Bitcoin Forum
October 26, 2020, 11:37:42 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 17455 times)
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:09:57 PM
 #61

I don't think it can be broken or destroyed that easily. Even by someone as self important and manipulative as Andresen.

I hope you are right (and do think that it is more likely that Bitcoin will get through this tough time and end up even more resilient because of that).

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

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
1603712262
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603712262

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603712262
Reply with quote  #2

1603712262
Report to moderator
1603712262
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603712262

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603712262
Reply with quote  #2

1603712262
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Cuidler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:14:15 PM
 #62

At the end of the day it is up to them as to whether a fork happens or not.

Miners need to be sure the market accept the fork change - the ten-hundred thousands of individual Bitcoin miners act overall rationally after all, thats why no rush change is likely unless something needs to be fixed immediately.


From what I gather the SegWit stuff should be able to be done in a couple of months and then we'd expect further improvements later this year (and maybe a hard fork early to mid next year).

The changes to the code/structures are so big with SegWit, much more testing is necessary. Fortunatelly Bitcoin Classic does not have plans for SegWit in near future, thus the likelihood of SegWit activation this year is small - but it is good thing - enought time for proper testing for bugless implementation.

.Liqui Exchange.Trade and earn 24% / year on BTC, LTC, ETH
....Brand NEW..........................................Payouts every 24h. Learn more at official thread
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:16:29 PM
 #63

The changes to the code/structures are so big with SegWit, much more testing is necessary. Fortunatelly Bitcoin Classic does not have plans for SegWit in near future, thus the likelihood of SegWit activation this year is small - but it is good thing - enought time for proper testing for bugless implemenatin.

Actually that is rubbish - the amount of code for SegWit is around 500 lines (which is not very much as I often write that much in a day) and it has been in testing for months.

Stop trying to shill for Bitcoin Classic - it is just another attempt by Gavin to take over control of Bitcoin.

Gavin is hoping that everyone is going to want to see "The Return Of The King" but I think that most of us actually would prefer to listen to a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Kings.

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

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
YarkoL
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 997
Merit: 1008



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:20:35 PM
 #64

He thought Moore's law would keep up with the scalability demands...

Moore's law has never applied to bandwidth (so if Satoshi really thought that then clearly he wasn't a genius was he).

Or perhaps you think that because Satoshi could never be wrong then if he said that "Moore's Law" applies to bandwidth it actually does?


You can read his thoughts in the opening post, although they are
subject to different interpretations.

Bandwidth is just one factor in validation.

Satoshi had profound insight into systemic dynamics, and I wouldn't
hesitate to call him a genius. But I don't think he was omniscient.

“God does not play dice"
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:24:18 PM
 #65

Bandwidth is just one factor in validation.

Moore's law has actually begun to fall down in a number of ways (perhaps "storage" being the only one that now still stands even though initially it was only supposed to refer to computing power).

This has been in part due to the 3GHz limit that CPUs can operate at (without requiring seriously expensive cooling) and the fact that bandwidth has actually never even followed such a trend (instead it tends to jump every few years by quite a bit but then stagnate for quite a while after that).

Most improvements in processing speed these days are made through multi-threading (which can be applied to block validation) but that doesn't help when you are doing serialisation of information.

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

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Cuidler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:32:07 PM
 #66

The changes to the code/structures are so big with SegWit, much more testing is necessary. Fortunatelly Bitcoin Classic does not have plans for SegWit in near future, thus the likelihood of SegWit activation this year is small - but it is good thing - enought time for proper testing for bugless implemenatin.

Actually that is rubbish - the amount of code for SegWit is around 500 lines (which is not very much as I often write that much in a day) and it has been in testing for months.

What about the recent unexpected fork in SegWig testbed then?
When you find unexpected bug in your code, my experience says test everything twice again to reduce the chance every part of code can not contain bug in unusual circumstances you did not foresee but is possible.

PS: Not all 500 lines are equally complicated to test Wink

.Liqui Exchange.Trade and earn 24% / year on BTC, LTC, ETH
....Brand NEW..........................................Payouts every 24h. Learn more at official thread
valiz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471
Merit: 250


BTC trader


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:32:49 PM
 #67

Can someone explain to me why there is any debate when Nakamoto himself said:

Quote
The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.  By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.
Assumption #1 from 2009 : By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10.
If this assumption is on track, then, by now, hardware speed should be 25 times faster than in 2009. Is Satoshi correct on this one?

Quote
I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.
Assumption #2 from 2009: 1 MINER = 1 NODE (all miners run full nodes and all full nodes are mining)
Is Satoshi correct on this one?

Quote
Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that.
Assumption #3 from 2009: Best mining technology will be GPU's.
Is Satoshi correct on this one?

If all 3 assumptions made in 2009 by Satoshi are correct, then Bitcoin may scale like VISA. Otherwise, Satoshi is wrong and it may not scale the way it was originally intended to.

Let's elaborate on the scenarios:
#1 correct, #2 correct, #3 correct: Bitcoin scales like VISA, yay!!
#1 correct, #2 correct, #3 incorrect: Bitcoin scales like VISA, but only miners with ASIC's have nodes => few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 correct, #2 incorrect, #3 correct: Bitcoin scales like VISA, but nodes are run only by volunteers, miners don't exactly need them => few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 correct, #2 incorrect, #3 incorrect: Bitcoin scales like VISA, but a few mining pools and ASIC farms remain, nodes are ran mainly by volunteers => few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 incorrect, #2 correct, #3 correct: The miners with the fastest CPU's and bandwith get an increasing advantage as Bitcoin scales, eventually few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 incorrect, #2 correct, #3 incorrect: The miners with the best ASIC's and bandwith get an increasing advantage as Bitcoin scales, eventually few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 incorrect, #2 incorrect, #3 correct: As Bitcoin scales, nodes ran by volunteers disappear, only a few nodes ran by some of the miners remain = centralization = bad
#1 incorrect, #2 incorrect, #3 incorrect: As Bitcoin scales, nodes ran by volunteers disappear, only a few nodes ran by some big ASIC farms or mining pools remain = centralization = bad

So, if Satoshi is wrong on one of the 3 assumptions, then we have to trade "scaling" with "centralization". VISA is already scaled and centralized. So, if we scale Bitcoin like this, then Bitcoin becomes just like VISA, or an inefficient competitor to VISA.

