What are the use cases of frictionless programmable money? Why is it important? Why do we need to put those transactions on the same block chain that provides us with censorship-proof money? Does frictionless programmable money require the overhead of a permanent distributed ledger?
It is important because it opens up new business and trade opportunities and can lift up the financial situation of people specially in times of financial crisis. Does frictionless programmable money require the overhead of a permanent distributed ledger? Well yes or unless you know any other kind of technology than can achieve this other than bitcoin? Most things (possibly everything) come with a trade off. If creating a good frictionless programmable money harms the censorship resistance, which do we choose?
We choose both because bitcoin already does both and we should work toward that goal. Adding censorship adds a layer of friction and going offchain also adds frictions. If bitcoin could scale from 0 to now by offering both then I don't see why it cannot continue to scale and still offering both. I guess I don't really understand the "frictionless" in frictionless programmable money. There are many kinds of friction I can think of, and it seems like you are just saying censorship-proof in a different way. |
|
|
|
Right but what's the point of financial freedom if you have no freedom to use your coins the way you want? Financial freedom is more than just escaping financial controls IMO.
All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile. But bitcoin is not just about being censorship resistant. It's also about frictionless programmable money. Both are equally important. What are the use cases of frictionless programmable money? Why is it important? Why do we need to put those transactions on the same block chain that provides us with censorship-proof money? Does frictionless programmable money require the overhead of a permanent distributed ledger? Most things (possibly everything) come with a trade off. If creating a good frictionless programmable money harms the censorship resistance, which do we choose? |
|
|
|
Right but what's the point of financial freedom if you have no freedom to use your coins the way you want? Financial freedom is more than just escaping financial controls IMO.
All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile. |
|
|
|
how can they get such drastically different results
60+ connections to really see the bandwidth use I'm talking about. I've observed some really annoying nodes (non-full nodes) that connect and just terrorize my bandwidth. I'm trying to recall the version string of one such node but I can't off the top of my head. At one point I started banning individual IPs based on the type of node they were running and I saw a drastic improvement, but this ended up being too much work. I've seen things like 6 nodes with the same IP and different ports connected to my node. The usage isn't constant. It comes in huge spikes that last for hours (up to days) at a time. Then there will be several hours with much less bandwidth used. I don't know if node age has anything to do with how much the network will use it, but I've been running mine for many years now with near 100% uptime. |
|
|
|
its only taking days to sync because i need to work all day on my computer and i cant have core eating 90% cpu while i work.
also i turn off my machine at night because it's hot in my room.
i think your exaggerating the resources core takes and that's why i'm sycning a full node, once the full node is synced i will see first hand if this hurts my streaming. You have to run 24/7 to see Core use the resources I'm talking about here. You need to have 60+ peers connected to you which you will never achieve if you constantly shut your node down. You need about a month of 100% uptime to get those results. I have no reason to exaggerate Adam. I'm a Bitcoin enthusiast and I want this system to be robust. I would venture to guess that Bitcoin impacts my current and future financial situation far, far more than most people posting on this forum. But more important than that, I want the freedom to do as I see fit with my money. I'm not here calling for mainstream adoption so I can cash out and get rich. Not that I wouldn't mind Bitcoin being valued at what I think is appropriate for the utility it provides. i think your pushing the "war" thing a little to far, right now mostly all governments are OK with bitcoin.
Let's not be naive and ignore the fact that increasing capital controls continue to be implemented by governments around the world. |
|
|
|
bottom line, we need improvements, But still the answer is No you shouldn't aim for running full nodes while running a full household worth of devices. I believe we should keep the limit such that a typical home connection can handle it with about 80% of the its bandwidth being utilized. this will be the upper limit which should never be crossed. and at the same time offer simi-full nodes that do something useful with only 10-20% of a typical home connection.
some improved incentives will also help, what's the point of running a "super node" that relay GB's of data per day? maybe miners would be willing to pay a small fee to connect to this node so that it gets blocks faster? or something!
Again, my connection and my hardware are no where close to "typical". You are, two days later, still syncing from 1 year behind? I sync the entire chain in 14 hours. My other household uses (frequent web browsing, occasional gaming and streaming video) take nowhere near the resources of Core. If a Bitcoin enthusiast like myself, who spends money on hardware specifically to run a node, who has top tier internet speeds, can't run a full node at full capacity (without a dedicated line), I would say that the decentralization of the network has been harmed. (Of course, I am currently running multiple full nodes, but not at full capacity. My concern is increasing the data a node should share before making the system as efficient as possible.) If you want to take off the training wheels, let's talk about it after we've got the pedals, chain, handlebars, and shifters in fantastic working order. You envision a network where there are multiple implementations of the software based on the resources at hand. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless it raises the bar so much that the end user can no longer access the full censorship-proof nature of Bitcoin. I envision a network that is able to function in a possible future where governments force ISPs to audit or even censor Bitcoin traffic. I don't think we will have truly censorship-proof money until the Bitcoin network is not only able, but actually functioning, on a global wireless mesh network that is entirely out of the reach of any entity that would wish to control it. I want Bitcoin to function in a worst case scenario. This isn't a war to see who can provide the cheapest, most convenient transaction for buying a glass of wine, this is a war for financial freedom. |
|
|
|
should bitcoins traffic limits be based on what 10% of typical home connection can handle?
