The Extreme Flaws Of Bitcoin

[AgentofCoin]

Having an access point is a requirement to participate.

The problem is exactly the negation of that statement, you don't need a node to use bitcoin, there is little incentive to run one (I am not saying that everyone should be required to run a node to use bitcoin, that would reduce the accesability of using bitcoin).

You misunderstand. I am proposing that we make it a requirement to participate, just like the access point. Then all wallets are supportive of the network and the argument about finance vs altruism is moot.

The real problem is if we did as you suggest then users would run their node only for transactions
and as soon as it is broadcasted and within a block, they would just shut down that node.

The real discussion by the OP is about having 24/7 full nodes that help distribute the security and
risk through global decentralization which is encouraged by directly incentivizing the transaction node
users. Miners are doing their jobs 24/7 and not intermittently. Nodes should be doing their jobs 24/7
as well, like guards on distant mountains keeping watch of their territory.

Average joe users do not need to nor should run full nodes, it is beyond their capabilities, but
full nodes should be incentivized in some way to encourage new capable people into the full
node field, so we can get the Bitcoin node network from 5,000 to around 50,000+.

An increase in legitimate 24/7 full nodes distributed worldwide is the goal.

[TransaDox]

The real problem is if we did as you suggest then users would run their node only for transactions
and as soon as it is broadcasted and within a block, they would just shut down that node.

The real discussion by the OP is about having 24/7 full nodes that help distribute the security and
risk through global decentralization which is encouraged by directly incentivizing the transaction node
users. Miners are doing their jobs 24/7 and not intermittently. Nodes should be doing their jobs 24/7
as well, like guards on distant mountains keeping watch of their territory.

Average joe users do not need to nor should run full nodes, it is beyond their capabilities, but
full nodes should be incentivized in some way to encourage new capable people into the full
node field, so we can get the Bitcoin node network from 5,000 to around 50,000+.

An increase in legitimate 24/7 full nodes distributed worldwide is the goal.

Nodes are incentivised to stay online since if they restart, they will have to regenerate their NodeID and re-index the block chain. After an initial index this will be until at least 1 old checkpoint and at least 2 new checkpoints have been verified. The return will not be instantaneous.

[AgentofCoin]

The real problem is if we did as you suggest then users would run their node only for transactions
and as soon as it is broadcasted and within a block, they would just shut down that node.

The real discussion by the OP is about having 24/7 full nodes that help distribute the security and
risk through global decentralization which is encouraged by directly incentivizing the transaction node
users. Miners are doing their jobs 24/7 and not intermittently. Nodes should be doing their jobs 24/7
as well, like guards on distant mountains keeping watch of their territory.

Average joe users do not need to nor should run full nodes, it is beyond their capabilities, but
full nodes should be incentivized in some way to encourage new capable people into the full
node field, so we can get the Bitcoin node network from 5,000 to around 50,000+.

An increase in legitimate 24/7 full nodes distributed worldwide is the goal.

Nodes are incentivised to stay online since if they restart, they will have to regenerate their NodeID and re-index the block chain. After an initial index this will be until at least 1 old checkpoint and at least 2 new checkpoints have been verified. The return will not be instantaneous.

So the nuisance of syncing the whole chain, which only increases in time, is the incentive not to turn it off?
Interesting, because I think that is one of the reasons why average users just use SPVs instead.

So what's the incentive for others, that currently don't run it, to turn it on in the first place?

[TransaDox]

So the nuisance of syncing the whole chain, which only increases in time, is the incentive not to turn it off?
Interesting, because I think that is one of the reasons why average users just use SPVs instead.

So what's the incentive for others, that currently don't run it, to turn it on in the first place?

One wouldn't have to synch the whole chain. Only back to the old checkpoint (which is already verified back to the genesis block from the initial start).

The incentive is that the on-disk size is less than 1GB regardless of total chain size.

[TransaDox]

i386sx is not Application Specific Integrated Circuit compared with Intel Core i5
But Intel Core i5 is Application Specific Integrated Circuit compared to i386sx

If it can be programmed then it is not "Application Specific". It is not a relative term at all.
FPGAs blur the boundary slightly but are still not considered ASICs. FPGAs are often used to prototype ASIC designs.

[Snorek]

About that ASIC flaw. I am not observing Zcash - this coin has memory-hard proof of work known as Equihash and apparently it is coded in a way to prevent any kind of ASIC mining.
I will be nice to see how mining of this coin will evolve and whether it will be truly decentralized after some time - then we will compare it to bitcoin mining and draw conclusions.

[TransaDox]

If, instead of a counter, the hash was calculated on a varying number of transactions (1 then 2 then 3 and so on) then this is not the case. Scaling up the hash alone yields the same hash if the transaction list is constant and in order to calculate the hash for each (1,2,3...) transaction lists would require a huge amount of resources which the ASIC is unlikely to have. This method would be ASIC resistant.

Thinking a little more about this. It would actually solve the block size issue.

So. Instead of an incrementing counter being used to generate a new hash of the transactions on each round. The counter is removed and the order or number of transactions is changed. Although a minimum block size of 1MB could be retained for spam protection, miners would be free to use an unlimited block size. In reality there would be an optimum based on the technology used, the fees and the method (reorg/add).

It could also be argued, that miners are incentivised to use larger than 1MB blocks to gain more fees (higher tx throughput) and the spam could become valuable, in the absence of larger paying transactions, to generate their hashes. The minimum 1MB block could no longer be required except for a guaranteed minimum throughput. Miners could become ravenous for any transaction including those that are zero fee.

