Bitcoin Forum
May 30, 2015, 06:23:13 AM *
News: Change your password!
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 59 »
41  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE on: June 04, 2013, 05:28:58 AM
My point is that the same argument applies to Open-Transactions, or any other known distributed money system.

While Bitcoin was small, a low-importance transactions were fine, as the entire network size was small.  However as the network increases in size, so must the 'importance' of the transactions.  Otherwise it becomes disappointingly costly to maintain the network -> thus, creating great economic incentives to centralize the network.

If, for example, fees are LINEARLY related to Network-Size, then the cost of maintaining the network will be LINEAR * LOG (number of unspent outputs).  Or just LINERAR, if you have an unlimited amount of random access storage (eg. RAM).  This is a sustainable proposition. (The fees will pay for the cost of running a node).

The position argued, by some, is that the cost to make a transaction on the Bitcoin network should be CONSTANT.  This means that the cost to run a node on the network (while maintaining the same quality of decentralization); will be increasing faster than the amount of fees, per node.  -> Thus creating an economic situation, where either:  Nodes are subsidized, or the ratio or full nodes vs. uses goes down.

I, personalty, value a very decentralized and non subsidized processing network of Bitcoin full-nodes, more than the utility advantage of having low importance transactions.
42  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE on: June 04, 2013, 04:28:55 AM
The cost of checking any one transaction is:
O (number of full nodes) * (cost of checking a transaction).

There is no protocol reason why more than 1 full node needs to be running. If there are N full nodes, it is because N-1 people decided it was a worthwhile investment of their time and resources to do so. Open-Transactions runs with a single validating node, the server. But audit information is (in theory) available so anyone can check that the server isn't lying. And if they were to do so for all transactions processed by the server, then it would incur the same overhead. Now typically in Open-Transactions one only verifies their own receipts, but the same could be said for SPV/SPV+ clients.

This conceptual argument I take issue with:

... There is no protocol reason why more than 1 full node needs to be running...

The very security model of Bitcoin requires there be multitude of full nodes, unless, if there was only one full-node, then non-bitcoin transactions could be possibly slipped in (unaware to SPV nodes).

For the current standard of decentralization to hold, we need a constant ratio of full nodes vs users.  Having only a few full nodes is a very much a higher-trust security model than what the Bitcoin Network currently provides.

People who advocate a high tpc, must necessarily, advocate a more centralized full-node processing network.  (Because of the QUADRATIC cost of maintaining the decentralization).
43  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Open Transactions (Windows Builds) - v0.89.a on: June 04, 2013, 02:41:04 AM
Update to version v0.89.a  Grin


Update to Version 0.89.f  Cool
44  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE on: June 04, 2013, 12:41:40 AM
These are just variables. Variables can be changed.

But the CORE Bitcoin protocol allows ANY number of transactions per second. The only REAL limitation is the speed of the internet connection and TFLOPS of processing power.

So why the hell people keep shouting "Bitcoin is not designed for microtransactions" ? This is just a big piece of Über-Bullshit.

While there are some elements of Bitcoin that may be used for microtransactions; I do not believe that it is rational to suggest that Bitcoin-itself is designed for microtransactions.
It comes down to maths.

The cost to check the inputs of a transaction is:
O log(total number of unspent outputs).

The cost of checking any one transaction is:
O (number of full nodes) * (cost of checking a transaction).

The cost of growing the network with a constant number of transactions per user is:
O (number of users) * (cost of the network checking the transaction)

For a constant ratio between users and, full nodes (so we can maintain the decentralization of the network). It can be shown that:
The cost of verifying the Bitcoin Network of any given network size (number of users), for a constant number of transactions and full verifying nodes per user is: QUADRATIC.

or

Cost of Verifying the Transactions of the Bitcoin network = O (network size in users)^2 * log(number of unspent outputs)
Where we assume: Constant number of transactions per user, and a constant ratio of users and full verifying nodes.

This is why I will re-iterate, that Bitcoin was NOT designed for large-scale microtransactions.


EDIT: fixed, from CUBIC to QUADRATIC. (thanks amiller).
45  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE on: June 03, 2013, 08:11:15 AM
If 99% of the transactions I want to do are priced away from the blockchain by high fees, then I certainly will be switching off my node rather than leaving it running to support fat-cat banksters who are monopolizing the blockchain.

I suggest that if it was 700tps running a full node would be prohibitively expensive, and commonly, only fat-cat banksters would run them.
46  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE on: June 03, 2013, 08:08:26 AM
If those merge mined chains, and the off-chain transaction systems such as the ones you develop, really are valuable on their own merits then users will happily adopt them no matter how many transactions per second the Bitcoin network is capable of processing.

I think that you miss the point, if you are having small transactions, they SHOULD NOT be audited by everyone in the world (or at least those who use Bitcoin).  The time-importance of small transactions is much lower than of high-powered-money transactions.

For-example, I could make a merge-mined chain that works like Bitcoin, where the value of any coins older 6 weeks is halved. (and forgotten once they get smaller than the smaller unit).  New miners would sell these coins, and people could trade over medium time periods.  (purchasing and selling this temporary currency for bitcoin).  However this is just one option that I made up then.  There is a multitude of possible merge-mined coins that could be developed.

However the key point, is that the whole world should not care about my transaction of going to the corner store and buying a coke.  Only transactions that are significant for everyone should be audited by everyone.  7tps seems like a good rate.

