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

[tvbcof]

... 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, ...

I'm not necessarily doubting that he said that, but I've never run across it.  Can you provide a pointer?

The closest thing I've seen to such a statement is Mike Hearn staying that the system could operate with 6 or so copies of the full block chain owned by large entities.  Maybe he didn't state who owned them though, and I am not going to put words into his mouth by claiming that he thought it was a good idea.  He can speak to that himself if he's so inclined.

[1715107907]

1715107907

[1715107907]

1715107907

[1715107907]

1715107907

[QuestionAuthority]

... 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, ...

I'm not necessarily doubting that he said that, but I've never run across it.  Can you provide a pointer?

The closest thing I've seen to such a statement is Mike Hearn staying that the system could operate with 6 or so copies of the full block chain owned by large entities.  Maybe he didn't state who owned them though, and I am not going to put words into his mouth by claiming that he thought it was a good idea.  He can speak to that himself if he's so inclined.

Wow, centralization at its finest. I'll make sure I pass that info around at the next PorcFest.

[justusranvier]

... 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, ...

I'm not necessarily doubting that he said that, but I've never run across it.  Can you provide a pointer?

The closest thing I've seen to such a statement is Mike Hearn staying that the system could operate with 6 or so copies of the full block chain owned by large entities.  Maybe he didn't state who owned them though, and I am not going to put words into his mouth by claiming that he thought it was a good idea.  He can speak to that himself if he's so inclined.

Wow, centralization at its finest. I'll make sure I pass that info around at the next PorcFest.

The system could operate with zero copies of the complete block chain. Really all the network needs is a validated UTXO set and enough recent history to handle reorgs. The only difficult part is calculating "enough".

[Rassah]

Finally, someone I respect discussing the subject.

 

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?

No, I'm saying www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwu-6GxBHN4

[QuestionAuthority]

Finally, someone I respect discussing the subject.

 

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?

No, I'm saying www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwu-6GxBHN4

I'm still a little confused! I get the Rodney Dangerfield connection but the meaning of your other statement is unusual, other than people working on mining are worthless and will be replaced. But maybe you didn't mean that.

[oakpacific]

All these slowpoke responses, maaku's project is probably the single most thing that's happening on the technical side, yet people hardly paid attention Luckily, Vorhees came to the rescue....

[Elwar]

... 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, ...

I'm not necessarily doubting that he said that, but I've never run across it.  Can you provide a pointer?

Satoshi's white paper:

It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep
a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying
network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch
linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for
himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it,
and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it.

As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more
vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify
transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated
transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to
protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid
block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to
confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to
run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.

[QuestionAuthority]

... 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, ...

I'm not necessarily doubting that he said that, but I've never run across it.  Can you provide a pointer?

Satoshi's white paper:

It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep
a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying
network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch
linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for
himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it,
and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it.

As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more
vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify
transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated
transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to
protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid
block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to
confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to
run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.

Thank you for quoting the entire passage.

[Rassah]

the meaning of your other statement is unusual, other than people working on mining are worthless and will be replaced. But maybe you didn't mean that.

I didn't mean they were worthless. Just that mining will become more and more specialized, and storing the blockchain even more so, but that's OK, because a lot of the peer to peer stuff is done on the clients who can keep miners and blockchains honest by constantly comparing them.

[QuestionAuthority]

the meaning of your other statement is unusual, other than people working on mining are worthless and will be replaced. But maybe you didn't mean that.

I didn't mean they were worthless. Just that mining will become more and more specialized, and storing the blockchain even more so, but that's OK, because a lot of the peer to peer stuff is done on the clients who can keep miners and blockchains honest by constantly comparing them.

I understand now. Verification is already becoming more specialized and the people are adapting. As long as the process remains in the hands of the people then it will remain a system that I can support. I think the system you are thinking of where everyone is running SPV clients is a long way off. Today pools control the process and people like organofcorti and Meni Rosenfeld do a lot to keep that system honest.

[tvbcof]

... 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, ...

I'm not necessarily doubting that he said that, but I've never run across it.  Can you provide a pointer?

Satoshi's white paper:

It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep
a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying
network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch
linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for
himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it,
and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it.

As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more
vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify
transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated
transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to
protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid
block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to
confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to
run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.

Thank you for quoting the entire passage.

That is indeed convincing.  Convincing that ~rassah took significant liberties in interpreting the whitepaper, that is.

[Rassah]

No I didn't. This was discussed after the whitepaper, too. I just don't have time to look for it.

