P2P Cash or Settlement Layer?

[CIYAM]

Currently txs are on average 250 bytes... but let's say that we can somehow get that down to 100 bytes...

Getting a tx to be much smaller than the current minimum size would be no small feat although I do understand that a reduction of maybe 30% for the signature size might be possible after SegWit has been implemented.

But I think that is more likely going to be 200 bytes than 100 (and in general over time crypto stuff tends to need more bytes in order to remain secure so you can't really expect any further significant size reductions).

Personally I think get the settlement side perfected first and then work on the payment side of things (there are already quite a lot of off-chain services to do payments as it is so this isn't really so urgent IMO).

Understand that the settlement side of things includes the remittance market which is actually huge (it is the first big market that Bitcoin should actually have already disrupted yet it has failed to make any significant inroads into so far).

[1714945946]

1714945946

[1714945946]

1714945946

[1714945946]

1714945946

[Victor Beckham]

Please don't just vote, but also give your opinion and explain your reasons. This poll can provide extremely useful info for everyone... users, miners, devs...

I agree with the questions u have raised, but disagree with the way u r looking for resolution. In this poll, a person having 0.0001 BTC have the same voting power as of the guy holding 10 or 100 BTC. U could get a better representation if u used http://bitcoinocracy.com/.

[franky1]

It does not matter what people want if it is not possible. The real question is what is achievable.

Do you want Bitcoin to be digital P2P cash?

How do you define P2P cash? Is it not P2P cash right now? If you define it as a system which everybody in the world can use a the same time, then you won't like the answer.

the OP means. do we want bitcoin to be fast instant transactions like visa. or a reserve/store of wealth secure like a bank savings/investment account

bitcoins rarity and ledger seems to be more on the onus of long term store, and not aimed at the instant transaction market.

we should not ruin bitcoins rarity or ledger to enter the instant transaction market. nor should we force people away from bitcoins rarity or ledger for a different service/network/chain that offers instant transaction market.

allow bitcoin to grow capacity to allow more users to transact comfortably at the own pace and have the freedom to choose to use a blockstream faster service features. WITHOUT abusing bitcoin by hindering it to attempt to force people into blockstream features.

[Lauda]

Currently txs are on average 250 bytes... but let's say that we can somehow get that down to 100 bytes... (I've see discussion on several ways of doing this).

This is where it all starts being flawed. That's not the average transaction size, not even close. Source.

In particular, the average transaction size has increased from 450 bytes in Jan 2013 to almost 600 bytes in Oct 2015

What would be the big tech constraint in 2020 preventing 14MB blocks?

I can't answer this as your calculations are flawed due to using a wrong average. If you re-do them, then we might be able to talk about it.

[flix]

It does not matter what people want if it is not possible. The real question is what is achievable.

Do you want Bitcoin to be digital P2P cash?

How do you define P2P cash? Is it not P2P cash right now? If you define it as a system which everybody in the world can use a the same time, then you won't like the answer.

the OP means. do we want bitcoin to be fast instant transactions like visa. or a reserve/store of wealth secure like a bank savings/investment account

Well...  I don't want to be dismissive... but that is definitely not what I mean.

Visa is not Cash. And I don't consider bank accounts a secure store of wealth.... so if I had to pick an analogy (imperfect as they all are) by cash I mean something similar to how cash payments work now with coins and notes: final, irreversible, P2P payments (but online.. obviously).

By settlement I would mean something similar to gold (as it was used between central banks to settle international balance of payments before 1971 and by regular people before 1913).

[Lauda]

Well...  I don't want to be dismissive... but that is definitely not what I mean.

I've already told you that if you want a definite answer that you'd have to provide a definition. What exactly is P2P cash? What features does it have? How does it compare to a settlement layer? Once we have answers to those, then we might be able to come to some sort of conclusion.

[flix]

Well...  I don't want to be dismissive... but that is definitely not what I mean.

I've already told you that if you want a definite answer that you'd have to provide a definition. What exactly is P2P cash? What features does it have? How does it compare to a settlement layer? Once we have answers to those, then we might be able to come to some sort of conclusion.

Sure... but I don't want to constrain or bias the poll by limiting it to my own definition. Other people will probably disagree...

[CIYAM]

Sure... but I don't want to constrain or bias the poll by limiting it to my own definition. Other people will probably disagree...

Polls on this forum are basically useless (as people will just use sockies so it only ends up telling you who is more determined to win the poll rather than anything about general opinions which is why I have never voted in a single poll on this forum and never will).

[Lauda]

Sure... but I don't want to constrain or bias the poll by limiting it to my own definition. Other people will probably disagree...

You aren't doing that at all. If people disagree with it then it can be discussed. Just share it and let's see. Keep in mind that answering all three questions would be very helpful.

[franky1]

So... let's say that we want 20 million people to be able to use Bitcoin as P2P cash regularly (say once a day).

20.000.000 tx/day --> 232 tx/s or 13.889 tx/min --> 138.890 tx/ block

Currently txs are on average 250 bytes... but let's say that we can somehow get that down to 100 bytes... (I've see discussion on several ways of doing this).

140.000 txs x 100 bytes = 14.000.000 = 14MB


What would be the big tech constraint in 2020 preventing 14MB blocks?

