The blockchain will continue to grow forever, only the mining reward is decreasing.
Does this means that if no more Bitcoins are generated, the blocks are still created at the same speed (2016/10 min average) and the blockchain still running with the same number of transaction maximum possible / day?
Yes, assuming there aren't any technology (which can solve scaling problem) applied to Bitcoin. Also does this means that Bitcoin can continue to work without miners, just using these blocks automatically generated every 10 min?
No, miners is still needed. Additionally, they still get reward from transaction fee from transaction which included on blocks they mine. Blocks and Bitcoins are not the same thing I understand. Blocks can host transactions, or mining rewards, that are a special kind of transaction. The max number of transaction is constant, but the bitcoin creation is halved every 4 years.
Am I right?
Yes, block can host/store transaction. In fact, all transaction must stored/included in blocks. Yes, block must have coinbase transaction, which is transaction about mining reward for the miner/pool. No, maximum transaction amount on blocks depends on each transaction size. Yes, bitcoin creation mining reward is halved every 4 years. |
|
|
|
You clearly need to learn more about Bitcoin Transaction are stored in a block... but the number of blocks created is lowered every 4 years.
You meant block mining reward, block time interval is still same (even though actually it's 0.6 minutes faster) The number of transactions is increasing because of the popularity of Bitcoin.
How can Bitcoin will scale in the future if the number of blocks are lower, and the number of transactions is increasing, there must be a breaking point where it will not be possible to mine enough to satisfy the incoming number of transactions?
What limits bitcoin scaling is Bitcoin's block size/weight and there's almost no correlation between scaling and mining reward. But there are multiple technology to solve/reduce the problem such as LN and MuSig Schnorr Another question with the same idea, at the early stage of Bitcoin, when there were not enough transactions to fill these blocks, many blocks must have been generated, but empty. Does this mean that a large part of the blockchain is filled by empty blocks or blocks that are not totally used?
Yes, earlier block isn't full, but still used/generated as each block must have at least one transaction (which is coinbase transaction). But no need to worry about this as each block don't reserve 1MB storage space. |
|
|
|
Forgive the noob question, but isn't Bytecode Virtual Machine the most efficient way to process transactions? This is from my CTO's mouth...
And how would i know about "Bytecode Virtual Machine/BVM" (since you're talking about technology for altcoin while this is Bitcoin Development & Technical Discussion section) ? Why don't you share the whitepaper/technical article of this "Bytecode Virtual Machine" since just say "it's the most efficient way to process transactions" doesn't prove anything. Frankly i don't believe it as Bitcoin transaction is very simple and use ECDSA which have fast verification speed, unless this BVM uses cryptography signature which have faster verification time than ECDSA. Bitcoin also use merkle tree for it's block structure which is pretty fast |
|
|
|
|
You don't need university to achieve your goal
But if we were to find bitcoin vulnerability, IMO it's better to check other things (which more likely have vulnerability) such as :
1. CSPRNG used to generate seed
2. OP_CODES script
3. Value overflow/underflow
4. Transaction/script/block verification
|
|
|
|
The technologies mentioned by ETFBitcoin do not decrease the size of the blockchain (not necessary at all).
They decrease the size of a transactions which will result in more transactions being able to fit into one block.
Yes, additionally : 1. Some of it allow shorter signature verification time, while BLS have longer verification time 2. Bellare-Neven and MuSig can be combined with Schnorr Signature for better result (with different method). Currently Bitcoin will use MuSig - Schnorr 3. MAST reduce script size by remove/don't include unused script parts (not compression). Additionally, it improves privacy as not all parts of script (which usually contain public key) must be submitted. Given Bitcoin's current blocksize policy.
I doubt that storage could keep up if Bitcoin were to use, say, 1 GB blocks like some on the extreme end of on-chain scaling have been proposing.
I do agree though that storage is the lesser problem. More acute problems regarding blocksize are bandwidth and network propagation.
