the Mystery Miner of a coupla years ago failed mining 0 tx blocks. any ideas? |
|
|
|
This is what sidechains mean to me.
Side chains are not even the slightest bit needed to use BTC as a reserve currency. It's nearly prefect the way it is. 7 tps is plenty for that. Probably an order of magnitude or two overkill in fact. the problem here is that when the price doesn't conform to ppl's expectations, low level thinkers like tvbcof & even high level thinkers like Adam, begin to believe that there is something wrong and start thinking they're smarter than Satoshi and start proposing all sorts of hair brained "solutions". this is just another of many repeated sufferings we all have to endure. |
|
|
|
looks like i am gonna get my chance at reloading   |
|
|
|
the creeping fear is accelerating:  |
|
|
|
One coin to rule them all:  |
|
|
|
oil? who the hell needs oil? let alone natgas. major storm brewing:  Dow Theory non-confirmation still in force:  |
|
|
|
Five years since the invention of Bitcoin, currency as its first application has made significant inroads into the global financial system. Its disruptive effect has shaken up taken for granted notions of money and inflamed the imagination as to what money could be. Bitcoin is characterized as decentralized stateless currency. Some critics call it money with a Libertarian bent, designed to promote a new capitalism, while many economists are quick to judge its perceived deflationary design as a fatal flaw. Yet Bitcoin does not fit any existing paradigm. It can best be understood on its own merits within the framework through which the technology itself emerged.http://falkvinge.net/2015/01/06/understanding-bitcoin-and-its-disruption-through-its-roots/#pq=ElxHAW
|
|
|
|
well, why don't you explain just how your token SC system would work exactly, so we can all pick it apart?
Thank you. Enough with engaging in hypotheticals. You can't stop anyone from inventing something by arguing. Same with SCs as with altcoins. Let them put THEIR money where their mouth is. don't worry. we won't hear anything concrete from tvbcof. he loves bullshitting. |
|
|
|
says the assclown who thinks SC's are tokens; or at least should be.
Some implemented in the back-end as such when it makes sense to do so given the goals of the particular sidechain. Gotta problem with that cypherthick? yeah, i do have a problem with that, given the general philosophy around here by most that we're trying to reduce our dependence on centralized corrupt entities. but of course, given your Socialistic background and propensity to favor statist tendencies, this is probably right up your alley, tvbcroc? You don't understand 'dependency' either, eh? Who could have guessed. well, why don't you explain just how your token SC system would work exactly, so we can all pick it apart? |
|
|
|
it should reduce orphans, thus also increase security a bit because less hashrate is lost to orphans.
thanks. i hadn't appreciated these 2 additional points.
And if I thought this through correctly back then it's something that can be done without requiring a fork of any kind by just a subset of collaborating miners.
how so? |
|
|
|
Hey guys. What is being done (or what can be done) about competing with the likes of Visa as far as number of transactions it can accomodate and how quickly?
SIDECHAINS Cypherdoc don't like sidechains. Are you poking him or is this your final answer? Cypherdoc does not understand tech. Or the economics for that matter. He gets things right occasionally in one of those ' ever squirrel finds a nut sometimes' sort of ways. says the assclown who thinks SC's are tokens; or at least should be. Some implemented in the back-end as such when it makes sense to do so given the goals of the particular sidechain. Gotta problem with that cypherthick? yeah, i do have a problem with that, given the general philosophy around here by most that we're trying to reduce our dependence on centralized corrupt entities. but of course, given your Socialistic background and propensity to favor statist tendencies, this is probably right up your alley, tvbcroc? |
|
|
|
Hey guys. What is being done (or what can be done) about competing with the likes of Visa as far as number of transactions it can accomodate and how quickly?
