Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized

[DimensionZ]

I didn't understand completely what a hard fork and a soft fork are. Does a hard fork require a new Blockchain and a soft fork doesn't?

[1715133033]

1715133033

[1715133033]

1715133033

[1715133033]

1715133033

[1715133033]

1715133033

[Amph]

I didn't understand completely what a hard fork and a soft fork are. Does a hard fork require a new Blockchain and a soft fork doesn't?

the real difference is that one is not retro compatible(hard fork) the other yes

so with an hard fork you need to upgrade otherwise you will be cut off, with a softfork not

[pawel7777]

Hmm, no it's not? Unless you have a habit of buying it on regular basis (every day) from the same merchant. To avoid confusion, "coffee" is commonly used as synonym for small to medium everyday transactions (whether recurring or not).

Well that's contradictory, an everyday transaction is, by definition, recurring, is it not? It happens every day.
...

Not quite. "recurring" at least in this context, mean multiple txs with the same merchant (the one you keep an open channel with).

Not going to address the rest of the post (the RasPi thing) as 1) Lauda wants to keep economics out; 2) It's already indirectly addressed in my posts above.

-------------------------

Putting the fees issue aside. Can any of you guys give me a quick explanation, how in laymans terms, would LN work in practice (an ideal scenario, when everything goes to plan). Would it look more like:

1 - I'd have to establish multiple, separate channels with separate parties (ie merchants) to service recurring (defined above) txs, or
2 - I could connect to multiple people/businesses through one channel (and be able to both pay/receive).

I know both aren't exclusive, so more of a question whether option 2 is possible.

[VeritasSapere]

I do not see any reason why the "Classic Solution" can not work. Just increase the blocksize, increase it again when we need to, the market will find its own natural equilibrium.

This idea that we can not scale Bitcoin to the whole world today therefore we should not scale Bitcoin any more directly today, allowing a "fee market" to develop, I think is intrinsically flawed.

The above statements directly contradict one another. You are in favour of market dynamics when it comes to one aspect of bitcoin, and yet against it when in respect of another. And yet you constantly cite market dynamics as an overriding principle, and as the impetus for blocksize increases (and for which you provide no meaningful evidence)


Can you explain the reason for the disparity in adherence to your self-professed principles?

I support a free market for Bitcoin, not the "fee market" proposed by Core. It is very revealing that you can not tell the difference.

[achow101]

2 - I could connect to multiple people/businesses through one channel (and be able to both pay/receive).

I know both aren't exclusive, so more of a question whether option 2 is possible.

I don't think it is actually possible to open a channel in which there are multiple parties. However part of the lightning network is to use hops through multiple channels to reach another party that you want to pay. The problem with that is timing as I think using that method is rather inefficient, especially for something that needs to happen quickly as it relies on everyone in between to act quickly. Furthermore, if the hops charge fees, then the transaction fee for that transaction could grow very quickly if many hops are involved. It also requires that each hop have an open channel to another hop and that may not always be the case, or at least it would require several hops.

For those one time payments, going through all of those hops would probably be inefficient. For your everyday coffee that may not be purchased from the same merchant, there could be a network of coffee merchants so that you can still pay for your coffee through lightning by routing it through several different merchants but you only need a channel to one merchant.

[Lauda]

I support a free market for Bitcoin, not the "fee market" proposed by Core. It is very revealing that you can not tell the difference.

If you artificially raise or lower the limit, the 'free market' is not actually deciding anything.

Would it look more like:

1 - I'd have to establish multiple, separate channels with separate parties (ie merchants) to service recurring (defined above) txs, or
2 - I could connect to multiple people/businesses through one channel (and be able to both pay/receive).

AFAIK: One of the engineering challenges that the teams are facing now is a decentralized solution to routing. If they get this implemented correctly then LN should look like number 2.

[VeritasSapere]

I support a free market for Bitcoin, not the "fee market" proposed by Core. It is very revealing that you can not tell the difference.

If you artificially raise or lower the limit, the 'free market' is not actually deciding anything.

A fee market already exists without a blocksize limit, the blocksize limit represents a restriction placed on the market by Core, restricting the market is the opposite of a free market. The blocksize should be based on the real supply and demand for blockspace, this is best determined by the miners themselves in combination with the participants of the network. Not a group of technocrats sitting in an ivory tower. History has shown us that centralized economic planning does work, Core can not possible know all of the variables at play, especially considering that the variables are different for each participant. Cvonvert2G36 actually explained this distinction well.

