After watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M&feature=youtu.beI have come to the conclusion that on-chain scaling is indeed feasible. My previous objections were that it takes pools too long to verify transactions. Therefore, 1GB blocks would result in many empty blocks being mined. I see no scenario where that would be a consequence. Can you explain? For that matter, how does one quantify 'too many empty blocks'? As long as all transactions are processed with reasonable alacrity, what does the block fullness matter? However, I still have misgivings about 1 GB blocks since this would require a node to have the storage capacity of over 50tb per year.
Other than to repeat that we will not consume that much storage until there is actual demand for it, I would like to point out the 50 TB of storage -- today -- costs less than 0.1 BTC (~$1650 USD at standard retail). At this time, I believe this would cause a barrier to entry for small start ups that require a full node be run. (New exchanges, information services, mining pools etc.)
If a startup can't lose 0.1 BTC in the noise of its annual CapEx budget, it is likely to be a non-entity anyhow. My general view on Segwit. It appears to have solved the transaction malleability problem. However, to the layman, such as myself, it appears to be A Rube Goldberg machine kind of way to solve the problem.
I am glad you see the unwarranted complexity. There may be some validity to not hashing across the signature*. However, trying to introduce it as a soft fork creates a mass of technical debt. *OTOH, there may not. "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures" - S Nakamoto, the Bitcoin whitepaper I am not convinced that there is indeed a vulnerability that allows miners to steal your segwit coins. A white hat demonstration of this attack on a testnet would be required to convince me otherwise. Naturally a black hat demonstration on the mainnet would convince me too, but would not be ideal.
What's to misunderstand? A miner operating by the old rules sees a segwit transaction as an anyonecanspend transaction. Accordingly, that miner can spend the output to himself, should he be successful in mining the block. Of course, he would still need to get the other miners to extend his chain. But with enough value caught up in active transactions, there is an incentive for the miners to collude thusly. It may not come to pass, but it may. With Core adamant that they always act to vilify and marginalize the mining community, is it really that farfetched that such may come to pass? My general view on Lightning Network: It does appear as a viable solution to solve the scaling issue. However, to the layman, it appears to be a Rube Goldberg machine kind of way to solve the problem. I am not a coder, but it seems the Bitcore Core and Blockstream team are more interested in doing coding gymnastics and showing off their skills and not applying the KISS principal at all.
Again, agreed. Devs gotta dev. |
|
|
|
Great. Bigger realized blocks = greater use = greater utility. Meh, a few spike gets you all excited? When I look at the chart below, the average block size for Bitcoin Core at it's measly ~ 1.05 MB is still outpacing BCH. Hmm. 'All excited' may be an overstatement. I'm just saying that bigger is better. Manifestly. Bitcoin Core better hope that realized Bitcoin Cash block sizes stay small. For should they exceed on average, that would demonstrate that world+dog is getting more utility out of Bitcoin Cash than it is out of Bitcoin Core. And you know what that means... Adoption is important but a few spikes in KB per block is not the best measure of it. Number of nodes is still quite steady imo. Bitcoin Cash is not going to have a lot of full nodes if things go their way. In order to scale anywhere close to Visa, on chain, as appears to be their goal, a enterprise would need access to equipment capable of storing at least 56 TB of data per year. Probably at least quadruple that, since you want to properly index the data and have proper back ups. A casual user would need to run an SPV client. For the umpteenth time - Bitcoin Cash has no reason to support Visa-scale transaction volume until such time as demand for transactions reaches Visa scale (is that a tautology?). If we somehow hit that next year, I'll be more than happy to store 56 TB of data that year. Of course, even in the most wildly optimistic scenario, Visa-scale demand is still several years off. |
|
|
|
I'm getting pretty tired of all this failure.
goodgoodletthehateflowthroughyou.png 'All this failure' is the result of giving people what they do not want (because 'we' know better than you what you should want). |
|
|
|
Great. Bigger realized blocks = greater use = greater utility. Meh, a few spike gets you all excited? When I look at the chart below, the average block size for Bitcoin Core at it's measly ~ 1.05 MB is still outpacing BCH. Hmm. 'All excited' may be an overstatement. I'm just saying that bigger is better. Manifestly. Bitcoin Core better hope that realized Bitcoin Cash block sizes stay small. For should they exceed on average, that would demonstrate that world+dog is getting more utility out of Bitcoin Cash than it is out of Bitcoin Core. And you know what that means... |
|
|
|
Great. Bigger realized blocks = greater use = greater utility. |
|
|
|
the business model of the new millennia payment models that rely on the stupidity of the masses I am just surprised that here of all places, no one seems to be concerned about the possibility of corporations effectively restricting what is and isn't 'allowed' on the net if they control it. Some of us are filthy foreigners and don’t live in the United Swamps of America. Me too - but there are plenty of people here from 'murica that seem not to have noticed. Maybe they're all for freedom being sold off, I guess enough of 'em voted for.... Ok, never mind. I will keep quiet and just be (very quietly) flabbergasted. Might as well keep quiet, as you have no stake in this. Actually, for all the sturm und drang, the 'Net Neutrality' issue is a poorly misunderstood misnomer. There are good arguments for and against. Upon hearing the name of 'Net Neutrality', the kneejerk reaction is 'why would anyone be against that?' However, there are several good arguments against: - NN consolidates government control over something that has been working fine with free capitalist competition - NN is barely two years old - the bulk of the innovation of the Internet was achieved without its oversight - Recently, video streaming has been the bulk of internet bandwidth consumption - perhaps that should pay per its usage - It may indeed make sense to pay per consumption, rather than max bandwidth capability - etc. All I'm trying to convey is that the issue is more nuanced than is being popularly represented. |
|
|
|
We'll need open source processors from now on ...
https://riscv.org/edit: catching the tip of the thread, I see Syke has beat me to it |
|
|
|
Question of the day. Is Jstolfi paid by Ver, ?
