Bitcoin round table

[desired_username]

The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.

It can't. Stop spreading false information.

Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.

I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.

[1715015415]

1715015415

[1715015415]

1715015415

[1715015415]

1715015415

[Lauda]

Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.

I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.

You're the one spreading who's full of "bullshit". Your connection has nothing to do with what the networks capabilities. Good luck validating 150 MB blocks right now. It is even possible to create a block that would take more than 10 minutes to validate at 2 MB because of the quadratic scaling.
Off topic: What degree do you have? Are you another economist, art teacher, or something else irrelevant trying to spread your "wisdom" on technology?

[bargainbin]

^^How's about yourself? What degrees do *you* have?

...
P.S. Lauda, I'm yet to see a line of code from you. Til I do, am assuming you're one of the ignorant unwashed you love to shit on.

[mr angry]

The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.

It can't. Stop spreading false information.

Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.

I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.

This post says that if Bitcoin were to process Visa's 2000 transactions per second the blockchain would grow by 1 GB per hour. Most "unlimited bandwidth" broadband providers actually limit your bandwidth at peak traffic times. You only find out when you try using massive bandwidth for extended periods and get a warning from them.

Just curiosity. Does ETH has scalability issues? Same as BTC or different? And monero?

Some link pinpointing to it?

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/blob/6cb2fe00a61273b1b3807bf16d5ac6e51b690826/pages/white-paper/%5Benglish%5D-white-paper.md

"One common concern about Ethereum is the issue of scalability. Like Bitcoin, Ethereum suffers from the flaw that every transaction needs to be processed by every node in the network. With Bitcoin, the size of the current blockchain rests at about 15 GB, growing by about 1 MB per hour. If the Bitcoin network were to process Visa's 2000 transactions per second, it would grow by 1 MB per three seconds (1 GB per hour, 8 TB per year). Ethereum is likely to suffer a similar growth pattern, worsened by the fact that there will be many applications on top of the Ethereum blockchain instead of just a currency as is the case with Bitcoin, but ameliorated by the fact that Ethereum full nodes need to store just the state instead of the entire blockchain history."

[desired_username]

Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.

I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.

You're the one spreading who's full of "bullshit". Your connection has nothing to do with what the networks capabilities. Good luck validating 150 MB blocks right now. It is even possible to create a block that would take more than 10 minutes to validate at 2 MB because of the quadratic scaling.

You're not a fan of reading comprehension, are you?

Why are most Blockstream sockpuppets retards?

[franky1]

Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.

I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.

You're the one spreading who's full of "bullshit". Your connection has nothing to do with what the networks capabilities. Good luck validating 150 MB blocks right now. It is even possible to create a block that would take more than 10 minutes to validate at 2 MB because of the quadratic scaling.
Off topic: What degree do you have? Are you another economist, art teacher, or something else irrelevant trying to spread your "wisdom" on technology?

lauda fails to show statistics that show that the internet is still at dialup speeds. or home computers are not powerful enough.. and instead resorts to character assassination.
so here are some details

its 2016 not 2001.. people can play online games in HD(upload data for character movements, directions of fire and bullet tragectory on a constant bases (not a 1scond webpage analogy that gavin stupidly made)), while on teamspeak(voice upload), while also streaming it to twitch in HD (large upload).. simultaneously..
so that debunks bandwith..

also bitcoin runs on a raspberry pi right now. so a intel celeron laptop is twice as powerful. and a intel i7 standard desktop is twice the power again.. so that means standard desktops are atleast 4x more powerful and able to handle bitcoin at 4x the scale.. so 2x the scale is no issues

[Amph]

i believe that all the concerns against the limit increase are a bit fud

look at this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy

only maybe the "centralization point" have something right to say

[franky1]

i believe that all the concerns against the limit increase are a bit fud

look at this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy

only maybe the "centralization point" have something right to say

centralization is one central point.. bitcoin will be decentralized by its very definition. but its DISTRIBUTION of that decentralization can be reduced

even segwit can cause a reduction in distribution of fullnodes. by allowing the 5000 nodes to think its ok to not be fullnodes(archival mode) and instead be just compatible (no witness mode).

1=centralize
2(unrelated not coluding)= limited distribution decentralized
10,000= wide distribution decentralized

decentralization is not a true or false question.


its a sliding scale

[johnyj]

Let's look at this list closely


Satoshi 0.11.2 is the latest version released on November 13, that's long before the hongkong conference and Classic announcement, so that's almost all of the actively upgraded nodes, 41.73% of all nodes

Satoshi 0.11.0, 0.11.1 and 0.10.2 are slower upgraded nodes, users do not actively update, most possibly unattended mining nodes

Satoshi 0.12 should be luke_jr fan's version because of RBF, but it is only 2.75% of total nodes, so it is possible that even blockstream fans are not there yet, otherwise it is not looking so bright for blockstream

Classic 0.11.2 just published a few days and now it is 13.96%, 5 times more than satoshi 0.12, and is already 1/3 of all actively updated nodes

[capcher]

Say, why is the title "Satoshi round table"?

