Do you know what a third-party is?
Yes I do, and you quoted what I said out of context. I said that some SPV wallets can connect to full nodes which can be put up by anyone in a decentralized fashion. I also argued that relying on layer two protocols would translate into much greater reliance on third parties especially with increased adoption and limited blocksize space. SPV wallets connecting to full nodes = third party risk. no amount of spinning can get you out of this. Layer two protocols like Lightning rely on no third-party custody therefore you don't have to trust anyone with you money to use them. Layer two protocols are third parties as well. Not being able to practically transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly because of it becoming prohibitively expensive after increased adoption would translate into a much greater reliance on third parties, compared to SPV wallets. I am not spinning anything since I never claimed that SPV wallets do not rely on third parties at all, even if it is decentralized in its execution. Using a SPV wallet does not necessarily mean relying on a third party since some SPV wallets can connect to full nodes
 You realize you are doing it again right, you are quoting me out of context. Since in the next sentence I clearly say that: "Having to use a layer two protocol however would translate into much greater reliance on third parties especially with increased adoption and limited blocksize space." The emboldened part of the text implies the acknolegement that SPV wallets do also partially relly on third parties, in the same way that a layer two protocol would as well. Unfortunately that is wrong. Forcing SPV dependence by making full nodes too expensive for regular people to run is much worst than having them use an open payment protocol that cannot steal or censor their funds for casual transactions Another straw man argument, I have never said that people will be forced to use SPV wallets because full nodes will become to expensive, actually I have stated the opposite of this. People will still be able to run full nodes from home even with eight megabyte blocks. Do you have scientific data to prove this? Consider this from Patrick Stateman this weekend: Assuming yearly 20% increase blockchain size & 10% reduction in bandwidth costs, after 15-20 years no new nodes can enter system except maybe huge datacenter operations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=7331Wouldn't have guessed this heh? |
|
|
|
Do you know what a third-party is?
Yes I do, and you quoted what I said out of context. I said that some SPV wallets can connect to full nodes which can be put up by anyone in a decentralized fashion. I also argued that relying on layer two protocols would translate into much greater reliance on third parties especially with increased adoption and limited blocksize space. SPV wallets connecting to full nodes = third party risk. no amount of spinning can get you out of this. Layer two protocols like Lightning rely on no third-party custody therefore you don't have to trust anyone with you money to use them. Layer two protocols are third parties as well. Not being able to practically transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly because of it becoming prohibitively expensive after increased adoption would translate into a much greater reliance on third parties, compared to SPV wallets. I am not spinning anything since I never claimed that SPV wallets do not rely on third parties at all, even if it is decentralized in its execution. Using a SPV wallet does not necessarily mean relying on a third party since some SPV wallets can connect to full nodes
You realize you are doing it again right, you are quoting me out of context. Since in the next sentence I clearly say that: "Having to use a layer two protocol however would translate into much greater reliance on third parties especially with increased adoption and limited blocksize space." The emboldened part of the text implies the acknolegement that SPV wallets do also partially relly on third parties, in the same way that a layer two protocol would as well. Unfortunately that is wrong. Forcing SPV dependence by making full nodes too expensive for regular people to run is much worst than having them use an open payment protocol that cannot steal or censor their funds for casual transactions |
|
|
|
Again, this video is just BitcoinXT in different clothes. The problem is easily solved by the very thing that freaks the fat guy in the video out - fees. You pay a higher fee (3 cents?) you get your transaction processed faster. You pay no fee you might have to wait 30 minutes to 3 hours.
For instance, if I'm sending 0.4btc to my mother in the deepest darkest jungles of africa I don't care if it takes 3 hours to confirm. I send with no fee and volia. I'm happy. She gets her coins. She pays the local warlord 0.1 btc for security.
Now, say I'm sitting at a register and I need to have a fast transaction. I pay 0.02 btc for a sandwich. The merchant takes my 0.02 btc, allows 3 cents USD for the fee so he knows he's paid almost immediately, and I leave with a full belly.
You guys keep thinking that 1 btc should equal $300 forever, but that's ridiculous. The currency will be worth more due to inflation. And as fees rise you'll pay $0.50 USD for an ultra fast transaction, but it will never be more than the MARKET can bear. It's the way markets work.
Quit monkeying with the system and crying doom and gloom. Bitcoin is great. Use it and enjoy yourself.
Have none of you guys studied fiat currency? You're setting a very bad precedent and making bitcoin seem unstable, killing the likelyhood of more adoption by the masses.
