Bitcoin Forum
January 22, 2020, 10:24:20 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: BlockReduce: Scaling Blockchain to human commerce  (Read 924 times)
mechanikalk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 63


View Profile WWW
November 21, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
 #21

Sorry, but it is not correct. For transactions to be included in a block they have to be "whispered" in the network and stored in the node's mempool beforehand.  Your schema couldn't change anything about this and once a block is generated, nodes have to validate it and if for some reason they've not been informed of the transaction already they have to fetch it anyway. Without sharding the state, it would be very hard to improve bandwidth requirement for the network.

Could you please be more specific in what you find wrong with the math in the example I gave above?  The example is giving a simplified version of how a transaction is "whispered" across the network currently and with BlockReduce.  In terms of mempool, I don't really think this effects bandwidth because it essentially adds capacitance to the system which can be ignored at steady-state.

Quote
We could initiate a BIP for such a situation to improve transaction relay protocol in bitcoin networking layer by aggregating batches of fresh transactions and synchronizing them according to some convention like ordered set of 100 transaction ids falling into a specific criteria, ...

The most critical problem with networking is the latencies involved in whispering new blocks and when nodes have no clue about some of included transactions, it is the basis for proximity premium flaw in bitcoin and its centralization threat because of its direct consequence: pooling pressure.

I would like to work with you to initiate a BIP like this.  

I would propose that if we aggregate transactions we will need a way for the nodes to determine when they should share groups of transactions.  Ideally the mechanism we come up with for determining when the groups share transaction should be decentralized so no single node can withhold transactions for an inordinate amount of time.  There should also be a way for the nodes that receive the grouping of transactions to be able to verify the criteria was met.  

We could use something like a one-way mathematic function operating on an unpredictable data set that would periodically stochastically meet some arbitrary criteria.  Then when the criteria is met the aggregating node could transmit the data to all of the other nodes.  The other nodes would then be able to easily verify the criteria was met.

We could improve upon this further if we created some redundancy for the aggregating node.  This could be accomplished by having a small group of nodes with high connectivity that work together to aggregate a set of transactions amongst themselves before sharing to the larger network.

Do you think something like this could work?


1579731860
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1579731860

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1579731860
Reply with quote  #2

1579731860
Report to moderator
1579731860
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1579731860

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1579731860
Reply with quote  #2

1579731860
Report to moderator
1579731860
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1579731860

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1579731860
Reply with quote  #2

1579731860
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
aliashraf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 727

always remember the cause


View Profile WWW
November 21, 2018, 06:38:57 PM
Merited by Welsh (4), xtraelv (1)
 #22

Sorry, but it is not correct. For transactions to be included in a block they have to be "whispered" in the network and stored in the node's mempool beforehand.  Your schema couldn't change anything about this and once a block is generated, nodes have to validate it and if for some reason they've not been informed of the transaction already they have to fetch it anyway. Without sharding the state, it would be very hard to improve bandwidth requirement for the network.
Could you please be more specific in what you find wrong with the math in the example I gave above?  The example is giving a simplified version of how a transaction is "whispered" across the network currently and with BlockReduce.  In terms of mempool, I don't really think this effects bandwidth because it essentially adds capacitance to the system which can be ignored at steady-state.
Looking closer to your calculations it is about comparing bitcoin transaction propagation with your schema's block reconciliation. These are two basically different things (and yet you are exaggerating about the situation with bitcoin). As I've argued before, both bitcoin p2p and your schema need the same amount of effort and resources to be consumed for raw transaction propagation because they are full nodes and you just can't dictate a predefined topology like a central authority or something.


We could initiate a BIP for such a situation to improve transaction relay protocol in bitcoin networking layer by aggregating batches of fresh transactions and synchronizing them according to some convention like ordered set of 100 transaction ids falling into a specific criteria, ...

The most critical problem with networking is the latencies involved in whispering new blocks and when nodes have no clue about some of included transactions, it is the basis for proximity premium flaw in bitcoin and its centralization threat because of its direct consequence: pooling pressure.
I would like to work with you to initiate a BIP like this.  

I would propose that if we aggregate transactions we will need a way for the nodes to determine when they should share groups of transactions.  Ideally the mechanism we come up with for determining when the groups share transaction should be decentralized so no single node can withhold transactions for an inordinate amount of time.  There should also be a way for the nodes that receive the grouping of transactions to be able to verify the criteria was met.  

