the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks.
the synchronisation is not a problem. the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete. as thats the real headache people gripe and moan about in regards to syncing EG no user balance or being able to spend until node has downloaded certain blocks that contain the users UTXO. this can be fixed by having the UI function in Lite mode where it grabs a UTXO set first. or even just requests UTXO from peers of the keys the user owns. and then synchronisation becomes a background issue that can be done as and whenever the user pleases. thus making a node spendably functional from the first hour I currently have 3 nodes running and when the code for Segwit2x is released that will go up to 4. I have always run a node since I started but at the moment I want to make sure I am ready in case anything bad happens and that I will have a fully synced node running each type so that I can safeguard my bitcoins, probably a bit paranoid but better safe than sorry. So anyway I feel the pain of that initial download/verify/sync having done more times than I can remember, and have wondered why it HAS to be done that way. 'New' nodes may not have any transactions of their own to download, and they may only want to run a pruned node, so surely it should be possible to do this in a backwards way similar to what you are suggesting, maybe with an option during install. Do you have transactions to import -> Yes -> Start from 0 as it works now (or like in your suggestion) No -> Do you want store the full blockchain -> Yes -> Start from current block - x blocks (eg 2016 blocks), get the node up and running and usable then grab the previous blocks in the background (again like your suggestion) No -> Current block - x blocks (eg 2016) which then makes it a pruned node always holding just the previous x blocks. This would surely help the number of nodes to grow ? Looks pretty much bitcoins core is not really done to attract exponential growth at all. So how the hack this should scale at all ? No industrial optimization allowed -> stay on small, nichy Rasp PIs Or Allow industrial competition, get rid of code bottlenecks -> Blocksize, Scaling and decentralization is NO ISSUE for all ! It will not be needed that any average Tigger (sorry, dont feel blamed, rather feel thanked getting it up to that actual stage ) runs 4 nodes at all - buy you some bitcoin . |
|
|
|
And discussed on Bloomberg TV with chart...  |
|
|
|
da zieht er von dannen... der kleine Bär...  Bitcoin, ich mach dich gesund!  |
|
|
|
There is a third factor besides storage and bandwidth: Validation of blocks and transactions costs a certain amount of CPU power and RAM. Large transactions particularly are resource-hungry.
10 MB blocks may not be that much of a problem - 8MB is what we would get after Segwit2x, in the worst case. The fear of the "small blocker" fraction, however, is that with a solution like Bitcoin Unlimited, in a few couple of years, we'll have 20+ MB blocks, because in view of the inexistent fee market it becomes viable to send microtransactions and gambling "spam" in the Satoshi Dice tradition or even to store arbitrary data on the blockchain.
Parallel? Multi threading? |
|
|
|
|
Sure. I m completely with you. And I also do not want to move the poor into unsafe stuff.
Only Real Bitcoin solution is scale on-chain as much as we can.
|
|
|
|
Is it a core requirement of how LN functions that any time state of the channel can be included in the Bitcoin blockchain or is it just because LN is not yet fully developed. Hopefully a clever solution can be found to fix this flaw.
Older LN channel state is cryptographically valid the same way as newer state. The only incentive not to trying to add older LN channel state to Bitcoin blockchain is the other party with newer state can punish it by getting all such channel coins for themselves - but only if the tansaction can be added to Bitcoin blockchain in timelly manner (you can set the time how long your fine to have stuck your LN coins when opening the channel - this corresponds to the time available to react for having confirmed tansaction in Bitcoin blockchain should this scenario happen). This has theoretical attack vector possible with big LN hubs and congested Bitcoin - like with exchange hacks, it is only matter of time when such attack become reality one day. Tx again - so think about all the possible attacks that are still unknown (I piss at ANY code reading and testnets - that's NO production proof / even SW in LTC is a proof of no-use)) ? How many options you had attacking Bitcoin over its first 1-3 years? We should really better get back 'conservative' and get Bitcoin stronger and risk-free with highest reputation than ever! Scale the thing up to the sky and pay the miners for our all security - or scam them and you pay later by loosing your coins. And if you still think you need new toys -> get scammed in the altcoin sections! Listen to expert Matt Corallo at 35Min to a question of a friend of mine about the security issues - dodgy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMvWDg9dtcw |
|
|
|
Guys, i bought back at 2267, please guide me to the wanking thread, otherwise i´ll come all over your screen, you don´t want that, do you ?  Current price: $2323 This is gentlemen! 2370, gentlemenz ! .. just some range trading ... |
|
|
|
If anything goes wrong, you simply broadcast the latest state of your channel as a normal on-chain bitcoin transaction.
All your money will be returned to your address, and it will be recorded on the blockchain as normal."
You would insert 100 coins, no insurance needed ?
