Denigrating assertion does not stand up to the scrutiny of logic.

A team recently started probing at the limits of what the Bitcoin network can actually achieve. In terms of controlled experiments directly scaling transaction count, on a worldwide subset of machines, and recording the results. About time someone did this, eh?

AAR, they found that with today's satoshi client, and commodity consumer hardware, the system starts bogging down at about 100 tx/s. In terms of blocksize, that would be ~33MB blocks. So we obviously have considerable headroom in the system for improvement by means of simple increase of maxblocksize. This would consume about 25% of a single core of a typical 4-core CPU, with 16 GB RAM, and an SSD, while consuming about 3 Mb/s of network BW.

But they did not stop there. Due to the fact that allocating more CPU cores to the problem did not improve performance above this (i.e., that it consumed a smaller percentage of additional cores, with no increase in throughput), they postulated that suboptimal multithreading performance might be the root of the issue. So they refactored the code to employ contemporary concurrency design techniques. After such refactoring, the performance of the system - on the same HW - was able to process 500 tx/s. This would correspond to >150 MB blocksize. I repeat - on the same, consumer-grade, hardware. Of course, this results in an increased network BW consumption of 15 Mb/s.

So we see that, despite the maturity of the satoshi client (i.e., a decade of development by Bitcoin's supposed best), there is significant low-hanging fruit in the deficiency of the software design of the satoshi client. Deficiencies having to do directly with scalability. Deficiencies that -- so far -- have not been addressed by the core developers.

Whether core has nobody that understands concurrency, or whether they just deem scalability to be a low priority, is a matter of conjecture. But the truth is that the core developers have not:
- measured and published such transaction capacity tests
- determined where the lowest bottleneck in system transaction capacity lies
- coded up a fix to remove the lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity
- measured and published results with the fix for this lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity

- All this in a time when system transaction capacity is the hottest issue - and has been for about two years.

On the other hand, another team has. Who was it? A collaboration of members of the teams working on Bitcoin Cash.

Just no. You couldn't be further from the truth. Not only am I not trying to destroy bitcoin, I am trying to save it. Hell, I am not even trying to destroy Bitcoin Segwit. Such a postulate would be ludicrous, as I hold more BTC than I could possibly make through 'normal' means such as my salary -- and I am within the USA 6%* top in that regard -- if I worked for the rest of my life.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_household_income_in_2014_according_to_US_Census_data

It is true that in my analysis, I find Bitcoin Cash to be superior to Bitcoin Segwit. For everyone. Except maybe those who have invested their reputation in core. And my statements are largely positive on BCH. But the only negative statements I make on BTC, are in relation to the manners in which it is lacking compared to BCH. And always truthful - at least to the best of my knowledge.

I'll just consider it teething pains. I'm sure it is a difficult and thankless job.

However, I ask that you reconsider whether or not you are deleting only posts by me that are 'direct or indirect attack on bitcoin' or promotion of BCH. Let us look at this one and evaluate: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2402558.msg24766720#msg24766720

This post had responses to four different posts. Three of them were directly concerning BTC. The fourth was a reply to the Tesla Roadster thing.

Certainly, the first of the four replies had quoted and sourced info which could be construed as positive to BCH and negative to BTC. However, it was correcting false information promulgated by the person to whom I was replying regarding mining profitability. I posted current state (factual information) and the source URL so he could check it himself next time.

The next was providing helpful info answering a question regarding the BTC mempool, free of any value judgement.

Third was the Tesla thing.

Fourth was merely defending against an accusation of 'FUD', when the supposed fud was merely the discussion regarding the limit of number of users BCH + Lightning can support, assuming each user would open and close their channel daily (the 2 tx/user/day was the hypothetical introduced by the party to whom I was responding earlier). While this could be _viewed_ as negative, it is really just the way it is, and therefore value-neutral.

I may be many things to many people. I may be a pariah to those whose faith in BTC is tenuous enough to be threatened by what I have to say. But one thing I am not is dishonest -- at least not intentionally dishonest -- to bitcointalk.org.

Exactly in what manner do you assert that BCH is more centralized? (Presumably with respect to BTC?)


You should do that. I'd be interested in the results of that little experiment. Of course, the results would be more informative if the mempool was spammed to persistently full for days on end.


Yet it has been demonstrated that typical contemporary consumer-grade PC running the satoshi client can handle about 100 tx/s. With some simple SW improvements (which, for some reason, core has not deigned to perform), such a typical PC can handle about 500 tx/s. The 'unable to participate as peers' conjecture is shown to be a canard.

Interesting. What is the mathematical formula you employ to determine the price at which BCH is overbought?

Funny your choice of definition. So two months ago, when its price was about ~$3600, the chain to which you refer was not Bitcoin?

Two months from now, when the price is $15000, the chain to which you refer will no longer be Bitcoin?

That would be better, but not world. With today's bitcoin, we remain mired at less than half-million transactions a day. If everyone opens and closes one channel once a week, we can accommodate at most 1.75 million users. If the average user opens and closes a channel once per month, we are limited to 7.5 million users. Three orders of magnitude from world scale.

And yes, we still don't know how many channels each user will maintain on average, and how often they will feel the need to update. But if they only maintain a single channel, it lends credence to the centralized hub conjecture. And if they very seldom refresh their channels, they are limited to however much funds they can put in the channel at creation - of course, assuming they don't get paid in Bitcoin within Lightning.


