Satoshi Nakamoto: "Bitcoin can scale larger than the Visa Network"

[Lauda]

The quote says one thing, reality says another.

Reality = right now you can't get to a blocksize where you can do visa level tx capacity.

In other words, just because Satoshi invented Bitcoin that does not mean that he knew it all. The current engineers (or everyone I guess) have so much data that has been gathered over the years. You can't get nowhere near Visa unless you want to run Bitcoin on a few data centers only (however, I'd argue that it would be near worthless then).

And this is similarly true, not only for bitcoin, but bitcoin-based clones and other blockchain-based systems.

Correct.

No need to form such a country to establish our bitcoin. A lot of transactions are being used with blockchain but visa usage is high due to the universal acceptance. But if bitcoin gets universal acceptance, it will be controlled by someone which causes a backing in growth.

No. Bitcoin can not be controlled by anyone. This is just false.

[1715277576]

1715277576

[1715277576]

1715277576

[Slark]

No. Bitcoin can not be controlled by anyone. This is just false.

In theory where everyone 'owns' a little piece of hashing power and we don't have whales controlling huge amount of bitcoins - in this situation bitcoin is safe and indeed are free from manipulation.
But we are reaching the state when bitcoin will be controlled by large centralized mining farms as they will provide majority of the hash power.

[Lauda]

In theory where everyone 'owns' a little piece of hashing power and we don't have whales controlling huge amount of bitcoins - in this situation bitcoin is safe and indeed are free from manipulation.
But we are reaching the state when bitcoin will be controlled by large centralized mining farms as they will provide majority of the hash power.

Miners can't force the rules on the node operators. Miners actually have no power without the users. Their hashrate and coins would plummet in value very quickly if they did something malicious.

[ATguy]

The disagreement is about who determines what is spam. One group thinks it should be the miners deciding the block sizes they produce and the fees they require for admission. The other group thinks it should be an insular group of friends on irc, with a blatant COI.

Free market deciding or group of elitists deciding... strange there is still support from part of the Bitcoiners that elitists decide better, which is basically the same how the old financial system is governed.

Just the last excuse is full nodes might not keep with bandwith, CPU and storage requirement when miners are free to decide about block sizes. But miners act rationally to keep the coins+fees worth something in at least short future as well, thus the doom scenarios about full node centralization is myth because it is not in miner interests to have small price of Bitcoin as a result of continued distrust in Bitcoin.

Give faith in free market, and you will get the most efective system ever possible. No human regulators can come even close.

[RealPhotoshoper]

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

---------------------
Quote from Mike Hearn:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#msg1596879
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Bitcoin+can+already+scale+much+larger+than+that+with+existing+hardware+for+a+fraction+of+the+cost.%22

• Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.
• The block size limit was a quick safety hack that was always meant to be removed.
• In fact, in the very first email he sent me back in April 2009, he said this:

--------------------------------------------------
Email from Satoshi Nakamoto to Mike Hearn:

"Hi Mike,
I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.
There is only one global chain.

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.

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.

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."

~ Satoshi Nakamoto
---------------------------------------
Quote:

"Satoshi said back in 2010 that he intended larger block sizes to be phased in with some simple if (height > flag_day) type logic, theymos has linked to the thread before. I think he would be really amazed at how much debate this thing has become. He never attributed much weight to it, it just didn't seem important to him. And yes, obviously, given the massive forum dramas that have resulted it'd have been nice if he had made the size limit floating from the start like he did with difficulty. However, he didn't and now we have to manage the transition."

~ Mike Hearn, on bitcointalk.org, March 07, 2013, 06:15:30 PM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366
bit.ly/1YqiV41

----------------------------------------
Quote from Satoshi:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.  When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

~ Satoshi Nakamoto, on bitcointalk.org, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

So now,

If Satoshi himself "never really gave block size limit much weight"  (he assumed scaling was an obvious need that would happen quickly and easily), why are a group of developers refusing to scale the protocol... while simultaneously creating a tool that will generate massive income by moving transactions off the block chain, and into their exclusive transaction processing system (Lightening Network)?  Is it any wonder they were given nearly $50 million in VC funding when VC's realized they just took over Bitcoin transaction processing?