AFAIK, Satoshi Roundtable 1 was held on Feb last year, and Satoshi Roundtable 2 will be held at the end of this month.

The letter posted on Medium seems to be associated with Bitfury's Consensus Roundtable, which is a different beast altogether.

[johnyj]

Say, why is the title "Satoshi round table"?

AFAIK, Satoshi Roundtable 1 was held on Feb last year, and Satoshi Roundtable 2 will be held at the end of this month.

The letter posted on Medium seems to be associated with Bitfury's Consensus Roundtable, which is a different beast altogether.

Thanks for pointing out the error, I just corrected it, but I can not change the replies

[johnyj]

Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).

Suppose that everything here is true, let's see how today's technology are capable of

In 1996, the optical fiber achieved 1Tbps in labs, and average home have 28Kbps modem. That's about 35 million:1. 20 years later, optical fiber achieved 255TB in labs
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds-fastest-network-could-carry-all-the-internet-traffic-single-fiber
And average home have 10Mbps, that's 25 million:1. So it scales roughly at the same speed (because the backbone need to handle millions of users), grows at 30% per year

So if the bandwidth requirement grows at 30% per year then the technology will always be able to handle it along the way. Currently we are at almost 100% per year increase of transaction volume, so in 7 years you would need 1Gbps to handle, but that is already available in some area today, so at least in a decade there will not be a problem

And there is a point people usually forget: We are already at 1million + users today, if the amount of users doubles each year, then in 10 years you will have 1 billion people in the world using bitcoin, which is highly unlikely. So it seems that if we don't have a bottleneck in the next 5 years, we will never have it

Storage and CPU/memory are much less a concern since you can just add more of it without permission

[trashman43]

Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).

Suppose that everything here is true, let's see how today's technology are capable of

In 1996, the optical fiber achieved 1Tbps in labs, and average home have 28Kbps modem. That's about 35 million:1. 20 years later, optical fiber achieved 255TB in labs
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds-fastest-network-could-carry-all-the-internet-traffic-single-fiber
And average home have 10Mbps, that's 25 million:1. So it scales roughly at the same speed (because the backbone need to handle millions of users), grows at 30% per year

So if the bandwidth requirement grows at 30% per year then the technology will always be able to handle it along the way. Currently we are at almost 100% per year increase of transaction volume, so in 7 years you would need 1Gbps to handle, but that is already available in some area today, so at least in a decade there will not be a problem

that's ridiculous. you're basing this on the best possible scenario, and suggesting that the entire network should be running nodes on the best connections in the world. you can't begin to prove that technological improvements and internet infrastructure will keep pace. bitcoin, like any other engineering project and large scale system, should be planned with the worst case scenarios in mind. not the best case scenarios.

i'm smelling some allusion to moore's law, so i'll just leave this here:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/moores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/

Moore’s law really is dead this time
The chip industry is no longer going to treat Gordon Moore's law as the target to aim for.
[...]
Intel originally planned to switch to 10nm in 2016 with the Cannonlake processor, a shrunk version of the 14nm Skylakes shipping today. In July last year, the company changed this plan. An extra processor generation, Kaby Lake, will be released in 2016, still using the 14nm process.
[...]
The International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors decided in 2014 that its next roadmap would no longer be beholden to Moore's "law"
[...]
Moore's law's time as a guide of what will come next, and as a rule to be followed, is at an end.

it's funny, i remember bitcoin being sold as a "solution for the unbanked." never mind that the unbanked are largely limited to 3G/4G connections which are unable to run a node to validate their own transactions. so much for "being your own bank" eh?

And there is a point people usually forget: We are already at 1million + users today, if the amount of users doubles each year, then in 10 years you will have 1 billion people in the world using bitcoin, which is highly unlikely. So it seems that if we don't have a bottleneck in the next 5 years, we will never have it

i'm having a tough time understanding the point youre making here.

[trashman43]

This is your new Federal Reserve  

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.rtyxn51c7

and what would you call them if they backed Classic?

[Lauda]

and this time they are switching from existing core nodes, core nodes counts are dropping

Jan 29:
Classic 0.11.2: 22 Nodes
Core (all versions total): 3796
Other: 1695

Feb 10:
Classic 0.11.2: 589
Core (all versions total): 3825
Other: 1395.
"Switching", "dropping".  

Keep drinking the kool-aid and trying to manipulate the people into a controversial HF. It won't work while a few of us are around.

This is your new Federal Reserve 
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.rtyxn51c7

and what would you call them if they backed Classic?

Something in the lines of the 'Messiah'. Because as long as they back Core, they are evil according to their foolish propaganda.

