Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized

[franky1]

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.

keeping it short and sweet.

processors and ram are much cheaper,faster, more capable and common now than 2 years ago. and will again be better, faster, cheaper in 2 years.
we are not stuck with 2009 technology! or 2013-14 technology.
but i do like how lauda's example of the processing crisis is referencing raspberry pies rather than normal computers, that atleast made me laugh.

maybe i should complain that segwit wont run on a ZX spectrum as an exaggerated example to show lauda's mindset. and i do like how lauda in the post says that he doesnt think normal users buying normal stuff deserve the security of exahash network.. very bait and switch(common users off of bitcoin) mindset.

which shows blockstream isnt about bitcoin being for the community at all

[Lauda]

6700k just one example. oh wait.. its newer, its faster its cheaper its more capable... oopsy

Intel® Core™ i7-6700K Processor - Launched: 2015; Launch price: 350$
Intel® Core™ i7-3770K Processor - Launched: 2012; Launch price: 342$

Effective Speed +24%
Average User Bench +26%
2.3% more expensive
Source
After my initial comparison was "incorrect", here you have it. The numbers sure look better, right? It only took 3 years to gain a ~25% increase in computational power.

No more nonsense will be tolerated. Either admit to being wrong, or submit valid technical evidence that supports your argument (you tend to be a straw-man often).

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

the amount of processing needed scales quadratically, i.e. to the fourth power every step change.

What?   Quadratic means 'squared'.  Where are you getting x⁴ from?

[Lauda]

What?   Quadratic means 'squared'.  Where are you getting x⁴ from?

"f(x) scales quadratically with x" means, in a rough sense, that f(2x) is about four times as large as f(x), and f(5x) is about twenty-five times as large as f(x).

Which is what the hashing problem O(n^2) is about.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

What?   Quadratic means 'squared'.  Where are you getting x⁴ from?

"f(x) scales quadratically with x" means, in a rough sense, that f(2x) is about four times as large as f(x), and f(5x) is about twenty-five times as large as f(x).

Which is what the hashing problem O(n^2) is about.

So "4 times" = x⁴ by your logic?

You do know that the relationship 5x : 25  is actually 5²?

The way it is now, the amount of processing needed scales quadratically, i.e. to the fourth power every step change.

[Lauda]

So "4 times" = x⁴ by your logic?

Never said such a thing, just wanted to post the definition of it that I've used in the past. It might be useful for Carlton.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

So "4 times" = x⁴ by your logic?

Never said such a thing, just wanted to post the definition of it that I've used in the past. It might be useful for Carlton.

"f(x) scales quadratically with x" means, in a rough sense, that f(2x) is about four times as large as f(x)....

I wouldn't quote that (incorrect) titbit to Calrton, it will just confuse the old duffer even more.

[Lauda]

I wouldn't quote that (incorrect) titbit to Calrton, it will just confuse the old duffer even more.

Incorrect; how? Provide a source please.
I took it directly from a website long ago; now I've found it again. Take a look for yourself. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here nor how it is relevant to OP?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I took it directly from a website long ago; now I've found it again. Take a look for yourself. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here nor how it is relevant to OP?

It wasnt relevant to the OP. It was relevant to Carltons post.  He said 'quadratic' was raising to the "fourth power"

Now, for any particular x, f(2x) need not be /exactly/ equal to 4f(x) in order to be called quadratic. However, as x gets larger, f(2x) must get arbitrarily close to 4f(x).

[Lauda]

The Infographic was updated with corrections from BtcDrak, Adam Back, Eric Lombrozo, and Luke-Jr.

[pawel7777]

Nice infographic.

What bothers me is the bigger picture (distant future). How would this roadmap work in terms of providing sufficient miners fees when block subsidy becomes irrelevant (or disappear completely).

If I get this correctly, in order for everything to work, we would need to have pretty specific, balanced condition where:

- fees are high enough to prevent average Joe to make his regular txs on the blockchain
- fees are affordable enough to make Joe settle his balance often enough to provide miners with sufficient reward.

