For what purpose? Why not just use the QT client? The RPC interface is much slower than the QT client and so any client built on RPC will be slow. Even if there are such customers (never heard of anyone), who will use it?
If „we“ had the same mind set like your posting here, then bitcoin could never exist. Imagine people raised the same questions: Bitcoin - what purpose? We have Dollars Bitcoin - why use on a PC? I can send via my bank or PayPal Bitcoin - why is it slow? It can only do 7 tx/ second - VISA can do 50.000s Bitcoin - who will use it? Only nerds would do this... Do you want to be in the same group? Be open minded, and don‘t (implicitly) judge someone else’s request, cause your imagination might be limited... Here an example, I discussed on a meeting last recently: the person was running a bitcoin daemon on a raspberry pi, in a headless mode, connected via ssh. And he was wondering, how to remotely connect to the device from a „powerful“ system with a graphical interface. He was unfamiliar with the command line shell. So he looked for something like a web app, that embeds the RPC calls, so he can do a minimum set of commands. And as you see, speed would not be an issue at all! There are always things beyond our imagination. |
|
|
|
... This is the "be your own bank" movement, after all.
This !  concerning 24/7 node and cheating, I found this as well: (from here: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43700/how-does-the-lightning-network-work-in-simple-terms) ... We each create a new payout transaction ("balance sheet") as before, but this one says that you get 0.06 BTC and I get 0.04 BTC. Each of us gets a transaction signed by the other to that effect as before. To make sure that neither of us can use the old payout transaction the other signed previously, we each create an "anti-cheat" transaction: It's a transaction that spends the outputs from our first payout transaction to the other.
I.e. when I try to activate the (now obsolete) 0.05 - 0.05 BTC balance sheet, my paid-out funds are locked for a number of blocks. This gives you time to broadcast the "anti-cheat" transaction in which I signed that my 0.05 BTC output gets send to you.
Still, it's safe for me to give that transaction to you, and the whole network, because the "anti-cheat" can only be activated as a response to the fraudulent use of an old balance sheet. By the way, this anti-cheat mechanism is why Lightning needs the Transaction Malleability fix from Segregated Witness.
With the setup as described above, I'd have to be online to catch you trying to cheat, but obviously it wouldn't be safe for me to keep payment channels open if I had to remain online all the time. So, to encourage others to help with the "anti-cheat" transaction, we set a small portion of the "anti-cheat" payout as a bounty that anyone can spend. Now, we can entrust the anti-cheat transaction to all nodes on the network, so everyone can watch for old balance-sheets being broadcast. When it happens, anyone can sign the bounty to themselves and broadcast the "anti-cheat". |
|
|
|
...
But having to manually submit the newer signature to steal the other guys funds back for cheating is not very mass adoption friendly. Other scaling methods will help a lot though at least LN isn't the only thing on the table.
...
No, it is not user friendly - but having a screw driver for nails in a wall is also not user friendly. And as Lightning network is a "MICRO PAYMENT CHANNEL", then micro amounts can get lost - based on everyones personal risk appetite... At the point in time, where a lightning channel is opened, both parties sign a smart contract, with pre-defined conditions! So the details are known - it doesn't/shouldn't come as a surprise. So you know what you do... I think the point is, that Lightning is a micro payment channel. Too new to be fully understood by everyone (and that's probably due to the fact that so many misinterpretations/FUD are around), with a steep learning curve. Hence need to manage expectations. With more and more nodes getting in production (and usecases on top), I am convinced we'll see more and more userfriendly software. I wouldn't want give my money into a smart contract, which is written by noobs in Java Script like language, with many proofs of losses, in the million dollars range. Turing complete and easy to write contracts, but "good" for user friendliness?  - no thanks! That Lightning baby is barely 3 month on main net now, and expectations are already high? Please, give it a bit more time! It's a bi-directional payment channel. So e.g. for streaming music, and paying per title, per minute, or even per parts of a minute. In the strong sense, this could be done with a uni directional payment channel. Lightning adds on top the possibility to create a network, where you can rely on others, and if their node goes down, find a new route and continue payments. This makes it fault tolerant. I want to stress again the micro payments in both directions. Not huge amounts of money, just micro payments. And like in real life, you don't send pennies back and forth. Au contraire, if you go to your grocery shop with a kilo of pennies, they might refuse the payment. Lightning is certainly not a replacement for your bitcoin wallet - it is an extension. It was repeatedly mentioned, that mostly companies/merchants would run 24/7 LN nodes, and also there is discussion around 3rd parties, which do some kind of watching service, in case one party is offline - (Windows) computers tend to reboot or break sometimes :-( If it is preferred to have non-mirco payment channels, that become more user friendly, then one could think about uni-directional payment channels. They are already for some years around, and the time-lock based payment channels had to wait for SegWit to lock in (melleability fix), or they had to use CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (CLTV, I think in 2016) or last recently CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (CSV). These payment channels allow to create connectivity between a service provider and a host, like publishers or even video ( https://streamium.io). If lightning channels are not needed, or there are no regular payments required, or the personal, specific usecase is unknown, at any time "we" are free to send normal bitcoin transaction. Preferably a segwit tx ... |
|
|
|
just one short comment: nowadays it is easier to use CLTV and CSV for time locked transactions. I had these examples posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2204938.msg23664225#msg23664225CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY: lock some Satoshis until a specific number of block have passed, before I can use them, and if I really, really need the coins before, have a 2-3 multisig to release them immedeatly CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY: lock some Satoshis until a specific number of block appears (aka my son is 18 years old...), but use a 2-3 multisig to release the funds in case funds are required earlier The forum here provides many references (I remember having searched for this some time ago), as well as bitcoin.stackexchange. But best (as usual) seems to me the book from Andreas: "Mastering Bitcoin". In chapter 7 he describes the usage of the script mechanism. Warning though: it gets very detailed, and deep down into script layer  But that's why we have these forums, to raise next questions!  |
|
|
|
So if I open a channel and then shut down my PC for a few days, does the channel still remain open at all ?
The way I understand is this: you can turn off your PC for a short time, the PC wouldn't close the channel. The channel opening and closing are the two transactions, which hit the blockchain (aka fees). These transactions are created as multisig funding tx, with a hash, a timelock and some logic to increase/decrease values. Now the hash is the relevant part, it is used as a revocation key. So if your counterparty finds out, you are not "on" anymore, they might activate this revocation key and as such close the channel. If they don't, you can switch on your PC, and continue to send the signatures(aka payment updates) for the updated transaction to your counterparty. And then there is a timelock in the channel: if your PC happens to be "off" when timelock is approaching, this might also close the channel. However, there is an incentive in the lightning channel to stay online, or vice versa, a punishment. If you hold channels open, and turn off your PC, then the counterparty might be "hostage" to you (or your PC), and would have to wait for the timeout of the channel. Also, if one of the parties tries to cheat by posting an outdated commitment transaction, the counterparty can take all the bitcoins in the channel. This provides a strong incentive not to cheat. Better leave your system "on" !The best summary I could get for this so far is here on bitcoin.stackexchange: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/55310/do-parties-in-a-lightning-network-channel-need-to-be-online |
|
|
|
|
When dealing with large data, wouldn’t you use symmetric encryption / stream cyphers? Maybe triple-DES and similar? With asymmetric encryption, you loose a lot of time. Encryption with asymmetric keys is awfully slow, and only used for short chunks of data. If you definitely need asymmetric keys, think about exchanging a key between both parties to transfer a key, which is then used for symmetric encryption of large data blocks.
