Funding of network security with infinite block sizes

[Peter Todd]

Not much?

In the event that some jurisdictions with aggressive regulators try to impede mining, it will migrate elsewhere. Only if all mining is made illegal everywhere would it be a problem, and that's equivalent to a worldwide ban on Bitcoin, at which point it doesn't matter anymore.

So, in the countries where mining, and presumably Bitcoin in general, has been banned, do you think Bitcoins will have any value?

I was referring to the gathering of transactions stage, which is arguably the expensive part, bandwidth wise. If blocks are represented efficiently (eg, list of hashes or deltas against remote expected blocks) then almost all your bandwidth would go on receiving transaction broadcasts, and that doesn't require Tor.

...which means if I want to prevent mining behind Tor, all I have to do is fill my blocks with transactions that I haven't relayed to them. On the other hand, if it's a rule that you only mine to extend blocks if the transactions were broadcast first, anything that even makes transaction propagation slower, like a bunch of fake nodes, but far from 100%, causes orphan rates to jump. Not to mention I can make it very risky, due to orphaning, to mine blocks containing transactions that a large fraction of the nodes out there have decided to blacklist for whatever reason. You also create new forking risks if transaction propagation is ever prevented, when block propagation isn't.

[acoindr]

Honestly Peter, to be blunt I long ago concluded you're just working backwards from your preferred outcome. You don't want Bitcoin to scale up, and you will continue to invent ever more convoluted and baseless theories as to why it can't, until the end of time. Convincing you doesn't seem to be possible.

You know before I read this I had a question mark pop up when Peter brought up chaum signatures in one of these threads. I didn't see an immediate connection to a solution. Considering he wrote a detailed post on Chaum banks I wondered if personal preference was part of his outlook for the block size issue.

No one person owns Bitcoin so people are free to push opinions for whatever reasons they wish, but I'm also free to suggest the community ignore development input from any such people  (I don't know what retep's motivations ultimately are).

Guys let me throw an idea out. What about a one time increase to something like 50MB? Let the market work out the rest (off-chain options, altl-coins, etc.). I don't think we'll find an optimum solution - Bitcoin's design may not include one - but we do need something a majority of people can live with, and I think we need a general consensus on it soon.

[Peter Todd]

You know, it says a lot when your opponents resort to attacking you rather than your ideas:

Honestly Peter, to be blunt I long ago concluded you're just working backwards from your preferred outcome. You don't want Bitcoin to scale up, and you will continue to invent ever more convoluted and baseless theories as to why it can't, until the end of time. Convincing you doesn't seem to be possible.

You know before I read this I had a question mark pop up when Peter brought up chaum signatures in one of these threads. I didn't see an immediate connection to a solution. Considering he wrote a detailed post on Chaum banks I wondered if personal preference was part of his outlook for the block size issue.

[solex]

Peter, what is your opinion here:

Should complementary off-chain solutions develop organically on their own merits, taking loading off the Bitcoin blockchain, or should Bitcoin be crippled in the hope and expectation that complementary services develop around it faster?

[acoindr]

You know, it says a lot when your opponents resort to attacking you rather than your ideas:

Honestly Peter, to be blunt I long ago concluded you're just working backwards from your preferred outcome. You don't want Bitcoin to scale up, and you will continue to invent ever more convoluted and baseless theories as to why it can't, until the end of time. Convincing you doesn't seem to be possible.

You know before I read this I had a question mark pop up when Peter brought up chaum signatures in one of these threads. I didn't see an immediate connection to a solution. Considering he wrote a detailed post on Chaum banks I wondered if personal preference was part of his outlook for the block size issue.

In the post I quoted Mike Hearn from he directly addressed your arguments. I have done so as well.

I'm not attacking anyone and I'm not anyone's opponent. I'm looking at all possible avenues - cap, no cap, dynamic cap, etc. - objectively. However, I think it's also helpful to put all information, including suspicions on opinions, out in the open. Please feel free to do the same for me, for example.

