Bitcoin 2013: The Future of Payments - San Jose, CA - May 17-19, 2013

[tvbcof]

...
* The colored coin concept is HUGELY powerful - I had thought it an interesting diversion before I came but, after it was explained a few times, it made me realise just how versatile the core "distributed ledger" metaphor really it.   

Of course.  Everyone likes a free lunch and sees a way to get rich by sponging off the work of others.

Not sure I understand.  What are you objecting to?  The repupurposing of the bitcoin network for the tracking of real-world assets? something else?

Essentially that, yes.  I'm bummed out that it takes so much overhead already that users (including my friends) are discouraged from running a full node.  In other words, are no longer reasonably capable of being 'peers' the the supposedly 'peer2peer' solution.  That lie is finally starting to be deprecated it seems...years after I suggested that it might be intellectually honest to start doing so...  Anyway, the issue will only get worse when they need to process data for everyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a reliable messaging and storage solution.

It does seem that there is a significant overlap in the groups of people who bitch most loudly about the fees/block size are they who are all ga-ga about colored-ish utilization.

[SamS]

...
* The colored coin concept is HUGELY powerful - I had thought it an interesting diversion before I came but, after it was explained a few times, it made me realise just how versatile the core "distributed ledger" metaphor really it.   

Of course.  Everyone likes a free lunch and sees a way to get rich by sponging off the work of others.

Not sure I understand.  What are you objecting to?  The repupurposing of the bitcoin network for the tracking of real-world assets? something else?

Essentially that, yes.  I'm bummed out that it takes so much overhead already that users (including my friends) are discouraged from running a full node.  In other words, are no longer reasonably capable of being 'peers' the the supposedly 'peer2peer' solution.  That lie is finally starting to be deprecated it seems...years after I suggested that it might be intellectually honest to start doing so...  Anyway, the issue will only get worse when they need to process data for everyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a reliable messaging and storage solution.

It does seem that there is a significant overlap in the groups of people who bitch most loudly about the fees/block size are they who are all ga-ga about colored-ish utilization.

Speaking as a non-crypto newbie,  when I saw what it took to download the block chain and run a node I just shook my head. I really don't understand how it scales --  and was surprised to hear the guy from Google suggest it wasn't a problem at the GigaOm event last week.

[Rassah]

Essentially that, yes.  I'm bummed out that it takes so much overhead already that users (including my friends) are discouraged from running a full node.  In other words, are no longer reasonably capable of being 'peers' the the supposedly 'peer2peer' solution.  That lie is finally starting to be deprecated it seems...years after I suggested that it might be intellectually honest to start doing so...  Anyway, the issue will only get worse when they need to process data for everyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a reliable messaging and storage solution.

It does seem that there is a significant overlap in the groups of people who bitch most loudly about the fees/block size are they who are all ga-ga about colored-ish utilization.

I was under the impression that colored coin making and tracking was done entirely from the client, not touching the Bitcoin network other than to send Satoshis back and forth?

[QuestionAuthority]

I flew in from London to attend the conference and thought it was great.  My main observations and reflections were:

* The quality of the dialogue was extremely high.  A core understanding of Bitcoin and how it works was assumed - which enabled the discussions (lunch, panels, presentations, etc) to focus on more advanced topics.   Examples: the frequent references to coloured (sorry, "colored") coins, the altcoin panel and the various speakers on payments system (e.g. BitPay and Paymium)  --- they all assumed an intelligent *and* knowledgeable audience, which allowed them to go far further than a typical conference session.

If I have to sit through one more presentation which starts out with a history lesson about 'first, humans used barter, then blah, blah, blah' I swear I'm going to puke.  I walked out of at least one presentation at the start for this reason.

About the only thing which is more annoying is when a person asking a question takes 5 minutes of everyone else's time to describe how much they want to suck the presenter's dick or whatever.  Sometimes they don't even get to the question at all.

...
* The colored coin concept is HUGELY powerful - I had thought it an interesting diversion before I came but, after it was explained a few times, it made me realise just how versatile the core "distributed ledger" metaphor really it.   

Of course.  Everyone likes a free lunch and sees a way to get rich by sponging off the work of others.

