A decentralized (multilayered) blockchain. Is it ever possible?

[pawel7777]

...
There is only one data set of transactions which is authentic at any given moment. That seems to be the highest level of "centralization" possible

You're twisting the meaning of "decentralisation". What most bitcoiners are concerned with, is decentralisation of network, meaning there is no and should never be any central entity controlling the network.

Centralisation, as you call it, of data set is actually desirable. In the perfect scenario, there are millions of nodes, each of them having a copy of full ledger (so you don't have to rely on other nodes to keep the missing parts).

Purpose of data dispersion (or blockchain sharding) is to reduce the blockchain size each node has to store, but it doesn't improve decentralisation of network (it could in certain circumstances, but it could as well have the opposite effect).

[deisik]

...
There is only one data set of transactions which is authentic at any given moment. That seems to be the highest level of "centralization" possible

You're twisting the meaning of "decentralisation"

I will readily use a better term for describing what I mean (Bitcoin transactions aggregation and centralization). Do you have any?

What most bitcoiners are concerned with, is decentralisation of network, meaning there is no and should never be any central entity controlling the network

That actually doesn't seem to be a top priority right now

Centralisation, as you call it, of data set is actually desirable. In the perfect scenario, there are millions of nodes, each of them having a copy of full ledger (so you don't have to rely on other nodes to keep the missing parts)

I'm afraid this won't work out the way you think it will. If you had unlimited bandwidth and storage space, then yes, it might work, though this would still be a tremendous waste of resources, so it remains debatable. But let's get real. And getting real right now means pretty ugly things, to be honest. I mean spamming the network with high fee transactions which is what seems to be going on this very moment. So instead of being concerned with the decentralization of network, bitcoiners should better think about resolving more urgent issues, and these issues are directly connected with the topic of this thread...

Otherwise, this so longed for decentralization might become totally irrelevant very soon

[franky1]

And by the way, you are flat-out wrong about that too (but that's not surprising). 16 years ago most drives came in 40Gb capacities. I well remember those days when IBM started selling their Deskstar 75GXP hard drives with glass platters and up to 75Gb in storage space, made in Hungary and exceptionally prone to failures. We called them Magyar woodpeckers since their abbreviation, DTLA, was consonant to woodpecker in Russian, "dyatel", lol. I had a few such 40Gb disks in early 2000s that quickly failed. 4Gb disks were common in 1996-1997, if I'm not mistaken

im talking common RELIABLE household grade stuff.. retail consumer available.. not the datacentre/specialist grade stuff.

otherwise i would have mentioned ISDN and tethering and other things to speed up internet speeds at the millenia..

however i was talking household grade technology, which is the point of this topic. where households had the capacity to run bitcoin nodes, not datacentres.

so 16 years ago HOUSEHOLDS had RELIABLE
4gb hard drives
dialup

now its 4tb hard drives
ADSL/FIbre

future
bigger hard drives
faster fibre

.. as for miners(not nodes)..
forget about internet speeds, forget about hard drive capacity.. miners dont even see or care about the 7 years of blockchain history.

all they do is hash a small piece of data.
asics dont have a hard drive.

the only concern you had about miners relates to CPU.. which i already informed you we surpassed the CPU argument in 2011
by miners moving to GPUs, then FPGA's then ASICS.

[deisik]

And by the way, you are flat-out wrong about that too (but that's not surprising). 16 years ago most drives came in 40Gb capacities. I well remember those days when IBM started selling their Deskstar 75GXP hard drives with glass platters and up to 75Gb in storage space, made in Hungary and exceptionally prone to failures. We called them Magyar woodpeckers since their abbreviation, DTLA, was consonant to woodpecker in Russian, "dyatel", lol. I had a few such 40Gb disks in early 2000s that quickly failed. 4Gb disks were common in 1996-1997, if I'm not mistaken

im talking common houshold stuff.. retail available.. not the datacentre grade stuff.