Edit: Going slowly through the video segment this guy seems to think that charity and goodwill will carry the mining community, but that's insane. Would you work all day for free hoping someone would slip a nickle your way?
This. Let a fee market develop is the way to go vs ruining decentralized nodes. If you want a better service pay more for it. It's still free goddammit, if you want to do it for free then wait your ass until the transaction gets confirmed or pay a smaller fee if anything. Bitcoin will eventually be valuable as hell because it only gets more scarce with time. No one is going to keep the mining process going without incentives so the fee market is the way to solve this. if you want fees provide 25BTC and you limit the number of TX to 1000 ~1MB's worth your looking at like 5$ fee pre transaction Bitcoins Value in the future is not guaranteed, it must still compete with other cryptocurrencies, crippling the transaction limit will not allow Bitcoin to effectively compete. Also having a higher volume at a lower price would be better then having a lower volume at a higher price. Bitcoin never competed on the basis of MOAR transactions else it would have lost long time ago. |
|
|
|
I've always been certain Szabo is Satoshi but even more convinced after hearing the pod-cast. He seems to go out of his way to refer to Satoshi in the third person. Also the fact that no-one really knows much about Szabo shows that here is an individual who is very careful about protecting his identity. I think also that Andreas knows that he is Satoshi - he's almost referential is his questions to Szabo.
Well..no. Satoshi's white paper propose a solution for small casual transaction, just read his introduction. If Szabo is Satoshi then he changed his mind. Yeah, I thought this was interesting too. I tend to fall in the Szabo is Satoshi camp but Szabo is really clear lately that a main goal wasn't small transactions which seems to be at odds with Satoshi's vision. So I agree he would have had to change his mind. Another possibilty could be Satoshi was Szabo and several other people, and the others disagreed on that point.  Satoshi also mentions payment channels which are an integral part of Bitcoin. It's quite obvious the Bitcoin blockchain is not ideal nor desired for small casual transactions |
|
|
|
Do you know what a third-party is?
Yes I do, and you quoted what I said out of context. I said that some SPV wallets can connect to full nodes which can be put up by anyone in a decentralized fashion. I also argued that relying on layer two protocols would translate into much greater reliance on third parties especially with increased adoption and limited blocksize space. SPV wallets connecting to full nodes = third party risk. no amount of spinning can get you out of this. Layer two protocols like Lightning rely on no third-party custody therefore you don't have to trust anyone with you money to use them. |
|
|
|
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.
How long would it take to transmit a 10mb block across the network? It can't be more than a few seconds. Besides, this debate about block size should be settled now. Sooner is better than later.
No, just no. If you really believe so it shows how very little you understand how Bitcoin works. Well-known cryptographer and digital currency veteran Nick Szabo explained:
So a 1MB block takes vastly more resources than a 1MB web page, for example, because it has to be transmitted, processed and stored with such high redundancy for Bitcoin to achieve its automated integrity. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21919/decentralist-perspective-bitcoin-might-need-small-blocks/ |
|
|
|
A few more thoughts on the matter...
Internet has multiple levels of bandwidth (from home-based ADSL copper lines to fiber-optics under the ocean). The idea of Bitcoin (as a decentralized consensus system with open-source protocol rules) can therefore exist on any such level, but arguably only one at a time!
As systems like these cannot be established centrally and instead emerge and grow slowly as grass roots movements, they cannot begin to occupy a higher level of bandwidth before saturating the previous one. In principle, however, nothing should stop the idea to keep propagating itself onto the higher and higher levels (with different degrees of decentralization though).
As recent discussions show, Bitcoin seems to have saturated the level of home-based internet infrastructure and is being asked the question: "move up or stay?". That's a tough one to answer, because competitors are nowhere close and there is no one to ask an advise from. It's an uncharted territory.
What if consensus rules can be protected by means other than a sheer quantity of full nodes? What if we can bake them into Bitcoin's brand itself, with a pre-defined (4-year) schedule to revise and adjust them? We can then have multiple large full nodes in the system (like various block explorers today) which would provide a web interface for studying and inspecting every aspect of the blockchain without the necessity to run it at home. Any deviation from the consensus will be quickly noticed and the public will be alerted about the nodes and services that decided to deviate from it. The system would still remain perfectly transparent.