|
|
|
|
I‘d like to see the proof for statements like „no one uses it“ from the several posters here. I guess this is more a proof of ignorance, than a review of the blockchain and its scripts in transactions. The OP_Code provides beneficial solution to manage all kinds of Time linked smart contracts, as discussed in a longer thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2204938.msg23664225#msg23664225Last recently I created some bitcoin transactions with a „holding time“ of one year, so that tax declaration will be positive, and I don‘t spend by accident some bitcoins, which I have less than a year. They would be expensive in tax declaration... So it is up to everyone’s own imagination, to see positive value in new developments (like CLTV), or to stay behind and live with the existing environment. Maybe also a change in the headline: more to something like „I don‘t understand what CLTV is used for“ or similar. Otherwise it just sounds like something is judged, which isn‘t understood, and this is usually considered a silly thing... |
|
|
|
... There is an test/demo testnet sidechain called Elements Alpha. I believe it is possible to use the Elements Project's software in order to create your own sidechain. Just wondering if this project is under rework? I tried to get involved via the link on the webpage https://www.elementsproject.org/posts/announcing-elements/, but the link to the slack channel seems dead: https://chat.elementsproject.org. (At least my Safari is showing as "could not connect"). Also the Freenode IRC: #sidechains-dev is very quiet, no info since last November in the web archives. My problem is currently, that my node doesn't connect to any alpha server. After having compiled everything, and made the daemons working, it looks like the alphad blocks are not downloaded (in ~/.bitcoin/alphatestnet3). There is only one block, and the logfile reports: "alphad cannot connect to <servername>, unsupported network". Looks like there is some TOR required, cause the <servername> ends with ".onion", but the installation manuals are quiet on this... Maybe someone has an idea or a reference? (Also checked bitcoin.SE, to no avail) |
|
|
|
no one implemented this except for Coinb.in what do you mean by this ? You don't need to implement anything, you are free to create "your own" transaction and make use of the opcode. It is clear that OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY is heavily used in lightning setups, to create payment channels. Are you looking for a similiar use case for OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY? |
|
|
|
yes, beta, and lot's of warnings, but already live: https://lnmainnet.gaben.win One can see 5 or 6 larger hubs, where many nodes want to talk with, and if you move them to the side, you can see clearly, that there is a highly meshed net, without a single sign of centralization. The question is, when is software ever ready |
|
|
|
Reading through this thread, I am missing the positive developments. I mean, by the headline people get already distracted - ok, but you were explicitly asking about positive developments. With many answers here I wrote up (unintentionally) something, which might answer your question, especially looking at the newer developments. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3074677.msg31895112#msg31895112When re-reading the headline, I think it should be precisely this: „what is it in the mind of people, what makes them think, there are limitations in blockchain“ |
|
|
|
.
...
The only problem is, how scalable is bitcoin blockchain itself. If it's only 7 transactions/second and less than 2MB data every 10 minutes, its usefulness will be limited
Correct. All people here in the forum repeat this mantra, and from a beginners perspective this is totally ok. I have obeserved some behavioral patterns: with limited imagination and barriers in thinking one must come to the conclusion, that bitcoin is not what you need. It somehow doesn’t meet expectations (haha). There is this disappointment about crypto that people have, who hoped to use bitcoin system to get quickly rich, without any efforts supporting the infrastructure or development. There are These core developers who shall do this job for them... Negativity all around the corner. And in disillusion they compare current crypto technologies to banking systems, and get even angry, that the fees came down to all time low, missing the point, that these are the first signs of fruitful growth extensions. Anyhow, they then look at Ethereum for scaling, because there you should have increased throughput, just to find out, it’s only real usecase is crypto kitten (and maybe some ICOs). And bitcoin cash is not performing, because the masses don‘t accept it, hence no liquidity to do great things. Really, there’s nothing in these systems for them. What a pity for these people! On the other side there are those, who are inspired by the technologies. Who are enthusiastic and open minded. Who understand, that there is something happening, that is changing the world, possibly upside down. Who support the community (thankyou achow ). They take the challenge of understanding the limitation, breaking there head(s) on it. They start to develop solutions around it, and make the whole eco system a bit better. There are genius people thinking about increasing throughput (segwit), smart contracts (simplicity), zero knowledge proofs, decentralization and security in the system, 2nd layer applications (side chains), atomic swaps between them, and probably many, many more. Exciting time ahead! So it is up to each individual, to stay within their limitation(s), filled with bitterness on their capacity, becoming resentful to all the exciting things happening in the crypto eco system, where they can‘t participate. Or become part of a vibrant environment and be convinced, to make bitcoin and the world a bit better!  |
|
|
|
Let's postulate three axioms of money:
1) The singular purpose of monies is to be a medium of exchange.
2) To be a medium of exchange, monies require value.
3) To attain value, monies need to be scarce.
Whereas 1 and 2 are still valid, item 3 has a tough standpoint with quantitative easing around the world. We don’t see the inflation, that should have been expected. So there must be other axioms valid, that replace item 3? |
|
|
|
Is it still possible to make a fundamental upgrade to Bitcoin, modify its blockchain data structure and give it a Turing complete virtual machine which can run smart contract like Ethereum?