I didn't work at a data center back then. These were typical IDE drives available for around $100 per unit (maybe, somewhat more than that). I've been there and seen that with my own eyes (and kept these disks in my own hands). In fact, I have two such drives from those times still collecting dust in the cupboard. The data center stuff was SCSI all throughout, and these drives cost a few times more and were reliable as an AK. In any case, your references to 16 year old technologies and capacities are irrelevant. The CPU frequency is no longer growing due to physical limits (mostly speed of light)...

And similar limits will be eventually hit with network bandwidth and storage capacity

[pawel7777]

...
There is only one data set of transactions which is authentic at any given moment. That seems to be the highest level of "centralization" possible

You're twisting the meaning of "decentralisation"

I will readily use a better term for describing what I mean (Bitcoin transactions aggregation and centralization). Do you have any?

What most bitcoiners are concerned with, is decentralisation of network, meaning there is no and should never be any central entity controlling the network

That actually doesn't seem to be a top priority right now

Centralisation, as you call it, of data set is actually desirable. In the perfect scenario, there are millions of nodes, each of them having a copy of full ledger (so you don't have to rely on other nodes to keep the missing parts)

I'm afraid this won't work out the way you think it will. If you had unlimited bandwidth and storage space, then yes, it might work, though this would still be a tremendous waste of resources, so it remains debatable. But let's get real. And getting real right now means pretty ugly things, to be honest. I mean spamming the network with high fee transactions which is what seems to be going on this very moment. So instead of being concerned with the decentralization of network, bitcoiners should better think about resolving more urgent issues, and these issues are directly connected with the topic of this thread...

Otherwise, this so longed for decentralization might become totally irrelevant very soon

*sigh*

Let me try different angle:

A decentralized blockchain. Is it ever possible?

Blockchain itself is as a permanent database that gets copied to Bitcoin network nodes, so every node should have the same copy of it. In this sense, it is as centralized as it could ever get.

If the blockchain is already centralised, could you point the central entity?

Is it at all possible, that the main point you're concerned with is the size of the blockchain and the whole "each node holding full ledger = centralisation" was just a brain fart?

[deisik]

A decentralized blockchain. Is it ever possible?

Blockchain itself is as a permanent database that gets copied to Bitcoin network nodes, so every node should have the same copy of it. In this sense, it is as centralized as it could ever get.

If the blockchain is already centralised, could you point the central entity?

Is it at all possible, that the main point you're concerned with is the size of the blockchain and the whole "each node holding full ledger = centralisation" was just a brain fart?

I don't feel inclined to get absorbed in semantic gymnastics

As I already said, if you know the proper term for what I described as a "blockchain centralization" (one and only one data set existing across the Bitcoin network which is considered valid and authentic), I will happily use it. If you have nothing constructive to say, please refrain from posting in this thread. I think I explained it pretty well what I meant by blockchain being totally centralized

[pawel7777]

...

I don't feel inclined to get absorbed in semantic gymnastics

As I already said, if you know the proper term for what I described as a "blockchain centralization" (one and only one data set existing across the Bitcoin network which is considered valid and authentic), I will happily use it. If you have nothing constructive to say, please refrain from posting in this thread. I think I explained it pretty well what I meant by blockchain being totally centralized

It's not semantics, you've just made ridiculous statement and you can't defend it. You either have a hard time clearly articulating your thoughts to the point where no one in this thread can figure what you mean, or you're being confusing on purpose.

Try and use good old "blockchain size" or "bloating blockchain" terms instead and see how it goes.

[iamnotback]

A decentralized blockchain. Is it ever possible?

So how feasible a decentralized blockchain (or something like that) would be?

I already have the correct design and am working on implementing it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16967822#msg16967822

The flaws in the current two best contenders (Satoshi's proof-of-work and Bitshares' DPoS) are insoluble:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16957687#msg16957687

[deisik]

A decentralized blockchain. Is it ever possible?

So how feasible a decentralized blockchain (or something like that) would be?

I already have the correct design and am working on implementing it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16967822#msg16967822

The flaws in the current two best contenders (Satoshi's proof-of-work and Bitshares' DPoS) are insoluble:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16957687#msg16957687

I've been hearing about you working on a new Bitcoin killer coin for a few years already. Actually, since I had registered here in the fall of 2013. Could you please explain the concept of it in a few words? I mean that part which allows blocks "sharding" (if I use the correct term) as opposed to what the Bitcoin blockchain does. I don't need technical details, just the basic idea. Some here say that it is impossible to do but I don't feel inclined to unreservedly trust their words...

