please delete

[n0nce]

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.

I don't have my own definition, I use the one that, well, everyone uses, which is:

The order of magnitude of a number is, intuitively speaking, the number of powers of 10 contained in the number.

The Bitcoin whitepaper is a 180KB 9-page PDF. Any video is at least 1MB, so for sure one order of magnitude larger (thousands of KB vs hundreds of KB). Creating a 1MB video would be a challenge of its own though; and e.g. a 1GB video would be 4 orders of magnitudes larger than the Bitcoin PDF.
This is why I say it's a whole different beast saving a video or saving a 9 page PDF...
The transaction for that PDF cost 20K in today's money, imagine a video that is 10-10,000x larger.

I also don't understand your obsession with Craig Wright all based on him being a doctor. Tons of people are doctors, and there are a lot of doctors who are actually quite dumb, so just because he got a PhD doesn't mean he 'thought of everything' at all! It's really a very bad argument in any discussion - 'this person is a X - they must be right!'...

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.

If you mean you wouldn't mine a transaction like https://mempool.space/tx/54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713, then I don't understand why. You get your fees, so why would you not mine it? A miner doesn't care much about anything else usually.

[1714290996]

1714290996

[1714290996]

1714290996

[1714290996]

1714290996

[Shymaa-Arafat]

you mean you wouldn't mine a transaction like https://mempool.space/tx/54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713, then I don't understand why. You get your fees, so why would you not mine it? A miner doesn't care much about anything else usually.

Why would someone make such a TX with this cost (and 938 UTXOS most of them are 1Satoshi) unless it was a dust hack?
It's from 2013 so if it was a hack, it must have been documented somewhere

[n0nce]

you mean you wouldn't mine a transaction like https://mempool.space/tx/54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713, then I don't understand why. You get your fees, so why would you not mine it? A miner doesn't care much about anything else usually.

Why would someone make such a TX with this cost (and 938 UTXOS most of them are 1Satoshi) unless it was a dust hack?
It's from 2013 so if it was a hack, it must have been documented somewhere

It's not a hack, it's the Bitcoin whitepaper PDF encoded as hex and split up into 938 addresses.
In 2013 it wasn't that expensive. I think in beginning of 2013 the BTC price was around 100 bucks and they paid 0.59BTC in transaction fees, so it cost around $59 to permanently save the whitepaper in the blockchain forever, sounds like a good deal to me

Encoding data into addresses like this is one way to save information into the Bitcoin blockchain, which is the topic we collectively derailed into in the last few days..

You can also check this page which extracts characters which were encoded in some Bitcoin blocks, which is another way to encode data into the blockchain (but just text, not binary like pdf or movie): https://bitcoinstrings.com/

By the way, there's an ASCII image in block 3:

Code: (https://bitcoinstrings.com/blk00003.txt)

File: blk00003.txt

---BEGIN TRIBUTE---
#./BitLen
:::::::::::::::::::
:::::::.::.::.:.:::
:.: :.' ' ' ' ' : :
:.:'' ,,xiW,"4x, ''
:  ,dWWWXXXXi,4WX,
' dWWWXXX7"     `X,
 lWWWXX7   __   _ X
:WWWXX7 ,xXX7' "^^X
lWWWX7, _.+,, _.+.,
:WWW7,. `^"-" ,^-'
 WW",X:        X,
 "7^^Xl.    _(_x7'
 l ( :X:       __ _
 `. " XX  ,xxWWWWX7
  )X- "" 4X" .___.
,W X     :Xi  _,,_
WW X      4XiyXWWXd
"" ,,      4XWWWWXX
, R7X,       "^447^
R, "4RXk,      _, ,
TWk  "4RXXi,   X',x
lTWk,  "4RRR7' 4 XH
:lWWWk,  ^"     `4
::TTXWWi,_  Xll :..
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
LEN "rabbi" SASSAMA
     1980-2011
Len was our friend.
A brilliant mind,
a kind soul, and
a devious schemer;
husband to Meredith
brother to Calvin,
son to Jim and
Dana Hartshorn,
coauthor and
cofounder and
Shmoo and so much
more.  We dedicate
this silly hack to
Len, who would have
found it absolutely
hilarious.
--Dan Kaminsky,
Travis Goodspeed
P.S.  My apologies,
BitCoin people.  He
also would have
LOL'd at BitCoin's
new dependency upon
   ASCII BERNANKE
:'::.:::::.:::.::.:
: :.: ' ' ' ' : :':
:.:     _.__    '.:
:   _,^"   "^x,   :
'  x7'        `4,
 XX7            4XX
 XX              XX
 Xl ,xxx,   ,xxx,XX
( ' _,+o, | ,o+,"
 4   "-^' X "^-'" 7
 l,     ( ))     ,X
 :Xx,_ ,xXXXxx,_,XX
  4XXiX'-___-`XXXX'
   4XXi,_   _iXX7'
  , `4XXXXXXXXX^ _,
  Xx,  ""^^^XX7,xX
W,"4WWx,_ _,XxWWX7'
Xwi, "4WW7""4WW7',W
TXXWw, ^7 Xk 47 ,WH
:TXXXWw,_ "), ,wWT:
::TTXXWWW lXl WWT:
----END TRIBUTE----

