please delete

[BlackHatCoiner]

All you have to do is go download the blocks and find out. let me know if you discover any good netflix originals.

I really wonder what would happen if a copyrighted video was timestamped in a censorship-resistant block chain. Theoretically, you could upload anything in the BSV chain. The problem is that it'd take you lot of time to sync. Let alone a full node, which would require TBs of storage.

So there you go! More evidence that hard drive prices and the price of storage is not going to just "keep going down". Not that it has been.

You should read the Moore's Law and the prediction about CPUs. That's where Satoshi relied back in 2009.

A 1 TB drive (good to store another 10 years of bitcoin blocks) costs $30. Storage is not a problem.

If we assume that every year we consume the maximal size of blocks (4MB), then it should be 10*210240 = 2,102,400 MBs, which are 2.1 TBs. Not 1.

[1714239457]

1714239457

[ABCbits]

If i correctly understood you, you intend to store file on blockchain because you want 100% uptime with mirror which available worldwide? Bitcoin and most cryptocurrency isn't designed for it and it'll cost you a fortune.

how much do you think it would cost? as long as bitcoin sv miners are honest and store my data, i wouldn't mind paying them a bit to do it. but i need to make sure that they won't pull the rug out from under me.

Let's try calculate the cost of storing single 1080p movie with 2 hours duration.

1. Calculate size of the movie

According to https://www.circlehd.com/blog/how-to-calculate-video-file-size, 1 minute of 1080p video have size 20MB.

Code:

120 minute * 20 MB = 2400 MB (2516582400 byte)

2. Calculate the cost in BSV

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv recommend 1 sat/byte, which means you'll need to pay at least 2.516.582.400 satoshi (25.165824 BSV). This calculation exclude overhead (input, other output, signature, etc.).

3. Convert to USD

According to https://coinmarketcap.com/, current BSV price is $144.12.

Code:

25.165824 BSV * $144.12 = $3626.89...

IMO it's very expensive.


To keep this discussion slightly on-topic, here's estimation of UTXO growth for storing same movie on Bitcoin since OP_RETURN limit is only 80 bytes (and IIRC each transaction only can have one OP_RETURN) and pool most likely won't help you store a movie. I use method which described here http://www.righto.com/2014/02/ascii-bernanke-wikileaks-photographs.html.

1. Getting amount of data can be stored on single address.

According to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_version_1_Bitcoin_addresses, bitcoin address size is 25 bytes, but 4 bytes used as checksum and 1 byte used to indicate the address is for mainnet network. So we only can store 20 bytes data on each address.

2. Calculate amount of address required to store the movie.

Code:

2516582400 bytes / 20 bytes = 125829120 address/UTXO

3. Get current size of UTXO set. I use result from running command gettxoutsetinfo on Bitcoin Core (which took few minute to get the result).

Code:

"txouts": 75171403

4. Calculate UTXO growth

Code:

 75171403
125829120 +
-----------
201000523

Code:

125829120 / 75171403 = 1.6738... (167.38%)

If you or someone else actually do this, you'll heavily bloat chainstate and OP's proposal is more likely to be accepted Bitcoin community

P.S. please double check the calculation and source used.

[Syke]

If we assume that every year we consume the maximal size of blocks (4MB), then it should be 10*210240 = 2,102,400 MBs, which are 2.1 TBs. Not 1.

That is a theoretical limit, which has never come close to ever been reached. Average block size is around 1MB.

[Dabs]

This is getting off topic already, but all my home videos are stored in some password protected torrent called "insurance files-bitcoin leaks".

[larry_vw_1955]

Let's try calculate the cost of storing single 1080p movie with 2 hours duration.

Code:

25.165824 BSV * $144.12 = $3626.89...

IMO it's very expensive.

Yeah that is kind of pricey but obviously people are doing it. Otherwise they wouuldn't have 1+GB blocks so often. And to imagine, one day it's going to be terabyte sized blocks that's going to be generating some very serious revenue!