[Peter Todd]

Peter, what is your opinion here:

Should complementary off-chain solutions develop organically on their own merits, taking loading off the Bitcoin blockchain, or should Bitcoin be crippled in the hope and expectation that complementary services develop around it faster?

Making the blocksize large as a solution will cripple Bitcoin with centralization and lack of anonymity.

The most revolutionary thing about Bitcoin is that it is a truly decentralized store of value; 1MB will be enough to act as a store of value for the forseeable future.

I'm not attacking anyone and I'm not anyone's opponent. I'm looking at all possible avenues - cap, no cap, dynamic cap, etc. - objectively. However, I think it's also helpful to put all information, including suspicions on opinions, out in the open. Please feel free to do the same for me, for example.

If you want to sink to that level, fine.

What does Mike's employer, Google, stand to gain from large blocks that only large companies can afford to process and validate? What does Google stand to gain from a system where every last transaction is recorded on a public blockchain, ripe for datamining? Mike after all works for a company that has a "real names" policy and actively tries to ensure users can-not use its services anonymously. Keep in mind Mike is also being paid by Google to work on Bitcoin; 20% time projects, while often speculative, are approved by management and must relate to Google's business interests in some fashion.

[justusranvier]

Making the blocksize large as a solution will cripple Bitcoin with centralization and lack of anonymity.

Leaving the block size limited to 1 MB will create centralization and lack of anonymity.

With a fixed block size, most people in the world won't be able to conduct transactions directly on the blockchain - they will be forced to to route their transactions through the few privileged entities which can. There's your centralization and lack of anonymity.

Large blocks allow more transactions, which means more transaction fees, which means more revenue for mining as an industry, which means more players can afford to enter the market. That causes decentralization.

The most revolutionary thing about Bitcoin is that it is a truly decentralized store of value;

"Store of value" is an economic myth. Value is not a thing which can be stored.

[acoindr]

If you want to sink to that level, fine.

What does Mike's employer, Google, stand to gain from large blocks that only large companies can afford to process and validate? What does Google stand to gain from a system where every last transaction is recorded on a public blockchain, ripe for datamining? Mike after all works for a company that has a "real names" policy and actively tries to ensure users can-not use its services anonymously. Keep in mind Mike is also being paid by Google to work on Bitcoin; 20% time projects, while often speculative, are approved by management and must relate to Google's business interests in some fashion.

I'm sorry but the above seems incredibly thin as rationale that Mike is arguing in biased fashion motivated by Google's interest. That's just my opinion.

Leaving the block size limited to 1 MB will create centralization and lack of anonymity.

With a fixed block size, most people in the world won't be able to conduct transactions directly on the blockchain ...

Let me ask you something. Do you think most people in the world would want to? If so, why?

[justusranvier]

Let me ask you something. Do you think most people in the world would want to?

I don't know and neither do you.

So let's not take the option away from them before we find out.

[acoindr]

Let me ask you something. Do you think most people in the world would want to?

I don't know and neither do you.

So let's not take the option away from them before we find out.

Well, let me ask it another way. If you could send bitcoins to any person or business now, like you currently can with the block-chain, but the option was available with PayPal-like interface and immediacy which would you choose for common legal transactions? You really think that's unpredictable?

[justusranvier]

If you could send bitcoins to any person or business now, like you currently can with the block-chain, but the option was available with PayPal-like interface and immediacy which would you choose for common legal transactions?

This is a false dichotomy. The same interface can be built for either type of system and in practice transaction confirmation time in Bitcoin isn't a problem.

[acoindr]

This is a false dichotomy. The same interface can be built for either type of system and in practice transaction confirmation time in Bitcoin isn't a problem.

I agree about the interface. I was mostly referring to confirmation time. When you say in practice Bitcoin confirmation time (which is unpredictable and can stretch over an hour) isn't a problem are you speaking for yourself or everyone?

[justusranvier]

I agree about the interface. I was mostly referring to confirmation time. When you say in practice Bitcoin confirmation time isn't a problem are you speaking for yourself or everyone?