I honestly can't imagine what would possibly be the right tx cost. If it's too high, Bitcoin is unattractive to Joe, if too low, Bitcoin is unattractive to miners.

Alternatively:

- Joe stays off-chain (but on LN) his entire life (assuming it's possible) and enjoys cheap txs.
- Miner fees are paid mostly by businesses/institutions.

But then, if it's possible to operate off-chain, why would businesses pay high fees if they could settle balances as rarely as possible (never?) to pay lower fees.

I'm obviously missing something here, there's no way no one thought of that, but can't figure it out. Seems to me like there will have to be an artificial bottle neck and some sort of central planning (by adjusting max-block size) to get it work (but even then it doesn't make sense).

Could anyone be so kind and paint me hypothetical scenario how this could work out?

Bonus question: what % of BTC users would have to start using LN in order for it to get desired traction (I vaguely recall reading somewhere that it's >60%).

[thejaytiesto]

Nice infographic.

What bothers me is the bigger picture (distant future). How would this roadmap work in terms of providing sufficient miners fees when block subsidy becomes irrelevant (or disappear completely).

If I get this correctly, in order for everything to work, we would need to have pretty specific, balanced condition where:

- fees are high enough to prevent average Joe to make his regular txs on the blockchain
- fees are affordable enough to make Joe settle his balance often enough to provide miners with sufficient reward.

I honestly can't imagine what would possibly be the right tx cost. If it's too high, Bitcoin is unattractive to Joe, if too low, Bitcoin is unattractive to miners.

Alternatively:

- Joe stays off-chain (but on LN) his entire life (assuming it's possible) and enjoys cheap txs.
- Miner fees are paid mostly by businesses/institutions.

But then, if it's possible to operate off-chain, why would businesses pay high fees if they could settle balances as rarely as possible (never?) to pay lower fees.

I'm obviously missing something here, there's no way no one thought of that, but can't figure it out. Seems to me like there will have to be an artificial bottle neck and some sort of central planning (by adjusting max-block size) to get it work (but even then it doesn't make sense).

Could anyone be so kind and paint me hypothetical scenario how this could work out?

Bonus question: what % of BTC users would have to start using LN in order for it to get desired traction (I vaguely recall reading somewhere that it's >60%).

I don't think anyone is going to bother with on-chain transations in the future when you can send transactions as safely instantly and cheaply thanks to LN. So the question is: Who is going to use on-chain transactions so the miners get a decent amount of money to justify keep validating transactions?
I mean if LN is as safe as on-chain transactions.. why even use on-chain. Maybe if you are buying something huge like a car or something, but even then, if it's safe to pay with LN and not pay higher fees..

[VeritasSapere]

Nice infographic.

What bothers me is the bigger picture (distant future). How would this roadmap work in terms of providing sufficient miners fees when block subsidy becomes irrelevant (or disappear completely).

If I get this correctly, in order for everything to work, we would need to have pretty specific, balanced condition where:

- fees are high enough to prevent average Joe to make his regular txs on the blockchain
- fees are affordable enough to make Joe settle his balance often enough to provide miners with sufficient reward.

I honestly can't imagine what would possibly be the right tx cost. If it's too high, Bitcoin is unattractive to Joe, if too low, Bitcoin is unattractive to miners.

Alternatively:

- Joe stays off-chain (but on LN) his entire life (assuming it's possible) and enjoys cheap txs.
- Miner fees are paid mostly by businesses/institutions.

But then, if it's possible to operate off-chain, why would businesses pay high fees if they could settle balances as rarely as possible (never?) to pay lower fees.

I'm obviously missing something here, there's no way no one thought of that, but can't figure it out. Seems to me like there will have to be an artificial bottle neck and some sort of central planning (by adjusting max-block size) to get it work (but even then it doesn't make sense).

Could anyone be so kind and paint me hypothetical scenario how this could work out?

Bonus question: what % of BTC users would have to start using LN in order for it to get desired traction (I vaguely recall reading somewhere that it's >60%).