To keep this discussion slightly on-topic, here's estimation of UTXO growth for storing same movie on Bitcoin

Code:

(75171403 + 125829120) / 125829120 = 2.6738... (267.38...%)

Actually it's not quite as bad as your slightly off calculation. The ratio there is 1.597408636411031 so it would only bloat the utxo set by a mere 59 percent.

If you or someone else actually do this, you'll heavily bloat chainstate and OP's proposal is more likely to be accepted Bitcoin community

Someone stored Satoshi's white paper that way apparently. the amazing thing is they only spent about 50 cents less than one us dollar to do that in terms of sending money to all 948 addresses. However, where it really got them is on the transaction fee. if they wouldn't have done that, they would be about $30,000 richer today.

[larry_vw_1955]

I really wonder what would happen if a copyrighted video was timestamped in a censorship-resistant block chain. Theoretically, you could upload anything in the BSV chain. The problem is that it'd take you lot of time to sync. Let alone a full node, which would require TBs of storage.

Well you dont have to wonder. I'm sure it's already been done. You don't think so? I'm sure there's all kinds of data being stored. Maybe some of it is not belonging to the original uploader. I bet someone will upload an entire linux distribution oneday if they haven't already!

Hopefully you won't even have to sync up at all before uploading. That would be really cool.

You should read the Moore's Law and the prediction about CPUs. That's where Satoshi relied back in 2009.

Back in 2009, they probably thought cpus would be running at 20Ghz in 2021. Enough said.

[larry_vw_1955]

If you or someone else actually do this, you'll heavily bloat chainstate and OP's proposal is more likely to be accepted Bitcoin community Roll Eyes

So just a single person trying to upload a 2 hour video off their phone could bring bitcoin to it's knees? That seems kind of bizarre/hard to believe. it's just a single video. i mean one episode of the bachelor even. (chris harrison isn't hosting anymore)

I put wrong formula (now it's fixed). The percentage doesn't represent ratio, but growth (which is 167.38%). But i wouldn't call 59 or 167 percent bloat as "mere".

What if miners just ignored utxos that they didn't think were that important? No one is going to spend a single satoshi so they could just banish utxos like that! But then people's homemade videos might be in jeopardy.

That's not my point, besides the white paper is only few MB and doesn't have noticeable impact on running node.

Thank goodness. Satoshi invented bitcoin and wrote the whitepaper. The last thing we'd want is his whitepaper to be causing a bottleneck on the network. 

[Dabs]

What if miners just ignored utxos that they didn't think were that important?

Miners and pools as a whole and collectively don't usually care. They will include any transactions that have the appropriate minimum fee, starting with those that pay higher fees.

The last few things you've been saying tho, don't seem relevant anymore. We can continue discussing the topic or what OP said, but it's likely nothing will be done about it this decade.

[Syke]

So just a single person trying to upload a 2 hour video off their phone could bring bitcoin to it's knees?

No, it wouldn't. Go ahead and try it. 12 years, 700,000 blocks, you think you're the first to think of spamming the network? Go ahead, try it, let's see how far you get.

[n0nce]

If you or someone else actually do this, you'll heavily bloat chainstate and OP's proposal is more likely to be accepted Bitcoin community Roll Eyes

So just a single person trying to upload a 2 hour video off their phone could bring bitcoin to it's knees? That seems kind of bizarre/hard to believe.

"If it seems too good to be true... it probably is."

(Not sure why anyone would consider it good to bring BTC to its knees, but it seems an altcoin shill like you might like BTC to go down. However, Bitcoin is one of the most attacked software projects after the Linux kernel, probably, and it's still up and well, so any trivial attack idea has been tried thousands of times already, you can bet on that )

Edit:
I'd still love to see you try uploading a video to the blockchain.. (spoiler, it won't work, but feel free trying and wasting your time^{don't take it personal, it's just the way it is} )

[larry_vw_1955]

Edit:
I'd still love to see you try uploading a video to the blockchain.. (spoiler, it won't work, but feel free trying and wasting your time^{don't take it personal, it's just the way it is} )

Well why would I want to upload a video onto a platform that wasn't intended for video. I was just responding to how they uploaded the whitepaper onto the blockchain. But it cetainly seems reasonable that if they could upload satoshi's whitepaper onto the blockchain then you could also upload a short video. for longer videos, there's always bsv. (on bsv, the videos could literally be gigabytes and oneday maybe even terabytes.) and no i'm not a shill. but craig wright is a doctor and doctors know what they're talking about. usually.

