Bitcoin Forum
October 31, 2020, 11:46:00 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Satoshi Nakamoto: "Bitcoin can scale larger than the Visa Network"  (Read 17480 times)
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 11:35:31 AM
 #21

How quickly do you think other miners will ignore your 'malicious' blocks?

If you've changed the rules to say that 64MB blocks are legit then they are not "malicious" by definition (they would be in accordance with the consensus rules) so they can't be ignored.

If such a malicious actor exists how does a 1MB block size limit stop them from attacking/destroying bitcoin?

Because everyone with even fairly average bandwidth and supporting hardware can compete to create the next block (which is what happens now).

The reason that SPV mining is used currently is to try and get a slight advantage that poor bandwidth would otherwise prevent.


You stated that a 64MB block would give control of the blockchain to the bad actor. This is wrong because as soon as the bad actor broadcasts the header every other miner is on an even footing.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
1604144760
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604144760

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1604144760
Reply with quote  #2

1604144760
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1604144760
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604144760

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1604144760
Reply with quote  #2

1604144760
Report to moderator
1604144760
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604144760

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1604144760
Reply with quote  #2

1604144760
Report to moderator
1604144760
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604144760

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1604144760
Reply with quote  #2

1604144760
Report to moderator
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:37:33 AM
 #22

You stated that a 64MB block would give control of the blockchain to the bad actor. This is wrong because as soon as the bad actor broadcasts the header every other miner is on an even footing.

You are forgetting that it takes time to broadcast 64MB (so they could have already mined the next block in advance) and if others are not going to bother validating (which as stated would likely take them more than 10 minutes) then they could easily be tricked into mining on a fork.

It should be noted that the larger that you make the block size the easier such an attack becomes.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
eternalgloom
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1279



View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:42:59 AM
 #23

Satoshi was wrong about so many things.

like? he said "expect" not that it will be exactly 10 times higher, so it's still a legit prediction
If only it were possible for him to come back and give his opinion on the recent debate Smiley
Yeah, likely never going to happen sadly..

sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 11:45:39 AM
 #24

You stated that a 64MB block would give control of the blockchain to the bad actor. This is wrong because as soon as the bad actor broadcasts the header every other miner is on an even footing.

You are forgetting that it takes time to broadcast 64MB (and they will have already mined the next block in advance).


How big is the header? How long does it take to broadcast *the header*?

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:45:57 AM
 #25

You should accept the science of software engineering rather than hoping that the "words of a prophet" will solve the scaling issue.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:46:46 AM
 #26

How big is the header? How long does it take to broadcast *the header*?

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).

And as stated before if you don't validate the txs in a block then you are going to be easily tricked into mining on an invalid fork.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:53:43 AM
 #27

You do realise that a block as big as 64 MB will take a lot longer than 10 minutes to verify on anything but the most costly hardware?
Actually this can happen at 2 MB block size limit due to the problem of quadratic scaling. Segwit aims to improve on this problem by scaling it down to make it linear. Gavin does acknowledge this as his own proposal (BIP 109) contains a workaround that prevents this from happening (sigops limitation).

Was this limit put in to prevent people from spamming transactions until there was enough network hashing power to cope with an increase if I'm understanding this correctly?
No. The problem is not directly related to the hashing power. You can look at three factors: 1) Storage; 2) Bandwidth; 3) Process power (for validation).

Thanks for clearing it up I won't pretend to be an expert on this, it's not my area at all.
Gleb Gamow
In memoriam
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1120



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 12:00:21 PM
 #28

Interesting email!  Cool Cool Cool

Not sure if anybody else caught it, but I believe I uncovered an interesting clue within as to who SN is, with apologies for not disclosing while I conduct further research with hopes of being the first to disclose. That said, feel free to beat me to the punch if you, too, spotted the obvious (at least to me) clue.
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 12:08:20 PM
 #29

How big is the header? How long does it take to broadcast *the header*?

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).

And as stated before if you don't validate the txs in a block then you are going to be easily tricked into mining on an invalid fork.


Block 401302: https://blockchain.info/block-index/1085183/000000000000000003ab3fee4bedfd4c8afa723454e322b44b69dd42262ecf9b
This block was mined by Antpool on 2016-03-05 at 17:59:38, it was a "full" block, as you have told me repeatedly it takes longer for big blocks to propagate.

Block 401303: https://blockchain.info/block-index/1085184/000000000000000006910040284ea1769d482a4ab7ea65b30af14aabc2b69749
This block was mined by BW.COM on 2016-03-05 18:00:39, it was an empty block, because the block had not yet propagated to them. They did however, have the header for block 401302.

So, in answer to your question, I don't know exactly how this stuff works, but I know enough.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 12:10:07 PM
 #30

This is because they are doing what is being termed as SPV mining (not normal or should I say "proper" mining).