I think that you are spot on, it does not work. Lauda even said it himself, Core wants to rebuild Bitcoin. According to them Satoshi's vision of Bitcoin is not good enough. They are diverging from the original vision of Bitcoin. I think that as decentralized as the internet is good enough. Bitcoin is build on top of the internet after all.

Did you notice how there are no dates in the roadmap whatsoever. Fundamentally changing the economic policy of Bitcoin like this while pretending to intend to scale Bitcoin significantly directly is deceitful. There are fundamentally different visions for the future of Bitcoin that are at odds here.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html
http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/tag/block-size-debate
https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.7ek47hakx

[VeritasSapere]

Nice infographic.

What bothers me is the bigger picture (distant future). How would this roadmap work in terms of providing sufficient miners fees when block subsidy becomes irrelevant (or disappear completely).

If I get this correctly, in order for everything to work, we would need to have pretty specific, balanced condition where:

- fees are high enough to prevent average Joe to make his regular txs on the blockchain
- fees are affordable enough to make Joe settle his balance often enough to provide miners with sufficient reward.

I honestly can't imagine what would possibly be the right tx cost. If it's too high, Bitcoin is unattractive to Joe, if too low, Bitcoin is unattractive to miners.

Alternatively:

- Joe stays off-chain (but on LN) his entire life (assuming it's possible) and enjoys cheap txs.
- Miner fees are paid mostly by businesses/institutions.

But then, if it's possible to operate off-chain, why would businesses pay high fees if they could settle balances as rarely as possible (never?) to pay lower fees.

I'm obviously missing something here, there's no way no one thought of that, but can't figure it out. Seems to me like there will have to be an artificial bottle neck and some sort of central planning (by adjusting max-block size) to get it work (but even then it doesn't make sense).

Could anyone be so kind and paint me hypothetical scenario how this could work out?

Bonus question: what % of BTC users would have to start using LN in order for it to get desired traction (I vaguely recall reading somewhere that it's >60%).

I don't think anyone is going to bother with on-chain transations in the future when you can send transactions as safely instantly and cheaply thanks to LN. So the question is: Who is going to use on-chain transactions so the miners get a decent amount of money to justify keep validating transactions?
I mean if LN is as safe as on-chain transactions.. why even use on-chain. Maybe if you are buying something huge like a car or something, but even then, if it's safe to pay with LN and not pay higher fees..

I can turn that around actually, who is going to bother with LN and SD when everyone can just transact directly, easily and cheaply using real cryptocurrencies. I would hope that Bitcoin chooses to remain a real cryptocurrency otherwise I am sure it will be obsoleted and outcompeted.

[thejaytiesto]

Nice infographic.

What bothers me is the bigger picture (distant future). How would this roadmap work in terms of providing sufficient miners fees when block subsidy becomes irrelevant (or disappear completely).

If I get this correctly, in order for everything to work, we would need to have pretty specific, balanced condition where:

- fees are high enough to prevent average Joe to make his regular txs on the blockchain
- fees are affordable enough to make Joe settle his balance often enough to provide miners with sufficient reward.

I honestly can't imagine what would possibly be the right tx cost. If it's too high, Bitcoin is unattractive to Joe, if too low, Bitcoin is unattractive to miners.

Alternatively:

- Joe stays off-chain (but on LN) his entire life (assuming it's possible) and enjoys cheap txs.
- Miner fees are paid mostly by businesses/institutions.

But then, if it's possible to operate off-chain, why would businesses pay high fees if they could settle balances as rarely as possible (never?) to pay lower fees.

I'm obviously missing something here, there's no way no one thought of that, but can't figure it out. Seems to me like there will have to be an artificial bottle neck and some sort of central planning (by adjusting max-block size) to get it work (but even then it doesn't make sense).

Could anyone be so kind and paint me hypothetical scenario how this could work out?

Bonus question: what % of BTC users would have to start using LN in order for it to get desired traction (I vaguely recall reading somewhere that it's >60%).