We could use something like a one-way mathematic function operating on an unpredictable data set that would periodically stochastically meet some arbitrary criteria.  Then when the criteria is met the aggregating node could transmit the data to all of the other nodes.  The other nodes would then be able to easily verify the criteria was met.

We could improve upon this further if we created some redundancy for the aggregating node.  This could be accomplished by having a small group of nodes with high connectivity that work together to aggregate a set of transactions amongst themselves before sharing to the larger network.

Do you think something like this could work?
Well, I'm ok with collateral work and most of the ideas above, but not with dedicated nodes it would be hard to implement an incentive mechanism. Right now, Greg Maxwell and others are working on a privacy focused improvement to transaction relay protocol in bitcoin, Dandelion.  The good thing about this BIP is their strategy for delaying transaction relay procedure a while (to make it very hard if not impossible for surveillance services to track sender's IP) and it looks to be committed to the release code in near future! It will be a great opportunity  to do more processing (classification, aggregation, ... ) while the transaction is queued waiting for relay.
mechanikalk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 63


View Profile WWW
November 23, 2018, 07:16:20 PM
Merited by Welsh (2)
 #23

Looking closer to your calculations it is about comparing bitcoin transaction propagation with your schema's block reconciliation. These are two basically different things (and yet you are exaggerating about the situation with bitcoin).

It is not comparing propagation to block reconciliation.  I understand how this could be confused. The  blocks found at the lowest level are the mechanism for sharing groups of transactions.  That is why I am comparing Bitcoins transaction propagation to BlockReduce Zone block propagation.  Propogating transactions in groups in a whisper protocol is much more bandwidth efficient.

BlockReduce will be as inefficient as Bitcoin at the lowest level zone groups.  The efficiency is gained by the aggregation of transactions into groups via "Zone blocks" and whispering them further in the network as blocks of transactions.

As I've argued before, both bitcoin p2p and your schema need the same amount of effort and resources to be consumed for raw transaction propagation because they are full nodes and you just can't dictate a predefined topology like a central authority or something.

The structure for grouping and propagating transactions would not be dictated, but rather would be incentivized.  Miners would be incentivized to find lower level blocks and the impact of network latency on effectively using their hash power would incentivize them to find low latency zones to mine in.  This would cause each zone group to have lower latency then the total network and be able to process a higher TPS.  For example, if there were 4 zones available to mine in, miners would roughly divide the world into 4 geographic zones.  They wouldn't be well defined and would overlap from a geography standpoint, but having 4 networks at the zone level would be much more performant then having a single network.  The single network would still exist at the PRIME level.  However, by the time the transactions make it to PRIME they would be whispered in region blocks of 1000 transactions.

Well, I'm ok with collateral work and most of the ideas above, but not with dedicated nodes it would be hard to implement an incentive mechanism.

The incentive mechanism would be giving some reward for the collateral work via merge mining of zone, and region blocks with PRIME.

Right now, Greg Maxwell and others are working on a privacy focused improvement to transaction relay protocol in bitcoin, Dandelion.  The good thing about this BIP is their strategy for delaying transaction relay procedure a while (to make it very hard if not impossible for surveillance services to track sender's IP) and it looks to be committed to the release code in near future! It will be a great opportunity  to do more processing (classification, aggregation, ... ) while the transaction is queued waiting for relay.

I have reviewed this proposal by Greg Maxwell.  It is interesting from an anonymization standpoint.  However, I did not see a mechanism by which the transactions would be delayed and aggregated but rather a routing schema that obfuscates the origin of a transaction.
coopex
Copper Member
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9
Merit: 3


View Profile
November 13, 2019, 10:51:51 PM
Merited by mechanikalk (3)
 #24

Hi there! I was looking through some old research papers about merge-mining and came upon this thread. I'm very interested in your proposal as it seems like a great way to shard state without losing security via merge mining! I have a question for you though: If miners have to verify all the state that passes up to Prime, they have to run a full node so that they have the state of all the blockchains to properly verify everything. They are incentivized to do this so that they don't mine invalid blocks, but in doing so they might put a strain on the network because their zone and region nodes are not necessarily in the same geographic region as the rest of the zone and region nodes. (Of course, the zone that the miner is located in will be optimal, but I am talking about the rest of the zones and regions necessary for running a full state node).
For example, for n zones, n/2 regions, and m miners running a full state node, we have m - 1 latent nodes in each zone (or n*(m-1) latent zone nodes total) and m - 1 latent nodes in each region (or (n/2)*(m-1) latent region nodes total). Do you consider this an issue for network latency? Is there perhaps some way or incentive for a miner to run a full node and also run each sub-node (zone and region) in the proper geographic location? This might be physically difficult without the use of some cloud provider like AWS.