Storage speed and RAM usage also important when we're talking about block size/weight scaling. Looking at ETH, HDD isn't fast enough to keep up with all transaction and those who want to run full nodes must use SSD and it's RAM usage is more than average pc/laptop (at least 4GB, depending on client). |
|
|
|
First of all, moderation (or censorship by your definition) bound to happen on centralized forum. There's nothing you could do except move to another forum, use decentralized forum or take over this forum.  https://xkcd.com/1357/
Maybe showing us the posts you claim was deleted would help here
Yes OK --snip-- Does this help Use this link instead https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Anti-Cen |
|
|
|
|
ECDSA/secp256k1 is quantum-resistance as long as it's public key isn't known, which means users should be fine as long as they never re-use their Bitcoin address and Quantum computer isn't fast enough to find out it's private key before the transaction got confirmed/fully propagated to all nodes.
But there are proposal to use cryptographic signature which is quantum resistant, even though AFAIK there's huge trade-off such as far larger signature size and longer verification time.
|
|
|
|
So scaling bitcoin isn't a point of discussion anymore (only for those people, who want to make sure, that the coffee they paid for a dollar is forever visible in a blockchain - for tose people it is better to use bitcoin unlimited, abc or cash chains).
I disagree since off-chain scaling solution such as LN still require on-chain transaction to open and close channel. With current 1MB 4 million weight unit and assuming everyone use LN, it's still not enough when more people uses Bitcoin. But again, there's better alternatives such as compress transaction (such as Schnorr Signature) and increase block weight/size should be considered as one of last solutions. p.s. maybe you were talking about off-chain only, while the linked site only takes into account on-chain.
But are offchain transactions easy to use for non tech savvies ?
Is that solution already implemented?
And if so, post a link thanks
Most off-chain/side-chain solution is still young and barely used, so it's hard to to use at first. But however, i'm sure it's UI/UX would be better in future. For example, using Bitcoin was difficult on earlier stage (2009 - 2012) as there's no friendly mobile/desktop wallet, but now using wallet is far easier. Off-chain scaling solution such as LN already implemented, but it's still far from finished and have some annoying weakness. |
|
|
|
|
That depends whether we're talking about on-chain/off-chain and use SegWit/not. If we're only talking about tx/s on-chain, then it would be :
1. about 7 tx/s if all transaction don't use SegWit
2. between 12-20 tx/s if all transaction use SegWit
But if we're talking about off-chain tx/s, then in theory it's unlimited (ignoring on-chain transaction to open and close channel)
|
|
|
|
If we're talking only about attacking Bitcoin in theory, there are plenty such as : 1. Looking for PRNG/CSPRNG flaw on open-source wallet. It already happens once with Google/Java's PRNG back in 2013 2. Brute-force brain wallet with common words in various language / popular terms 2. Hack multiple pools and perform 51% attack 3. Looking for bug on bitcoin protocol (signature, transaction/blockchain verification, etc.)  I'm sure it's slightly more likely than scenario you mentioned |
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, there are more spammer/spam post than moderators could handle. The only thing you could do is by self-moderate your thread and remove all spam/FUD.
There's solution such as disable signature on "Bitcoin Discussion" or ban all Signature Bounty, but we know that won't happen.
That's why most member don't visit that boards or only participate on/make self-moderated thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin won't face this problem in 2038 as bitcoin use unsigned 32-bit/4-byte int
But i'm not sure if all client or wallet uses same data format or already migrate to longer timestamp format (such as unsigned 64-bit/8-byte int)
|
|
|
|
With rollback you erase a chunk of the history. And yes, that means all the transactions included in that block / those blocks.
Luckily Bitcoin network is strong enough to make 51% attack too expensive to worth it, because the rollback is a nightmare and really nobody would consent to support it.
Actually, AFAIK it happened twice : 1. Value overflow in 2010 where attacker generate 184,467,440,737.09551616 Bitcoin 2. Accidental hard-fork after QT 0.8 release where it has different DB version and not compatible with older version So, if something major like that happen again, rollback might be supported by parts of the community Note that a long range 50%+1 attack is impractical and won't e carried out in real world because the attacker will ruin the coin under consideration by such an attack while spending too much resources (electricity, rents, ...) it turns the whole purpose of the attack to be void.