This is true. I use the per day figure, as it starts one thinking about sustained throughput, instead of burst capacity. If total sustained demand exceeds total sustained throughput, there will always be transactions that never get included in blocks.


OK, assuming we ever get to one million per day, is it realistic that the average user tops off his one and only Lightning channel (there's that centralization again) once per year? I don't think so. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. Even if so, that would be hard capped at 365 million users. Again, well short of our goal. And this is assuming only on open _or_ one close per user per year.

Thanks for the respectful continued discussion.

Whatevs, Junior. I've been tagged with negative feedback by resident shitty kitty for being a heretic. Despite no value ever being at risk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sglyFwTjfDU

So hey, Pistacia, how do _you_ define Bitcoin? How do you recognize it when you see it? What are its aspects and characteristics?

All that, and still unable to answer a simple question?
Hey mindrust - what definition do you adhere to for 'Bitcoin'?

Meh. You're here now. Cool. Evidently, enough penetrated for you to retain some interest. Hell, due to my own foot-dragging, I missed out on most of the sub-dollar zone. Just because, despite being intrigued, I did not set enough time to truly look into it. It does seem fantastical at first exposure.

Or were you trying to send me a veiled message about deleted posts?

Sorry - didn't realize you would have considered it inseparable. Apologies.

OK for me, but not for thee, eh? Again, thank you for outing yourself as a petty tyrant. Hopefully, those that matter will at least give lip service to the concept of 'equal protection under the law'. I can only imagine that @infofront is trying to grease some irritating squeaky wheel that keeps whining at him to DO SOMETHING!!!!111!1! Perhaps with some introspection, infofront will do the right thing.














Oh yeah - fuck off yourself.

Back in 2011 - 2013, I really proselytized far and wide. I wanted everyone I knew to be able to take advantage of this new technology that was obviously going to change the way money works for all humanity. Free us all from the vampire squid.

But I took ridicule and abuse for my attempts. So my voice muted. Finally, I just stopped talking about it altogether.

As Torque said a few posts back, you can lead a horse to water...

Latest? That allegation has been floating around for months. And rather than FUD, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence behind it. What with the promises of audits that never come, Bitfinex's hack loss leaving them insolvent and perhaps plucking 'money' out of thin air to capitalize itself, the terms of USDT, which essentially say 'if you own tether, you don't own doodly-squat'...

So you advocate banning because of interest, regardless of the actual posted content. Thank you for outing yourself as a petty tyrant.


Yet the posts that are being deleted are not Bitcoin Cash oriented. Some of the deleted posts are focused exclusively upon Bitcoin Segwit.

Oh - one was a response to the Tesla Roadster. My Bad. Then again, the post that that one replied to is still up. Selective enforcement at its finest worst.

If you believe anything I typed in those deleted posts was untrue, I invite you to the companion thread where I have reposted the deleted posts. Some with commentary on why I think they are legitimate by post #1 in this thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2402558.0

But I'm guessing you ain't got the balls for it. Or whatever the equivalent would be, should you be female.

No. And no. Quite frankly, Ethereum seems to me to be a token without a purpose. I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone would pay more then seven cents for a coin whose inflation emission is in the sole purview of some immature idiot savant. Especially seeing as he destroyed its entire reason for being by violating the inviolable smart contracts. But let's not talk about Ethereum here - let's talk about Bitcoin.


I hold some. Well, by today's price, the man on the street would likely say I hold a lot. But it is a mere afterthought upon my Bitcoin holdings. But let's not talk about monero here - let's talk about Bitcoin.


Not to any cryptocurrency projects.


'Hands in'? Probably zero. I have minor holdings of a few others. Byteball. I've not yet claimed Clams, Bitcoin Gold (haha - I had to correct my forefinger, who wanted to type Bitcoin Fold), BitCore, or several others that looked like the claim process might reveal something. Namecoin. And a couple of shitcoins that I thought had an interesting enough angle that they might pump someday (still waiting and losing hope on those). I think that's (at least close to) it.

Why?

But let's not talk about altcoins here - let's talk about Bitcoin. Are we not concerned with Bitcoin in this thread? I am.

Shit and ridicule. Indeed. Though I've informed my current supervisor of my departing date. When it gets to the point of replying to the coworkers' questions about early retirement, the 'I-told-ya-so' moments are gonna be epic.

such eyepop
very envy
many stagger
bigly wow

Let's keep things accurate here. What itod said was:

...while we were discussing that opening or closing channels consume on-chain transaction capacity. Given the context, it seemed to me that itod was asserting that a channel could be closed by sending funds to another channel, with the implication that the on-chain transaction to close the channel would be eliminated. Did I misinterpret itod's statement? I not, that is what I saw as new information I had not yet heard. If itod was not making such a claim, my proper response is 'so what'. We've all known for ages that Lightning allows transfer of funds through a chain of channels*.

*provided that you know a priori a path from A to B. Unfortunately, last I looked, nobody knows how to do anonymous decentralized route discovery for this purpose.


Unlikely number to be realized, but let's go with that for rhetorical purposes. Once those 440,000 channels get opened or closed (not both), there is exactly zero capacity for any other transactions on the network.