Is this not blatantly changing the design and purpose Satoshi gave to Bitcoin (to freely scale to massive sizes, to support on-chain transaction needs).  This seems to be of grave concern, no?

-B-

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

i've been open the thread you mentioned above,and some wuestion ruined my mind.
is that really satoshi nakamoto?and he exist on this forum?
and Mike Hearn cominucate with satoshi as well,but why Mike hearn admit him self as satoshi nakamoto,i've more confuse after read this thread 

[franky1]

also to note. Visa's 42,000-45,000 tx/s is not based on real data.. its based on small group of computers in a lab, pushed to their limit with fake data.
 and then days later that number multiplied by how many computers they have world wide
http://www.visa.com/blogarchives/us/2013/10/10/stress-test-prepares-visanet-for-the-most-wonderful-time-of-the-year/index.html

a group of VisaNet engineers packs their bags – which include hardware and software that emulates our network – and goes to Gaithersburg, Maryland where an IBM state-of-the-art testing facility is located.

Once there, our engineers create a mirror image of VisaNet’s authorization systems and the fun begins. For five days, they bombard the systems with simulated transactions. The objective is to validate the hardware and software configuration against expected peak message rates. At the same time, we look into extreme message rate scenarios to uncover any possible bottlenecks that may need future remediation.

After the test is concluded, the VisaNet team determines the best configuration to maintain our higher levels of security and reliability when millions of transactions from all over the world hit the network during the holiday shopping season. As a result, they also come back from Gaithersburg with a number that represents the maximum processing capacity VisaNet can handle, which later is stamped on coffee mugs and distributed to the team involved in the test. This year’s “mug number” – as we like to call it – is 47,000 transaction messages per second, which is a huge step forward from 2012’s peak capacity of 30,000 transaction messages per second!

do you know what the really funny part is..
42,000(2012)45,000(more recent).. is not actually the complete settlement of funds, but just the messages that say (yep they have cash).
so if bitcoin wanted to compare results. its not about confirmations. its just about VALIDATING TRANSACTIONS

[franky1]

also to note:
visa's REAL USAGE statistics is based on ~900million customers

doing an average of ~40tx a year

because we all know how the blockstreamers say the network is working perfectly even with lag(mempool growth) due to temporary high use at peak times. so lets play their game and average it down and ignore peak potential capacity..
which equals (if evenly divided down to average transactions per second) ~1,141tx a second
(900mill*40tx=36bill)(36bill/365/24/60/60=1141)

[AlexGR]

also to note. Visa's 42,000-45,000 tx/s is not based on real data.. its based on small group of computers in a lab, pushed to their limit with fake data.

I think the target is definitely not in the 40k tx/s range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Inc.

In 2009, Visa’s global network (known as VisaNet) processed 62 billion transactions with a total volume of $4.4 trillion.[6][7]

/365 = 170mn txs per day
/86400 secs per day = 1966 tx/s on avg.

Right now it should be close to 3k on avg due to growth in electronic payments.

So the target is around 3-4.000 tx/s. This is 1100 to 1500 times more than the 2.7tx/s.... so we are looking at 1.1 to 1.5gb blocks just to handle an average annualized load (no peaks).

1.1 to 1.5gb blocks are not feasible right now in a decentralized manner.

[watashi-kokoto]

We need to consider the inherent risks in the centralization. It's much better if miners represent the central authority than someone else. For example the economic majority, (wallet operators, exchanges) need to have a way to represent their vote on the issue.