Of course. This would require a hard-fork and obviate all current ASIC miners  

[RealBitcoin]

Having an access point is a requirement to participate.

The problem is exactly the negation of that statement, you don't need a node to use bitcoin, there is little incentive to run one (I am not saying that everyone should be required to run a node to use bitcoin, that would reduce the accesability of using bitcoin).

You misunderstand. I am proposing that we make it a requirement to participate, just like the access point. Then all wallets are supportive of the network and the argument about finance vs altruism is moot.

The real problem is if we did as you suggest then users would run their node only for transactions
and as soon as it is broadcasted and within a block, they would just shut down that node.

The real discussion by the OP is about having 24/7 full nodes that help distribute the security and
risk through global decentralization which is encouraged by directly incentivizing the transaction node
users. Miners are doing their jobs 24/7 and not intermittently. Nodes should be doing their jobs 24/7
as well, like guards on distant mountains keeping watch of their territory.

Average joe users do not need to nor should run full nodes, it is beyond their capabilities, but
full nodes should be incentivized in some way to encourage new capable people into the full
node field, so we can get the Bitcoin node network from 5,000 to around 50,000+.

An increase in legitimate 24/7 full nodes distributed worldwide is the goal.

Best comment over here, i'll put it on first post.

[RealBitcoin]

Actually most nodes have low speed internet connections as well. That is a big drawdown.

Would a hardfork be feasible if the average internet bandwitdth capability of the nodes would increase?


Currently 1 of the arguments against the 2mb block increase is the number of nodes that have crappy internet. But if they would have better internet, would the hardfork be feasible?

[puddlejumperzz]

Its seems to be working well for Dash.  Perhaps the number of these nodes can be limited as test.

[RealBitcoin]

Its seems to be working well for Dash.  Perhaps the number of these nodes can be limited as test.

DASH is not decentralized it has those masternodes and crap like that. I dont think its resilient against a huge enemy.

[Jet Cash]

Node rewards is a topic I've mentioned many times, and the only solution I could think of was to make it possible for nodes to become miners. Clearly this is not viable. Neither is taking a part of the transaction fee - that would really complicate the processing, and raises the issue of the value of the 1,000th confirmation of a transaction. Some nodes could gain some value from their associated services. Blockchain information sites could run some advertising, and so could wallet recovery and security services. Another area is the operation of sidechains.

What other 3rd party services could be run to earn rewards in return for running a node?

[RealBitcoin]

Node rewards is a topic I've mentioned many times, and the only solution I could think of was to make it possible for nodes to become miners. Clearly this is not viable. Neither is taking a part of the transaction fee - that would really complicate the processing, and raises the issue of the value of the 1,000th confirmation of a transaction. Some nodes could gain some value from their associated services. Blockchain information sites could run some advertising, and so could wallet recovery and security services. Another area is the operation of sidechains.

What other 3rd party services could be run to earn rewards in return for running a node?

That is fake altruism.

Just wait until some 3rd party will provide hosting services for those kinds of businesses, sort of like how you can buy amazon hosting or whatever instead of setting up your own server farm in your firm.

The number of nodes will drop drastically, altruism can't sustain an economy, wonder why communism doesn't work, this is why!


Only capitalism is sustainable, and for that you need profit incentive, Bitcoin will fail in the longterm without that. 

[RealBitcoin]

The point is that you guys are a bunch of communists who think that Bitcoin can survive on the altruism of people, without any profit motive at all.


But people dont give a shit about Bitcoin or the full nodes. Most people already prefer using lightweight clients (me included), because they dont get any benefit from running a full node, in fact it would be a big hassle to run a full node. So they get negative profit from it.

People never do things that are losing them money, this is the first rule. And just for the "greater good", nobody will sacrifice their money, voluntarly. Anyone who thinks that people will selflessly sacrifice their money and bandwidth for Bitcoin is naive, brainwashed in communist ideology.


People are selfish, this is the fundamental truth, and people dont care so much about full nodes, that they infact rather use centralized mobile app wallets with no privacy whatsoever and no control over private keys, instead of running a full node and paying for electricity, bandwidth, and consuming all those computer resources.



If people would care for Bitcoin, then you would have atleast a 80%-20% user node distribution, we would have minimum 1,000,000 NODES, instead you have 5000. Haha stupid communists thinking that people will give away money for free!

[AgentofCoin]

The point is that you guys are a bunch of communists who think that Bitcoin can survive on the altruism of people, without any profit motive at all.

...

One day, an altruist will arise, who will bring balance to the system, through incentivization.

[hv_]

If you want to play big in bitcoin, either with pure investing or mining, you just have to run enough own nodes in order to ensure the safety of your bitcoins.

If our world will adopt bitcoin in big size, than distribution comes back and node and miner numbers will be sufficient.

This is just the beginning. Take your popcorns and wait. Bigger problems are in the scaling!

[RealBitcoin]

This is just the beginning. Take your popcorns and wait. Bigger problems are in the scaling!

This problem dirrectly affects scaling. If the node count is not incentivized then block size cant be increased.

[canhchuacaro1]

that's right 

[RealBitcoin]

bump anyone wants to discuss this?

[tbolt256]

2) Bitcoin mining is not ASIC resistant

There is no such thing as ASIC resistant. Some algorithms try to do this by being memory intensive but that will fail because GPU farms can still provide sizeable hashing power.