Bitcoin Forum
February 26, 2020, 02:34:43 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin Scaling Solution Without Lightning Network...  (Read 1443 times)
franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1632



View Profile
November 25, 2018, 03:31:42 PM
 #81

anyway once people play scenarios around that sharding will eventually lead back around to needing masternodes (full nodes)
and then once people play scenarios of if a masternode is needed that stores all shard data. why have it separate because the regional nodes are now just lower down the network and of less importance.
and play around with scenarios of if not separate we are back to a single nodebase of code monitoring everything.. it just full circles. that the strongest network is one that is united under one ruleset

It doesn't have to be an integer, so let's get rid of that myth too.  Why not:

1.25mb base/5mb weight, requires hard fork to move to
1.5mb base/6mb weight,  requires hard fork to move to
1.75mb base/7mb weight  requires hard fork to move to
2mb base/8mb weight requires hard fork to move to
and so on?  

It's not just about it happening "over time", it's also about sensible increments.  Based on what you've witnessed to date, it should be more than obvious that most BTC users are in no rush to double or quadruple the base.

fixed that for you.
however having a case where we remove the witness scale factor and have code set in consensus of
4mb pool policy /32mb consensus,
4.25mb pool policy/32mb consensus,  
4.5mb pool policy/32mb consensus

means no hard forks pre increment. and then just some code of when the blocks soft increment by 0.25
again to demyth the PR campaign.
this is not about 32mb blocks.
this is about avoiding 3 years of debate just to perform one hard fork. then another 3 year debate to perform another hard fork
blocks will not be 32mb. they will increment at the pool policy amounts. all monitored and adhered to by nodes enforcing that pools dont go over the policy amount until a coded thing happens that soft activate a 0.25 increment

again to demyth the PR campaign
this is not about EB (trying to turn the debate into mentioning a certain group of people)
this is about allowing progressive growth without hard forks and 3 year debates per increment

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
1582727683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582727683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582727683
Reply with quote  #2

1582727683
Report to moderator
1582727683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582727683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582727683
Reply with quote  #2

1582727683
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1582727683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582727683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582727683
Reply with quote  #2

1582727683
Report to moderator
1582727683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582727683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582727683
Reply with quote  #2

1582727683
Report to moderator
1582727683
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582727683

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582727683
Reply with quote  #2

1582727683
Report to moderator
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2254
Merit: 1465


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
November 25, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
Last edit: November 25, 2018, 04:35:58 PM by DooMAD
 #82

this is not about 32mb blocks.
(...)
this is not about EB

How do you propose something and then basically say "this is not about the thing I'm literally proposing right now"?   Roll Eyes

Perhaps it would allow us to forego the continual hardfork drama, but it's still not remotely as simple and clear-cut as you're making it out to be.  There are very good reasons why people are opposed to such a system and if you aren't even going to attempt to overcome the objections and only talk about the positives, then don't expect people to take this proposal seriously.

franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1632



View Profile
November 25, 2018, 04:35:38 PM
Last edit: November 25, 2018, 05:17:41 PM by franky1
 #83

this is not about 32mb blocks.
(...)
this is not about EB

How do you propose something and then basically say "this is not about the thing I'm literally proposing right now".   Roll Eyes

Perhaps it would allow us to forego the continual hardfork drama, but it's still not remotely as simple and clear-cut as you're making it out to be.  There are very good reasons why people are opposed to such a system and if you aren't even going to attempt to overcome the objections and only talk about the positives, then don't expect people to take this proposal seriously.

because "EB" is a buzzword
EB is for a particular limitd proposal

the way EB handles increments is one way. but i can think of dozens. so again its not about EB.. but about increments without hardforks.
just like mentioning 32mb. suddenly your mind instantly thinks of an existing proposal.
this is not about those specific proposals.