[Shymaa-Arafat]

Ah, u mean non-standard UTXOS, but that was not the main original topic here maybe it got into it & I skippeded some replies in the middle.
-Still, they could have done it in the OP_Return part without keeping them in the UTXOS set, but probably such techniques were studied after 2013.

[larry_vw_1955]

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

Exactly! I mean who wouldn't take a deal like that?

Do you know what pools are?

oh ok so you're saying the bitcoin sv mining pools are the ones storing all the data. sounds plausible.

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.

Wrong. I care about it. It really does have an effect on computer performance. Maybe you meant to say "no one in industry cares about the clock speed" well i might even disagree with you about that too. They care but there's nothing they can do about it.

I'm not sure why Craig Wright is really in this conversation at all.

Well because bitcoin sv is handling huge volumes of data with gigabyte sized blocks and we were talking about blockchain growth and size issues here with bitcoin. Doesn't seem to be a problem for sv.

I also find it fascinating that Craig Wright invented bitcoin sv.

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.

I was just talking about deleting spam out of the utxo set on an individual basis. They might not be able to verify some blocks if that happened but they could certainly mine new ones.

[ranochigo]

Wrong. I care about it. It really does have an effect on computer performance. Maybe you meant to say "no one in industry cares about the clock speed" well i might even disagree with you about that too. They care but there's nothing they can do about it.

No, you're comparing apples to oranges. In a similar architecture, yes a higher clock speed results in a better performance, simply by the logic of having similar IPCs. The point here is, if you are comparing a 6GHz Core 2 Quad from those days and a 2GHz i5 from today, the i5 wins, hands down simply by the architectural improvement. We are not pursuing higher clock speeds, only better IPCs. Your argument is that the we expected CPUs to be running at higher clock speeds over time, which is untrue. In this thread, we are talking about the increment in the performance of the chips, which is proven true for the past few years.

It isn't difficult to achieve higher clock speeds, if you design a CPU specifically just for it but it won't be efficient.

Well because bitcoin sv is handling huge volumes of data with gigabyte sized blocks and we were talking about blockchain growth and size issues here with bitcoin. Doesn't seem to be a problem for sv.

I also find it fascinating that Craig Wright invented bitcoin sv.

Inventing is not something that I would agree with. Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin are practically the same, save for a few parameter changes.

Again, Apples to Orange comparison. Bitcoin SV has 157 nodes[1], while Bitcoin has 8200 nodes[2]. It doesn't seem to be a problem because those who are using it are obviously supporters of it. You don't have to consider the actual feasibility, which lies in quite a few aspects (block propagation time, block processing time, storage limitation, etc) if you think that is the way a crypto is supposed to function. Bigger blocks are possible, excessively big blocks are possible as well, but there are quite a few drawbacks in the latter.

[1] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/nodes
[2] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/nodes

[Shymaa-Arafat]

Basically what i wanted to said is Bitcoin community might reconsider about UTXO indexing (on full node implementation, not Bitcoin protocol), such as,
1. Should client use list which contain of transaction with main/sole purpose of storing arbitrary data?
2. Should all UTXO indexed?
3. If non-indexed UTXO appear on mempool, should the client perform manual lookup (really slow) or partially skip process of transaction verification?

I'm suggesting to partition the UTXO set, so that u insert/delete/verify/search for proofs dealing with each pile separately; clearly all piles will be smaller than the total set

[larry_vw_1955]

No, you're comparing apples to oranges.
...
We are not pursuing higher clock speeds, only better IPCs. Your argument is that the we expected CPUs to be running at higher clock speeds over time, which is untrue. In this thread, we are talking about the increment in the performance of the chips, which is proven true for the past few years.

yeah these days improvements come from improving cpu architecture and adding on more cores but not by pushing the laws of physics about how many transistors you can fit into a given space or how fast you can turn them on and off. that's over and done. the thing is though we have to be careful about using Instructions per cycle as the only metric. power consumption is important too. and cost of the cpu. all those things matter. to really say that things are improiving we need higher performance (more IPC), lower power consumption and also lower cost (on an inflation adjusted basis of course). you got all 3?