I think that you are spot on, it does not work. Lauda even said it himself, Core wants to rebuild Bitcoin. According to them Satoshi's vision of Bitcoin is not good enough. They are diverging from the original vision of Bitcoin. I think that as decentralized as the internet is good enough. Bitcoin is build on top of the internet after all.

Did you notice how there are no dates in the roadmap whatsoever. Fundamentally changing the economic policy of Bitcoin like this while pretending to intend to scale Bitcoin significantly directly is deceitful. There are fundamentally different visions for the future of Bitcoin that are at odds here.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html
http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/tag/block-size-debate
https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.7ek47hakx

"As decentralized as internet", so you mean as the other endless iterations of "internet money" that have always end up getting raided by the authorities?

That's nonsense, the first priority should be decentralization of the nodes, "as decentralized as internet" in terms of nodes means datacenters running nodes, which means Bitcoin turns into Paypal 2.0 in other words useless, since we already have Paypal.
I don't care what Satoshi said, the current Core view on reality is the most realistic one and the best compromise in terms of pro privacy and pro decentralization.

[Lauda]

I think that you are spot on, it does not work.

It should work.

Lauda even said it himself, Core wants to rebuild Bitcoin. According to them Satoshi's vision of Bitcoin is not good enough. They are diverging from the original vision of Bitcoin. I think that as decentralized as the internet is good enough. Bitcoin is build on top of the internet after all.

That's not what I said. I said if they could rebuild Bitcoin from scratch they would, but it is not possible right now. What I meant was improve the underlying infrastructure from scratch. The internet is not really decentralized.

Did you notice how there are no dates in the roadmap whatsoever. Fundamentally changing the economic policy of Bitcoin like this while pretending to intend to scale Bitcoin significantly directly is deceitful. There are fundamentally different visions for the future of Bitcoin that are at odds here.

Core did not create the infographic. Anyhow this is all much better than Classic regardless of when it comes in 2016.

I can turn that around actually, who is going to bother with LN and SD when everyone can just transact directly, easily and cheaply using real cryptocurrencies. I would hope that Bitcoin chooses to remain a real cryptocurrency otherwise I am sure it will be obsoleted and outcompeted.

Transacting via the LN will be cheaper and faster. You don't know what you're talking about. If Bitcoin goes down, so do almost all of the cryptocurrencies.

[thejaytiesto]

Nice infographic.

What bothers me is the bigger picture (distant future). How would this roadmap work in terms of providing sufficient miners fees when block subsidy becomes irrelevant (or disappear completely).

If I get this correctly, in order for everything to work, we would need to have pretty specific, balanced condition where:

- fees are high enough to prevent average Joe to make his regular txs on the blockchain
- fees are affordable enough to make Joe settle his balance often enough to provide miners with sufficient reward.

I honestly can't imagine what would possibly be the right tx cost. If it's too high, Bitcoin is unattractive to Joe, if too low, Bitcoin is unattractive to miners.

Alternatively:

- Joe stays off-chain (but on LN) his entire life (assuming it's possible) and enjoys cheap txs.
- Miner fees are paid mostly by businesses/institutions.

But then, if it's possible to operate off-chain, why would businesses pay high fees if they could settle balances as rarely as possible (never?) to pay lower fees.

I'm obviously missing something here, there's no way no one thought of that, but can't figure it out. Seems to me like there will have to be an artificial bottle neck and some sort of central planning (by adjusting max-block size) to get it work (but even then it doesn't make sense).

Could anyone be so kind and paint me hypothetical scenario how this could work out?

Bonus question: what % of BTC users would have to start using LN in order for it to get desired traction (I vaguely recall reading somewhere that it's >60%).

I don't think anyone is going to bother with on-chain transations in the future when you can send transactions as safely instantly and cheaply thanks to LN. So the question is: Who is going to use on-chain transactions so the miners get a decent amount of money to justify keep validating transactions?
I mean if LN is as safe as on-chain transactions.. why even use on-chain. Maybe if you are buying something huge like a car or something, but even then, if it's safe to pay with LN and not pay higher fees..