* The Paytunia/Paymium presenter included a *really* powerful slide that I think could be used to explain Bitcoin in more contexts.  It had three diagrams.  1) four boxes representing the Visa/Mastercard payment system (merchant/merchant acquirer/issuer/customer), 2) three boxes representing Amex/Paypal and 3) two boxes representing cash and Bitcoin - i.e. direct payment from payer to seller with no intermediaries, etc.   In one chart, it explained why Bitcoin was different to everything that has gone before and justified the claim of others that Bitcoin is "cash with wings".   I presented on the conference to some colleagues yesterday evening and used this slide --- it helped their understanding immensely.

I missed Boussac's presentations being more interested in the tech end of things, but got a chance to catch up with him in person.  Paymium either bought or was given coins that I entrusted with ~jav, then either lost or stole them.  This gave me a good reason to wish to meet him.  Pleasant conversation in spite of the misfortune though.

* I was hugely impressed by Gavin.  Beforehand, I wasn't sure what to expect from his "state of the coin" keynote but I thought the tone was just right.  It was essentially a list of: "here are the things I worry about" --- *exactly* what I would expect from a chief architect/lead developer on a complex project.  I thought he got the tone just right

I didn't meet up with him this time, but I've met him in the past.  I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about what he would do if the government 'just said no' to Bitcoin.  No danger of figuring that out at something like the conference though so I was not to surprised.

...

* I caught the end of Erik Voorhee's talk and all of his panel discussion.  Both were excellent. He is extremely eloquent, articulate and thoughtful in how he presents the topic.

Didn't get a chance to say 'Hi' to Erik either, and kind of wanted to since we worked on a minor project in the distant past.  As for being 'thoughtful', if he had done anything more than regurgitate Austrian school hokum and bunkum I'd be shocked.  Again, I found more interesting things to see so I missed his stuff.

---

My favorite presentation was Eli Ben-Sasson's thing.  I can see a large number of places where the work could be applicable to distributed-crypto-currency-like systems and tangential tasks.  I'll be looking forward with great interests to developments in his team's work.

I was wondering if someone was ever going to give a real review of the conference. It's not very informative to constantly hear praise. That just lacks truth. Every time I have watched one of the "key players" questioned they usually appear inexperienced and never are asked the hard questions or put on the spot at all because of your "sucking the presenter" phenomena.

[oakpacific]

...
* The colored coin concept is HUGELY powerful - I had thought it an interesting diversion before I came but, after it was explained a few times, it made me realise just how versatile the core "distributed ledger" metaphor really it.  

Of course.  Everyone likes a free lunch and sees a way to get rich by sponging off the work of others.

Not sure I understand.  What are you objecting to?  The repupurposing of the bitcoin network for the tracking of real-world assets? something else?

Essentially that, yes.  I'm bummed out that it takes so much overhead already that users (including my friends) are discouraged from running a full node.  In other words, are no longer reasonably capable of being 'peers' the the supposedly 'peer2peer' solution.  That lie is finally starting to be deprecated it seems...years after I suggested that it might be intellectually honest to start doing so...  Anyway, the issue will only get worse when they need to process data for everyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a reliable messaging and storage solution.

It does seem that there is a significant overlap in the groups of people who bitch most loudly about the fees/block size are they who are all ga-ga about colored-ish utilization.

I have seen many more people willing to store hundreds of gigabytes of porn on their harddisk, then people willing to store the blockchain.

And it's not free lunch, you store the blockchian for your own freedom, which is not free, and miners are paid to run the infrastructure, that's exactly why Bitcoin is not a pyramid scheme.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

...
* The colored coin concept is HUGELY powerful - I had thought it an interesting diversion before I came but, after it was explained a few times, it made me realise just how versatile the core "distributed ledger" metaphor really it.  

Of course.  Everyone likes a free lunch and sees a way to get rich by sponging off the work of others.

Not sure I understand.  What are you objecting to?  The repupurposing of the bitcoin network for the tracking of real-world assets? something else?

