Clif High's solution for Bitcoin to scale to infinity.

[Dorky]

Ok, so there is a person name Clif High that recently made a Youtube video on how to scale Bitcoin to infinity.

In the video, he suggested the developers to look into this 83 bytes in current block structure that can be easily used for iterative processing, laterally, and literally achieve infinite scalability for Bitcoin.
We don't even need Segwit, nor Lightning Network, nor Bitcoin Unlimited, for fast confirmation.
Everything still stays the same while just adding some lines of code (no alteration) and we would probably have a Bitcoin on hyper steroid operating at high speed, with low fees, surpassing Visa, adoption increasing exponentially, skyrocketing Bitcoin price, and creating a new generation of young multimillionaires and multibillionaires.
We would put to rest the issue of scaling once and for all, and probably never need to bother about it ever again.
I wonder why are the developers not looking into this potential solution.

Link to the video is here ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HapWHBCFd3c (you can start the video at 3:00 for his solution).

[mynhpark]

Mr. Clif High is the creator of the web bot.

The web bot is an internet bot computer program whose developers claim is able to predict future events by tracking keywords entered on the internet. It was developed in 1997, originally to predict stock market trends.

The web bot works based on predictive linguistics. Predictive linguistics is the process of using computer software to aggregate vast amounts of written text from the internet by categories delineated by emotional content of the words and using the result to make forecasts based on the emotional 'tone' changes within the larger population. A form of 'collective sub-conscious expression' is a good way to think of it.

Predictive linguistics can be used to forecast trends at many different levels, from the detail of sales to individuals, all the way up to forecasts about emerging global population trends including Bitcoin.

You can see more details on his webpage including the Bitcoin price predictions, which you can analyze and compare for yourself over the past years.

https://halfpasthuman.com/

He was also featured recently at the cointelegraph based on his market predictions including Bitcoin, gold and silver, see below:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-price-will-triple-gold-in-2018-silver-achieves-parity-with-gold-clif-high

[Slark]

I am not a technical expert, so I can't verify how viable is that solution Mr. High tries to sold.
But the way he explained it, it wasn't that complicated, took him less than a minute to sum all up - so my question is:
if that is really that good, then why no one ever thought about it and I we don't see this concept of "Infinite Scaling" used by any cryptocurrency?

[Velkro]

Mr. Clif High is the creator of the web bot.
The web bot is an internet bot computer program whose developers claim is able to predict future events

Scammer, fairy-tale writer.
If author is right describing his claims in his youtube video. Core developers will add this couple lines of code to make bitcoin scale infinitely.
Its just impossible. He is delusional, thats it.

[kiklo]

Mr. Clif High is the creator of the web bot.
The web bot is an internet bot computer program whose developers claim is able to predict future events

Scammer, fairy-tale writer.
If author is right describing his claims in his youtube video. Core developers will add this couple lines of code to make bitcoin scale infinitely.
Its just impossible. He is delusional, thats it.

No , he is not delusional.

He just found a different way.

Observe
BTC each of the below is a new 1mb block every 10 minutes
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]

If I understand him correctly , he is saying
BTC with Lateral Block Scaling
[1]-[1]-[1]      (1 Main Block with 2 adjacent Blocks) (3 Times the Transaction Capacity)
[1]                (1 Main Block only , Normal Transaction Capacity)
[1]-[1]           (1 Main Block with 1 adjacent Block) (2 Times the Transaction Capacity)
[1]                (1 Main Block only , Normal Transaction Capacity)
[1]                (1 Main Block only , Normal Transaction Capacity)
[1]-[1]-[1]      (1 Main Block with 2 adjacent Blocks) (3 Times the Transaction Capacity)

Basically using the area of BTC where people store crap like text or graphics, instead make it where it can couple some additional blocks
So depending on the # of Lateral Blocks, you could directly scale when you needed too
In theory , it would be workable ,
In Practice, I'll let the programmers weight in on that.

 

FYI:
Imagine the Main Block as a Train, his idea just lets you add additional Train Cars , so you can carry more Transactions.
The empty space he mentioned would act as the coupler between the train & train cars holding them all together.
Pretty Creative Actually.  

[jonald_fyookball]

Dont be fucking stupid. 

You can't get blood from a stone, there's no perpetual motion machines, you can't fold a piece of paper in half unlimited times, if a genie gives you three wishes, no you can't use one of the wishes to wish for more wishes, and you can't fit more than X bits of information into a space providing X bits of information. 

[spartacusrex]

Dont be fucking stupid. 

You can't get blood from a stone, there's no perpetual motion machines, you can't fold a piece of paper in half unlimited times, if a genie gives you three wishes, no you can't use one of the wishes to wish for more wishes, and you can't fit more than X bits of information into a space providing X bits of information. 

