Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized

[Lauda]

For those that are 'out of the loop' and need a simpler explanation of the roadmap. Keep in mind that this is obviously simplified so don't complain how it doesn't explain every single scenario and detail.

SegWit correction: a full node will still store the signatures.

Notice: The majority of posts will be deleted to keep the thread clean. I will try to reply to every single poster. If someone wants to engage in a rational and technical discussion then those posts shall be left in the thread. Trolling and posts made by people on my ignore list will be deleted.

[CIYAM]

I think this is a nicely put together visualisation (my only criticism is that it may have actually erred slightly on the side of being too technical but I guess that depends upon the target audience).

[Lauda]

i'm starting to believe that the guy with seg wit, actually don't want to increase the limit at all, since they are for the blockstream thing and the lightining network/the sidechain etc...

Wrong. Don't post nonsense. Lightning is open source and will be free to use. The LN has nothing to do with sidechains.

SegWit correction: a full node will still store the signatures.

Added to OP. Thanks.

I also found it to be too technical, but loved it anyway.
Reading this kind of thing give me the chills! It's so exciting to see the potential of this technology!

I don't think it is too technical though. This should help people that aren't good with technology.
Cleaned & replied.

[Karartma1]

A hell of an infographic! Well done at least we finally have something to discuss on, I mean real points to be discussed not just thin air.
And, above all yes, this is about changing the world guys, not being a paypal alternative.

[Lauda]

The thread is not being censored, it is being moderated. I'm deleting what I dislike, and that is propaganda and FUD. I'm most likely going to create another update post and remove the majority of the posts in this to keep it clean. You're welcome.

[Carlton Banks]

The thread is not being censored, it is being moderated. I'm deleting what I dislike, and that is propaganda and FUD. I'm most likely going to create another update post and remove the majority of the posts in this to keep it clean. You're welcome.

Indicative of the levels of cynicism and maturity (not to mention desperation) employed by the blockchain-bloaters: knight22 only really came into the thread so he could run home to bitcoin.com crying "they censored me, nasty fat hobbits with their censoring". Kind of pathetic really, I always thought the ringwraiths were supposed to be badasses 

[Lauda]

This is interesting but I've enjoyed the Classic REKT threads much more

Then go pay them a visit.

Very good graphics and easy to understand,   one thing i dont get is this Libsecp256k1  how can we verify transactions and blocks faster?  would that not mean a shorter blocktime?

They have created their own code for doing the ECDSA stuff (rather than using OpenSSL) and apparently it works a lot faster (not surprising perhaps as OpenSSL has not worked out so well as a project and some of the reasons for that are also political).

The block time is not affected, the validation time becomes much faster. This only concerns you if you are running a full node. It is actually a very good achievement.

I have to say that this roadmap is pretty awesome ! The messy house argument is the best that could be found about the blocksize debate . Who's the author of this nice picture(s) ?

It is stated at the end: "u/Cryptoconomy".

A really good visualization of core's roadmap.Thank you for that. Regardig SegWit this house organization analogy is just awesome. Simple and easy to understand.

That was the point of it; explaining in a simple yet correct way.

Here it is again: Smaller Transactions > Bigger Blocks
This makes better use of the space available.
Remember, more transactions is what we want, big blocks is not the only way to achieve it. And it's also the worst way.

Correct. Scaling via the block size is very inefficient.

Indicative of the levels of cynicism and maturity (not to mention desperation) employed by the blockchain-bloaters: knight22 only really came into the thread so he could run home to bitcoin.com crying "they censored me, nasty fat hobbits with their censoring". Kind of pathetic really, I always thought the ringwraiths were supposed to be badasses  

He knew what was going to happen if he posted FUD (e.g. Bitcoin is "broken"). According to their deluded minds, 'moderation' is an abstract concept that has left the plain of existence when moment Bitcoin XT released.  
Cleaned & replied.

[Meuh6879]

"it's not to build a paypal, it's to change the world"

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Cool, very nice work. Been looking for something like this. Thanks OP.

[Minecache]

Fantastic graphic. In storage every bit counts.

[Lauda]

Woah, this is one nice infographic... Sums up pretty nicely a lot of info I've spent hours looking for.

Cool, very nice work. Been looking for something like this. Thanks OP.

Fantastic graphic. In storage every bit counts.