People are conducting transactions using Bitcoin, and complaints about transaction times only arise in a tiny minority of instances, therefore transaction time is not a problem.

In addition to this, Bitcoin confirmation is faster than any other means of online transaction, when you compare like to like. An "instant" PayPal transfer is reversible for at least several months, and probably indefinitely. Bitcoin transaction also show up within a matter of seconds and are typically irreversible within an hour.

Assuming equivalent UIs, what theoretical advantages to your third party off-chain service provide have that zero confirmation Bitcoin transactions don't already provide?

[acoindr]

People are conducting transactions using Bitcoin, and complaints about transaction times only arise in a tiny minority of instances, therefore transaction time is not a problem.

Actually I've noticed more and more threads lately about confirmation time stretching over an hour, I think due to Bitcoin growing in general, hence more transactions. Aside from that if you poll the community on whether they would rather have instantly trustworthy transfers or deal with confirmations I'd be willing to put bitcoins on what the result would be.

In addition to this, Bitcoin confirmation is faster than any other means of online transaction, when you compare like to like.

Please be practical. We're not out to dissect bitcoin and financial services. We're simply asking what people would likely prefer to do in the future.

An "instant" PayPal transfer is reversible for at least several months, and probably indefinitely.

The thing about reversibility is not important for the majority of transactions, which are largely legal. If you pay a dentist, or for a cup of coffee are you really thinking reversibility will be an issue? Also, a company can offer a no-reverse transaction option.

Bitcoin transaction also show up within a matter of seconds and are typically irreversible within an hour.

A Bitcoin transaction merely showing up is not considered by the community (for good reason) to be a good indicator a transaction is valid. I've addressed reversibility above.

Assuming equivalent UIs, what theoretical advantages to your third party off-chain service provide have that zero confirmation Bitcoin transactions don't already provide?

Assurance the transaction is valid.

Although I've got other things to do I'm happy to continue addressing your concerns to try and convince you, because I think I'm right. However, if you are unwilling to be convinced please let me know so we can save both of us and this thread some time.

[Peter Todd]

Assuming equivalent UIs, what theoretical advantages to your third party off-chain service provide have that zero confirmation Bitcoin transactions don't already provide?

Privacy, and the best way to achieve that, chaum signatures, is inherently irreversible and instant as well.

[solex]

Assuming equivalent UIs, what theoretical advantages to your third party off-chain service provide have that zero confirmation Bitcoin transactions don't already provide?

Privacy, and the best way to achieve that, chaum signatures, is inherently irreversible and instant as well.

Accepting this as true, for which you present a strong case in your thread on trusted banks, then this is indeed a complementary service which may well attract a significant user base in the future. It may even succeed in handling 90% of the transaction volume which would otherwise hit the main blockchain. Is that your optimistic scenario?

However, and correct me if I am wrong, but such a trusted banking service does not exist yet. Not even in a prototype form, let alone one that can rapidly substitute for blockchain transactions. Acceptance of new services like this will take some time, at least a few years, surely. The people on this forum are ahead of the masses on bitcoin usage, yet they universally appreciate that their holding is stored on thousands of nodes worldwide. How many of us would quickly and permanently move our bitcoin holding to one single service instead of having it stored directly on the main chain?

You use the word "trust", but it takes time to earn it. It has taken Bitcoin four years to earn the trust that is fueling its success today.
I argue that there is not enough time left for that level of trust to be earned by complementary services before the 1MB arbitrary constant becomes as effective as any ddos attack in the history of bitcoin.

Please consider this chart and let us know, in your considered opinion, whether trusted banks will be fully ready, with a proven track record, before its blue line reaches 345,600.

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&timespan=&scale=1&address=

[marcus_of_augustus]

The solution that allows for the most number of connected nodes must be the preferred one.

Whether those nodes are mining or not seems immaterial at this point as mining is already a highly specialised endeavour. There are already 'pooled' blockchain storage solutions like electrum available.