When you mine in this manner you risk ending up on a fork (as happened last year to the Chinese mining pools after a soft-fork).

So if you had huge blocks and incredibly good hardware (and bandwidth within your pool of miners) then you'd just play games with those that do SPV mining and make them all end up on forks (after a while they would simply give up trying).

I hope you are starting to understand that SPV mining is *not good enough* (and the more you scale things up the worse it gets).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
SpiryGolden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 12:17:27 PM
 #31

So lets keep Satoshi Vision real. He gave us Bitcoin. To the community. We wouldn't have a discussion now if it wasn't for attacks back then. So again. Blockstream and Lighting Network are trying to take over and that's why they keep Core developers on their payroll. They want results. Forcing upon users their solution and keep the network attacked and flooded.

Let it be a free market. With 2MB upgrade side chain will exists without any issue, but this time people can choose and not be forced upon. Core will never keep their word on 2MB upgrade.
Gleb Gamow
In memoriam
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1120



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 12:21:18 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2016, 12:41:20 PM by Gleb Gamow
 #32

Upon a second read-through, I'm somewhat certain that SN didn't pen that email, with perhaps MH penning it himself to perhaps advance an agenda. The prose simply doesn't feel Nakamoto-esque, that and why did Satoshi Nakamoto opted for no double space after a full stop?  Shocked At first, I thought it was an anomaly due to perhaps the choice of email service used in sending the message disallowed the practice, but that doesn't seem to be the case since there's one example within depicting a DS after a FS.



EDIT: Call me crazy, but upon reading some of Mike's early posts, it feels to me like SN's email could very well have been penned by Mike. Try it yourself: Read the email again, then read a few posts by SN and few posts by MH and see what you come up with.

EDIT 2: Speaking of a double space after a full stop, it looks like Gavin mostly ended the practice of such shortly after it was revealed that SN employed the practice.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2751


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 12:23:39 PM
 #33

So lets keep Satoshi Vision real. He gave us Bitcoin. To the community. We wouldn't have a discussion now if it wasn't for attacks back then. So again. Blockstream and Lighting Network are trying to take over and that's why they keep Core developers on their payroll. They want results. Forcing upon users their solution and keep the network attacked and flooded.
Pure FUD. The mistakes in your argument:
1) Only a small portion of Core contributors are paid by Blockstream
2) The Lightning Network is not a product of Blockstream (they only have 1 developer working on it). There are other independent teams that are working on their own implementations of this.
3) The network gets attacked by third parties who either want to push their agenda (recently possibly done by the 'forkers') or harm the network overall.

Let it be a free market. With 2MB upgrade side chain will exists without any issue, but this time people can choose and not be forced upon. Core will never keep their word on 2MB upgrade.
They never promised an upgrade to 2 MB block size limit.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
SpiryGolden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 12:46:27 PM
 #34

So lets keep Satoshi Vision real. He gave us Bitcoin. To the community. We wouldn't have a discussion now if it wasn't for attacks back then. So again. Blockstream and Lighting Network are trying to take over and that's why they keep Core developers on their payroll. They want results. Forcing upon users their solution and keep the network attacked and flooded.
Pure FUD. The mistakes in your argument:
1) Only a small portion of Core contributors are paid by Blockstream
2) The Lightning Network is not a product of Blockstream (they only have 1 developer working on it). There are other independent teams that are working on their own implementations of this.
3) The network gets attacked by third parties who either want to push their agenda (recently possibly done by the 'forkers') or harm the network overall.

Let it be a free market. With 2MB upgrade side chain will exists without any issue, but this time people can choose and not be forced upon. Core will never keep their word on 2MB upgrade.
They never promised an upgrade to 2 MB block size limit.

Well even if you didn't wanted , you still proven my point. It would have been too obvious to go full retard. They will take Bitcoin , piece by piece slowly but surely. Do I have to learn you tactics of takeovers? You have any idea how big system or corporation is been taken over and not to trigger any big alarms? . Bitcoin will be owned by Blockstream and VC and Bank sponsored company.

We need to move on from the corrupted hands of Bitcoin Core as soon as possible for a free payment system and not their play toy.

P.S: So a roadmap is not a promise? It is in their roadmap. But somewhere in 2017 ...2018 or maybe never, enough time so their plans to get in place and gain momentum. How else they will push up their sidechains? Everyone will ignore them as long as Bitcoin chain is free and fast and cheap to use. It so obvious. It's simple and basic economics.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1782



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 01:01:12 PM
 #35

We need not appeal to authority. Just because Satoshi invented it, that does not mean that he knows the answers to everything.

just because blockstream hold the commit keys of one of the 12 implementations does not mean we should bow down to only their wishes.
or are you happy that blockstream is an authority and they have god like knowledge. by the way have you read a line of code yet to satisfy your own mind that bitcoin is not wrote in java? or do you have to go run and ask a few blockstreamers to spoonfeed you the info