I can turn that around actually, who is going to bother with LN and SD when everyone can just transact directly, easily and cheaply using real cryptocurrencies. I would hope that Bitcoin chooses to remain a real cryptocurrency otherwise I am sure it will be obsoleted and outcompeted.

LN remains the best way to scale Bitcoin worldwide without ruining node decentralization in the process. Until the day a cryptocurrency allows for global level transaction volume, all on-chain without massive node centralization, that is fact. But I don't think that's possible, therefore Bitcoin has 0 competition, realistically.

[VeritasSapere]

Nice infographic.

What bothers me is the bigger picture (distant future). How would this roadmap work in terms of providing sufficient miners fees when block subsidy becomes irrelevant (or disappear completely).

If I get this correctly, in order for everything to work, we would need to have pretty specific, balanced condition where:

- fees are high enough to prevent average Joe to make his regular txs on the blockchain
- fees are affordable enough to make Joe settle his balance often enough to provide miners with sufficient reward.

I honestly can't imagine what would possibly be the right tx cost. If it's too high, Bitcoin is unattractive to Joe, if too low, Bitcoin is unattractive to miners.

Alternatively:

- Joe stays off-chain (but on LN) his entire life (assuming it's possible) and enjoys cheap txs.
- Miner fees are paid mostly by businesses/institutions.

But then, if it's possible to operate off-chain, why would businesses pay high fees if they could settle balances as rarely as possible (never?) to pay lower fees.

I'm obviously missing something here, there's no way no one thought of that, but can't figure it out. Seems to me like there will have to be an artificial bottle neck and some sort of central planning (by adjusting max-block size) to get it work (but even then it doesn't make sense).

Could anyone be so kind and paint me hypothetical scenario how this could work out?

Bonus question: what % of BTC users would have to start using LN in order for it to get desired traction (I vaguely recall reading somewhere that it's >60%).

I think that you are spot on, it does not work. Lauda even said it himself, Core wants to rebuild Bitcoin. According to them Satoshi's vision of Bitcoin is not good enough. They are diverging from the original vision of Bitcoin. I think that as decentralized as the internet is good enough. Bitcoin is build on top of the internet after all.

Did you notice how there are no dates in the roadmap whatsoever. Fundamentally changing the economic policy of Bitcoin like this while pretending to intend to scale Bitcoin significantly directly is deceitful. There are fundamentally different visions for the future of Bitcoin that are at odds here.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html
http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/tag/block-size-debate
https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.7ek47hakx

"As decentralize as internet", so you mean as the other endless iterations of "internet money" that have always end up getting raided by the authorities?

That's nonsense, the first priority should be decentralization of the nodes, "as decentralized as internet" in terms of nodes means datacenters running nodes, which means Bitcoin turns into Paypal 2.0 in other words useless, since we already have Paypal.
I don't care was Satoshi said, the current Core view on reality is the most realistic one and the best compromise in terms of pro privacy and pro decentralization.

Bitcoin's predecessors where completely centralized, not a good example at all and that is not what I meant. In regards to the internet, think about it, what it would it take to destroy the internet today? Impossible right? Security through mass adoption, not obscurity is the path forward for Bitcoin and this was always the intention.

The internet has given us so much, freedom of information, communication even Bitcoin I find it hard to understand why you think the internet was a mistake and why Bitcoin should not make these same mistakes again. I am inclined towards the opposite believe actually, we should not use blocksize limit as a economic policy tool, it was never intended for that, the limit should be significantly above the average transaction volume, this way it serves its original purpose as a anti spam measure.

Arbitrarily restricting the organic growth of the network should not be considered a good thing.

[VeritasSapere]

Nice infographic.

What bothers me is the bigger picture (distant future). How would this roadmap work in terms of providing sufficient miners fees when block subsidy becomes irrelevant (or disappear completely).

If I get this correctly, in order for everything to work, we would need to have pretty specific, balanced condition where:

- fees are high enough to prevent average Joe to make his regular txs on the blockchain
- fees are affordable enough to make Joe settle his balance often enough to provide miners with sufficient reward.