the 32mb is about something entirely different. which is technical. by which certain proposals latched onto. now if you ignore the proposals which came second to the 32mb thing. and then concentrate on the 32mb as its own thing. where many concepts and proposals can develop from. you will see that i am not talking anything about resurecting old proposals. but getting to the root issue of hardforks and the 32mb issue.
again try not to make is a thing about old proposals. but about how to scale bitcoin with known things that need to be addressed.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
aliashraf
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 994
Merit: 730

always remember the cause


View Profile WWW
November 25, 2018, 05:08:01 PM
Merited by bones261 (2), ETFbitcoin (1)
 #84

Bitcoin has always been secure since the first day while the costs of carrying out such an attack has increased substantially from a few bucks to hundreds of million dollars.

Security is not quietly an 'indexable' measure, saying 'this coin is less secure', 'that coin is more secure' is absurd in cryptocurrency context, the way I understand bitcoin there is no "less" or "more" security, you are secure or you are not ...

bitcoin and crypto is not secure. its why difficulty exists.
yes bitcoin is secure against a CPU attack as it wil require trillions of PC's to match/overtake
but its not secure against certain things though. which is why it has to keep evolving.
Nop. Bitcoin doesn't need to evolve because of security. Who says that? It is already secure ways more than necessary, as I mentioned above. It needs evolution for new problems that has been raised recently, the most important one being what we are discussing here: mass adoption and scaling. It is not a security question for me.

There is and there have been no security crisis in bitcoin, forget about bugs, we are not discussing bugs here are we?

Security of bitcoin is guaranteed by its elegant use of game theory in its core model. It is defined as the result of equilibrium between costs of attack and maximum incentives for committing it. It is not just about one side, there is no one sided equilibrium, do you really need to be addressed about this?

As bitcoin price surges the threats are being escalated and difficulty too, it keeps bitcoin safe, just safe, not safer. It does not make sense to say bitcoin is getting safer when threats are getting stronger! Difficulty rise keeps us safe despite the escalated threats. Again, safe and not safer.

franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1632



View Profile
November 25, 2018, 07:06:10 PM
Last edit: November 25, 2018, 07:43:40 PM by franky1
 #85

here is another way how i see a system where shards could be used, (dismissing my own concerns of masternode monitoring inevitability)

imagine one chain as the master financial audit chain. where the transactions are smaller
FFFFF AAAAAAA -> FFFFF AAAAAAA
                            FFFFF AAAAAAA
in byte count
5 7 5 7
     5 7
=36 bytes

the F is a byte and are an identifier. 5 bytes allow over 1 trillion identifiers
the A is a byte and are coin amount.7bytes allows 72quadrillion so easy to store numbers upto 2.1quad satoshi

and then a shard stores an ID chain
   EG:       FFFFF = bc1q.... lets say less than 50 bytes per entry
and then another shard stores the signatures
  lets say under 100bytes per entry

essentially making the financial chain that audits coins right back to the coinreward(creation)
only using 36bytes of data per minimal tx instead of 225bytes and a multisig of 2in- 2 out being 48bytes instead of 300bytes+

this not only lets more tx's per mb. but brings down the utxo down to 12 bytes per 'address' and coinage

Nop. Bitcoin doesn't need to evolve because of security. Who says that? It is already secure ways more than necessary,

ok imagine it. everything got locked down tomorrow. hashrate doesnt evolve. difficulty locks, developers retire and we stay with 10,000 full nodes..
how long do you think it will be before things start to go bad

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
mechanikalk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 63


View Profile WWW
November 25, 2018, 08:15:38 PM
 #86

bitcoins beauty is about how to solve having multiple generals ruling multiple regions but ensuring they all comply to one rule.
and solves how those generals abide by that one rule without having one general.

the answer was everyone watch everything and reject the malicious individuals
we have had "sharding" systems in the real world for decades. sharding is DE-inventing what makes bitcoin, bitcoin

Franky,  based on all of your comment and discussion, much of which I agree with, I think you should look at BlockReduce.