Now, if Bitcoin decides to increase its block size cap (and it seems like many in the community want to do it in one way or another), I still wouldn't aim higher than 8MB (or 2-4-8 if that fits better) just to make sure that transition onto the next level is smooth and clean (even if that means that home-based nodes will eventually be pushed out). This approach still requires active (big) players to regularly and consistently agree on the protocol rules and have enough patience and respect for each other to freeze and bake those rules into Bitcoin's brand for at least a period of 4 years (after which they will be revised again).
If Bitcoin decides to stay (at home), it will allow competitors to catch up (bandwidth-wise) and eventually one of them will move forward.
Eight megabyte blocks for example would not effect most people running full nodes. Bandwidth wise this is not an issue for most people, since block propagation is only critical for miners, and since home miners connect to pools and do not even run their own full node for mining this again does not effect them. Therefore eight megabyte blocks does not represent a departure from home-based internet infrastructure. We have posters here from China who's full node can barely keep up under 1 MB limit. |
|
|
|
A few more thoughts on the matter...
Internet has multiple levels of bandwidth (from home-based ADSL copper lines to fiber-optics under the ocean). The idea of Bitcoin (as a decentralized consensus system with open-source protocol rules) can therefore exist on any such level, but arguably only one at a time!
As systems like these cannot be established centrally and instead emerge and grow slowly as grass roots movements, they cannot begin to occupy a higher level of bandwidth before saturating the previous one. In principle, however, nothing should stop the idea to keep propagating itself onto the higher and higher levels (with different degrees of decentralization though).
As recent discussions show, Bitcoin seems to have saturated the level of home-based internet infrastructure and is being asked the question: "move up or stay?". That's a tough one to answer, because competitors are nowhere close and there is no one to ask an advise from. It's an uncharted territory.
What if consensus rules can be protected by means other than a sheer quantity of full nodes? What if we can bake them into Bitcoin's brand itself, with a pre-defined (4-year) schedule to revise and adjust them? We can then have multiple large full nodes in the system (like various block explorers today) which would provide a web interface for studying and inspecting every aspect of the blockchain without the necessity to run it at home. Any deviation from the consensus will be quickly noticed and the public will be alerted about the nodes and services that decided to deviate from it. The system would still remain perfectly transparent.
Now, if Bitcoin decides to increase its block size cap (and it seems like many in the community want to do it in one way or another), I still wouldn't aim higher than 8MB (or 2-4-8 if that fits better) just to make sure that transition onto the next level is smooth and clean (even if that means that home-based nodes will eventually be pushed out). This approach still requires active (big) players to regularly and consistently agree on the protocol rules and have enough patience and respect for each other to freeze and bake those rules into Bitcoin's brand for at least a period of 4 years (after which they will be revised again).
If Bitcoin decides to stay (at home), it will allow competitors to catch up (bandwidth-wise) and eventually one of them will move forward.
Such "fraud proofs" do not exist right now. You're asking us to trust corporations with the maintenance of the network!? You know a "block explorer" can be cheated right? Remember when Blockchain.info's block explorer showed that Satoshi had spent his bitcoins? |
|
|
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized  If Ferrari were nodes, Bitcoin would be centralized across a small % of a very wealthy elite, we already got fiat for that. With Bitcoin we want any regular joe to be able to run a node, this can't never be compromised. there's a difference between decentralized and distributed... regular joe, doesn't necessarily have to run a node to keep bitcoin decentralized. Regular joe cannot use Bitcoin as a peer and therefore without counterparty risk if he cannot run a node. does that necessarily mean the bitcoin network is not Decentralized? NO. if you think joe is interested in running a full node because he fears counterparty risk you don't know joe.
Good, then what problem is there with having him transact on layer 2 protocols and not directly on the blockchain? That said, Bitcoin being decentralized also mean regular joe needs to have easy access to running a node if they chose so. No. Joe needs to have an easy access to the blockchain and running a node is irrelevant for him. One does not truly access the blockchan without running a full node. Any other scenario involves reliance on a third party. Do you understand what a peer-to-peer network is? since some SPV wallets can connect to full nodes Do you know what a third-party is? |
|
|
|
One does not truly access the blockchan without running a full node. Any other scenario involves reliance on a third party.
Do you understand what a peer-to-peer network is?
whats wrong with having a dumb peer that can't validate blocks and can only push TX's. dumb peer-to-peer network  What's wrong? It can be cheated. You do understand the security implications of relying on SPV do you? |
|
|
|
Miners are not a group and they do not act as one. They have different resources and profit margins therefore the biggest and most connected ones will be benefit from larger blocks which will eventually drive smaller miners out of the picture.