12c3DnfNrfgnnJ3RovFpaCDGDeS6LMkfTN "who lives by QE dies by QE"
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:36:15 PM
 #68

Bitcoin cannot scale to work like VISA with the way it works because VISA isn't doing POW nor are its nodes designed to not trust one another.

If you want to use VISA - why not use VISA?
(it's already there and it works perfectly right now)

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

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Kprawn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1068


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:37:01 PM
 #69

Whatever his mistakes in what he said back in the day, he is still a brilliant entity. {He / She / It / They} If he made no mistakes, I would have classed him as a alien or a god, but he is human. The

scaled block size are there for a reason... to grow with adoption and to be adapted as the need exists. Classic proponents wants us to believe, that need is NOW and Core followers seem to think, kicking

the can down the road, will be the best option to follow. I think, the doubt about scaling solutions are a bigger threat than the actual change that needs to be done to address the current need.  Sad

THE FIRST DECENTRALIZED & PLAYER-OWNED CASINO
.EARNBET..EARN BITCOIN: DIVIDENDS
FOR-LIFETIME & MUCH MORE.
. BET WITH: BTCETHEOSLTCBCHWAXXRPBNB
.JOIN US: GITLABTWITTERTELEGRAM
valiz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471
Merit: 250


BTC trader


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:46:48 PM
 #70

We need to increase the blocksize NOW or the fees rise dramatically and the transactions become unreliable, this will hinder adoption.

Issue #1: The transaction fees don't appear to be rising dramatically.
Issue #2: The transactions that have a decent fee are reliable.
Issue #3: Fees are very small compared to the amounts transacted, how would they hinder adoption?
Issue #4: Why does Bitcoin need "adoption", if it damages it's qualities? If you want "adoption", you want to get rich quick. Greed is bad.
Issue #5: They say this since many months, hasn't happened.

12c3DnfNrfgnnJ3RovFpaCDGDeS6LMkfTN "who lives by QE dies by QE"
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:49:09 PM
 #71

We need to increase the blocksize NOW or the fees rise dramatically and the transactions become unreliable, this will hinder adoption.

Issue #1: The transaction fees don't appear to be rising dramatically.

Let's just look at that and think about how much we should actually consider reading anything else that you might have to post.

Hmm... nope - not worth reading anything further IMO (unable to make any sense in only two lines of text as you contradicted yourself that quickly).

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

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

Activity: 1722
Merit: 657

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:49:54 PM
 #72

We need to increase the blocksize NOW or the fees rise dramatically and the transactions become unreliable, this will hinder adoption.

Issue #1: The transaction fees don't appear to be rising dramatically.
Issue #2: The transactions that have a decent fee are reliable.
Issue #3: Fees are very small compared to the amounts transacted, how would they hinder adoption?
Issue #4: Why does Bitcoin need "adoption", if it damages it's qualities? If you want "adoption", you want to get rich quick. Greed is bad.
Issue #5: They say this since many months, hasn't happened.


Doing Not, would just be anti-agile and retarded....

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
YarkoL
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 997
Merit: 1008



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 05:07:49 PM
 #73



If you want to use VISA - why not use VISA?
(it's already there and it works perfectly right now)


Quote
While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent
weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions,
and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services....
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party...

I leave the source of the quote as an exercise.

“God does not play dice"
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 05:09:47 PM
 #74

I leave the source of the quote as an exercise.

That wasn't my point (and you know it).

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

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
YarkoL
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 997
Merit: 1008



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 05:14:44 PM
 #75


You said Visa works perfectly, so let's use that.

“God does not play dice"
rienelber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 05:20:01 PM
 #76

this is probably the most important discussion in the bitcoin world.


scalability is crucial if we want bitcoin to survive!
Cuidler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 05:36:11 PM
 #77

By the number of users who want scale Bitcoin to keep Bitcoin as pay2pay decentralized system with onchain transactions affordable versus Bitcoin as just settlement layer for more or less centralized offchain services, Im sure the dark side cannot win and original Satoshi Bitcoin vision will be followed with Bitcoin project.

If we scale onchain limit, people can still choose offchain centralized services if these are really better than onchain transactions, so why cap the blocksize limit to force people to these offchain centralized services  Huh Are you affraid Blockstream there is no real demand for such offchain centralized services among Bitcoin users  Wink

.Liqui Exchange.Trade and earn 24% / year on BTC, LTC, ETH
....Brand NEW..........................................Payouts every 24h. Learn more at official thread
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1010



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 06:08:04 PM
 #78

Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.

With a initial block limit at 33,5Mb : Yes.
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 06:09:20 PM
 #79

Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.

With a initial block limit at 33,5Mb : Yes.

And you do realise that if someone created such a block that no-one else could verify it in the 10 minutes required to create the next block right?

(or - you don't care about the fact that this just wouldn't work?)

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

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1004



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 06:17:15 PM
 #80

Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.

With a initial block limit at 33,5Mb : Yes.

And you do realise that if someone created such a block that no-one else could verify it in the 10 minutes required to create the next block right?

(or - you don't care about the fact that this just wouldn't work?)

That's why nobody creates such blocks, you fool.
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!