I doubt it. But we can discuss the possibility. What is the logic that leads you to even ask the question? |
|
|
|
Haha. The world works in funny ways. I'm sitting in the lounge at SJC - I was working in Silicon Valley so far this week. AAR, when I checked into my hotel the other night, I noticed a newspaper I'd not seen before available amongst the piles of drek such as USA Today. Epoch Times. Intrigued, I grabbed a copy. This morning, I finally started reading it. There was a great article on the ramifications of Bitcoin that took an entire page in the paper. Once I read it, I thought I oughta share it here. There is an abbreviated version available on the web: https://www.theepochtimes.com/is-bitcoin-just-a-brilliant-wealth-redistribution-scheme-3_2377636.htmlauthored by Valentin Schmid. Now in the lounge, martini in hand, waiting for time to board, I am catching up on deferred communications. Running through my browser tabs, I run across this item linked the other day by someone here on BCT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukjDCeuNK3YWho is the interviewer but the samesaid Valentin? Whatta universe. I watched the 30 minute youtube interview, and it is good. Surely the substantive points of Saifedean Ammous regarding bitcoin governance and various hardfork attacks applies to bitcoin and not the stupid ass bcash that you have been trying to proposition as if bcash were the "real bitcoin" rather than an attack on bitcoin.. and Ammous seems to make that point fairly clearly at various points throughout the interview. Mostly. I was with him up until the point he started crowing about the immutability of the main chain. If the main chain was immutable, then it would not implement segwit, which is of course the greatest single change to the bitcoin protocol since its inception. And sadly, interviewer does nothing to question that point either. There must be an explanation that squares with his claim of what the masses will value. I found it somewhat disingenuous that the topic was not even touched upon. Other than that yes - good interview of a good interviewee. |
|
|
|
Haha. The world works in funny ways. I'm sitting in the lounge at SJC - I was working in Silicon Valley so far this week. AAR, when I checked into my hotel the other night, I noticed a newspaper I'd not seen before available amongst the piles of drek such as USA Today. Epoch Times. Intrigued, I grabbed a copy. This morning, I finally started reading it. There was a great article on the ramifications of Bitcoin that took an entire page in the paper. Once I read it, I thought I oughta share it here. There is an abbreviated version available on the web: https://www.theepochtimes.com/is-bitcoin-just-a-brilliant-wealth-redistribution-scheme-3_2377636.htmlauthored by Valentin Schmid. Now in the lounge, martini in hand, waiting for time to board, I am catching up on deferred communications. Running through my browser tabs, I run across this item linked the other day by someone here on BCT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukjDCeuNK3YWho is the interviewer but the samesaid Valentin? Whatta universe. |
|
|
|
But let me take this opportunity to point out a small irony: bitcoin core dev trolls will tell you that seg wit coin is bitcoin just like the UN will tell you SDR was invented at the 1969 bretton woods meeting.
Hey look - there's an important lesson encased in this simple challenge. I like it. |
|
|
|
yeah... Bitbobb answered me in PM. Evidently, I made a false claim about the origin of the SDR. Accordingly, my answer was deemed unworthy. I wasn't clear that the origin of the SDR was a necessary part of the answer, but I'm fine with the outcome. Bitbobb's challenge, Bitbobb's rules. Thanks tho. (hey look - I'm a TLD!) XD |
|
|
|
How much is hard cap?
Dude. Or dudette. It's bitcoin. Hence, 21M |
|
|
|
Someone wasn't informed that the candle was decorative. It has been lit, and now it melts rapidly.
Waxing poetic. At a time like this. Nerves of steel these Bitcoiners! zing! |
|
|
|
374420
That's the number of posts in this single thread.
 Proof of price manipulation? Zionists! !! !1!!!!111111111ZOMG!!111!1! |
|
|
|
Know what massive wealth doesn't protect you from? Toothache.
Sorry to hear. Toothaches are extra-sucky, if only for the reason that something that seems like it should be a triviality, is downright debilitating. |
|
|
|
Bglod is finally seeing some action.
^^ Have I missed the origin of a new meme? |
|
|
|
Eth the pumpers choice tonight ...
yeah this is the reason for the pump: ethereum's newest and biggest ICO: Give it a couple more years and he'll be able to place his brain in a jar and hand his body over to a Nike fitness brain who'll return it in peak condition a couple of months later. He can still do conferences from his jar like Charlie Shrem already has. https://i.imgur.com/zv6TmGs.jpg?1Looks like Charlie at the Santa Clara convention center. I'm just across the way this week. Some event going on there I should know about? |
|
|
|
It's obvious what is happening, but us HODLers are historically reluctant to accept the facts we don't like.
You've started off in the right direction... There is no cure for this situation except Lightning network
...but you ran out of gas well short of the goal. Pity, that. |
|
|
|
No. I want to alert about the weaknesses of Bitcoin Segwit.
You object to the name BCash, Frankly, this entire hoohah over naming just makes me chuckle inwardly. You can call Bitcoin Cash Bcash if you want. Doesn't really bother me. Though it makes you look ignorant, as 'Bcash' is a different coin altogether. and yet you refer to Bitcoin as "Bitcoin Segwit"
I call Bitcoin Segwit Bitcoin Segwit, as it is a clearly descriptive, non-ambiguous term. I used to call it Bitcoin Segwit1x. However, with the demise of S2X, this disambiguation no longer adds any value. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