I don't have to trust sales arguments because smarter people than me can read the code and find flaws. Besides the system can be tested before a single coin is ever risked. It's all open source, read the code and make your own mind if you should or should not trust it. LN flaw is any older state of your channel can be added to Bitcoin blockchain. Your only defence is try to include the latest state of your channel to Bitcoin blockchain in timelly manner, but you cant guarantee your onchain transaction going to be included to Bitcoin blockchain before is too late. LN might find its niche, but its too risky and complicated for average Joe, like you. Bigger blocks would make using LN actually safer. Thx - but for the small brainers (< 1MB) you should drop some link why.... |
|
|
|
Thanks for posting this. This was quite useful in gaining a general idea of the LN. Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it? It seems like a neat addon to bitcoin's capabilities and it does not require a radical protocol change. LN can be extremely useful to those who make frequent use of the bitcoin network (ie transact often). ... and you fully trust into some sales arguments: "Q 7: Will there be any form of custodian risk in a Lightning Network? Do I need to trust anyone to hold my money on my behalf? A: No, this system is not based on trust; you remain in full control of your money. If anything goes wrong, you simply broadcast the latest state of your channel as a normal on-chain bitcoin transaction. All your money will be returned to your address, and it will be recorded on the blockchain as normal." You would insert 100 coins, no insurance needed ? I don't have to trust sales arguments because smarter people than me can read the code and find flaws. Besides the system can be tested before a single coin is ever risked. It's all open source, read the code and make your own mind if you should or should not trust it. Thing is we are running Bitcoin since 2009 now and lots' of people not even trust in this (and created 2k of altcoins to try out on that as well) - and we have limited space and resources to invest on the Bitcoin trust & scale. Why should we not really concentrate on that very thing =on-chain ? Diluting trust and resources to (not on-chain) things bankers and scammers can do way better and is NOT scope of pure Bitcoin ? Tell people to read 2n order solutions, NOT Bitcoin? Test fancy redundant networks, NOT Bitcoin? Getting scared about sell chills, NOT Bitcoin? Putting finally Bitcoin reputation ON RISK ? - Sorry - I like the Satoshi Game & Nash equilibrium and second the code and try to understand this better FIRST Place. And miners = big users might do same. Second place see FIRST. |
|
|
|
........
So your suggestion that bitcoin is broken or deficient because it does not adequately compete with Visa comes off as a load of propagandistic and premature nonsense.. Bitcoin is way to immature to be even striving to compete directly with such a large system - but that does not mean that bitcoin does not have value for what it is - a decentralized immutable secure storage and transfer of value... think of all the power of that? No other system comes close to bitcoin in terms of the exact thing that it is providing at this moment - even if it remains a "work-in-progress."
I never suggested that. Well what's the difference that you are suggesting? You are saying that bitcoin needs to serve both the store of value function and the payment function... and you are suggesting that it's gotta do it now, otherwise it is going to lose market share... Yeah, heard rushed arguments like that many times, like you want bitcoin to evolve into some super machine over night, and the fact of the matter is that you seem to be focusing too much on aspects that you perceive to be negative rather than appreciating value and appreciating that bitcoin is continuing to be built in a lot of ways. Are you changing your tune, now? Give it up. If i want Bitcoin to evolve into some super machine overnight, i would have mentioned Visa, 1gb block, etc. Read my posts carefully as i never expect bitcoin to match visa or expect 1gb block. I was imply saying that 1mb block is stupid. I have reservation about segwit and don't think it is a great addition to bitcoin. I don't like LN either. I don't like the current fee system as it is totally, utterly crap. ++ You are not The only One |
|
|
|
|
And what keeps some miner cartels away from attacking those central LN nodes ?
|
|
|
|
Haven't you forgotten there just about the inherent latent repulsion forces sourced by the Nash equilibrium in Satoshi-PoW, that causing a big price drop if 'the centralization' (needs to be defined) is unveiled to the masses > trust is lost? This is not working in metals ... |
|
|
|
Thanks for posting this. This was quite useful in gaining a general idea of the LN. Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it? It seems like a neat addon to bitcoin's capabilities and it does not require a radical protocol change. LN can be extremely useful to those who make frequent use of the bitcoin network (ie transact often). ... and you fully trust into some sales arguments: "Q 7: Will there be any form of custodian risk in a Lightning Network? Do I need to trust anyone to hold my money on my behalf? A: No, this system is not based on trust; you remain in full control of your money. If anything goes wrong, you simply broadcast the latest state of your channel as a normal on-chain bitcoin transaction. All your money will be returned to your address, and it will be recorded on the blockchain as normal." You would insert 100 coins, no insurance needed ? |
|
|
|
This is what I think and I'm sure some of you start screaming and call me an idiot. Fine. Why should HF sopporters reply anyway.... But I wanna know, after the shitstorm ended, maybe from some legends here, how is the best way of getting it done with CONSENSUS! Otherwise I really feel sad for all those FUDsters that fear the fork like elephants the frog.  I'm not gonna call you a idiot mate. I'm here for long term so I not worried about it at all. And yeah, the level of FUD is astronomical, that if you are newbies, you will really thinks that they all knowing what's the future gonna end. I gonna hold and grab some bitcoins for me regardless if their is a Hard Fork or not. Uff. thx mate that feels good. Now give me some FUDsers...? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