In a capitalism based economy, the fee market would be miners deciding the prices of their product, block space.

They used soft limits for years and would do so again. Malicious block construction could be easily prevented, or at least contained to the equivalence of 1MB blocks.

Core devs with their fingers on this dial is central economic planning, something that used to be a good deal less popular around these parts. Sad thing, that.

[johnyj]

Is this slide written to win an election?

libsecp256k1 is good, rest is not needed. Now we have LN realized on 21inc's computer,
https://21.co/learn/intro-to-micropayment-channels/#introduction-to-micropayment-channels

It clearly showed that you don't need to mess with bitcoin protocol to make those extra features. When LN is not needed, SW is not needed, because then the txid problem will be trivial, back to scaling with lifting block size  

[Lauda]

A fee market already exists without a blocksize limit, the blocksize limit represents a restriction placed on the market by Core, restricting the market is the opposite of a free market. The blocksize should be based on the real supply and demand for blockspace, this is best determined by the miners themselves in combination with the participants of the network. Not a group of technocrats sitting in an ivory tower.

So your answer is putting more power in the hands of the miners? How lovely.

Is this slide written to win an election?

Bitcoin is not a democracy. How many times does this have to be explained to you guys?

libsecp256k1 is good, rest is not needed. Now we have LN realized on 21inc's computer,
https://21.co/learn/intro-to-micropayment-channels/#introduction-to-micropayment-channels

It clearly showed that you don't need to mess with bitcoin protocol to make those extra features. When LN is not needed, SW is not needed, because then the txid problem will be trivial, back to scaling with lifting block size 

Nonsense. Their system is not comparable to LN. Their micro payments are limited to their systems. I should not be suprised that you'd throw away IBLT and weak blocks. Your knowledge is really limited and faulty.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Thank you for this roadmap visualization.

[johnyj]

It clearly showed that you don't need to mess with bitcoin protocol to make those extra features. When LN is not needed, SW is not needed, because then the txid problem will be trivial, back to scaling with lifting block size  

Nonsense. Their system is not comparable to LN. Their micro payments are limited to their systems. I should not be suprised that you'd throw away IBLT and weak blocks. Your knowledge is really limited and faulty.

Users don't care what system they are using, if there is really a market demand, then this solution will be widely spread by the time your solution is ready and pass major consensus threshold (might take years). However if no one is interested in micro payment channels thus no one is buying into 21inc's solution(as my research indicated), then it is a good indicator that your R&D direction is wrong

Yes bitcoin is not democracy, it is consensus, but to form a consensus is extremely time consuming. It could drag you years to make a decision, much less efficient then a simple company like 21 inc directly implement what they want without the need for reaching agreement among core devs

In fact I'm still wondering about the governance model in Git, IMO any of the core devs can wipe out all the changes done by other core devs. I don't see how a controversial change like segwit or blocksize increase can make their way into GIT without all the 5 guys agree to it. Even a 2MB increase could drag for one year, a large change like segwit is estimated about 2 years at best

[Lauda]

In fact I'm still wondering about the governance model in Git, IMO any of the core devs can wipe out all the changes done by other core devs. I don't see how a controversial change like segwit or blocksize increase can make their way into GIT without all the 5 guys agree to it. Even a 2MB increase could drag for one year, a large change like segwit is estimated about 2 years at best

FUD as always. Please stop posting nonsense. Changes don't take long if they are properly coded, tested and documented. Segwit is coming in ~2 months. It is expected for April, albeit it can come sooner or later.
I wonder what your price was.

Thank you for this roadmap visualization.

You're welcome. I'll add more if I find anything useful/interesting.

[VeritasSapere]

It clearly showed that you don't need to mess with bitcoin protocol to make those extra features. When LN is not needed, SW is not needed, because then the txid problem will be trivial, back to scaling with lifting block size  

Nonsense. Their system is not comparable to LN. Their micro payments are limited to their systems. I should not be suprised that you'd throw away IBLT and weak blocks. Your knowledge is really limited and faulty.