[franky1]

lol i laugh at all you guys. trying to denounce the visa VS bitcoin thing..

based on previous posts about numbers visa has 900million customers and took 60 years to get there.
right now bitcoin has maybe 2.5mill users and took 7 years to get there.

stop thinking it must be only camp segwit or camp hardlimit(maxblocksize).. think BOTH!!
stop thinking bitcoin needs to have Visa capacity right now either.. (it can grow over time)

the solution does not need to be found in 16 months to jump from 2.5mill to 900mill users.. it can happen in the next couple decades

so here is some numbers to chew on
visa average 40tx per user per year(36bill tx over the total users)

so here goes
1mb bitcoin= ~105mill tx a year (~2000tx*144*365) (2.5mill users at 40tx a year average)
2mb+segwit is ~420mill tx a year (2 times real hard limit buffer and 2 times bait and switch)
2mb+segwit+LN=6.3bill tx a year (i think i remember lauda spouting off about a 15x LN capacity increase or something)


pretending that we have the blockstream mindset that people will use LN instead of ONCHAIN transactions.

by 2018 we will have the capacity to do 150million peoples transactions equivelent to visa. FULLY SETTLED!(not just signature verified/authorised)
remember 2mb+segwit =10mill people at 40 tx a year and LN (supposedly) is 15x that.

2mb+segwit+LN =150mill people
4mb+segwit+LN =300mill people (lets say a hard fork at the next reward halving 2020)
6mb+segwit+LN =450mill people (lets say a hard fork at the next reward halving 2024)
8mb+segwit+LN =600mill people (lets say a hard fork at the next reward halving 2028)
10mb+segwit+LN =750mill people (lets say a hard fork at the next reward halving 2032)
12mb+segwit+LN =900mill people (lets say a hard fork at the next reward halving 2036)

now you may ask.. its the year 2036 (20 years time) and we expect that we would have a 2PetaByte hard drive for $100. just like a 2tb hard drive now and a 2gb hard drive 20 years ago. how much data would that be per year.(IF, BIG IF. all blocks were near 100% full)

12mb+segwit = 24mb real data per block
24*144*365=1.26Tb a year, or the equivalent to $0.63 of hard drive costs per year ($100 for 2Pb hard drive)

now you may cry about bandwidth..

well we are talking about 20 years time so expect internet to get faster.
but based on today a 750kBIT average upload is ~0.093mBYTE a second =55MByte every 10 minutes (allowing for 25 leachers grabbing blocks AND getting relayed unconfirmed tx(or 50 blockgrabbers if u ignore tx relay))
even someone with basic 256kdown/64kup (bottomline ADSL) =4.8MByte every 10 minutes  (allowing for 2 leachers grabbing blocks AND getting relayed unconfirmed tx(or 4 blockgrabbers if u ignore tx relay))

so lets imagine worse case, where upload doesnt jump 100fold (like last 20 years) but just 10fold
thats 500mbyte average speed every blocktime  (allowing for 20 leachers grabbing blocks AND getting relayed unconfirmed tx(or 40 blockgrabbers if u ignore tx relay))
thats 48mbyte BASIC bottomline, every blocktime  (allowing for 1 leachers grabbing blocks AND getting relayed unconfirmed tx(or 2 blockgrabbers if u ignore tx relay))

but like i said that is worse case scenario.

so it is all possible.
its just not a  reason to pretend that the community is demanding 900million customer capacity today, by using the visa argument of lets say 20years... just to avid allowing 10million customer capacity in the next 16 months.

[sgbett]

The limit was a temporary fix.

Shortly before disappearing, Satoshi also repeated over and over that there were more ways that Bitcoin could be successfully DOS attacked than he could count.

The limit (in conjunction with transaction fees) were intended as a DOS attack and spam deterrent. Do you have any evidence that those risks have been mitigated? Do you have any evidence that suggests that 2MB blocks won't be filled to capacity right away? That would leave us where we are today -- with no scaling solutions, wondering how much more un-optimized throughput the network can safely handle.  