Open Transactions is valuable on its own merits, right? It's not that the only way you'll ever get a significant user base is if Bitcoin is artificially limited to a cripplingly low transaction rate, is it?

Open Transactions works completely differently to Bitcoin, they are in-fact extremely complementary.  They solve different problems.  Bitcoin solves the 'low-trust, everyone audits, value transfer.'  Open Transaction solves the problem 'anything that is related to something in the world should be able to be traded'.
47  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE on: June 03, 2013, 06:39:16 AM
If Bitcoin becomes popular, then people will not mind paying eqv. $100 in fees for buying a house.  When a house is 0.01 BTC.

7tpc is enough.  Let Bitcoin be the high-powered-money.  Not play money that you use at the corner store.

We can create any number of merge-mined chains for any number of other transactions.  These chains can be optimized for the particular purpose that they fulfill.  They can even be dominated in BTC (with clever escrow-bitcoin-look-up).


I for one would love to only have 7tpc. This would mean that it would be easy for everyone to audit the high powered money.  (we would know what the bankers are doing with our cash).  In-fact in 10 years, my mobile phone may be able to audit the entire chain. (with some dedicated cypto hardware).


On another note, merge-mined chains that fulfill other purposes will make the main Bitcoin chain more secure. So it is a win-win.
48  Bitcoin / Press / Re: story involving profit and poverty on: June 03, 2013, 06:19:04 AM
DATE, TITLE
49  Bitcoin / Press / Re: bitcoin is now more powerful than top 500 supercomputers, combined. on: June 02, 2013, 12:34:56 PM
DATE TITLE  Shocked Shocked Shocked
50  Bitcoin / MultiBit / Re: Release information on: May 28, 2013, 01:01:28 PM
There is a new live MultiBit release at:

https://multibit.org
Version 0.5.10

Since this release contains code that I have written.
I have done only casual checking, other than verifying Jim's pgp signatures for the files.

Code:
SHA256(multibit-0.5.10-linux.jar)= 4b9593444abe96c8e777bddc85227b26685c2fb6dd3ce7a6db856d61a78e059a
SHA256(multibit-0.5.10-windows.exe)= 15817c0b10cd60e39dcc8aee31db0b03b5a2aafd8337578e3f381bad5c0e4937
SHA256(multibit-0.5.10.dmg)= 133b504295be167ce41476cb2d6c21b219fbe786fa97d08ce2c6e5dee30bafbe
SHA256(multibit-exe.jar)= ce4c8248fda31a466c5c7af23537f324ee162fef63328cc79a0a08bfefc9f91e
SHA256(multibit.exe)= 5123099005ebb9bfbd5329a9867cf3da1e498eea50fb341e60e6f4d5ac8cc2fd


Code:
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (MingW32)
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=dIYL
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----


Edit:  Jim, can you please push your master branch, I would like to see if it is possible for me to create identical builds.
51  Other / Meta / Re: 'Open Transactions' subforum in Project Development on: May 26, 2013, 02:09:56 AM
How many new posts are there per day that would fit into this section?  Providing links is a good way to show that a new section is necessary.

I would assume as many as the MultiBit, or Electrum forum.
52  Other / Meta / Re: 'Open Transactions' subforum in Project Development on: May 24, 2013, 08:45:24 AM
Smiley I think that having an Open Transactions sub-forum would be great!

Since the latest post from FellowTraveler: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=212490.0 I think that this topic has become a whole lot more relevant to the Bitcoin community.
53  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Holy Grail! I wish I could kiss the author of Bitmessage on his face. on: May 23, 2013, 05:34:33 AM
It would be really cool if some more people could ACK this proposal in Meta:

'Open Transactions' subforum in Project Development
54  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Open Transactions (Windows Builds) - v0.89.a on: May 12, 2013, 06:08:47 AM
Update to version v0.89.a  Grin
55  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-05-06 Fox Business: Buffet/Gates/Munger on Bitcoin = Rat Poison, Flakey on: May 08, 2013, 05:13:34 AM
Bitcoin kills rats, indeed.

I think that it is a very endearing quality to have.  Rat poison when you have a plague of rats can become quite valuable.
56  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-04-30 ABC Behind the News: Bitcoin (Video) on: April 30, 2013, 09:59:04 AM
BTN is a news show for kids.... getting the next generation used to the idea!  Great idea!

I think that it is great, it is simple enough for mum and dad to understand.
57  Bitcoin / Press / 2013-04-30 ABC Behind the News: Bitcoin (Video) on: April 30, 2013, 01:29:39 AM
Best Video on Bitcoin so far. I think!

http://www.abc.net.au/btn/story/s3744569.htm

 Grin Grin Grin
58  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Open Transactions (Windows Builds) - v0.89.a on: April 29, 2013, 12:29:23 AM
The Builds includes the OT Command Line Prompt:

59  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Open Transactions (Windows Builds) - v0.89.a on: April 28, 2013, 10:51:16 AM
Updated!

New Major Version: v0.89.a

FellowTraveler has been busy!!
Lots of changes, including support for smart contracts!


I've fixed some bugs in the paths code so the script locations are detected more reliably, and some other various bug-fixes.
60  Bitcoin / MultiBit / Re: Fake MultiBit sites and scams appearing. Download only from https://multibit.org on: April 27, 2013, 02:29:08 PM
For my releases of OT for windows; I contained both in my post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77301.0
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 59 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!