WE AGREE! 

[Dorky]

I will appreciate it (I am sure anyone with large savings in Bitcoin will too) if someone can explain how + why Clif High's solution can/cannot work, instead of outright saying it can/cannot.
At least I would like to see the details of how and why it can/cannot work, instead of an opinion.
Clif High developed his own spider to scout the entire web universe for collective human sentiments for prediction and many of his predictions came true so I don't assume him to make flimsy suggestion on solving Bitcoin scaling issue.
I assume he knows what he is talking about.
The only thing left is if he's right, then we need to lay out a plan on how to make it possible with his concept.
His solution has nothing to do with perpetual motion machine or free energy for nothing (so please don't make the stuff up or make accusation).
I think his solution has to do with parallel programming or multithreading on the block chain numbers to solve the next block, but this is just my interpretation.

[jonald_fyookball]

I will appreciate it (I am sure anyone with large savings in Bitcoin will too) if someone can explain how + why Clif High's solution can/cannot work, instead of outright saying it can/cannot.
At least I would like to see the details of how and why it can/cannot work, instead of an opinion.
Clif High developed his own spider to scout the entire web universe for collective human sentiments for prediction and many of his predictions came true so I don't assume him to make flimsy suggestion on solving Bitcoin scaling issue.
I assume he knows what he is talking about.
The only thing left is if he's right, then we need to lay out a plan on how to make it possible with his concept.
His solution has nothing to do with perpetual motion machine or free energy for nothing (so please don't make the stuff up or make accusation).
I think his solution has to do with parallel programming or multithreading on the block chain numbers to solve the next block, but this is just my interpretation.

Ok, I actually watched the vid (at least the part you referenced)

He is misunderstanding the problem.  

The problem is not how to organize the data structure.
If that were the issue, then what he is saying would be fine -- you could have 'slave blocks' or 'ancillary blocks'
that are pointed to by the main block.

You still have to process all those blocks.

When people talk about scalability challenges in Bitcoin, they mean:  How do we deal with all the storage requirements, the bandwidth requirements, the propogation requirements, etc.
As the network grows to accomodate greater transaction volume and a bigger blockchain, these requirements also grow.

So whether its all in one big block or in a master block with a bunch of slave blocks, well you still have to propogate that data, you still have to process that data, you still have to store
that data.  There are more efficient ways and less efficient ways to do those things, but nothing he is saying is providing a way to "scale to infinity", or give a huge increase in efficiency.

The lightening network is a huge increase in efficiency because it moves things off the main chain into bidirectional payment channels on a different network.  Aside from
something radical like that, the main scaling improvements will come as technology gives us faster internet and cheaper hard drives, stuff like that.

Hope that helps and makes sense.

[7788bitcoin]

This sound like magic.... and I think it is indeed magic! By definition, magic is "mysterious tricks, such as making things disappear and appear again, performed as entertainment."

So I don't think this suits scientific things like bitcoin.

[Dorky]

This sound like magic.... and I think it is indeed magic! By definition, magic is "mysterious tricks, such as making things disappear and appear again, performed as entertainment."

So I don't think this suits scientific things like bitcoin.

It doesn't sound like magic at all to me. Maybe because I have some skills and experience in programming that I see it differently.

[AngryDwarf]

What makes linking blocks like this any different to a larger block? All these blocks need to be propagated across the network. All the transactions in these blocks need to be validated.

[kiklo]

I will appreciate it (I am sure anyone with large savings in Bitcoin will too) if someone can explain how + why Clif High's solution can/cannot work, instead of outright saying it can/cannot.
At least I would like to see the details of how and why it can/cannot work, instead of an opinion.
Clif High developed his own spider to scout the entire web universe for collective human sentiments for prediction and many of his predictions came true so I don't assume him to make flimsy suggestion on solving Bitcoin scaling issue.
I assume he knows what he is talking about.
The only thing left is if he's right, then we need to lay out a plan on how to make it possible with his concept.
His solution has nothing to do with perpetual motion machine or free energy for nothing (so please don't make the stuff up or make accusation).
I think his solution has to do with parallel programming or multithreading on the block chain numbers to solve the next block, but this is just my interpretation.

Ok, I actually watched the vid (at least the part you referenced)

He is misunderstanding the problem.  

The problem is not how to organize the data structure.
If that were the issue, then what he is saying would be fine -- you could have 'slave blocks' or 'ancillary blocks'
that are pointed to by the main block.

You still have to process all those blocks.