There is also a discussion thread on it specifically.

Basically it is using Proof-of-Work to create a hierarchy of merge mined blockchains.  It allows for incremental work to be used (lower chain blocks) to efficiently group and propagate transactions to the entire network.  I think of many of the people here, you would get it and be able to provide constructive feedback.
aliashraf
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 994
Merit: 730

always remember the cause


View Profile WWW
November 25, 2018, 09:38:50 PM
 #87

Nop. Bitcoin doesn't need to evolve because of security. Who says that? It is already secure ways more than necessary,

ok imagine it. everything got locked down tomorrow. hashrate doesnt evolve. difficulty locks, developers retire and we stay with 10,000 full nodes..
how long do you think it will be before things start to go bad
This is not an argument. I think you should spend a couple of minutes reading my post, it is not a wall of text after all.

Hashrate and price basically follow each other in a complicated socioeconomic game while price linearly determines how tense are security threats. It is how bitcoin becomes a stable dynamic system that regulates itself to remain in an equilibrium state. Doubling or tripling the hashrate doesn't make bitcoin "more secure", it would be just a waste of electricity.

Developers have a lot of problems to solve, we are already late in terms of versioning, nobody should apply for a premature retirement and we need to recruit even more.
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 875


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
November 26, 2018, 05:42:48 AM
 #88

We are discussing the scaling issue.  Roll Eyes


Then "VIP2VIP cash" is the wrong terminology. Bitcoin remains to be an open system.


People must have a short memory. During the prolonged tx backlog event back in 2017, it certainly seemed that way. Since the tx fee is based on tx size and not the amount sent, people wanting to move around smaller amounts were getting eaten alive with fees. Although a fee of 300 sats per byte is trivial for someone wanting to move around 1 BTC, it was prohibitive for someone wanting to move around 1 million sats.


It "seemed" that way. But where are we now? The fees are as low as ever in satoshis/byte. You have to consider that Bitcoin is not Paypal. "Satoshi's vision" of a peer to peer digital cash cannot be achieved on-chain. It is not scalable.

Quote

Quote
Quote

You really think the blockchain fee is going still going to be low if and when the demand is 100x higher than currently ?


No. I already said that users will be forced to use Bitcoin Cash. Other more secure altcoins would be better though.

So the riffraff have to settle for a 3rd rate shitcoin network? Sounds like a vip2vip attitude to me.  Cheesy


It is reality, and what the market has to offer until a solution is found. What the Core developers will not do is give way to a group of people who want a hard fork to bigger blocks, which will be problematic on its own.

Quote

Quote
Quote

Let's hope if and when that ever happens, LN will somehow ease the risk of losing coins either due to your channel partner closing a channel in an earlier state and you not catching it or you having a system error and closing a channel in an earlier state in error, and getting a penalty. (Or closing it in an earlier state not in your favor.)


As any software development project, it may succeed, or it may fail. But Lightning has been developing well, let's hope that continues.

How long has this been in development? I may not be from Missouri, but you still have to show me. Perhaps I will be less critical when and if I see a product that is actually usable and less prone to me losing funds for computer/human error.


As long as it should take if it has to work well for everyone.

Lightning nodes and channels are increasing. I believe there is more than $1.5 million of liquidity in Lightning, and growing.

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

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
bones261
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1727



View Profile
November 26, 2018, 06:34:37 AM
 #89


It "seemed" that way. But where are we now? The fees are as low as ever in satoshis/byte. You have to consider that Bitcoin is not Paypal. "Satoshi's vision" of a peer to peer digital cash cannot be achieved on-chain. It is not scalable.


You act as if that is set in stone. Like it can't be changed for any reason. If Bitcoin is still around in 2118, is it still going to be this way?


It is reality, and what the market has to offer until a solution is found. What the Core developers will not do is give way to a group of people who want a hard fork to bigger blocks, which will be problematic on its own.


Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.


As long as it should take if it has to work well for everyone.

Lightning nodes and channels are increasing. I believe there is more than $1.5 million of liquidity in Lightning, and growing.

So the Core team is going to stick to this plan, no matter what? I really doubt they are that inflexible if it appears they can't find an acceptable solution to people loosing coins.


.Mix coins.
 
Your BITCOIN Transaction
made Truly ANONYMOUS
 

███████
█████████████████
████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████
██████████                    ██████████
█████████                          █████████
███████                                    ████████
          ███████                                        ███████        ██
          █████████████████████████████████████      ███
          █████████████████████████████████████  █████
          ████████████████████████████████████  ██████
        ██████████████████████████████████████████
  █████████████████████████████████████████
█████                                        ████████████
                                  ██████████████
██                          █████████████████████          ██      
█████              ███████████████████████          ████      
█████████████████████████████            █████████      
██████████████████                      ████████████        
██████████████████████████████████████      
████████████████████████  ███████  
    ██████████              █████
                      ████████
      ████████████████    █
        ██████████████████
                  █████      ███
                      █████
                    ████

Blender
 
The ULTIMATE BITCOIN Mixer
with an ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
 

███████████    
███████████████████████    
████████████████████████████      
██████████████████████████████      
██████████████████████████████     
 

                                          █████████████
                                          ███████████
██████
                                          ███████████
██████
                                          ███████████
        ██
                                        ████████████
        ██
    ██                              █████████████
        ██
    ████                      ███████████████
        ██
    ██████              █████████████████
        ██
    █████████████████████████████
          ██  
      ███████████████████████████
          ███
      ██████  ████████████████████
        ████
      ██████████████████████████
  ██████
      ██████████████████████████
███████
  █████      ████████████████████
███
████          ████████████████
████ 
████          ████████████████        
████████████████████████
 

   
█████████████████████████        
███████████████████████████        
█████████    ██    ███    ██████████      
███████████    ██    ███     ██████████        
███████████    ██    ███     ███████████      
██████████████████████████████████      
██████████████████████████████████       
franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1632



View Profile
November 26, 2018, 07:41:25 AM
Last edit: November 26, 2018, 07:59:38 AM by franky1
 #90

LN is not the solution for bitcoin. because LN is not bitcoin

LN is a separate network <- emphasis

LN is a separate network which many coins will use.

im surprised that people would prefer to defend developers by saying bitcoin is broke and wont scale and the only option is another network
even when it has been made clear that LN have flaws that wont be fixed people continue to push the defend a dev, call bitcoin broke and then promote an alternative network that is not even a blockchain and not even directly tied to bitcoin.

LN is just.. and in simple words a separate project that is just using bitcoins as its trial test coins. but not a bitcoin feature itself

bitcoin has been modified to be LN compatible. much like litecoin, vert coin and other coins.
LN has not been made to only fit bitcoin (whereby being a feature of bitcoin) which is why its not a bitcoin feature. but a cryptocurrency feature.
they are simply currently using bitcoin as their test coin to play off the fame of bitcoin

EG if LN used vertcoin as the initial testcoin. LN devs wouldnt be paid(as much) to develop LN but LN would still be the same network it is today. again for emphasis. its not a bitcoin feature its a separate network thats just playing off the fame of bitcoin because the LN network allow bitcoin access to the network (now bitcoin has been modified to fit LN)

im not saying LN doesnt have a niche. but clarifying that those that want bitcoin to remain the main currency of utility are not realising that LN will hurt bitcoin.
(imagine all the locked UTXO's)
anyway heres a video of the LN dev's themselves actually trying to remind people that the utopia of LN is not as perfect as promoted.
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570
(do not reply about my post unless you have watched the video)
(do not reply about my post unless you are replying to defend the bitcoin network(not devs but the bitcoin network))
(do not reply about my post to derail the conversation into personal attacks of me. as the video itself is doing the bashing. not me)
(do not reply about my post just to promote other networks. because that is not about scaling bitcoin)

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 875


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
November 27, 2018, 08:34:19 AM
 #91


It "seemed" that way. But where are we now? The fees are as low as ever in satoshis/byte. You have to consider that Bitcoin is not Paypal. "Satoshi's vision" of a peer to peer digital cash cannot be achieved on-chain. It is not scalable.