maybe 20% ? maybe 50%? surly anything demanding 20-10% isn't going to impact number of full nodes.
in anycase i feel that there can be much improvement as to how data is shared across the network to dramatically decrease bandwidth use for full nodes, which should allow for proportionally bigger blocks. I don't have the answers to your questions, but I will ask you a few instead. Should I be able to run a fully functional node while using the same internet connection for other daily household uses? I pay near $100 per month for the highest tier internet speeds my ISP will offer. I've built a dedicated machine to run Core (modern quad-core CPU, 16GB RAM, modern SSD). To give you an example of my resources: i'm currently syncing a full node and it feels like my computer is about to explode! cpu is running hot! hot! Hot!
You are still catching up from a partially synced state after at least 24 hours? I can sync the full chain from scratch in about 14 hours. Yet, I can't run a full node without "putting the brakes on". I'll ask a second question. Will a larger block size limit (which we agree will lead to larger blocks) make it easier or more difficult for me to run a full node? I already have to gimp my node in order to have a functional connection to the internet. I already have dedicated hardware in order to keep my daily use computer "up to speed". What future steps will I (someone with fast computer / fast internet) need to take in order to keep running a full node? I guess I could cross my fingers and hope my ISP (which has zero competition in my area) to just pump up my bandwidth for no additional cost. I could continue to gimp my node when I know the network would happily accept more data from me. Or, should I just give up on running a full node? I know someone that turns on his full node like once a week, just to download the lastest blocks and then turns it off again, so that when he makes a TX it doesn't take him long to sync up first. is this node useful? should ALL users be asked to run a full node?
I haven't done a Bitcoin transaction in over 2 years. Yet, I have multiple full nodes with damn near 100% up time. Maybe I'm the sucker for continuing to bother. If it ends up taking even more resources, I may simply have to stop. |
|
|
|
Well I have an average connection for Europe and i could easily support two gigabyte blocks from home, eight megabyte blocks would not be a problem at all. This person in Florida needs to either get a new internet provider or update his client by the sounds of it. lol
Did you read my posts in this thread? I've had to drastically reduce the connectivity of my full node (latest Core release) running on it's own dedicated hardware (modern quad-core CPU, 16GB RAM, SSD) in order to keep the home network functional for other daily use demands. My node will happily eat as much upload speed as I give it and I have top 10% home internet speeds (probably better). It can bring simple web surfing to a standstill if I let it. Nodes don't just accept blocks. Most of my bandwidth use is on the upload side (sharing data with other peers)! Larger blocks will obviously have a direct impact on the amount of data shared. Do you run a node or are you just guessing? |
|
|
|
it would not make sense to use the worst possible examples as our baseline.
That baseline doesn't make sense if your goal is to optimize tx per second. But why bother, when Visa/Paypal/Square can do that already very well. OTOH, if you GAF about survivability of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, you plan for the worst (and hope for the best). Gavin wants to plan according to some rosy vision of the future, where the economy is all fine and dandy thanks to Helicopter Ben printing endless FunBux. I want Bitcoin to survive World War Three (working subtitle 'Requiem for the Petrodollar'). That's not going to happen if Bitcoin lives in first strike targets like Google.mil datacenters. World War Three? Are you dreaming? Einstein knew a long time ago that a World War Three would be the last one. World War Three is a perpetual state of war. Much of the world is already there and has been for some time. |
|
|
|
is it normal bitcoin-qt is eating up like 90% of my CPU?
While syncing the chain, yes. |
|
|
|
but i have a hard time believing downloading ~1MB about every 10mins is making your internet notably slower. It isn't that simple Adam. I'm supposed to share this information (along with the rest of the block chain) with my peers. That's the point of the peer to peer network. With default settings my node sends (not even including data received) hundreds of gigabytes per month. I have to limit connections to less than a fifth of default to keep my internet functioning at a point where no one in the household complains. Again, I have modern computers with multi core processors and top tier home internet speeds. Maybe I'm just unlucky and someone out there is using my node to re-download the entire chain every other day! Let's see some improvements in QoS (in the Bitcoin software itself) without me needing to be a network admin before we just takes the training wheels off, ehh? maybe i should fire up Bitcoin0.11.0 and see how it feels these days.