When people talk about scalability challenges in Bitcoin, they mean:  How do we deal with all the storage requirements, the bandwidth requirements, the propogation requirements, etc.
As the network grows to accomodate greater transaction volume and a bigger blockchain, these requirements also grow.

So whether its all in one big block or in a master block with a bunch of slave blocks, well you still have to propogate that data, you still have to process that data, you still have to store
that data.  There are more efficient ways and less efficient ways to do those things, but nothing he is saying is providing a way to "scale to infinity", or give a huge increase in efficiency.

The lightening network is a huge increase in efficiency because it moves things off the main chain into bidirectional payment channels on a different network.  Aside from
something radical like that, the main scaling improvements will come as technology gives us faster internet and cheaper hard drives, stuff like that.

Hope that helps and makes sense.

No you are Misunderstanding him.

I hate to be the one to break it to you , his solution is ONCHAIN Scaling , why you are peeing in your pants over it is beyond me.
His way is not unlimited, but it would have the ability to scale up at time of heavy transactions and scale down when there are very few transactions.
Fact is we don't know what it's limits are , as no one has yet researched it. If they can have the adjacent blocks continue pass a main block, then his way would have a greater scalability than BTU. But at this point in time, it is unknown.

LN is Bullshit OFFCHAIN BANKERS Shenanigans , and people might as well just use Paypal as LN.
(Money probably safer with Paypal than LN (Know exploits to steal in their Whitepaper.)

If you are scared it will block BTU , get over it , BTU will be implemented.
But his idea should be studied as others may use it instead. And it may be possible to add it to BTU, since all of you BTC guys are afraid of a faster blockspeed.

 

[Kakmakr]

What makes you think after all the money and time invested into SegWit that the Core Dev's will even worry about considering this? They are pushing their own agenda and BU dev's are doing the same. It is not about the better solution any more, but rather who will be in control of the experiment. < power grab >

More smaller blocks = Bigger blocks 

[jonald_fyookball]

@kiklo.

peeing my pants? lol...no.. OP asked for a detailed explanation.

Yes I realize its on chain... but if I am misunderstanding him then
what problem does his 'solution' actually solve?
 
no need for convoluted schemes.  just use bigger blocks.

[mynhpark]

Dear Dorky, it would be a good idea to first set up a team of open minded and bright programmers interested on this infinity scaling solution. Then, the team can contact Mr High directly, and ask him exactly what he means. I have contacted him before regarding the web bot ALTA reports, and he has been quite reachable and supportive within a 72 hours response by email.

[kiklo]

@kiklo.

peeing my pants? lol...no.. OP asked for a detailed explanation.

Yes I realize its on chain... but if I am misunderstanding him then
what problem does his 'solution' actually solve?
 
no need for convoluted schemes.  just use bigger blocks.

The ways to increase Onchain Transactions Capacity.

1. Increase Blocksize
2. Faster Blockspeed
3. His way creating a lateral chain, like a train with cars.

I am not saying his way should be used over increasing blocksize, there is no time for anything but increasing blocksize in BTC.
However Adjacent Blocks tied to the Main Blocks may hold some potential that BTU might want in the Future also.
Maybe these adjacent blocks contain something else beside BTC transactions and increase BTC Utility usage . Time will tell.

 

[Dorky]

What makes linking blocks like this any different to a larger block? All these blocks need to be propagated across the network. All the transactions in these blocks need to be validated.

I believe Clif High's solution involves blocks that are already validated, and using these validated blocks, laterally, to validate a new yet-to-be-validated one.

Edit:
What he may mean is that we try to validate a new block (at a particular level) with all the blocks that have been validated at one level higher before it. Maybe all these blocks that have the exact same block structure are somewhat connected serially (no idea about that) along with 80 free bytes and this connection can be used for multithreading to "unlock" the new block.

The blocks used for validating a new one are already propagated. Or else they will not be used, as I understand it.

[Dorky]

Dear Dorky, it would be a good idea to first set up a team of open minded and bright programmers interested on this infinity scaling solution. Then, the team can contact Mr High directly, and ask him exactly what he means. I have contacted him before regarding the web bot ALTA reports, and he has been quite reachable and supportive within a 72 hours response by email.

Yes, I have actually done so. I've emailed him on this matter. Somehow I think we need a 3rd team for this. But I believe Mr. High is competent enough to go solo if he so chooses. And I will be very glad to participate as an investor in his proposal.

[Jet Cash]

What makes linking blocks like this any different to a larger block? All these blocks need to be propagated across the network. All the transactions in these blocks need to be validated.

I believe Clif High's solution involves blocks that are already validated, and using these validated blocks, laterally, to validate a new yet-to-be-validated one.

So every block has it's own sidechain?