Users don't care what system they are using, if there is really a market demand, then this solution will be widely spread by the time your solution is ready and pass major consensus threshold (might take years). However if no one is interested in micro payment channels thus no one is buying into 21inc's solution(as my research indicated), then it is a good indicator that your R&D direction is wrong

Yes bitcoin is not democracy, it is consensus, but to form a consensus is extremely time consuming. It could drag you years to make a decision, much less efficient then a simple company like 21 inc directly implement what they want without the need for reaching agreement among core devs

In fact I'm still wondering about the governance model in Git, IMO any of the core devs can wipe out all the changes done by other core devs. I don't see how a controversial change like segwit or blocksize increase can make their way into GIT without all the 5 guys agree to it. Even a 2MB increase could drag for one year, a large change like segwit is estimated about 2 years at best

This is exactly why we need to have the development of Bitcoin distributed across several implementations. This would solve the problem of all open source projects intrinsically being dictatorships, this is why development needs to become more decentralized in order for the governance mechanism of Bitcoin to function better, fortunately that is happening now.

[VeritasSapere]

A fee market already exists without a blocksize limit, the blocksize limit represents a restriction placed on the market by Core, restricting the market is the opposite of a free market. The blocksize should be based on the real supply and demand for blockspace, this is best determined by the miners themselves in combination with the participants of the network. Not a group of technocrats sitting in an ivory tower.

So your answer is putting more power in the hands of the miners? How lovely.

You are confirming what I am saying then. It is true I would like to see blocksize determined by real supply and demand, not economic central planning.

Is this slide written to win an election?

Bitcoin is not a democracy. How many times does this have to be explained to you guys?

Bitcoin's governance mechanism is a form of democracy, not a democracy in the way that we know today. It is very different, I think better. However there are very democratic aspects to it, like reflecting the will of the economic majority. Which is not that dissimilar to reflecting the will of the people, which is what democracies are supposed to do in theory at least.

I think that Bitcoin is freedom, as long as enough people think this way, it will continue to be free. I suppose your position has been made quite clear here. You do not want Bitcoin to be democratic, and you prefer economic planning over the price being determined through supply and demand. I can respect your directness and consistency here.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin.

[Lauda]

So your answer is putting more power in the hands of the miners? How lovely.

You are confirming what I am saying then. It is true I would like to see blocksize determined by real supply and demand, not economic central planning.

Putting the power in the hands of the miner is a form of central planning. Do you not know how this process even works? Either the miners decide or the developers decide, there is not much of a difference in the model and it surely is not based on 'real supply and demand'.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin.

Nonsense. This is not happening to Bitcoin. Nobody is trying to convince people that there should be no freedom. You are free to run whichever implementation you want. If you don't agree with the rules of the system then you need not run the implementation.

[VeritasSapere]

So your answer is putting more power in the hands of the miners? How lovely.

You are confirming what I am saying then. It is true I would like to see blocksize determined by real supply and demand, not economic central planning.

Putting the power in the hands of the miner is a form of central planning. Do you not know how this process even works? Either the miners decide or the developers decide, there is not much of a difference in the model and it surely is not based on 'real supply and demand'.

Obviously mining is far more decentralized presently then Bitcoin development is, so your argument does not have merit in that sense at all. Furthermore there is another significant difference between the two, which is that miners know best for their own individual circumstances what parameters and risks to take. I do not see how Core is in a better position to judge this, the opposite is obviously true. I can break it down even more for you so that you can maybe understand.

If the miners represent the supply, and the users represent the demand. Who is Core in this picture? Exactly, more like a centralized economic planning committee in this relationship, they neither represent the supply nor the demand, why should they be the ones deciding on the price? The miners who supply the market should determine the price based on the users demand. These are basic economic principles and very relevant to this discussion.

Bitcoin is not a democracy. How many times does this have to be explained to you guys?

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin.

Nonsense. This is not happening to Bitcoin. Nobody is trying to convince people that there should be no freedom. You are free to run whichever implementation you want. If you don't agree with the rules of the system then you need not run the implementation.

I suppose that you just do not recognize that this is a democratic form of governance.

[Lauda]

Obviously mining is far more decentralized presently then Bitcoin development is, so your argument does not have merit in that sense at all. Furthermore there is another significant difference between the two, which is that miners know best for their own individual circumstances what parameters and risks to take. I do not see how Core is in a better position to judge this, the opposite is obviously true. I can break it down even more for you so that you can maybe understand.

Mining is currently "far more decentralized" than the development? No. If you count the people with commit access and the people that are are in charge of the pools, you'd probably get to a similar number. Miners don't really "care" not do they know "best". This is one of the reasons for which BIP 100 was rejected. People with common sense don't want to give more power to the miners.