I agree as it's not impractical, expect it happened once with Bitcoin Gold (a fork of BTC). AFAIK attacker borrow hashrate from various mining rental services such as NiceHash to reverse 22 blocks, which is far higher than average confirmation needed by most merchants/exchange (1-6 confirmation). While it can't happen to Bitcoin as there's no services which could provide hashrate enough to perform 51% attack. All cryptocurrency which it's hashrate is lower than hashrate of mining rental service combined should be very careful. |
|
|
|
Unlike, BCH, the BTC network already has consensus mechanisms in place that they are willing to use in order to ensure the vast majority of the network is on the same page before proceeding. As demonstrated by the UASF, we can also implement ways to ensure the miners can be persuaded to go along with the wishes of the non-mining users. If someone doesn't want to wait for a high consensus in order to implement their "improvements," they are free to go fork off. That's why we already have hundreds of alt coins right now. As I have already acknowledged, the "bigger block" solution probably won't be practical for at least a decade or so. I have also acknowledged that the second layer solution would probably end up being more efficient with the resources. However, it is nice to know that there is a plan "B" to the scaling solution, just in case the problems with the LN cannot be overcome.
Looks like no one remember about transaction compression (reduce transaction size). This is similar scenario with internet scaling in past where people only focus on increasing bandwidth rather than compress the content and compression format such as MP3 solve many problem (including internet scaling a bit). IMO, bitcoin need all of it ( n-layer network, higher block size limit and lower transaction size) to be able to scale without lots of security/decentralization trade-off. |
|
|
|
This has been discussed many times and unfortunately, majority of Bitcoiner would disagree since increasing block size would increase the cost of running full nodes. Split block data to many different nodes type is called Sharding and already proposed many times such as BlockReduce: Scaling Blockchain to human commerceBesides, IMO sharding open lots of attack vector, increase development complexity and requiring more trust. Additionally, LN help bitcoin scaling a lot, even though it's not perfect solution. Those who said that clearly don't understand how LN works and it's potential. Lots of cryptocurrency including Ethereum are preparing 2nd-layer/off-chain as scaling solution because they know it's good scaling solution. |
|
|
|
Well, in principle you are right. But with that particular person's background Roubini (...) was Senior Economist for International Affairs in the White House's Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration. He has worked for the International Monetary Fund, the US Federal Reserve, and the World Bank
you would expect him to know what he is talking about when he talks about money, even crypto-money, especially if he talks about it. When I read such controversial information coming from people who would be expected to know what they are talking about, I always feel there may be their own hidden agenda behind their words. You just prove what i'm said is right, because : 1. Most experts on same fields (with him) who voice his/her opinion about Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency clearly have no idea or don't understand about what they're talking about. 2. I doubt anonymity/pseudonymity, full-control over money, un-censorable & decentralization are important things in today's economy which makes those expert can't see potential of Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency |
|
|
|
There are many ways if he rely on trusted people or 3rd party which already mentioned by others. Otherwise, the closest things that i could think is using P2SH transaction/bitcoin script where the receiver only can claim the Bitcoin after n days/blocks. To prevent claim abuse while he's still alive, he could remake the script with different timelock before current timelock is "expired". The rough code should look like this (i'm still learning bitcoin script, so most likely it's inaccurate) : OP_IF
<Alice's Public Key> OP_CHECKSIG
OP_ELSE
<90 days> OP_CSV <Bob's Public Key> OP_CHECKSIG
OP_ENDIF
|
|
|
|
As the title mentioned, how do i verify Electrum on Linux? I'm talking about installing Electrum on Terminal with these command : Install dependencies:
sudo apt-get install python3-setuptools python3-pyqt5 python3-pip
Install Electrum:
sudo python3 -m pip install https://download.electrum.org/3.2.3/Electrum-3.2.3.tar.gz#egg=electrum[fast]
or should i just download Electrum's source, verify it's signature and compile it myself? |
|
|
|
Your idea has been suggested by many members previously (including me), but until now it doesn't happen. IMO it's because : 1. No moderator with sufficient altcoin's technical knowledge which means moderator can't identify which post is FUD, troll or not 2. Many members would pretend they have in-depth knowledge, even though all they do are throw some terminology or details from other website/whitepaper 3. The board would turn into announcement/promotion board where each coins claims they have best technology Besides, few of non-bitcoin/altcoin technology already discussed on Development & Technical Discussion. Things might be different if this suggested-board have some restriction such as signature disabled or minimum rank (Jr. Member / Member). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