I guess you can deduct what this leads to...
Hmm.. I see. No solutions ? Even crazy ones ? 1)Would it work if some other group could choose the size ? Not the miners, say the stake holders ? Maybe using some POS mechanism. 2) Could we make it so that Blocksize does not matter to the miners.. ? They only really care about the header anyway, that's the bit they crunch. Isn't there some idea to disperse the headers, in some clever cryptographic way, before the blocks ? That way everyone still gets it in a timely manner. What happens when the blockchain reaches 100 000 Terra bytes?
What then op?
There are various ideas floating around about block chain compression. If all of those were implemented, I think you could come up with a much more compact representation. I agree that Bitcoin could get pretty big though.. 1) Yes, it does work and that is done by the consensus of peers in the system determining the block size based on cost to become and remain a peer. 2) There is already work being done in this regard but this does not address the need for miners to validate content of their block. It is not exactly true that they only care about the header. If they mine non-standard transactions they risk getting forked off. |
|
|
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized If Ferrari were nodes, Bitcoin would be centralized across a small % of a very wealthy elite, we already got fiat for that. With Bitcoin we want any regular joe to be able to run a node, this can't never be compromised. there's a difference between decentralized and distributed...  regular joe, doesn't necessarily have to run a node to keep bitcoin decentralized. Regular joe cannot use Bitcoin as a peer and therefore without counterparty risk if he cannot run a node. does that necessarily mean the bitcoin network is not Decentralized? NO. if you think joe is interested in running a full node because he fears counterparty risk you don't know joe.
Good, then what problem is there with having him transact on layer 2 protocols and not directly on the blockchain? That said, Bitcoin being decentralized also mean regular joe needs to have easy access to running a node if they chose so. No. Joe needs to have an easy access to the blockchain and running a node is irrelevant for him. One does not truly access the blockchan without running a full node. Any other scenario involves reliance on a third party. Do you understand what a peer-to-peer network is? |
|
|
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized If Ferrari were nodes, Bitcoin would be centralized across a small % of a very wealthy elite, we already got fiat for that. With Bitcoin we want any regular joe to be able to run a node, this can't never be compromised. there's a difference between decentralized and distributed... regular joe, doesn't necessarily have to run a node to keep bitcoin decentralized. Regular joe cannot use Bitcoin as a peer and therefore without counterparty risk if he cannot run a node. does that necessarily mean the bitcoin network is not Decentralized? NO. if you think joe is interested in running a full node because he fears counterparty risk you don't know joe.
Good, then what problem is there with having him transact on layer 2 protocols and not directly on the blockchain? That said, Bitcoin being decentralized also mean regular joe needs to have easy access to running a node if they chose so. |
|
|
|
Can you 2 stop flirting please.
As to having NO Block Size Limit.
I also think that having a limit 'hard' coded is not the answer.
Yes there will be a limit per block. But that size needs to be determined by the miners. In some fashion.. Soft-limit.
It needs to be able to grow/shrink. It needs to move with the pressures of a real life functioning system.
The System for correctly incentivising the miners has yet to appear though it seems..
For instance :
Let's say the miners were allowed to change the block size by, as a hypothetical, up to 50% a year, based on miner hash power votes etc .. and no limit set on how large the blocks can go.
If a miner tries to make the blocks too large won't the other miners simply not mine on that chain? Or the block might propagate more slowly and simply miss out. Yes you can do what you like with 51% but then again you always could.
So then the majority of the miners could be sure that the block size would not tax their current internet speeds and hard drives, until they ARE ready for it of course. Then, game on.
If there is demand for block size change they can decide if it is worth it and choose what to do.
Let's leave them to sort it out.
Is there an issue with this ?
If so, what is it and can we fix it ?
Miners are not a group and they do not act as one. They have different resources and profit margins therefore the biggest and most connected ones will be benefit from larger blocks which will eventually drive smaller miners out of the picture. I guess you can deduct what this leads to... |
|
|
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized If Ferrari were nodes, Bitcoin would be centralized across a small % of a very wealthy elite, we already got fiat for that. With Bitcoin we want any regular joe to be able to run a node, this can't never be compromised. there's a difference between decentralized and distributed... regular joe, doesn't necessarily have to run a node to keep bitcoin decentralized. Regular joe cannot use Bitcoin as a peer and therefore without counterparty risk if he cannot run a node. |
|
|
|
1. "Not based on trust" Then what is it? Magic? Bitcoin = money. Money = trust. Seems pretty fundamental to me.