Will your coin ever come to fruition?

Try and use good old "blockchain size" or "bloating blockchain" terms instead and see how it goes

I guess none of these fully comprehends the idea of only one authentic dataset existing across the network, which the Bitcoin blockchain typifies

[groll]

...
There is only one data set of transactions which is authentic at any given moment. That seems to be the highest level of "centralization" possible

You're twisting the meaning of "decentralisation"

I will readily use a better term for describing what I mean (Bitcoin transactions aggregation and centralization). Do you have any?

What most bitcoiners are concerned with, is decentralisation of network, meaning there is no and should never be any central entity controlling the network

That actually doesn't seem to be a top priority right now

Centralisation, as you call it, of data set is actually desirable. In the perfect scenario, there are millions of nodes, each of them having a copy of full ledger (so you don't have to rely on other nodes to keep the missing parts)

I'm afraid this won't work out the way you think it will. If you had unlimited bandwidth and storage space, then yes, it might work, though this would still be a tremendous waste of resources, so it remains debatable. But let's get real. And getting real right now means pretty ugly things, to be honest. I mean spamming the network with high fee transactions which is what seems to be going on this very moment. So instead of being concerned with the decentralization of network, bitcoiners should better think about resolving more urgent issues, and these issues are directly connected with the topic of this thread...

Otherwise, this so longed for decentralization might become totally irrelevant very soon

I don’t think we should use the frame of mind that something can be “trustless”. Provable is a good replacement word. All we’re doing is replacing people based trust with open-source trust, and because of that, I would argue that there is more trust. Also people who aren’t technologists don’t understand the word “trustless” because they don’t know how this technology works  when combined with social and political institutions, has real possibilities for the future of organisation of the commons.

[deisik]

I don’t think we should use the frame of mind that something can be “trustless”. Provable is a good replacement word. All we’re doing is replacing people based trust with open-source trust, and because of that, I would argue that there is more trust. Also people who aren’t technologists don’t understand the word “trustless” because they don’t know how this technology works  when combined with social and political institutions, has real possibilities for the future of organisation of the commons.

Could you please try to explain in greater detail what you meant to say

The word "trustless" has been used twice in this topic and both times in your post (yes, I checked). To be honest, I couldn't make anything out of your post. Regarding open-source trust vs people based trust (probably, the only thing that I got somewhat in this post), if you are not a very experienced developer yourself in exactly that field where your trust might matter, it still invariably comes down to trusting people who are more experienced than you. In other words, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other

[NeuroticFish]

Although the wording is terrible, I understood the point.
However, I feel like everybody having a copy of the blockchain is the key for Bitcoin safety. (Or, for better wording, let's say "as many as possible" instead of "everybody").
I may be wrong, but if one doesn't have the full blockchain, the wallet will have to either work like a SPV wallet (which is claimed to be less secure) either "ask around" for the missing info - but I see that even more like an overhead.

I still think that is keeping the full chain is an issue for somebody, that somebody should start using light wallets. There's no better option.

[deisik]

Although the wording is terrible, I understood the point

Do you have a better term?

However, I feel like everybody having a copy of the blockchain is the key for Bitcoin safety. (Or, for better wording, let's say "as many as possible" instead of "everybody").
I may be wrong, but if one doesn't have the full blockchain, the wallet will have to either work like a SPV wallet (which is claimed to be less secure) either "ask around" for the missing info - but I see that even more like an overhead

The main issue that Bitcoin faces is that it is pretty much stuck in its current incarnation. Let's face the facts, Bitcoin is not scalable in any relevant degree. We already had a few occurrences when thousands of Bitcoin transactions had not been confirmed by miners on time. That may actually has little to do with the block sizes as many think, but this still doesn't miraculously resolve that issue itself...

And this may be just a writing on the wall

I still think that is keeping the full chain is an issue for somebody, that somebody should start using light wallets. There's no better option.