Why should they be the ones deciding on the price? The miners who supply the market should determine the price based on the users demand. These are basic economic principles and very relevant to this discussion.

You are spewing nonsense that is off-topic. Core does not decide on the price. Changing the block size limit does not have any effect on the 'supply'.
These so called principles are not relevant to the roadmap at all. Unless you have something relevant to say I suggest that you do not post. I'll delete replies that do not fit further down the road.

[VeritasSapere]

Obviously mining is far more decentralized presently then Bitcoin development is, so your argument does not have merit in that sense at all. Furthermore there is another significant difference between the two, which is that miners know best for their own individual circumstances what parameters and risks to take. I do not see how Core is in a better position to judge this, the opposite is obviously true. I can break it down even more for you so that you can maybe understand.

Mining is currently "far more decentralized" than the development? No. If you count the people with commit access and the people that are are in charge of the pools, you'd probably get to a similar number. Miners don't really "care" not do they know "best". This is one of the reasons for which BIP 100 was rejected. People with common sense don't want to give more power to the miners.

There are thousands of miners all over the world, I am one of them. There are five Core developers with commit access and only one person who has the final say in Core. I think most people here will know that what I am saying here is true.

Why should they be the ones deciding on the price? The miners who supply the market should determine the price based on the users demand. These are basic economic principles and very relevant to this discussion.

You are spewing nonsense that is off-topic. Core does not decide on the price. Changing the block size limit does not have any effect on the 'supply'.

By deciding on the blocksize they are deciding on the price of transacting on the network. I was referring to blockspace when using the term supply, that in a supply and demand economy, the miners represent the supply for blockspace, and the users the demand. Whereas Core does not actually fit into this model at all.

These so called principles are not relevant to the roadmap at all. Unless you have something relevant to say I suggest that you do not post. I'll delete replies that do not fit further down the road.

For you to think that basic economic principles are not relevant in a discussion of free markets and the future economics of Bitcoin then I think you are missing a very large part of the picture. I was going to thank you for being so freedom minded by not deleting my posts. But I suppose I can take this as a threat that you will start deleting my posts, so this will be my last message on this thread then.

[Lauda]

There are thousands of miners all over the world, I am one of them.

You can't know this. If you are talking about people who are running a rig or two at home, then forget about it. This is a thing of the past (unfortunately).

There are five Core developers with commit access and only one person who has the final say in Core.

There are five mining pools in which ~80-90% of the hashrate is concentrated.

By deciding on the blocksize they are deciding on the price of transacting on the network.

They've decided to add more space via Segwit.

For you to think that basic economic principles are not relevant in a discussion of free markets and the future economics of Bitcoin then I think you are missing a very large part of the picture.

The thread is about any of the points found on the info-graphic. It is not about the 'free markets', 'future economics' nor any kind of economics. Even if any of this is related, I don't want it in my thread (nor is it suitable for this sub-forum).

I was going to thank you for being so freedom minded by not deleting my posts. But I suppose I can take this as a threat that you will start deleting my posts, so I suppose this will be my last message on this thread then.

Not really. Posts by people who are on my ignore list get deleted automatically regardless of the contents. Otherwise I try not to delete many others. If you keep it on-topic then there is no reason for me to delete you posts (keep in mind that blind propaganda such as "Blockstream is a company and thus must be evil" will not be tolerated).

[achow101]

There are thousands of miners all over the world, I am one of them. There are five Core developers with commit access and only one person who has the final say in Core. I think most people here will know that what I am saying here is true.

There are actually seven developers with commit access. Who do you claim has the final say, and how so?

There are 11 major mining pools. The pool operators have the final say on what the pool mines. Even though you are a miner, you have no say in what goes into the block. You could of course change pools if you don't like what the pool is doing, but if no other pool does what you want, then solo mining or starting your own pool isn't going to make much of a difference in anything. So when it comes to mining, only the pool operators of the 11 major pools actually matter, and they make mining centralized.

By deciding on the blocksize they are deciding on the price of transacting on the network. I was referring to blockspace when using the term supply, that in a supply and demand economy, the miners represent the supply for blockspace, and the users the demand. Whereas Core does not actually fit into this model at all.

The developers are not supplying anything except code. Like you said, the miners determine the supply of block space, and the miners can choose whether they want to use one implementation or another, the core developers aren't forcing anyone to do anything.