Inventing is not something that I would agree with. Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin are practically the same, save for a few parameter changes.

I doubt that. They seem very different from one another. Now I do have to agree that anyone that forks bitcoin didn't really invent bitcoin but of course craig wright is satoshi so he's in a special category

Again, Apples to Orange comparison. Bitcoin SV has 157 nodes[1], while Bitcoin has 8200 nodes[2]. It doesn't seem to be a problem because those who are using it are obviously supporters of it. You don't have to consider the actual feasibility, which lies in quite a few aspects (block propagation time, block processing time, storage limitation, etc) if you think that is the way a crypto is supposed to function. Bigger blocks are possible, excessively big blocks are possible as well, but there are quite a few drawbacks in the latter.

Big blocks encourage very low transaction fees. which is a good thing for users. I mean I think Craig himself said that bitcoin is not for hodling it's for using it like money, spending it. That dude knows his crypto.

[Syke]

yeah these days improvements come from improving cpu architecture and adding on more cores but not by pushing the laws of physics about how many transistors you can fit into a given space or how fast you can turn them on and off. that's over and done.

/sigh. No, it hasn't stopped.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16823/intel-accelerated-offensive-process-roadmap-updates-to-10nm-7nm-4nm-3nm-20a-18a-packaging-foundry-emib-foveros

[n0nce]

we have to be careful about using Instructions per cycle as the only metric. power consumption is important too. and cost of the cpu. all those things matter. to really say that things are improiving we need higher performance (more IPC), lower power consumption and also lower cost (on an inflation adjusted basis of course). you got all 3?

I have to chime in on this: Nobody just cares about IPC. It's just a good way to keep constantly improving performance right now. Also pushing frequency isn't dead yet either; with now mainstream CPUs running at 5GHz easily (Intel 11th gen + Ryzen 5000), while this was considered a super heavy overclock mere years ago.

Power consumption / efficiency is mostly limited by cooling; PC cooling designs haven't changed much in the last, idk, 10-20 years, so since then most of the consumer CPUs have been and still are targeted to run at 95-125W max.

It's also obvious that cost of computing has been ever decreasing; while it was absolutely not normal for everyone to afford a computer in 1975, I now know barely anyone who has just one computer (I count modern mobile phones and tablets as computers as well) anymore.

Inventing is not something that I would agree with. Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin are practically the same, save for a few parameter changes.

I doubt that. They seem very different from one another. Now I do have to agree that anyone that forks bitcoin didn't really invent bitcoin but of course craig wright is satoshi so he's in a special category

You really like to beat a dead horse, don't you? Just fyi, this gets tiring really quick. If you keep reiterating this nonsense in every second post, I (and most others) can't continue reading every reply, it just gets too repetitive and obnoxious.

[ranochigo]

yeah these days improvements come from improving cpu architecture and adding on more cores but not by pushing the laws of physics about how many transistors you can fit into a given space or how fast you can turn them on and off. that's over and done. the thing is though we have to be careful about using Instructions per cycle as the only metric. power consumption is important too. and cost of the cpu. all those things matter. to really say that things are improiving we need higher performance (more IPC), lower power consumption and also lower cost (on an inflation adjusted basis of course). you got all 3?

TDPs of CPUs are mostly within quite a fixed range. 7nm Zen 3 are more efficient than 7nm Zen 2 and 12nm Zen +. As we're getting to smaller node size, architectures are more efficient (performance to power ratio). In fact, all of the criteria that you've listed all hold true. CPUs are cheaper relative to their performance, better performance and basically the same power consumption. Saying that chips are not improving over time is just untrue.

craig wright is satoshi so he's in a special category

I certainly hope that you're not trolling but it feels like I'm talking to a wall at this point in time.

Big blocks encourage very low transaction fees. which is a good thing for users. I mean I think Craig himself said that bitcoin is not for hodling it's for using it like money, spending it. That dude knows his crypto.

Big blocks encourage centralization, by making is far less practical for users to run nodes and relying on SPV or centralized servers instead. Excessively big blocks makes the network less secure, where users are seeing their own versions of the chain. With on-chain scaling, you are still limited to many factors that governs it, be it transaction finality due to the stale rates or just the block intervals. By introducing excessively big blocks, you are scaling Bitcoin by solving something and sacrificing the practicality of it.