This is not a solution to the main problem. i.e. Bitcoin scalability issues, or the lack of scalability

[NeuroticFish]

Do you have a better term?

No, I would have proposed one if I'd have had...

The main issue that Bitcoin faces is that it is pretty much stuck in its current incarnation. Let's face the facts, Bitcoin is not scalable in any relevant degree. We already had a few occurrences when thousands of Bitcoin transactions had not been confirmed by miners on time. That may actually has little to do with the block sizes as many think, but this still doesn't miraculously resolve that issue itself...

And this may be just a writing of the wall

I feel like the transaction issues can be better solved by the wallet itself. The wallet can calculate the size of the transaction, check on how busy the network is and propose a couple options for the fee.
If the sender finds the fee too big for the expected time, he can just wait for a better moment.

This is not a solution to the main problem. i.e. Bitcoin scalability issues

I agree that Bitcoin has issues that have to be solved, but I feel like your proposal of splitted-up blockchain will create more problems and will not really solve any (the size on the HDD and the initial sync bandwidth are not real problems I'd say).

[deisik]

Do you have a better term?

No, I would have proposed one if I'd have had...

To be honest, I think that the term "blockchain centralization" makes perfect sense. This is not the same as Bitcoin centralization as many erroneously might think, the process which we all have been witnessing for the last couple of years. Nevertheless, what about "flat blockchain" then?

Should I trademark the term?

The main issue that Bitcoin faces is that it is pretty much stuck in its current incarnation. Let's face the facts, Bitcoin is not scalable in any relevant degree. We already had a few occurrences when thousands of Bitcoin transactions had not been confirmed by miners on time. That may actually has little to do with the block sizes as many think, but this still doesn't miraculously resolve that issue itself...

And this may be just a writing of the wall

I feel like the transaction issues can be better solved by the wallet itself. The wallet can calculate the size of the transaction, check on how busy the network is and propose a couple options for the fee.
If the sender finds the fee too big for the expected time, he can just wait for a better moment

This is not even a solution, I'd rather call a workaround

This is not a solution to the main problem. i.e. Bitcoin scalability issues

I agree that Bitcoin has issues that have to be solved, but I feel like your proposal of splitted-up blockchain will create more problems and will not really solve any (the size on the HDD and the initial sync bandwidth are not real problems I'd say)

In fact, when I referred to scalability issues I meant the exponential growth of the number of transactions processed per unit of time. If Bitcoin is ever to become adopted on a world scale (this is an assumption only, not an assertion, for those who have difficulty in distinguishing between moods), the Bitcoin network should be able to process many orders more transactions than it is processing now. Probably on the scale of thousand transactions per second...

I don't think that the current blockchain paradigm (that of unique flat blockchain) could ever get scaled up to this level

[franky1]

as others have said bitcoin is decentralized..
i feel the idea your trying to convey as an issue is:
"blockdata diversity"

your complaint is everyone has the same blockdata.

even if that data is distributed / decentralized. (no single location of attack).. by everyone having the same data the data is not diverse.

i know what you are trying to get at.
where your thinking that blockchains should work as sidechains.. where each sidechain is like a bankbranch with its own cluster of customers and keeps it own records.

meaning blockchain FARGO shows blocks of transactions of americans.
meaning blockchain EURO shows blocks of transactions of europeans.
meaning blockchain HSBC shows blocks of transactions of easterners.

all linked together by a gatekeeper blockchain IMF

rather than
easterners hold and uses blockchain B.
europeans hold and uses blockchain B.
americans hold and uses blockchain B.

to answer your topic question.. yes it is possible to do sidechains.
but then the issue becomes who are the gate keepers. who created the genesis block of each sidechain.
whats securing it.

lastly. instead of say 130,000 ASICS protecting bitcoin with 440,000 hashes that need to be hacked just to be able to steal satoshi's stash...

imagine people moved funds over to sidechain LQD which is secured by only 12 people in a multi-signing POS hub.. you are sacrificing alot of security measures for their LQD features.

so although possible you need to realise what your losing, what headaches it may cause and what advantage you are gaining.