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

Satoshi's description of how to increase the block size limit was also clearly in the context of a software update. Not an incompatible implementation of bitcoin that essentially attacks the network and intentionally forks from all other client nodes. He even thought compatible alternatives were a bad idea.

One could make the argument that Satoshi thought we could raise the limit as/when needed (as if we needed his authority anyway). In that respect, the question of necessity is subjective and debatable, and it is not immediately clear that an increase to 2MB now, with no attempts to make throughput more scalable is necessary.

One could not make the argument that Satoshi thought we should increase the block size limit through a contentious hard fork.

All of this is moot. We should be talking in terms of "what is best for bitcoin" -- with respect to users, nodes and miners -- not talking past each other with interpretations of things Satoshi said 5-6 years ago. Not only was Satoshi wrong about some things, but the state of bitcoin has changed a lot. Hell, if we left the codebase as he originally wrote it, those 184 billion bitcoins from the August 2010 value overflow incident would still be with us. Better to work towards bitcoin's principles than aimlessly trying to fit some arbitrary interpretation of Satoshi's words.

As there are already several implementations the menace threat seems overblown. Even if you were to assume that Core was the "one true bitcoin", which version of it is gospel? If miners refuse to upgrade to 0.12 is this an attack? A menace?

It is possible to release an implementation right now with the limit removed. This still isn't an attack. Bitcoin's built in consensus mechanism protects the network.

There is evidence right now that the 1MB limit causes problems. There is only speculation that removing it causes problems.

The reason we can't talk in terms of what is best for bitcoin is because people have different opinions. People prefer speculative drama to mundane truth. The reason we can't work towards Bitcoin's principles is that these are also subject to people's opinion. If you refuse to accept that "What Satoshi said" has any importance all we have is the court of public opinion. In which case your view is as equally valid as mine. How do we resolve that? What are bitcoins principles when it comes to disagreement about what bitcoin is?

With regards to the "appeal to authority" defence. If something is a fact, and somebody happens to state that fact. Any argument that relies on the fact cannot be dismissed by saying "we should not rely on what somebody said". The argument is being made because of the fact, not because of what was said.

The limit was a temporary anti DOS measure, it is now restricting growth of transactions. Those are facts.

IMHO what is best for bitcoin is to allow it to grow unencumbered by artificial limits.

[franky1]

1.1 to 1.5gb blocks are not feasible right now in a decentralized manner.

no one is asking for 1.5gb blocks today!!

thats a futile argument to meander away from the real debate that bitcoiners are talking about today(2mb+segwit before 2018(preferably under 16 months), and then the POSSIBILITIES over the next TWENTY+ YEARS

[AlexGR]

1.1 to 1.5gb blocks are not feasible right now in a decentralized manner.

no one is asking for 1.5gb blocks today!!

thats a futile argument to meander away from the real debate that bitcoiners are talking about today(2mb+segwit before 2018(preferably under 16 months), and then the POSSIBILITIES over the next TWENTY+ YEARS

Although it's you I quote, it's for the OP to read.

[SpiryGolden]

All this without any real progress it gets us to this. Bitcoin is left behind.   It makes me really sad. This are the sad days of Bitcoin, the moment that you realize the trolling and the small view and mentality of Core developers brings Bitcoin to the ground. Sadly this is what is happening and it will happen in the past months.

Some will diss me , I still have a large amount of Bitcoins and didn't choose YET other sides but I am slowing migrating to better options with more capable development team that doesn't stall what is obvious needed and what obvious draw capital to Bitcoin (Fast , cheap , secure method of payment , moving money and many more ). They've dragged in the dirt and people are starting to quit step by step, companies to back off.

One of the news that should worry it is Microsoft stopping to accept Bitcoin payments. The whole market goes into regression and gets Bitcoin back into the dark age.

It is sad and even more sad that clouded mind people are supporting this, they are supporting the real death of Bitcoin and not the #90 fake death. This is real and not a joke anymore. Everyday passing by without an already implemented solution it makes the market bleed slowly.