Essentially that, yes.  I'm bummed out that it takes so much overhead already that users (including my friends) are discouraged from running a full node.  In other words, are no longer reasonably capable of being 'peers' the the supposedly 'peer2peer' solution.  That lie is finally starting to be deprecated it seems...years after I suggested that it might be intellectually honest to start doing so...  Anyway, the issue will only get worse when they need to process data for everyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a reliable messaging and storage solution.

It does seem that there is a significant overlap in the groups of people who bitch most loudly about the fees/block size are they who are all ga-ga about colored-ish utilization.

The idea that end users will not hold the entire blockchain, but rather use SPV clients, dates back to Satoshi's original whitepaper.

In a communist society you are limited in how you can use the shared resources. In a capitalist society you pay for the resources and use them however you see fit. It does not make sense to limit what you can use the blockchain for as long as a fee is paid to compensate.

Essentially that, yes.  I'm bummed out that it takes so much overhead already that users (including my friends) are discouraged from running a full node.  In other words, are no longer reasonably capable of being 'peers' the the supposedly 'peer2peer' solution.  That lie is finally starting to be deprecated it seems...years after I suggested that it might be intellectually honest to start doing so...  Anyway, the issue will only get worse when they need to process data for everyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a reliable messaging and storage solution.

It does seem that there is a significant overlap in the groups of people who bitch most loudly about the fees/block size are they who are all ga-ga about colored-ish utilization.

Iw under the impression that colored coin making and tracking was done entirely from the client, not touching the Bitcoin network other than to send Satoshis back and forth?

This is correct, the argument is that sending satoshis back and forth allegedly bloats the blockchain.

[tvbcof]

Essentially that, yes.  I'm bummed out that it takes so much overhead already that users (including my friends) are discouraged from running a full node.  In other words, are no longer reasonably capable of being 'peers' the the supposedly 'peer2peer' solution.  That lie is finally starting to be deprecated it seems...years after I suggested that it might be intellectually honest to start doing so...  Anyway, the issue will only get worse when they need to process data for everyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a reliable messaging and storage solution.

It does seem that there is a significant overlap in the groups of people who bitch most loudly about the fees/block size are they who are all ga-ga about colored-ish utilization.

Speaking as a non-crypto newbie,  when I saw what it took to download the block chain and run a node I just shook my head. I really don't understand how it scales --  and was surprised to hear the guy from Google suggest it wasn't a problem at the GigaOm event last week.

I have no info specifically, but I would suggest that generally speaking things which make a solution available to anyone with the capabilities which don't exceed your own, but come close to it would be considered less of a bug and more of a feature.  ...and Google has capabilities matched by very few.  I suspect that such entities could also derive business intelligence information from network analysis which would allow them to subsidize the operational aspects of operating the solution.  Much as they do with e-mail.  Such an intelligence value-add would be denied completely to lesser players.

I've worked with systems that generate data with no thought put toward clean-up.  By their nature, they never reach a state of equilibrium and become increasingly challenging to deal with.  Often they eventually lock up or collapse absent an overhaul.

Whether real or imagined, I was impressed by what seemed to be a concept of pruning the block chain which could potentially address some of the problem of bloat (though I always suspected that a determined attacker could subvert this more easily than something like the double-spending protection.)

Also, I thought I picked up on a concept of relay fees which would potentially keep verifying relay nodes (e.g., bitcoind/qt) in the game.  I went back a year ago or so and am pretty sure I found it again.  But it's buried and seems rarely discussed.  It could be argued that 'that is only for mining pool operators' I suppose.  And would anticipate mining pool operators making that argument.

I have heard pleas from dev to 'run a full node' (which, in my mind, conflict with the lack of focus on efforts to lighten the burden of doing so.*)  I had a chance to chat with Garzik briefly at the conference to obtain more information on this.  It might be noted that if one does not also hear a corresponding plea to 'punch a hole in your firewall', it was neglected for lack of time to explain.  Perhaps unfortunately, my bitcoind build seems to work fine without being accessible.


(*) not completely true.  The LevelDB and Bloom filter work helped immensely, although I sense that it was driven in part by a pressing need to simply keep the system operational and thus alive for long enough to get some more centralization in place.  And this without even barely touching the supposedly absurdly low 1MB block size limit and being less than 5 years into what is supposed to be a durable financial solution which people can rely on with significant funds.