This would be an altcoin or a hardfork, no way. Can you outline, what type of smart contract you think of, that needs Turing complete machine? |
|
|
|
@pebwindkraft, sorry, you were responding to a plagiarist who copied one of my old posts (and also a post by bob123)
And while reading I already thought, that someone mentioned this... ... concepts such as the MR POWA proposal—or total POW change. These are aptly described as “nuclear options” for the main chain, in case certain ill-intended large centralized miners become an existential threat to Bitcoin.
yup. Imagine you could get ten million devices each doing a modest 800 GH/s out
I just did some math here: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/64920/how-does-bitcoins-power-consumption-compare-to-other-financial-institutions-exchWe are currently at ~23mio Terahashes. The "dream" 800 GH/s fancy adapter would compete with the power of ~1.7mio Antminer S9. An Antminer does 13TH/sec. So need a times 10 better device, possibly USB, for sure fancy design, and not too expensive (250 US Dollar range?). But wouldn't the nonce calculation just explode, and even more power would be required? I currently can't see, where this ends... and maybe they implement then a hidden function to flood the blockchain with invalid blocks, bringing new attack vectors to light...
Behold the power of nodes: Invalid blocks do not exist, insofar as the blockchain is concerned. Malicious miners can try to make all the invalid blocks they want, whether via “hidden functions” or otherwise; they’d only be wasting their electricity. Malicious hardware manufacturers who added such “hidden functions” would be criminally defrauding their customers, but could not thus damage the Bitcoin network. This is a non-issue. gosh, what am I saying here? I know "wrong blocks" don't make it into the network. Must have been the red wine... I don't go any further on this speculation.  |
|
|
|
|
When it is not directly "building" blockchain apps, then you might have a look at udemy.com and coursera.org. search for bitcoin or crypto currency. These lessons are way cheaper then the afore mentioned ones. If you like to read, you have to read Andreas' book "Mastering Bitcoin". That gives you (imho) the best introduction, with developer relevant details. And of course bitcoin.org in the developer section.
|
|
|
|
We have sidechains/drivechains/Alpha Elements, where new concepts can be tested. I wouldn't expect something being "the right thing" from the very beginning, but the more development we have, the better it secures bitcoin future. And everything which looks at things that are more than low-level increase of blocksize or amount of coins should benefit future work. There are many people worried about miner centralization(three countries: Canada, Island and China...), unhappy situation with ASIC miners and BCH support, and possibly growing size of blockchain... And then we learned, hard forkes are probably a "no-go". Further development is necessary. So if UASF inspired hardforks are a no-go for MR POWA (wow, what a combination of buzz words!) is not visible, we should encourage ongoing research from many areas, and not only Altcoins, also sidechains can be used. I want to see commodity SHA-256 ASICs sold cheaper than GPUs, and as readily available. I think that’s probably the best solution, long-term. Too bad I am not a hardware guy.
Yes, in principle I agree. Economies of scale in the manufacturing environments have shown centralization. So even if we find new ASICs with independency from the evil ASIC provider of today, I would guess, that after finding a new cheap SHA256 ASIC cheaper as GPUs, we'd do the race again and find centralization of manufacturer of these new devices, and maybe they implement then a hidden function to flood the blockchain with invalid blocks, bringing new attack vectors to light... Decentralization (to keep independency) is a very, very hard topic. Economically and especially at sociological level... |
|
|
|
I doubt that there are books on how to setup system with your own currency in C#. But it is perfectly ok to read the standard books of the bitcoin world, ad go from there. I highly recommend Andreas‘ book „Mastering Bitcoin“ as introduction on the bitcoin Eco-System. Also you would look into bitcoin.org, the developer section. And if looking at signing process of tx, search for Ken Shirriff‘s block „Bitcoin the hard way“. i guess you have done already some reading, so maybe it is a repetition. But then there is the forum here, with lots of Altchinesisch, and a search functionality. The same applies to bitcoin.stackexchange.com. Hope this helps to get you started |
|
|
|
I think his message "it s one of the reasons we use a chain with self removing temporary entries for facilitating the transactions. No need for data bloat on portable devices" contains two linked components, depending on each other: 1.) regular blockchain is gigabytes, and mobiles can't store gigabytes 2.) with a different design (by removing the necessity to store gigabytes) a DEX on mobiles is possible Currently it is unclear, how this can be achieved. An underlying assumption seems to be, that it must work with a cryptographical setup. There are two concurrent concepts in the crypto world: blockchains and DAGs. Both (should) make sure, that a malicious actor is not "incentivized" to play foul. The blockchain or the DAG is also used to proof, that a certain transaction happened. And both require lots of data... Comes SPV wallets or similiar: they work on mobiles as well, but they are connected to servers, that must be trusted. I can imagine, that he is working on a similiar concept for a DEX. The idea looks very interesting, and if there is a new logic/algorythm, which avoids the usage of gigabytes, we are all highly interested. Why don't you invite your friend to come into the forum, and spread some of his ideas with us? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