We have statements from big players on market like XAPO , Microsoft , Humble Bundle and other merchants across the globe that are slowly retreating from this and looking for other better & faster alternatives.

Yes this is a sad day for both sides ..Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Classic. The both sides have lost big time.


The whole process of acceptance across the globe in early days was a lot of work and a lot of proving that it is a good payment method that is good to use , a lot of work from all holders , from all believers. Now all that work is really gone. How you can convince a giant like Microsoft to accept Bitcoin back? Hard to do that, very hard.

And by all that I want to say :"Thanks Bitcoin Blockstream Core for ruining this for all in order to self serve your own financial interest" .

[voos]

Big blockers are very sad people.

[madjules007]

As there are already several implementations the menace threat seems overblown. Even if you were to assume that Core was the "one true bitcoin", which version of it is gospel? If miners refuse to upgrade to 0.12 is this an attack? A menace?

Gospel? Satoshi just meant that it could cause compatibility issues that lead to networks forking off from one another. Core is one implementation. Having multiple implementations has nothing to do with updating to the most recent release of a client you already run. It seems like people like to cite Satoshi only when it suits them, and to otherwise brush what he said under the rug. The obvious solution is to approach the questions without citing someone that can't defend against people misconstruing his words.

It is possible to release an implementation right now with the limit removed. This still isn't an attack. Bitcoin's built in consensus mechanism protects the network.

That only works if you retain the consensus mechanism. There can be no question that lowering the threshold for consensus changes to 75% redefines what the "consensus mechanism" is. It not only attempts to redefine the English language definition (general agreement) but it attempts to redefine it in opposition to every intentional fork in bitcoin's history.

Nick Szabo called it "a 51% attack being justified through argument." You can't redefine the very basis of bitcoin -- consensus to achieve trustlessness -- so you can change the rules for everyone else without their agreement, and then deny that it's an attack. It very clearly is, and I'm happy to fork off anyone that tries.

Redefining consensus as "majority rule" was never something I signed up for by running my nodes. I'll just fork you off my network if you attempt to break consensus. And that's the root of the problem of breaking consensus in a controversy -- nodes = the rules. Miners are perpetually forced to act on incomplete information as quickly as possible, and they can only follow users, lest they be mining on an empty network. They can point their hashpower where they want, but that doesn't mean I'm going to install a forked client, nor that the rest of the network will. When the dust settles, we might find that users exist on both chains, and once difficulty adjusts, mining may be profitable on both. In that context, redefining the "consensus mechanism" defeats the purpose of consensus, period. And miner "consensus" -- which  does not define the rules for network nodes -- does nothing to change that.

There is evidence right now that the 1MB limit causes problems. There is only speculation that removing it causes problems.

That's akin to saying that there is evidence that a limit on taxes has led to a budget deficit, so we should remove all limits on taxes. That sort of logic is completely useless and doesn't belong in any serious debate. There can only be speculation on the consequences of increasing the block size limit. That is not evidence that we should do so. There is also only speculation that increasing the block size is safe (and to what extent). To use your logic, should we axe it from discussion then?

The reason we can't talk in terms of what is best for bitcoin is because people have different opinions. People prefer speculative drama to mundane truth. The reason we can't work towards Bitcoin's principles is that these are also subject to people's opinion. If you refuse to accept that "What Satoshi said" has any importance all we have is the court of public opinion. In which case your view is as equally valid as mine. How do we resolve that? What are bitcoins principles when it comes to disagreement about what bitcoin is?

In a term, consensus mechanism. Until consensus is reached on protocol changes, the status quo prevails. Many are upset that they can't get their way, and want to weasel their way into implementing changes with less and less agreement among the community that runs the software. I think that's atrocious. Again, any such attackers will just be forked off my network. You could argue that my nodes will exist only on a dead network -- I vehemently disagree and believe that game theory does little to support that in the context of an extremely contentious debate and a lowered majority threshold for miner agreement.