It is indeed.

When you are dealing with the Lightning Network, you are not dealing with bitcoins any more. You are dealing with a proxy for bitcoins.

This isn't a discussion about LN.

Did core aprove this?

The roadmap was signed; graphics like this one can be made by anyone though.

lol Franky, this is not a presentation of "choices", as you so quaintly put it, but of what's actually going to happen. Maybe if you spent as much time and effort on understanding this material as you do with using Photoshop to make things seem so confusing (you're incredibly talented at confusing simple matters), then maybe you wouldn't be so... confused?

There's no need to argue with him, it is pointless.

Also, why the lack of dates for when these things will be implemented?  its a huge problem for Core trying to sell their vision.

There is no lack of dates. There's an ETA for everything in 2016. The Classic developers are unable to create anything complex on their own, how is that not a bigger problem in comparison?

There's no reason we couldn't do segwit plus bigger blocks as Franky pointed out.

Yes there is. That would be equal to a 4 MB block size so: bandwidth, storage, propagation delay, orphans, validation time; should I continue?

[n2004al]

For me it is impossible to understand the technical explanations and various details of this kind but it easily understandable that, if eveything in main post is true, there is no need to increase the size of blocks (and that the war of the development core people is made only based at selfish reasons) and that the bitcoin could be a much more better product than it is already. A such improvement of a great invention put in the trash every kind of doubt about its R.I.P. as a product and even its role in the world of peer to peer. Then, if it would be possible to be realized even the last foreseen which see it as the base of the new internet (about which, according to my very poor knowledge in such field, are "fighting" even other peer to peer projects - one of which known by me is the project of them who are behind ethereum) would make it again the King of the Kingdom of peer to peer. As it was when was born but not as it is in the today cryptocurrency world when are not few the cryptos which (as is told by them who can do such kind of comparisons) there are cryptos better than it. If it would be the King of Kingdom of the peer to peer, that mean that it would be the King of the tomorrow real and virtual world.

[Lauda]

For me it is impossible to understand the technical explanations and various details of this kind but it easily understandable that, if eveything in main post is true, there is no need to increase the size of blocks (and that the war of the development core people is made only based at selfish reasons) and that the bitcoin could be a much more product than it is already.

I'm pretty sure that it is as accurate as it can be for a simple info-graphic. It is exactly meant to combine only a small amount of technicalities with the correct simplistic explanation. Currently there is no need to increase the size of the blocks because there will be Segwit. I'm putting up a wild guess here, but I'd say that a block size is increase due sometime in 2017 (maybe). This becomes much easier and safer to deploy because of: IBLT (reduces bandwidth) and Signature validation time being reduced (currently it is quadratic and can be problematic at 2 MB blocks). Both features are in the works and should be implemented sometime in 2016.

[jugador]

"it's not to build a paypal, it's to change the world"

It's not just possible, it's already happening, and happening very fast! Be ready!

[Lauda]

It's not just possible, it's already happening, and happening very fast! Be ready!

It is possible if we scale via off chain solutions. If we focus on scaling via the main chain we will end up centralizing (further) both miners and nodes. The question is where is the limit (e.g. what node count should be considered centralized)? This visualization could be expanded with the Lightning Network added to it (although not sure when we should expect a release).

[thejaytiesto]

It's not just possible, it's already happening, and happening very fast! Be ready!

It is possible if we scale via off chain solutions. If we focus on scaling via the main chain we will end up centralizing (further) both miners and nodes. The question is where is the limit (e.g. what node count should be considered centralized)? This visualization could be expanded with the Lightning Network added to it (although not sure when we should expect a release).

Node count should be considered centralized when people with decent computers cannot run a node on their bedroom, this is I think very clear. If people can't run a node on a single computer, its when the centralization process starts and once it starts it will expand like mining, it will end up getting "specialized", so it's crucial that we never get past that point where people can run nodes at home.

[Lauda]

Node count should be considered centralized when people with decent computers cannot run a node on their bedroom, this is I think very clear. If people can't run a node on a single computer, its when the centralization process starts and once it starts it will expand like mining, it will end up getting "specialized", so it's crucial that we never get past that point where people can run nodes at home.