[bargainbin]

... Keep drinking the kool-aid ...

... That's some fine kool-aid that you've been drinking. ...

... Keep drinking the kool-aid.

... drinking the trashcoin kool-aid. ...

... Say Kool-Aid again,

[bargainbin]

...
it's funny, i remember bitcoin being sold as a "solution for the unbanked." never mind that the unbanked are largely limited to 3G/4G connections which are unable to run a node to validate their own transactions. so much for "being your own bank" eh?
...

Yeah, that "solution for the unbanked" was just a sales pitch, didn't think anyone took that seriously. But fine, if you need things spelled out: We lied, now what?

To be fair tho, the great unwashed don't need to run a node: a web wallet (for the well-to-do hoi polloi in possession of a smart phone/3G/4G interweb) would be an upgrade to the tin beggar's cup their substantial life savings are otherwise secured in.

[johnyj]

So if the bandwidth requirement grows at 30% per year then the technology will always be able to handle it along the way. Currently we are at almost 100% per year increase of transaction volume, so in 7 years you would need 1Gbps to handle, but that is already available in some area today, so at least in a decade there will not be a problem

that's ridiculous. you're basing this on the best possible scenario, and suggesting that the entire network should be running nodes on the best connections in the world. you can't begin to prove that technological improvements and internet infrastructure will keep pace. bitcoin, like any other engineering project and large scale system, should be planned with the worst case scenarios in mind. not the best case scenarios.

In worst case scenario you still have some people running dial-up network and GSM phone (in fact a lot of people), so the bitcoin data traffic should be reduced by 100 times following your logic

If you prefer settlement system, then I'm thinking about a settlement layer for networks. You do the data settlement on backbone internet between thousands of full nodes with 1GB bandwidth, while the rest of the nodes are running SPV nodes and require much less bandwidth. This model is much simpler to handle than a financial settlement system

i'm smelling some allusion to moore's law, so i'll just leave this here:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/moores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/

Moore’s law really is dead this time
The chip industry is no longer going to treat Gordon Moore's law as the target to aim for.
[...]
Intel originally planned to switch to 10nm in 2016 with the Cannonlake processor, a shrunk version of the 14nm Skylakes shipping today. In July last year, the company changed this plan. An extra processor generation, Kaby Lake, will be released in 2016, still using the 14nm process.
[...]
The International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors decided in 2014 that its next roadmap would no longer be beholden to Moore's "law"
[...]
Moore's law's time as a guide of what will come next, and as a rule to be followed, is at an end.

it's funny, i remember bitcoin being sold as a "solution for the unbanked." never mind that the unbanked are largely limited to 3G/4G connections which are unable to run a node to validate their own transactions. so much for "being your own bank" eh?

Semiconductor technology has almost reached its physical limitation, so the current trend is just adding more chips, like you did in GPU mining instead of CPU mining

However the theoretical limit of Optical Fiber has not been reached yet, and average home are not using Fiber yet (Some part of the world is deploying fiber to home) a fiber in theory can at least handle TB level data. And today's commercial solutions already can provide 100GB bandwidth. If you have 5000 private companies running nodes on 10GB network, we already can handle the traffic for the next 10 years

And there is a point people usually forget: We are already at 1million + users today, if the amount of users doubles each year, then in 10 years you will have 1 billion people in the world using bitcoin, which is highly unlikely. So it seems that if we don't have a bottleneck in the next 5 years, we will never have it

i'm having a tough time understanding the point youre making here.

It is obvious that Moore's law does not apply with user growth either, so you won't have exponential traffic volume growth. In fact I think in one decade there will be maximum 10 million users, which you already can handle with today's infrastructure

[johnyj]

This is your new Federal Reserve  

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.rtyxn51c7

and what would you call them if they backed Classic?

People's choice  

It's simple, if it is a complex and no-one-can-understand scheme supported by a large group of decision makers, then it is definitely centralized decision making. But if it is a 1+1=2 like simple and easy-to-reach-consensus scheme supported by a large group of decision makers, then it is just they align with major consensus

If you start to use QE/FRB like terms like SW, LN, SC, then you are getting more and more close to Federal Reserve way of working, trying to confuse people with strange terms so that they don't understand what is going on

[Lauda]

If you start to use QE/FRB like terms like SW, LN, SC, then you are getting more and more close to Federal Reserve way of working, trying to confuse people with strange terms so that they don't understand what is going on

A fine case of personal incredulity. Just because you are cognitively limited and can't understand those concept that does not mean that they are confusing/bad/similar to FED or whatever nonsense you're going to spit up next. People with relevant degrees (yours is not) understand the underlying infrastructure and code. Various experts have and will review these technologies. Lightning Network and Sidechains are the way to scale Bitcoin unless someone comes up with something better. Scaling via the block size is inferior.
I do wonder when your contract ends.