Memory? Bandwidth? latency?

i understand you dont want to talk about the centralization aspects of banks and visa. but please "pretend" we are talking about banks and visa just in the context of end user method of usage, rather than the technicals of controls behind the scenes. then it helps 'lay' people get to the basics of your debate about long term store vs daily spends

anyway

using blockstreams doomsday story of comparing bitcoin to possible Visa..(dont worry i hate it too, but relax, think of it from the end-user usage not the who controls it mindset)

visa averages each customer does 40 transactions a year.

bitcoin currently has 2.5mill users and based on the maths of ACTUAL average transactions per block(2000tx=500byte/tx)
2000tx(block)*144(day)*365(year)=105mill .. which not surprisingly also corresponds to a 40tx/user per year.. (kinda funny that)

after all not everyone will use it daily. some use it a couple times a day some use it once a month. hense the 40tx/year is a good average as proven by both bitcoin and visa

so 20million people doing 40 transactions/year to compare both visa and bitcoins current usage =  
8mb maxblocksize hard rule doing traditional transactions.
4.2mb maxblocksize hard rule doing Segwit transactions with a real data storage of 8mb (based on segwit and laudas assumption of 190% capacity)
4.2mb maxblocksize hard rule doing Segwit transactions and confidential payment codes with a real data storage of 12mb

so we went from 1000 tx in 2013(0.5mb block due to DB bug) its going to be 2mb+segwit in 2017(hoping to be sooner personally). and based on technology growth. a 4.2mb +segwit wont be a big deal by 2020

in short by summer 2017 bitcoin can handle 10million people doing similar daily transactions like they would using bitcoin or visa today
give it 4 years there wont be an issue with 20million. (ONLY if people dont stupidly use confidential payment codes extra feature by default)

[flix]

in short by summer 2017 bitcoin can handle 10million people doing similar daily transactions like they would using bitcoin or visa today
give it 4 years there wont be an issue with 20million. (ONLY if people don't stupidly use confidential payment codes extra feature by default)

I like those numbers. 

[calkob]

I think it will end up as a settlement layer with other better faster tokens taking the currency role.

[pawel7777]

... I have never voted in a single poll on this forum and never will).

That's a lie. Your user stats say you casted 2 votes in the past.

[Chronikka]

Why can't it be both? This is just software isn't it? We should be able to come up with a reasonable platform that can do both without jeopardizing security, or usability. Its just a matter of getting the right minds working on it, and time. This is going to take time to create.

[CIYAM]

... I have never voted in a single poll on this forum and never will).

That's a lie. Your user stats say you casted 2 votes in the past.

Hmm... that must have been a long time back (as I don't even recall what they were) but I think that having voted in only 2 polls in 5 years shows you that I don't care for the polls on this forum (back in late 2011 and early 2012 there weren't so many sockies and the polls might have had more apparent value).

So let me correct the statement to say that I have only ever voted in 2 polls in this forum and that those were a long time ago and that I wouldn't do so again.

[honeyhtet]

I prefer it to be a peer to peer cash IMO, that's more close to the current bitcoin system and it's very idea IMO.

[Lauda]

I prefer it to be a peer to peer cash IMO, that's more close to the current bitcoin system and it's very idea IMO.

People keep saying that yet nobody provided a single definition of P2P Cash. I'm still waiting for a clear definition so that discussing would make sense.

We should be able to come up with a reasonable platform that can do both without jeopardizing security, or usability. Its just a matter of getting the right minds working on it, and time. This is going to take time to create.

We already have a platform, that's the issue. You can't fundamentally re-engineer Bitcoin from scratch anymore.

I think it will end up as a settlement layer with other better faster tokens taking the currency role.

You can't really know that.

[Chronikka]

We should be able to come up with a reasonable platform that can do both without jeopardizing security, or usability. Its just a matter of getting the right minds working on it, and time. This is going to take time to create.

We already have a platform, that's the issue. You can't fundamentally re-engineer Bitcoin from scratch anymore.

Except that its being "re-engineered" every single day already. There are developers already working on changing Bitcoin right this minute.

[flix]

People keep saying that yet nobody provided a single definition of P2P Cash. I'm still waiting for a clear definition so that discussing would make sense.

OK... let me give it a shot:

-Cash: A token of value used for exchange. eg: a coin.
-Digital cash: A digital token of value used for exchange. eg: 1 BTC
-P2P Cash: A form of cash in which the token's value does not require a third party to the exchange.


However the above definitions refer to bitcoins as the units of value or tokens in a cash system... but for the Bitcoin Network to be an effective P2P Cash transmission system which can be used in a way analogous to how we use physical coins and notes today face to face... it would need to have certain characteristics:

-Open, permissionless system. If you have the token, you can use it.
-Mere Possession of the token is enough. No extra proof is required.
-Payments are simple, fast and have low transaction costs.
-Tokens are fungible.
-Payments are irreversible and final.

...and for it to be P2P:
-Only the voluntary interaction of the 2 parties to a transaction is required. No third party can block the transaction.

[thejaytiesto]

I think the most important feature has to be a settlement network, the "new gold" approach is in my book the one that we have to focus on, before we can pretend to compete against centralized systems like VISA.

If we are going to compete against centralized systems like VISA, we must deliver something that makes it worth using for the average user. I think, the fact that anyone can start sending and receiving money without any consent, is a big advantage we will always have against our competition when it comes to the goal of making Bitcoin a worlwide used currency with millions of transactions per second. The work done by Blockstream in this matter is excellent and im looking forward to it.