LN is sacrificing autonomy and replacing it with permissioned payments (dual signed authorisation)
side-chains opens a huge kettle of worms.

[deisik]

as others have said bitcoin is decentralized..

I never questioned that, apart from Bitcoin mining being centralized by the Chinese miners. But this is neither a secret nor a topic of this thread. Moreover, I specifically distinguished between Bitcoin centralization and Blockchain centralization. And yet more, I even suggested to use the term "flat blockchain" instead of "blockchain centralization", since a lot of people got agitated about me allegedly misusing the term (though I don't think I really am), but they couldn't come up with a suitable alternative for this term, alas...

So what do you think about that term, "flat blockchain"?

LN is sacrificing autonomy and replacing it with permissioned payments (dual signed authorisation)
side-chains opens a huge kettle of worms.

In fact, I'm not coming up with anything since I lack proper technical background in this respect. I just say that the current "flat blockchain" cannot get scaled up efficiently and effectively

[Killerpotleaf]

Replicating millions and billions of transactions would be a waste of network resources

bitcoin is very inefficient.
but bitcoin's efficiency isn't what makes it special
we put up with its inefficient design because this design give us the properties we want.
bottom line is we are more then willing to trade off efficiency for decentralization, we dont care if it makes CPU's sweat a little.

I don't think that the current blockchain paradigm (that of unique flat blockchain) could ever get scaled up to this level

the real question here is what level of decentralization is nessary or desirable... and dose this target move as bitcoin scales up?
imagine we are at "this level" with the  current blockchain paradigm.
in this scenario bitcoin has "taken over"... so who are the nodes?
at that point nodes are ran by governments of the world, corporations and other larger entities.
no one government or corporation is in control... where's the central authority? where's the problem?
i dont see it.
as long as there is no central authority capable of censoring TX or issuing new bitcoins. there is no problem.
and also users have a strong element of control over the system without having to run a node at all, but by CHOOSING the crypto they TX in.

here's the real real question:

is centralizing the use of blockchain an acceptable trade off to maintain maximal node distribution?
are we willing to centralize on chain usage to large entities so that individual user can continue to run nodes?
Or
are we willing to centralize node distribution to large entities so that individual user can continue to use blockchain?

[franky1]

In fact, I'm not coming up with anything since I lack proper technical background in this respect. I just say that the current "flat blockchain" cannot get scaled up efficiently and effectively

young grass hopper
a bonzai tree may only grow 2foot. and so would require a forrest of bonzai to feed all the leaf cutter ants onroute.
but a 300ft redwood is stronger than a forrest of separate bonzai and can feed all the ants. as long as you let the redwood tree grow.

the problem is not that bitcoin cant scale.. its that bitcoin is being prevented from scaling by.. HUMANS, especially those in the pockets of bankers
bitcoin doesnt need to be XXXmb tomorrow.. it can SCALE naturally and DYNAMICALLY as time passes over the next 120 years.

the funny part is
holding back scaling, while then crying bitcoin needs to go sideways because it cant scale.. is like a self fulfilling prophecy

you prophecize that tomorrow you wont be able to walk on both feet.. because you shot yourself in the foot the night before.

[iamnotback]

Could you please explain the concept of it in a few words? I mean that part which allows blocks "sharding" (if I use the correct term) as opposed to what the Bitcoin blockchain does. I don't need technical details, just the basic idea. Some here say that it is impossible to do but I don't feel inclined to unreservedly trust their words...

Will your coin ever come to fruition?

My white paper will be the best resource for convincing you. I hope to publish it along with a testnet February-ish.

Yes it is possible. But all the prior thinking about how to do it, has been wrong.

Note I am not hyping anything, because I am not asking for any money until after the white paper and testnet are published.

I am just giving you a heads up, that if you don't want to miss your chance to have obtained Bitcoin when it was only pennies per BTC, then you should be watching very carefully what I am doing. Of course be skeptical and make sure you read the white paper carefully.

Sorry I am not going to tell you my secrets before I am at the testnet phase. Too many copycoins would steal my ideas if I did that. It will all be open source after testnet.