Exactly. I've asked the 'big blockist' and 'forkers' before and got no reply (aside from insults). Currently there are people that run nodes on Raspberry Pi's. Obviously this won't be possible in the future unless there is an updated version but we can disregard that. Where is the cut-off point, Pentium, Dual Core, Intel i3? They'd be willing to waste a lot of valuable resources and heavily reduce the node count just in order to be able to process small purchases on the main chain. I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network.

[eternalgloom]

I think this is a nicely put together visualisation (my only criticism is that it may have actually erred slightly on the side of being too technical but I guess that depends upon the target audience).

I don't have a technical background and for me it was fine. It was actually nice to see some of these issues explained.

Great work putting this together, it really sends out a message of hope after the recent negativity.

[franky1]

Node count should be considered centralized when people with decent computers cannot run a node on their bedroom, this is I think very clear. If people can't run a node on a single computer, its when the centralization process starts and once it starts it will expand like mining, it will end up getting "specialized", so it's crucial that we never get past that point where people can run nodes at home.

Exactly. I've asked the 'big blockist' and 'forkers' before and got no reply (aside from insults). Currently there are people that run nodes on Raspberry Pi's. Obviously this won't be possible in the future unless there is an updated version but we can disregard that. Where is the cut-off point, Pentium, Dual Core, Intel i3? They'd be willing to waste a lot of valuable resources and heavily reduce the node count just in order to be able to process small purchases on the main chain. I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network.

people have replied to lauda. but he ignores and then deletes posts because it proves his agenda wrong.
EG
Skype videocalls. 30mb every 10 minutes.(upload)
netflix HD tv shows 500mb(download)

yet millions of people can use those services without being a datacenter..

i have made a valid comment in reply to the questions asked in a valid post. if this post gets deleted then so should the posts i have quoted as they are all linked. if only my post gets deleted then it shows Lauda is trying to hide the truth to pretend there is no rebuttal to his mindset

honest question time now lauda. just choose A B or C which statement fits your mindset

A. i know data is not a good excuse to not fork.. but im not sure of how orphans work or blockheights work to bring the network inline so im scared of forks
B. i know how forks work but im paid by blockstream to try ensuring blockstream dominates and has control
C. im not paid by blockstream i am just emotionally tied to the core developers through friendship and want them to be rich and powerful

[Carlton Banks]

Node count should be considered centralized when people with decent computers cannot run a node on their bedroom, this is I think very clear. If people can't run a node on a single computer, its when the centralization process starts and once it starts it will expand like mining, it will end up getting "specialized", so it's crucial that we never get past that point where people can run nodes at home.

Exactly. I've asked the 'big blockist' and 'forkers' before and got no reply (aside from insults). Currently there are people that run nodes on Raspberry Pi's. Obviously this won't be possible in the future unless there is an updated version but we can disregard that. Where is the cut-off point, Pentium, Dual Core, Intel i3? They'd be willing to waste a lot of valuable resources and heavily reduce the node count just in order to be able to process small purchases on the main chain. I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network.

people have replied to lauda. but he ignores and then deletes posts because it proves his agenda wrong.
EG
Skype videocalls. 30mb every 10 minutes.(upload)
netflix HD tv shows 500mb(download)

yet millions of people can use those services without being a datacenter..

i have made a valid comment in reply to the questions asked in a valid post. if this post gets deleted then so should the posts i have quoted as they are all linked. if only my post gets deleted then it shows Lauda is trying to hide the truth to pretend there is no rebuttal to his mindset

honest question time now lauda. just choose A B or C which statement fits your mindset

A. i know data is not a good excuse to not fork.. but im not sure of how orphans work or blockheights work to bring the network inline so im scared of forks
B. i know how forks work but im paid by blockstream to try ensuring blockstream dominates and has control
C. im not paid by blockstream i am just emotionally tied to the core developers through friendship and want them to be rich and powerful

As usual, Franky: get out of town with that garbage

The processing that gets done when a Skype call or Netflix streaming session gets downloaded is low compared to Bitcoin blocks. Cryptographic proofs need satisfying to validate the new block and it's contents. The way it is now, the amount of processing needed scales quadratically, i.e. to the fourth power every step change. That kind of burden (a doubling then raised to the power of four) could see nodes checking transaction signatures and resolving coinbase merkle roots for the entire block interval i.e. <10 minutes.

So, your simple presentation is a little too simple. Please try to improve.