I honestly can't imagine what would possibly be the right tx cost. If it's too high, Bitcoin is unattractive to Joe, if too low, Bitcoin is unattractive to miners.

Alternatively:

- Joe stays off-chain (but on LN) his entire life (assuming it's possible) and enjoys cheap txs.
- Miner fees are paid mostly by businesses/institutions.

But then, if it's possible to operate off-chain, why would businesses pay high fees if they could settle balances as rarely as possible (never?) to pay lower fees.

I'm obviously missing something here, there's no way no one thought of that, but can't figure it out. Seems to me like there will have to be an artificial bottle neck and some sort of central planning (by adjusting max-block size) to get it work (but even then it doesn't make sense).

Could anyone be so kind and paint me hypothetical scenario how this could work out?

Bonus question: what % of BTC users would have to start using LN in order for it to get desired traction (I vaguely recall reading somewhere that it's >60%).

I don't think anyone is going to bother with on-chain transations in the future when you can send transactions as safely instantly and cheaply thanks to LN. So the question is: Who is going to use on-chain transactions so the miners get a decent amount of money to justify keep validating transactions?
I mean if LN is as safe as on-chain transactions.. why even use on-chain. Maybe if you are buying something huge like a car or something, but even then, if it's safe to pay with LN and not pay higher fees..

I can turn that around actually, who is going to bother with LN and SD when everyone can just transact directly, easily and cheaply using real cryptocurrencies. I would hope that Bitcoin chooses to remain a real cryptocurrency otherwise I am sure it will be obsoleted and outcompeted.

LN remains the best way to scale Bitcoin worldwide without ruining node decentralization in the process. Until the day a cryptocurrency allows for global level transaction volume, all on-chain without massive node centralization, that is fact. But I don't think that's possible, therefore Bitcoin has 0 competition, realistically.

I think that you are suffering from the engineers nirvana fallacy. I think that the logic that we can not scale to global levels today, therefore we should not scale bitcoin directly at all is flawed. Technology improves and we can increase the limit as we need, restricting Bitcoin now at one megabyte does not make any sense, we can easily increase it to two megabytes without massive node centralization or whatever. Which would avoid transacting on the Bitcoin network directly becoming more expensive and less reliable, which would not be good for adoption.

If you think that Bitcoin has no competition then you also have your head in the sand, Dash for instance can already do fifty six transactions per second, quickly, cheaply and directly without the inconvenience of having to use the lighting network or any other payment channel build on top of the blockchain.

[pawel7777]

I don't think anyone is going to bother with on-chain transations in the future when you can send transactions as safely instantly and cheaply thanks to LN. So the question is: Who is going to use on-chain transactions so the miners get a decent amount of money to justify keep validating transactions?
I mean if LN is as safe as on-chain transactions.. why even use on-chain. Maybe if you are buying something huge like a car or something, but even then, if it's safe to pay with LN and not pay higher fees..

So are you against Core map or pro?
Blockchain is a backbone of LN, with no incentive to miners both blockchain and LN fail.

I think that you are spot on, it does not work.

It will work.

Great. But how?

Again, there's a conflict in design, you need both average users to stay on-chain and off-chain. I don't think even central planning would work.

So again, I hope I'm missing something here, but if not, that means this roadmap would put 'expiration date' on Bitcoin.
And to make it clear, it's not about "something can go wrong" but about "it cannot possibly go right", well, unless you make some significant changes in entire Bitcoin design.

The only solutions that comes to my mind (at this moment) are:

- lifting 21 million cap
- switching to different algo (PoS?) but that would affect LN
- increasing block size and making txs cheap again (back to Classic solution), but hoping that users would use both, on-chain + LN (probably not likely to succeed)
- hoping that few BTC businesses would take on mining operations on themselves (mine at loss), but so much for decentralisation
- hoping that BTC businesses will be making regular charity donations by voluntarily paying high enough fees.

Does any of the above sound attractive?

I'm bit surprised to see any serious members in full support of this roadmap without having a clue how the above could possibly be sorted out. Or is it just "who gives a f**k, this problem not gonna happen anytime soon" kind of logic?