I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
SpiryGolden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 01:11:51 PM
 #36

We need not appeal to authority. Just because Satoshi invented it, that does not mean that he knows the answers to everything.

just because blockstream hold the commit keys of one of the 12 implementations does not mean we should bow down to only their wishes.
or are you happy that blockstream is an authority and they have god like knowledge. by the way have you read a line of code yet to satisfy your own mind that bitcoin is not wrote in java? or do you have to go run and ask a few blockstreamers to spoonfeed you the info



A+++. It is me or Bitcoin Core and Core supporters are starting to be somehow in Blockstream pockets. It is so obvious. Exactly like a elephant in a small , small room.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2751


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 01:46:46 PM
 #37

Well even if you didn't wanted , you still proven my point. It would have been too obvious to go full retard. They will take Bitcoin , piece by piece slowly but surely. Do I have to learn you tactics of takeovers? You have any idea how big system or corporation is been taken over and not to trigger any big alarms? . Bitcoin will be owned by Blockstream and VC and Bank sponsored company.
I've proved nothing. Bitcoin can't be owned by anyone. Your post makes no sense if you are in support of Classic which has strong support from another nice company (Coinbase). I wonder why.

We need to move on from the corrupted hands of Bitcoin Core as soon as possible for a free payment system and not their play toy.
No. Nothing is free in life.

P.S: So a roadmap is not a promise? It is in their roadmap. But somewhere in 2017 ...2018 or maybe never, enough time so their plans to get in place and gain momentum. How else they will push up their sidechains? Everyone will ignore them as long as Bitcoin chain is free and fast and cheap to use. It so obvious. It's simple and basic economics.
In what roadmap does it say that there will be a 2 MB block size limit? They already have their commercial sidechain and the elements used in it are open source.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 01:49:48 PM
 #38

This is because they are doing what is being termed as SPV mining (not normal or should I say "proper" mining).

When you mine in this manner you risk ending up on a fork (as happened last year to the Chinese mining pools after a soft-fork).

So if you had huge blocks and incredibly good hardware (and bandwidth within your pool of miners) then you'd just play games with those that do SPV mining and make them all end up on forks (after a while they would simply give up trying).

I hope you are starting to understand that SPV mining is *not good enough* (and the more you scale things up the worse it gets).


A couple posts back I had to correct your flawed understanding of SPV mining. If there is something I have said that is factually incorrect please refute it with evidence and not opinion.

SPV mining is perfectly good at mitigating the scenario you described in which a malicious actor creates a poison block on order to "own" the blockchain and collect all the rewards. Now that you have the correct understanding of how SPV works I think it should be clear to you.

Your premise that this bad actor would play games with SPV miners, was covered by my second question:

How quickly do you think other miners will ignore your 'malicious' blocks?

You said they had to accept the blocks because they were valid. However in the situation where the bad actor is gaming SPV nodes, then it quickly becomes obvious that although the block may be valid, the miner is malicious. So whilst the block may be valid, it is in the miners own best economic interest to reject all blocks from the bad actor. It is the bad actor who is forked off the network.

The reality of whether SPV mining is good enough is complicated and involves very many variables. So neither you nor I can make subjective judgements about its overall efficacy.

I would invite you to consider what happens with transaction fees in a 64MB full block scenario, and whether the risk/reward for SPV mining still favours mining empty blocks?

In doing so consider also these fairly reasonable assumptions:

64MB is a long way off even by the most optimistic big block proposal (e.g. in BIP101 we wouldn't hit it for another decade) work has already been done reducing the bandwidth necessary for block propagation, and thus the time. For those 64MB blocks to be full, then it would have to be viable for miners to be filling them. The size of blocks is self limiting according to the risk reward of including transactions vs being orphaned.

In 2026 the block reward is predicted to be 3.125BTC

If a 64MB block could be mined in a reasonable timeframe such that the chance of orphan was low enough to be acceptable to miners.

If the fee density remained consistent at 10k satoshis/k then the total fees would be 6.4BTC

FWIW, I think the incentive to mine an empty block is somewhat reduced as a result of scaling.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 01:51:50 PM
 #39

A couple posts back I had to correct your flawed understanding of SPV mining. If there is something I have said that is factually incorrect please refute it with evidence and not opinion.

Sorry - I had to ignore the rest of your rubbish wall of text to ask you to repeat your correction of *my flawed understanding* (of anything to do with Bitcoin - little own SPV mining).

Please explain (I know - it is hard for you to even put more than one sentence of any logical value together but please try)?

(you are starting to act like that idiot @franky1 - maybe you are an alt of his - as his habit is to post walls of text starting with fallacies)

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 02:07:44 PM
 #40

Hmm.. having troubles coming up with a response (or are you too busy getting your ass whipped by CarltonBanks in the other topic). Cheesy

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!