[n0nce]

Edit:
I'd still love to see you try uploading a video to the blockchain.. (spoiler, it won't work, but feel free trying and wasting your time^{don't take it personal, it's just the way it is} )

Well why would I want to upload a video onto a platform that wasn't intended for video. I was just responding to how they uploaded the whitepaper onto the blockchain. But it cetainly seems reasonable that if they could upload satoshi's whitepaper onto the blockchain then you could also upload a short video.

Try it! It will be very expensive if it will even work at all! Even short videos are orders of magnitude larger than a few pages of PDF.

but craig wright is a doctor and doctors know what they're talking about. usually.

[larry_vw_1955]

Try it! It will be very expensive if it will even work at all! Even short videos are orders of magnitude larger than a few pages of PDF.

I don't know what your definition of "orders of magnitude" is but I doubt it. Obviously someone wanting to store some video on the blockchain needs to use an optimal compression and frame rate for their video to save money. I mean that goes without saying. Craig Wright figured it out though in that you don't have to worry about any of that on BSV, just upload the full HD video and you're good to go. But I think I could store a small video on the bitcoin blockchain using that method linked to I'm sure of it. By the way not to pimp SV too hard but I'm sure, let me capitalize that. SURE that they make it easy to download the video too which for bitcoin it would be a huge pain in the ass to do. Craight Wright being a doctor you understand he thought of everything...

It sounds like you really want me to try uploading a video to bitcoin though.

[larry_vw_1955]

FYI, i never said Bitcoin would collapse if you do that.

No but you hinted that if someone did this then it might cause changes to have to be made to bitcoin. Which presumably would be those proposed by the OP which are indeed somewhat radical in nature. Some guy uploads a 2.4 GB video to bitcoin and everyone else has to start signaling to the network that they still want their bitcoins or else they get returned to the miners. Sounds about right...

1. How do miner whether an UTXO is important or not?

If they think there's a chance someone is going to be spending it as opposed to not spending it. How they would decide that is up to them. But if I was a miner and I saw a huge number of utxos that were just dust amounts and I did further analysis and saw that the addresses for those utxos didn't have any other utxos i would delete them. And they were old utxos maybe older than a year or two.

2. What do you mean by ignoring UTXO? Simply doesn't index the UTXO or also doesn't include the transaction (which have "useless" UTXO)?

yeah just ignoring the utxo. and delete it out of their database. so that it doesn't exist for them.

Excluding claiming "lost" UTXO, OP's idea theoretically could be implemented on full node software (rather than changing Bitcoin protocol). But it's awkward position between full node and pruned full node, so i doubt anyone bother implement OP's idea.

When he said "There's no need to keep a full chain going all the way back to the genesis block." you can tell from the rest of his argument that he doesn't intend for anyone to be running a full node and that everyone can just run a truncated set of blocks once a certain block has no utxos and none of the blocks before it do either. he argues that there is no need to keep all those blocks around any longer for anyone. and then he goes on to entertain the idea that bitcoin users should then be required to do a signaling process to the network to help support this entire process. it's pretty genius although most bitcoin users would be up in arms if they knew someone was having those type of thought processes. luckily no one reads these old threads too much i guess!

but craig wright is a doctor and doctors know what they're talking about. usually.

CryptoCurrency : Craig Wright Proves He Can Code By Copy-Pasting “Hello World” Program

But he does have more degrees than Vitalik. And he did invent bitcoin so who you gonna trust?

FYI, nobody could stop you as long as you have some technical capability and fair amount of Bitcoin.

Apparently with that particular method you linked to, you don't know the private keys so you will never spend that bitcoin that's the kind of utxos a miner would want to delete if they knew what was going on.

[Shymaa-Arafat]

But if I was a miner and I saw a huge number of utxos that were just dust amounts and I did further analysis and saw that the addresses for those utxos didn't have any other utxos i would delete them. Grin And they were old utxos maybe older than a year or two.