SIDECHAINS Cypherdoc don't like sidechains. Are you poking him or is this your final answer? Cypherdoc does not understand tech. Or the economics for that matter. He gets things right occasionally in one of those ' ever squirrel finds a nut sometimes' sort of ways. says the assclown who thinks SC's are tokens; or at least should be. |
|
|
|
Hey guys. What is being done (or what can be done) about competing with the likes of Visa as far as number of transactions it can accomodate and how quickly?
SIDECHAINS Cypherdoc don't like sidechains. Are you poking him or is this your final answer? Cypherdoc does not understand tech. no, i just don't understand your tech. btw, you never explained to all of us just how you've implemented your federated server SC model that you claim are already operating; as if we who are opposed to SC's should just capitulate for this very reason. i already explained how fucked up and insecure your federated server with SC model is already. |
|
|
|
wouldn't this tend to decrease time between blocks, and would that be an issue?
no. that's determined by the difficulty only. the IBLT simply speeds the transmisssion "announcement" across the network that a new block has been found and aligns the incentive across miners to include the complete set of unconfirmed tx's in their mempools into blocks. |
|
|
|
not sure which parts you found insightful, but here's the gist about this proposed application of IBLT (invertible bloom lookup tables) from my point of view for anyone who wants a tldr on this: fantastic summary
IBLTs (Invertible Bloom Lookup Tables) are a data structure of tremendous beauty. They allow synchronization of sets of key/value pairs using constant (pre-determined) size of the synchronization message. They work well if the differences are expected to be small, but can potentially fail completely if they are too large for the size chosen. Another nice feature is that in case of a one way master -> slave synchronization, there is only one synchronization message that can be used in identical form to synchronize an unlimited number of potentially different 'slave' sets. Essentially the synchronization method contains information about the complete master set, but in a lossy way such that it can only be retrieved if a large enough number of key/values of the set are already known by the slave.
The idea is to apply this to the problem of bitcoin block transmission. The assumption can be made that the set of transactions in a freshly found block is already known to a large extent by the other miners because transactions have already been broadcast and inclusion policies are fairly uniform or at least predictable. So an IBLT of a chosen size (the miner can choose the size) can be used to propagate the transactions of the block (master) to the other miners (slaves). Since the slaves can make a pretty good estimate of the set of transactions that might be in a newly found block by using some standard inclusion policy, the size of the IBLT can likely be chosen to be quite small.
One effect of this scheme is that this IBLT synchronization message would be the same size, no matter how many transactions are included in a block. This is in contrast to the current situation where the synchronization message is essentially the block itself, so its size depends greatly on the number and size of transactions included. It is clear that miners are incentivized to mine smaller blocks because that greatly increases the probability of winning a potential race in case another miner found a block at a similar time due to transmission and therefor block propagation delays in the network. Thus using this scheme would remove the incentive to mine small blocks by removing the cost of larger blocks. Gavin calculated this cost to be some non-negligible number.
A possible downside could be that non-standard inclusion policies (think eligius, for example) might necessitate a large IBLT und thus be disincetivised.
that's the price for LukeJr will have to be willing to pay for being a non-conformist What this doesn't do: it doesn't magically solve any scaling issues. At most it reduces the overall bandwidth requirements by 50%. Miners still need to have enough bandwidth to receive all transactions that are being broadcast.
to clarify. it still means that we need to increase the block size concurrently with this proposal to accommodate the eventual full block construction that every miner maintaining a full node will need to perform after the IBLT has arrived and been verified. it's just that the IBLT will allow a faster and smaller data "announcement" across the network that a new block has been found by the announcing miner. if a receiving miner verifies the IBLT announcement, it can immediately start crunching the next block, which saves everyone time. |
|
|
|
good read. it ends with the suggestion that this is not a wholly latin american story, pointing to greece. yeah, i like how it went thru the process/stages of financial destruction. i fail to see how Bitcoin could not help that situation esp when all the corruption is coming from the top. btw, thx for your contributions to the IBLT discussion over on Reddit. insightful. feel free to share them here to help us all understand better as we go forward. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