[QuestionAuthority]

...
* The colored coin concept is HUGELY powerful - I had thought it an interesting diversion before I came but, after it was explained a few times, it made me realise just how versatile the core "distributed ledger" metaphor really it.  

Of course.  Everyone likes a free lunch and sees a way to get rich by sponging off the work of others.

Not sure I understand.  What are you objecting to?  The repupurposing of the bitcoin network for the tracking of real-world assets? something else?

Essentially that, yes.  I'm bummed out that it takes so much overhead already that users (including my friends) are discouraged from running a full node.  In other words, are no longer reasonably capable of being 'peers' the the supposedly 'peer2peer' solution.  That lie is finally starting to be deprecated it seems...years after I suggested that it might be intellectually honest to start doing so...  Anyway, the issue will only get worse when they need to process data for everyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a reliable messaging and storage solution.

It does seem that there is a significant overlap in the groups of people who bitch most loudly about the fees/block size are they who are all ga-ga about colored-ish utilization.

The idea that end users will not hold the entire blockchain, but rather use SPV clients, dates back to Satoshi's original whitepaper.

In a communist society you are limited in how you can use the shared resources. In a capitalist society you pay for the resources and use them however you see fit. It does not make sense to limit what you can use the blockchain for as long as a fee is paid to compensate.

Essentially that, yes.  I'm bummed out that it takes so much overhead already that users (including my friends) are discouraged from running a full node.  In other words, are no longer reasonably capable of being 'peers' the the supposedly 'peer2peer' solution.  That lie is finally starting to be deprecated it seems...years after I suggested that it might be intellectually honest to start doing so...  Anyway, the issue will only get worse when they need to process data for everyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a reliable messaging and storage solution.

It does seem that there is a significant overlap in the groups of people who bitch most loudly about the fees/block size are they who are all ga-ga about colored-ish utilization.

Iw under the impression that colored coin making and tracking was done entirely from the client, not touching the Bitcoin network other than to send Satoshis back and forth?

This is correct, the argument is that sending satoshis back and forth allegedly bloats the blockchain.

Finally, someone I respect discussing the subject. Isn't this the same complaint I've read about SatoshiDice? The devs don't seem concerned about SDice why worry about it in this case?

[tvbcof]

Finally, someone I respect discussing the subject. Isn't this the same complaint I've read about SatoshiDice? The devs don't seem concerned about SDice why worry about it in this case?

Thanks for the comic relief afforded by your sarcasm.

Actually, I imagine that the core dev members, or at least certain of them, see the same value in SD that I do.  Namely, as a load generation tool capable of facilitating edge case analysis earlier than otherwise likely.

SD was almost single handedly responsible for helping discover the BerkeleyDB mis-configuration long before it otherwise may have been...and by an operator who was willing to work pro-actively to resolve the situation at expense to himself.

SD will also be responsible for understanding the impact of transaction fees on the economy and thus allow a better decisions to be made about how a design might best leverage that resource.

[tvbcof]

The idea that end users will not hold the entire blockchain, but rather use SPV clients, dates back to Satoshi's original whitepaper.

In a communist society you are limited in how you can use the shared resources. In a capitalist society you pay for the resources and use them however you see fit. It does not make sense to limit what you can use the blockchain for as long as a fee is paid to compensate.

The question we are currently struggling with is (imo) related to the makeup of 'peers' in the system.  Quantitatively and qualitatively.

Your attempts to map this issue to broad political philosophies feels strained to me.  If anything, it is mainly a 'tragedy of the commons' type situation which is a concept laying in a somewhat orthogonal plane.

That said, my current preference is to provoke significant fees and see how things play out in the 'capitalist' mode.  This because I strongly favor and continue to see it possible that Bitcoin falls into a 'reserve' roll and leaves the heavy lifting of supporting a fair fraction of the world's exchange economy to a expanding set of dispensible solutions.

This is correct, the argument is that sending satoshis back and forth allegedly bloats the blockchain.

I think it is pretty fair to characterize this as a self evident and provable reality.  I'll take a second look if/when block chain pruning occurs.