Looking forward to hearing more! Thanks.
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 854


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
November 17, 2019, 07:49:18 AM
 #25

OP, I read the white paper. I'm not a technical person, but are you actually serious about your proposal? For Bitcoin as a hard fork?

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀█▀█▄

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 2164

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2019, 06:45:22 PM
 #26

OP, I read the white paper. I'm not a technical person, but are you actually serious about your proposal? For Bitcoin as a hard fork?

With lots of breaking changes, i doubt soft-fork is possible.

P.S. with amount of effort OP has done, it's very obvious that he's serious.

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 854


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
November 19, 2019, 06:57:29 AM
 #27

OP, I read the white paper. I'm not a technical person, but are you actually serious about your proposal? For Bitcoin as a hard fork?

With lots of breaking changes, i doubt soft-fork is possible.

P.S. with amount of effort OP has done, it's very obvious that he's serious.


You gave the OP merits for the topic. What's your opinion on this?

https://github.com/mechanikalk/bips/blob/master/bip-%3F%3F%3F%3F.mediawiki

Quote

Merge-Mining and Difficulty

A key aspect of BlockReduce is all nodes will mine at the zone, region, and PRIME level at the same time. The simultaneous mining of PRIME, regions, and zones allows BlockReduce to keep the entire network's proof-of-work on PRIME.


I already said I'm not a technical person, I'm actually the stupid one, but would the technical people/coders take this proposal seriously?

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀█▀█▄

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 2164

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
November 19, 2019, 05:59:06 PM
 #28

You gave the OP merits for the topic. What's your opinion on this?

See #2 and #4

I already said I'm not a technical person, I'm actually the stupid one, but would the technical people/coders take this proposal seriously?

It depends on their ideology and understanding about this proposal. But it's easy to imagine due to hard fork and development complexity (mostly communicate or data sharing between different kind of nodes)

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 854


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
November 20, 2019, 05:01:49 AM
 #29

You gave the OP merits for the topic. What's your opinion on this?

See #2 and #4

I already said I'm not a technical person, I'm actually the stupid one, but would the technical people/coders take this proposal seriously?

It depends on their ideology

The ideology?

Quote

and understanding about this proposal.


What about your understanding about the proposal, you believe it's viable?

I'm trying to learn.

Quote

But it's easy to imagine due to hard fork and development complexity (mostly communicate or data sharing between different kind of nodes)


It's "easy to imagine"? I'm confused.

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀█▀█▄

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 2164

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
November 20, 2019, 06:20:24 PM
Last edit: November 21, 2019, 08:25:59 AM by ETFbitcoin
 #30

The ideology?

1. Left wing vs Right wing
2. Small block vs big block
3. On-chain vs off-chain
4. etc.

What about your understanding about the proposal, you believe it's viable?

I'm trying to learn.

As far as i understand, the proposal is viable. But personally i don't like the idea of full node only store specific set of information.

It's "easy to imagine"? I'm confused.

Many would reject due to the complexity, at least that's what i think if we were to ask the experts.

R.I.U. iol
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13
Merit: 1


View Profile
November 21, 2019, 06:40:36 AM
 #31

is there any update on this? Is this still in developement?
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 854


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
November 22, 2019, 10:31:53 AM
 #32

The ideology?

1. Left wing vs Right wing
2. Small block vs big block
3. On-chain vs off-chain
4. etc.


The debate should be technical, not political.

Quote

What about your understanding about the proposal, you believe it's viable?

I'm trying to learn.

As far as i understand, the proposal is viable. But personally i don't like the idea of full node only store specific set of information.


Really? For Bitcoin?

Quote

It's "easy to imagine"? I'm confused.

Many would reject due to the complexity, at least that's what i think if we were to ask the experts.