I believe that we've made our point with the many pages of discussions. I would encourage you to at least consider the posts and DYOR. It is not a constructive discussion if you were to be so insistent on your views and refusing to acknowledge the facts.

[larry_vw_1955]

I have to chime in on this: Nobody just cares about IPC. It's just a good way to keep constantly improving performance right now. Also pushing frequency isn't dead yet either; with now mainstream CPUs running at 5GHz easily (Intel 11th gen + Ryzen 5000), while this was considered a super heavy overclock mere years ago.

Not sure where you are getting your figures but something like the Core i9-11900K has a base frequency of only 3.50 GHz.

Power consumption / efficiency is mostly limited by cooling; PC cooling designs haven't changed much in the last, idk, 10-20 years, so since then most of the consumer CPUs have been and still are targeted to run at 95-125W max.

If you're talking about something like a Core i9-11900K then that thing goes up to nearly 300 watts peak.

It's also obvious that cost of computing has been ever decreasing; while it was absolutely not normal for everyone to afford a computer in 1975, I now know barely anyone who has just one computer (I count modern mobile phones and tablets as computers as well) anymore.

Well yeah I mean if you go all the way back to 1975 but I'd say in the last 10 years, the cost of computing has not gone down at all. Not a single penny.

You really like to beat a dead horse, don't you? Just fyi, this gets tiring really quick. If you keep reiterating this nonsense in every second post, I (and most others) can't continue reading every reply, it just gets too repetitive and obnoxious.

Sorry about that. But to me, the doctor belongs getting credit for his invention. I used to think he was a fraud too but that's because I just listened to what other people said about him. I never took the time to actually listen to what he had to say and he's got alot of videos out there on youtube. So people can decide for themself. I already decided for myself who satoshi is.

Saying that chips are not improving over time is just untrue.

Well I agree they are still improving over time but not at the rate they once did. Like if you compare 2005 to 2020 progression to 2020 to 2035 it's not going to be as dramatic. And that will likely continue with an exponentially decreasing improvement factor. Unless there is some huge breakthrough like photonic computing.

I believe that we've made our point with the many pages of discussions. I would encourage you to at least consider the posts and DYOR. It is not a constructive discussion if you were to be so insistent on your views and refusing to acknowledge the facts.

I've said pretty much everything I needed to say. And I appreciate all the input from you and others. What you said about large block sizes is probably correct.  

[Dabs]

CSW is a little off topic here. He is a fraud. Can't sign proof. And someone else signed proof that he is a fraud using addresses he claims he owned. But that's off topic and should be discussed in the scam threads. There's a few around there.

[n0nce]

I have to chime in on this: Nobody just cares about IPC. It's just a good way to keep constantly improving performance right now. Also pushing frequency isn't dead yet either; with now mainstream CPUs running at 5GHz easily (Intel 11th gen + Ryzen 5000), while this was considered a super heavy overclock mere years ago.

Not sure where you are getting your figures but something like the Core i9-11900K has a base frequency of only 3.50 GHz.

Hey Sherlock, you know what? It goes even lower when idle. Usually we look at the boost clocks, because that's what a processor runs at when you give it work to perform.

Also, as we can see from 3950X to 5950X the all-core load (blender render) improved a lot and only pulled 120W in the latest version; as I said, modern CPUs are targeted at anywhere between 95 and 120W.

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72AHENDeTEI

I'm aware Intel (which is not the leader of CPU performance right now) can be overclocked to pull much more than that, but we should compare apples to apples, in my opinion.

The 5950X boosts up to over 5GHz without overclock (so within the given TDP), for an example. You're wrong in thinking performance doesn't keep increasing.

For more info:
https://www.technipages.com/base-clock-and-boost-clock-explained
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_frequency_scaling

Well yeah I mean if you go all the way back to 1975 but I'd say in the last 10 years, the cost of computing has not gone down at all. Not a single penny.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/18/cost-of-a-computer-the-year-you-were-born/39557187/

A PowerBook G4 cost $5,000 in 2001, while today a MacBook M1 costs $1,000, so it seems to me prices did go down. Also consider that 5K is adjusted for inflation - in 2019. It is probably even more in 2001 dollar valuation.

Another source that suggests performance does continue to increase:
https://ourworldindata.org/technological-progress

This is now a HUGE tangent from the thread and I'd like to end it for the sake of the original topic.