Full nodes are the ones who maintain the UTXOS set and to delete a subset there must be a consensus among them all to do it and consider a TX containing one of those invalid, a soft fork I think.

Miners too must/should maintain a UTXOS set in order to add only valid transactions to their blocks and don't lose their effort & money (in MIT lectures Neha Naurela said in early days of Bitcoin a lot of miners lost a lot of money because they didn't bother to validate TXs before adding to their blocks)

So if u mean miners, not acting as full nodes at the same time, could save space by omitting UTXOS with almost Probability zero of being spent from their copy of the UTXOS set ; yes I think that could be a good idea, as they won't formally change the validation rules they just won't choose them.

[ranochigo]

They can be forced to though. if necessary. there are ways to do that. but i guess that's up to bitcoin sv whether they need to. as long as my homevideos are on there forever, i'll be good to go.

If I earn $1000 from my fees and the storage costs $10 per month, I probably wouldn't complain either.

Well that brings up a good question. Who exactly is paying for it? not that I'm worried about it you understand, just curiious.I mean I had a choice either put my homevideos on youtube but then you never know what might happen to youtube. they might not be around in 100 years.

Do you know what pools are?

Back in 2009, they probably thought cpus would be running at 20Ghz in 2021. Enough said.

For what it's worth, that was never the case. No one cares about the clock speed, because that is irrelevant to CPU processing speed. Moore's law is about the transistor density on chips which has been true for quite a while, and even in the recent generations of CPU, the instructions per clock has advanced far greater than that of the CPU of those days.

Just to address some of the points raised in the thread. As I've said, the point about not invalidating/deleting UTXO has to do with the ethical and practical concerns, where limits have to be arbitrarily defined and that will never happen. Truncating Bitcoin in that sense is NOT impossible, in case you've misunderstood me. It is totally possible, but you're going to be assuming that the pre-defined checkpoint is valid. As of now, it is not an issue because we don't have that sort of problem yet, nor do people want to hassle with it to solve an issue that might never really be one.

I'm not sure why Craig Wright is really in this conversation at all. He was NEVER proven to be Satoshi and the list of addresses he provided turned out to be someone else's[1]. A PhD in Computer Science isn't really that uncommon, and it really does nothing to show their honesty or moral compass. Signature validation are fairly expensive, if you were to actually look it up and compare it with an average computer running a Bitcoin node.


[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200525113441/https://paste.debian.net/plain/1148565

Full nodes are the ones who maintain the UTXOS set and to delete a subset there must be a consensus among them all to do it and consider a TX containing one of those invalid, a soft fork I think.

Hard fork.

[Shymaa-Arafat]

A transaction containing one of those UTXOS will be invalid for those running the new version, valid for those running the old version... isn't that soft fork?

[garlonicon]

isn't that soft fork?

Yes, it is. Even all transactions except coinbase could be invalid in a soft-fork: https://petertodd.org/2016/forced-soft-forks.

[ranochigo]

A transaction containing one of those UTXOS will be invalid for those running the new version, valid for those running the old version... isn't that soft fork?

Hmm, okay I misunderstood what you meant. By not considering those UTXOs, it can be a soft fork because the majority always prevails. Unless there is a divergence between them, for which there would be a messy situation.

I don't agree with the proposal. UTXO size is not a concern for us, not to the extent that would make us resort to draconian measures to intentionally censor and invalidate certain UTXOs. It isn't difficult to store the entire UTXO within your ram, and it certainly isn't impossible to have dynamic caching of it through your ram as well.

[Shymaa-Arafat]

I don't agree with the proposal. UTXO size is not a concern for us, not to the extent that would make us resort to draconian measures to intentionally censor and invalidate certain UTXOs. It isn't difficult to store the entire UTXO within your ram, and it certainly isn't impossible to have dynamic caching of it through your ram as well.

Me neither on deleting people money, yet I did suggested to separate those unlikely to be invoked from any search or Merkle structure to shorten the path length. If they ever invoked, no problem their Merkle proofs will be even much shorter.