Wouldn't more complexity widen the attack-vector on the network?

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀█▀█▄

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 2164

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
November 22, 2019, 06:49:34 PM
Last edit: November 28, 2019, 07:17:48 PM by ETFbitcoin
 #33

The debate should be technical, not political.

History prove it's impossible to avoid political completely on debate

Really? For Bitcoin?

Really? Yes
For Bitcoin? It depends, but most would say no

Wouldn't more complexity widen the attack-vector on the network?

Yes, it would.

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 854


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
November 28, 2019, 11:48:15 AM
 #34

The debate should be technical, not political.

History prove it's impossible to avoid political completely on debate


I'm lost. Include every quote for context please.

But for you, you said that you would like OP's idea depending on the "ideology". What about technically?

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀█▀█▄

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 2164

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2019, 07:23:14 PM
 #35

I'm lost. Include every quote for context please.

My bad, i did that because many users often complain about "pyramid quote"

I'm lost. Include every quote for context please.

But for you, you said that you would like OP's idea depending on the "ideology". What about technically?

It's vague question. Technically it's possible, but personally i wouldn't support the idea for Bitcoin.

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 854


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
November 29, 2019, 05:37:45 AM
 #36

I'm lost. Include every quote for context please.

My bad, i did that because many users often complain about "pyramid quote"

I'm lost. Include every quote for context please.

But for you, you said that you would like OP's idea depending on the "ideology". What about technically?

It's vague question. Technically it's possible, but personally i wouldn't support the idea for Bitcoin.

I'm too stupid to know which ideas are viable or not. But if you ask me, the risks taken might not be worth the outcome.

gmaxwell, achow, comments?

But just for clarification, what is "3+ orders of magnitude"? 3 times more?

https://github.com/mechanikalk/bips/blob/master/bip-%3F%3F%3F%3F.mediawiki

Quote

BlockReduce presents a new blockchain topology that offers 3+ orders of magnitude improvement in transaction throughput while avoiding the introduction of hierarchical power structures and centralization.


▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀█▀█▄

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 627
Merit: 551


View Profile
November 29, 2019, 10:30:05 AM
 #37

But just for clarification, what is "3+ orders of magnitude"? 3 times more?

No, 10^3=1000 time more. One order of magnitude is 10x.
coopex
Copper Member
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9
Merit: 3


View Profile
December 01, 2019, 06:14:54 AM
 #38

I'm lost. Include every quote for context please.

My bad, i did that because many users often complain about "pyramid quote"

I'm lost. Include every quote for context please.

But for you, you said that you would like OP's idea depending on the "ideology". What about technically?

It's vague question. Technically it's possible, but personally i wouldn't support the idea for Bitcoin.

I'm too stupid to know which ideas are viable or not. But if you ask me, the risks taken might not be worth the outcome.

gmaxwell, achow, comments?

But just for clarification, what is "3+ orders of magnitude"? 3 times more?

https://github.com/mechanikalk/bips/blob/master/bip-%3F%3F%3F%3F.mediawiki

Quote

BlockReduce presents a new blockchain topology that offers 3+ orders of magnitude improvement in transaction throughput while avoiding the introduction of hierarchical power structures and centralization.


I've read the paper and it certainly seems feasible. You can compare it to using mapreduce in a blockchain context. Of course the attack vector would increase but that's just how it is with complex cryptographic protocols - it's not something a few security audits and a team of smart engineers can't fix (and a testnet obviously). I don't think Bitcoin would take it on though because the changes would be too dramatic for the developers and the miners to accept - this probably needs to be a separate project unfortunately.
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 854


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
December 01, 2019, 07:43:56 AM
 #39

But just for clarification, what is "3+ orders of magnitude"? 3 times more?

No, 10^3=1000 time more. One order of magnitude is 10x.


From your post-history, I see that you're a developer. What are your initial thoughts on OP's proposal?

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀█▀█▄

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 627
Merit: 551


View Profile
December 01, 2019, 06:05:29 PM
Merited by Wind_FURY (1)
 #40

From your post-history, I see that you're a developer. What are your initial thoughts on OP's proposal?

The author appears knowledgeable and this may well be a sensible approach to sharding.
But personally I'm not a fan of sharding and its associated complexity increase.
It should appeal to Ethereum more than Bitcoin...
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!