It seems to me that the blockchain storage that your average commodity desktop/laptop PC can tolerate for the foreseeable future must be the over-riding determiner of maximum block size so that the most number of transaction transmitting, relaying nodes can realistically remain connected to the network.

[solex]

The solution that allows for the most number of connected nodes must be the preferred one.

Whether those nodes are mining or not seems immaterial at this point as mining is already a highly specialised endeavour. There are already 'pooled' blockchain storage solutions like electrum available.

It seems to me that the blockchain storage that your average commodity desktop/laptop PC can tolerate for the foreseeable future must be the over-riding determiner of maximum block size so that the most number of transaction transmitting, relaying nodes can realistically remain connected to the network.

Miners obtain revenue from the block reward and fees. Non-mining nodes benefit indirectly: by owning a long-term bitcoin holding. No one can complain if they are left behind when they freeload. If a non-mining node wants to stay fully connected then they should be prepared to spend a tiny amount of their holding on computer hardware to achieve it.

https://www.bitcoinstore.com/fantom-greendrive-2-tb-external-hard-drive.html

1.2 BTC to store a Bitcoin blockchain which has 690 days of 20MB blocks in it!

Not much of an obligation.

[justusranvier]

Although I've got other things to do I'm happy to continue addressing your concerns to try and convince you, because I think I'm right. However, if you are unwilling to be convinced please let me know so we can save both of us and this thread some time.

I was unable to find a single point you made in your post wasn't either specious or failed to address what you were replying to, so unless you've got something more substantial than that it's probably not worth anyone's time.

[markm]

Maybe we are seeing parts of why the world does not already use just one currency universally.

Right now I have my *coin holdings in full form, the actual blockchains, on my own machine.

I can spend them to anyone who has a machine no more powerful than my own, by having them run the daemon of the particular variety of coin they wish me to spend to them, and providing therm myself, directly with the entire blockchain that validates the entire thing all the way back to The Block of Genesis.

I might be very very wealthy when whichever coin or coins become vast mass-market enterprise mined by massive enterprises on the scale of Google, but will I really feel that my private keys to coins on big brother's chain are really as god and useful as the keys I have now to chains held in private hands in private homes throughout many nations? Even now already if I want to buy, say, two hundred and fifty bitcoins worth of perfectly legal goods, such as maybe some computer gear to run some nodes on, can I even now using these small, hidden in private homes everywhere, chains actually do that, or is big brotyer already reaching for it, maybe holding over bitcoinstore or bitcoinshop's heads already a bunch of threats that they must track who I am and maybe not even tell me that my information is being given to big brother and so on?

How much worse is it going to be when I have to submit my private keys for approval to some megacorp that is the only entity with access to the blockchain not because only a big entity can afford the transaction fees to get onto the blockchain but because only a big entity can actually mine the thing thus only the big entity can choose which private keys are even permitted onto the blockchain or to be used to move values on the blockchain, and to where they are allowed to move how much value, and how many permits are needed and how many copies of apostilled passports and so on?

Maybe if there isw a dichotomy between smal and secret store and private transfer out of big brother's view, and mass market full subject to big brother control megablockchain, we should just go ahead and admit litecoin already has bitcoin beat for sheer amount of transactions and sheer speed of confirmation and focus on the unlimited blocks ideas for litecoin and the keeping one's money out of big brother's hands for bitcoin?

Pls if both are too big for some uses, what the heck we still have namecoin and ixcoin and devcoin and i0coin coiledcoin all merged mine able alongside bitcoin so any one or more of those might happen to still be small enough for some time to come that even as more and more of te bloat more and more it still might be a year or two before we need to ad a bunch more chaisn to the merge to ensure small people, private people, still have bitcoin-type technology scaled suitably to their needs?

Problem here though that I have already seen is that despite all the verbiage about independence from big brother bitcoiners actually have massive tendency to deliberately not help keep the smaller less of a target for big brother so far due to smaller market cap chains strong in hashing power...

-MarkM-