It is based in Proof of Work. Maybe you have heard about that. I wanted to comment on the other things, but you are just throwing around words, without meaning and I have better things to do ... There are thousands of coins based on proof of work. Surely there is something special about Bitcoin? There are millions of unsuccessful open source projects which are very similar to successful open source projects. And again, nothing special in Bitcoin World. You didn't answer the question. Why did Bitcoin succeed and other POW coins failed? Bitcoin succeed because it has the best developers, the most money invest, the biggest network. It's as simple as that but some people seem to not get it, they think because anyone can fork Bitcoin Bitcoin isn't special or something. Bitcoin attracted the best developers, the most money and the biggest network because people increasingly trusted it with their wealth. Bitcoin is money. Money grows with trust. It's really not all that complicated. |
|
|
|
nothing, i just hope consensus don't follow something worse, like the whole route that give advantage to miners by increasing fees and shit like that
i'm all for dynamic TX limit, which is bip106 apaprently
There will be more than one design for dynamic limits, I think 106 is the first into the BIP repo though. You could argue BIP100 is dynamic... but voting system is a more apt name for it, which I think was how Garzik described it. The feeling I got from the conference and overhearing a couple discussion is the trend is tending toward a very conservative increase to provide necessary time to develop necessary layers to scale. It's quite clear to me a majority of the focus shifted from the block size as any type of scaling solution to more realist and sensible proposals like different implementations of open payment protocols. |
|
|
|
The problem with Peter's paper is quite simple: it ignores reality. It is quite representative of traditional economist failures trying to paint real world issues in a vacuum relying on a bunch of spherical cows. btg444 I'm very much of the opposite opinion of pretty much everything you posted in the last Week or so. In this case also: I found Peters presentation pretty thought provoking. One NEEDS to undestand that this is at first a hypothesis which needs to be empirically tested, but its actually marvelous to try to develop models and maybe later test them instead of just screaming "centralization" and we all go under.... EDIT: and P.S. i find your way how you conduct yourself in this forum pretty annoying. Just because theymos gave you 1 free ticket to the "Show" (vor which no one else applied) doesn't at all mean you are somewhat of larger importance. After theymos gave you the ticket, how conducted yourself in the forum, i felt ashamed what a poor low life your are that is now feeling so important and you would be totally O.K. with censoring peoples opinions. You are beeing really aggressive to people that have a different opinion, putting people all the time in boxes, and fostering a hostile atmosphere. You scream a lot "liar, liar" and in the end it turns out you didn't understand something right... And your thoughts about that the blockchain belongs to the 1% and the rest can go cry as much as they want i found pretty disgusting to be honest. That is totally not the spirit of bitcoin maybe you can join Fox news with your attitude... you would fit in there... Models need to be based on real world dynamics. Yours and Peter's ignore those therefore they are of little use to help use make decisions going forward. As for the rest of your post: I couldn't care less |
|
|
|
No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.
Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.
Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.
Then, the limit can be removed.
I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want. i think we need to 1) improve block propagation / the network's topology 2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks 3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure. Block size limit is about making certain attacks impossible. You don't even understand how Bitcoin works Adam why should we consider your opinion? everyone hates you and with good reasons. yes you are right Block size limit is making alot of these possible attacks impossible. but it's a very indirect way of dealing with these possible attacks. a few well designed rules can rule out these attacks MORE effectively. Yes all the trolls hate me because I call them out on their BS. Surprisingly I was getting along fine with most of the smart people at the conference this weekend. Still, your opinion of me doesn't change the fact that technically you are completely lost as to how Bitcoin operates and therefore your opinion should not be considered. Sorry if that hurts your feelings  your one arrogant son of a bitch. What I find arrogance is your insistence on forcing your ignorance on people. |
|
|
|
1. "Not based on trust" Then what is it? Magic? Bitcoin = money. Money = trust. Seems pretty fundamental to me.
It is based in Proof of Work. Maybe you have heard about that. I wanted to comment on the other things, but you are just throwing around words, without meaning and I have better things to do ... There are thousands of coins based on proof of work. Surely there is something special about Bitcoin? There are millions of unsuccessful open source projects which are very similar to successful open source projects. And again, nothing special in Bitcoin World. You didn't answer the question. Why did Bitcoin succeed and other POW coins failed? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