With regards to the "appeal to authority" defence. If something is a fact, and somebody happens to state that fact. Any argument that relies on the fact cannot be dismissed by saying "we should not rely on what somebody said". The argument is being made because of the fact, not because of what was said.

That's not an appeal to authority then. Saying "Satoshi said x, therefore y" is different than "Because of x, therefore y, which also agrees with Satoshi's findings." Often, though, people make arguments like the former. Like you did here. That fallacious logic is why I responded to you in the first place.

The limit was a temporary anti DOS measure, it is now restricting growth of transactions. Those are facts.

Temporary, until today? Next year? 2020?

What I said (and what you've glossed over) was:

The limit (in conjunction with transaction fees) were intended as a DOS attack and spam deterrent. Do you have any evidence that those risks have been mitigated? Do you have any evidence that suggests that 2MB blocks won't be filled to capacity right away? That would leave us where we are today -- with no scaling solutions, wondering how much more un-optimized throughput the network can safely handle.

Your facts are meaningless without context, and without addressing the actual issues.

IMHO what is best for bitcoin is to allow it to grow unencumbered by artificial limits.

You've got the touch of a sophist, alright.

Is the 21 million coin cap artificial? It is intended to control inflation.

The 1MB cap was intended to mitigate DOS attacks and deter spam. If you want to change the rules, you should begin by making a case that those concerns have been addressed.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

In a term, consensus mechanism. Until consensus is reached on protocol changes, the status quo prevails.

But what's the status quo? Certainly not SegWit/CT/LN et al. Is it?

[madjules007]

In a term, consensus mechanism. Until consensus is reached on protocol changes, the status quo prevails.

But what's the status quo? Certainly not SegWit/CT/LN et al. Is it?

The status quo is a 1MB block size limit as a hard rule. Segwit, as a soft fork, doesn't remove or change consensus rules. And miners can soft fork whenever they please -- that's not up to users, nodes or developers.

How are CT or LN consensus issues?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

In a term, consensus mechanism. Until consensus is reached on protocol changes, the status quo prevails.

But what's the status quo? Certainly not SegWit/CT/LN et al. Is it?

The status quo is a 1MB block size limit as a hard rule. Segwit, as a soft fork, doesn't remove or change consensus rules. And miners can soft fork whenever they please -- that's not up to users, nodes or developers.

How are CT or LN consensus issues?

Good point.

[danda]

It is not strictly a matter of mathematically optimal outcomes.

There is also the fact that we have an existing protocol that thousands (at least) of people are using and have entrusted significant value into.  That protocol is essentially frozen, much like ipv4.   It was and is an agreement, a promise.

I think it is very unlikely that the community at large will ever choose to change that agreement for anything that is not clearly and undeniably an existential threat.   This means that no controversial changes will be made going forward at the consensus level.

This immutability is a good thing.   It means that cryptocurrency can be trusted.

I for one will lose a great deal of trust in cryptocurrency if a controversial change ever does in fact happen because it will mean that a majority can dictate terms and potentially steal from a minority.

This does not mean that technical advances cannot happen.  They simply should happen outside Bitcoin.  Either in higher layers or in alt-coins.

Ethereum and now ZCash are talking about their governance models and how they can flexibly incorporate changes over time.   To me, this mutability is a drawback in a currency.    If humans can simply change it out from beneath me, then why should I trust it?

No, it is better to have many competing currencies, each with their own properties.   I believe that in the end, those that get the fundamentals of privacy, fungibility, immutability and scalability right will be winners, though of course this could take decades or even centuries and many things will happen along the way.

I am truly unsettled; I have switched from Core 0.11 to Classic 0.11 to Core 0.12 to Classic 0.12 and it is totally possible/likely I will switch again.  Perhaps I will try using more advanced mathematics, above and beyond high school maths.