Run it for just a month with near 100% uptime, then get back to me. |
|
|
|
jgarzik suggests in his talk that Fidelity investment company has a beta bitcoin project which it is cannot turn on, because it would "max out" bitcoin capacity and future capacity growth is unknown
Bitcoin is not a service layer for Fidelity investment's purposes. If they need that much data, they can run their proper altcoin or use upper-layer-Bitcoin-technologies. It's sickening to read all the FUD that is posted by altcoiners referring to an urgency to raise blocks. People who fall for this propaganda mostly don't understand, that block size increases do not solve Bitcoin's scaling problem. To scale Bitcoin, additional solutions like sidechains are needed. These are being developed right now. Giving up decentralization for a quick buck will kill Bitcoin. ya.ya.yo! That's because you have the false premise that bigger blocks = centralization. This is only true if you think the free market doesn't work and can't come up with capacity solutions. it almost make 0 sense when talking about 8MB blocks, NO ONE not even china will have a problem downloading 8 retarted MegaBytes. i've fucking had it with these smallblockist nonsense arguments Do those of you arguing for a removal (or increase in size) of the 1 mb anti-spam limit even run a full node? (Adam, it's pretty clear from your comments that you most certainly do not.) Has the spam problem been solved? Including all the spam in the permanent record that we (those of us who care about decentralization) all have to maintain forever isn't a solution. I've been running a full node for several years now. I used to argue how easy it was. It used to be something I was comfortable doing with my daily use computer. At some point, I had to switch to dedicated hardware because of the resources the software was using. Then I had to limit the maximum amount of connections to my node because it was eating so much bandwidth that I couldn't even surf the web properly (hundreds of gigabytes per month). I have modern computers with lots of RAM and fast SSDs. My internet speeds are some of the fastest available for home users. Yet, running a Bitcoin node is no longer something I would consider "easy". This is all with the 1mb anti-spam measure in place! Are you seriously going to try and convince me that an 8x increase in block size limit is no big deal? I'm sure if you build it, they will come. If the limit is increased, transactions will increase (that's what this thread is suggesting after all). More transactions and larger blocks will significantly affect how easy (or difficult) it is to run a full node. I'm a Bitcoin enthusiast. I've been somewhat of a Bitcoin cheerleader for years now. I'm certain that if we simply increase the amount of information that needs to be shared on the p2p network, I will no longer be able to effectively run a full node. If a Bitcoin enthusiast like myself is questioning my ability to effectively run a full node in the face of increasing block sizes, you can bet your ass that is going to have an impact on decentralization. You can go ahead and call that nonsense if you want. |
|
|
|
|
Company X has plan B and we need to modify the current consensus rules in order to accommodate them! What could go wrong?
|
|
|
|
For some of the people supporting this and based on what they have said before, can you see the hypocrisy in what they are doing here?
Bad: Client tells individual which information will be shared with whom.
Good: Individual tells client which information will be shared with whom.
Let's not be intentionally obtuse and conflate the two.
|
|
|
|
|
If we are talking about digital storage, you could use M-DISC.
|
|
|
|
What happen if bitcoin will stick to 1mb blocks?
blocks will start to become filled constantly, fee's will go up, micro transactions will be forced of-chain ( or to complex to really be worth doing ) small transactions (<100$) will be more costly, might get to the point where fees are not competitive ( people start using paypal or the likes to move money more efficiently), suddenly buying everyday things with bitcoins becomes a funny idea, Bitpay will go out of businesses, seeing how a large % of speculation was speculating bitcoin would one day become a use able currency its value will implode, bitcoin will revert to its 2012 state / value, and then its downhill from there as ETH accidentally becomes a better form of currency without silly blocklimit debates stopping there scaling toward world domination.
Yes, because everyone knows that censorship-proof money has no value unless you can buy candy bars with it. |
|
|
|
|
People who don't pay tiny transaction fees won't get their transactions included in blocks.
|
|
|
|
May I ask where you stand on the underlying issue of what Bitcoin's design goal should be? Do you have an opinion on whether it (on-chain transactions) should be an expensive-to-use settlement network or a cheap-to-use payment network? Personally I feel the latter case - direct mass adoption - would be better if it can be technically supported, which I'm not sure about. If mass adoption is not possible I'm left doubting a settlement network alone is viable. That's my current feel on the matter, I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Whatever path Bitcoin takes, it would be best for everyone if it remains a "censorship-proof" value transfer mechanism. Anything it can do on top of that is icing on the cake. All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile. Bitcoin transactions, by their nature, are more valuable than VISA or PayPal transactions, so they should cost more. Most "bitcoiners" (including myself) have been spoiled by the early days of high block subsidy, low cost transactions. Ultimately, you get what you pay for, and at some point we need to start paying for the utility that Bitcoin provides. I would prefer we pay directly so we know what we are getting. If Bitcoin can scale while preserving it's ability to provide censorship-proof transactions, fantastic. Part of that promise is in the ability to easily share information between peers. It seems obvious to me that the more information shared, the more difficult it becomes. There are plenty of complaints about the size of the block chain already. I'm not sure if taking off the training wheels is appropriate until we better know what the repercussions will be. We should be prepared for a future where information becomes more difficult to share. This is the future where Bitcoin's utility value will increase and we should make sure that it can reliably function in such a future. |
|
|
|
By letting the market simply choose the implementation it wants?
How does the market choose? The way Mike and Gavin did it? They just drop a choice and people went all over the top... Individuals pointing out poor choices is part of the process of "the market", is it not? |
|
|
|
By letting the market simply choose the implementation it wants?
How does the market choose? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