[oakpacific]

the meaning of your other statement is unusual, other than people working on mining are worthless and will be replaced. But maybe you didn't mean that.

I didn't mean they were worthless. Just that mining will become more and more specialized, and storing the blockchain even more so, but that's OK, because a lot of the peer to peer stuff is done on the clients who can keep miners and blockchains honest by constantly comparing them.

I understand now. Verification is already becoming more specialized and the people are adapting. As long as the process remains in the hands of the people then it will remain a system that I can support. I think the system you are thinking of where everyone is running SPV clients is a long way off. Today pools control the process and people like organofcorti and Meni Rosenfeld do a lot to keep that system honest.

Programmers/computer scientists like to talk about theoretically worst-case scenario, I think that's what Mike Hearn really meant.

And if freedom is of value to a person, it's not unfair for him to participate in the verification himself without being given meaningful economic benefits.

[tvbcof]

No I didn't. This was discussed after the whitepaper, too. I just don't have time to look for it.

Hmmm.  I see...

[tvbcof]

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 would like to be snarky and negative about your project, but as I scan through it, I cannot say that I feel it is completely without hope.  As best I understand it at least.  So, I hope for the best and will be watching it with interest.  Possibly even contributing if I feel that it is going in a way which will benefit me.

That said, one of my biggest complaints has always been that 'VISA-level' is actually pretty lame.  Some biz guy at the conference mentioned the number of cell phones vs. the number of bank accounts.  Something like 5x10^9 vs. 1x10^9.  (I only heard this from a friend as I was attending the tech related presentations.)  We are talking about some big big numbers if the worlds population is to gradually adopt distributed crypto-currencies as a means of transacting in economies.

Stratum was supposed to be 'the future of Bitcoin' as I recall ~moonshadow describing it.  I sense that he was not looking at the big picture.  I sense also that targetting 'VISA-level' will also fall into the same sort of trap.

If any one 'distributed crypto-currency' does NOT get into a scenario where it works in conjunction with off-{chain/backing/whatever} systems, it will likely mean that it has failed, and this is definitely the case with Bitcoin IMO.  The question then becomes what the solution looks like at that point.  Is it simple and reliable?  Or is it complex and filled with new and unproven conceptual underpinnings and methods?

It could be the case that in order to provide even a workable 'reserve' capability, Bitcoin would need to be 'VISA-level'.  That is the basis for my interest in your solution, and again, I wish you well.

BTW, I hope you are not going to make the same mistake as Bitcoin in taking a 'C client defines the system' approach (or PHP or GO or whatever your implementation choice happens to be...)  If so (vs. a more formalized specification) than it will count as a big strike against my hope for a solution which has long-term hope of success.

[datz]

Bitcoin's major hurdle to overcome:   Stan Lee tells more credible stories than 90% of the "bitcoin elite". 

HAHAHA So true.

[MegaDaninski]

Hey all!

I thoroughly enjoyed the Bitcoin 2013 conference last weekend. Wish I could have stayed in Cali. . . Anyway, does anyone know where I can find recordings/transcripts from the conference? My only regret was that I couldn't be in all four rooms at the same time! There was so much information to be absorbed in that building. I definitely met some of the brightest minds I've ever encountered at that conference.

MegaD

[BCB]

Hopefully the foundation will release them soon.  I'm eagerly awaiting all the talks I couldn't make it to as well!

Great weekend.

[Seth Otterstad]

I thought it was absolutely ridiculous that it was cheaper to buy admission with a credit card at the door.  I'm sure the organizers of the NY and Vienna bitcoin conferences will not have such a retarded system in place.

Bitcoin price:  3btc
Credit Card price:  $350

Peter Vessenes is clearly incompetent.  Mtgox gets booted out of the conference because of his stupid lawsuit, and then it's more expensive to pay admission with bitcoin.  How is this acceptable?  What has coinlab done for bitcoin anyway?

[solex]

I thought it was absolutely ridiculous that it was cheaper to buy admission with a credit card at the door.  I'm sure the organizers of the NY and Vienna bitcoin conferences will not have such a retarded system in place.

Bitcoin price:  3btc
Credit Card price:  $350

Peter Vessenes is clearly incompetent.  Mtgox gets booted out of the conference because of his stupid lawsuit, and then it's more expensive to pay admission with bitcoin.  How is this acceptable?  What has coinlab done for bitcoin anyway?

You might have noticed that the BTC rate has fluctuated a lot lately, and keeping things simple means whole numbers on admission prices. $350/3 or $116.67 is a pretty reasonable approximation of the average value of one BTC in the week up to and including the conference.