[QuestionAuthority]

Finally, someone I respect discussing the subject. Isn't this the same complaint I've read about SatoshiDice? The devs don't seem concerned about SDice why worry about it in this case?

Thanks for the comic relief afforded by your sarcasm.

Actually, I imagine that the core dev members, or at least certain of them, see the same value in SD that I do.  Namely, as a load generation tool capable of facilitating edge case analysis earlier than otherwise likely.

SD was almost single handedly responsible for helping discover the BerkeleyDB mis-configuration long before it otherwise may have been...and by an operator who was willing to work pro-actively to resolve the situation at expense to himself.

SD will also be responsible for understanding the impact of transaction fees on the economy and thus allow a better decisions to be made about how a design might best leverage that resource.

LOL - I'm pleased, most people can't tell when I'm being sarcastic.

SDice is going to start charging transaction fees?

[maaku]

SD has always had transaction fees.

When Mike Hearn and others are cavalier about block chain bloat, it's because there are existing solutions being worked on. The process started with the 'ultraprune' branch that became 0.8, and will continue to improve. If all of the proposed optimizations are implemented, bitcoin can and will scale to VISA-level transaction processing, while being runnable on a commodity PC. It doesn't make sense then to devote valuable conference time to rehashing issues where we already know the work we need to do.

[justusranvier]

When Mike Hearn and others are cavalier about block chain bloat, it's because there are existing solutions being worked on.

Speaking of that, is your ReDonate campaign ready yet?

[maaku]

Right at the top of my list of things to do. Thanks for the reminder

[QuestionAuthority]

SD has always had transaction fees.

When Mike Hearn and others are cavalier about block chain bloat, it's because there are existing solutions being worked on. The process started with the 'ultraprune' branch that became 0.8, and will continue to improve. If all of the proposed optimizations are implemented, bitcoin can and will scale to VISA-level transaction processing, while being runnable on a commodity PC. It doesn't make sense then to devote valuable conference time to rehashing issues where we already know the work we need to do.

I didn't know that. I'm not a gambler so I didn't really follow it that closely. Didn't Pieter develop ultraprune a long time ago? Why is it taking so long to implement?

[cypherdoc]

SD has always had transaction fees.

When Mike Hearn and others are cavalier about block chain bloat, it's because there are existing solutions being worked on. The process started with the 'ultraprune' branch that became 0.8, and will continue to improve. If all of the proposed optimizations are implemented, bitcoin can and will scale to VISA-level transaction processing, while being runnable on a commodity PC. It doesn't make sense then to devote valuable conference time to rehashing issues where we already know the work we need to do.

this sounds impressive!

[maaku]

0.8 is ultraprune. Synchronization is a lot faster with 0.8 than before, but there are still a lot of other fixes that need to be implemented to really solve the block chain bloat 'problem'.

[QuestionAuthority]

0.8 is ultraprune. Synchronization is a lot faster with 0.8 than before, but there are still a lot of other fixes that need to be implemented to really solve the block chain bloat 'problem'.

So you can't really say the problem is solved but it's very close.

[Rassah]

Finally, someone I respect discussing the subject.

 

Regarding Peer to Peer, I always thought the part relating to verifying and relaying transactions was the peer-to-peer aspect, with things like mining and storing the blockchain being much less so. Satoshi himself mentioned that eventually we'll likely end up with just a few copies of the blockchain in gigantic data centers, with almost everyone running SPV clients that, although don't mine, still check transactions for validity, still relay them, and can still check the integrity of the blockchain database and compare it between providers to make sure it's legit.

[QuestionAuthority]

Finally, someone I respect discussing the subject.

 

Regarding Peer to Peer, I always thought the part relating to verifying and relaying transactions was the peer-to-peer aspect, with things like mining and storing the blockchain being much less so. Satoshi himself mentioned that eventually we'll likely end up with just a few copies of the blockchain in gigantic data centers, with almost everyone running SPV clients that, although don't mine, still check transactions for validity, still relay them, and can still check the integrity of the blockchain database and compare it between providers to make sure it's legit.

Wait, are you saying you don't appreciate Meni Rosenfeld because he doesn't focus his attention on the client side of Bitcoin? I'm confused?