You act as if that is set in stone. Like it can't be changed for any reason. If Bitcoin is still around in 2118, is it still going to be this way?


What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?

You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.

Quote


It is reality, and what the market has to offer until a solution is found. What the Core developers will not do is give way to a group of people who want a hard fork to bigger blocks, which will be problematic on its own.


Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.


I'm not asking. It is reality. Cool

By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?

Quote

As long as it should take if it has to work well for everyone.

Lightning nodes and channels are increasing. I believe there is more than $1.5 million of liquidity in Lightning, and growing.

So the Core team is going to stick to this plan, no matter what? I really doubt they are that inflexible if it appears they can't find an acceptable solution to people loosing coins.


I can't speak for the developers, but I believe a layered architecture is the direction its taking.

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

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
bones261
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1727



View Profile
November 28, 2018, 02:14:25 AM
 #92


What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?

You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.


In 100 years, I think a toaster will probably be able to handle 32mb blocks. No detrimental effect on decentralization. Also, someone can attempt to "flood the mempool," now with ultra low fee and zero fee transactions. The only way to combat this is for nodes to set a minimum fee that they require for them towill accept and relay to other nodes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the capacity of the blocks.


I'm not asking. It is reality. Cool

By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?


I think it is interesting that you mention Segwit and smaller blocks when part of what Segwit did was introduced increased block capacity. Perhaps they will be able to do something similar with future improvements to BTC.



.Mix coins.
 
Your BITCOIN Transaction
made Truly ANONYMOUS
 

███████
█████████████████
████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████
██████████                    ██████████
█████████                          █████████
███████                                    ████████
          ███████                                        ███████        ██
          █████████████████████████████████████      ███
          █████████████████████████████████████  █████
          ████████████████████████████████████  ██████
        ██████████████████████████████████████████
  █████████████████████████████████████████
█████                                        ████████████
                                  ██████████████
██                          █████████████████████          ██      
█████              ███████████████████████          ████      
█████████████████████████████            █████████      
██████████████████                      ████████████        
██████████████████████████████████████      
████████████████████████  ███████  
    ██████████              █████
                      ████████
      ████████████████    █
        ██████████████████
                  █████      ███
                      █████
                    ████

Blender
 
The ULTIMATE BITCOIN Mixer
with an ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
 

███████████    
███████████████████████    
████████████████████████████      
██████████████████████████████      
██████████████████████████████     
 

                                          █████████████
                                          ███████████
██████
                                          ███████████
██████
                                          ███████████
        ██
                                        ████████████
        ██
    ██                              █████████████
        ██
    ████                      ███████████████
        ██
    ██████              █████████████████
        ██
    █████████████████████████████
          ██  
      ███████████████████████████
          ███
      ██████  ████████████████████
        ████
      ██████████████████████████
  ██████
      ██████████████████████████
███████
  █████      ████████████████████
███
████          ████████████████
████ 
████          ████████████████        
████████████████████████
 

   
█████████████████████████        
███████████████████████████        
█████████    ██    ███    ██████████      
███████████    ██    ███     ██████████        
███████████    ██    ███     ███████████      
██████████████████████████████████      
██████████████████████████████████       
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 875


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
November 28, 2018, 04:47:27 AM
 #93


What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?

You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.


In 100 years, I think a toaster will probably be able to handle 32mb blocks. No detrimental effect on decentralization. Also, someone can attempt to "flood the mempool," now with ultra low fee and zero fee transactions. The only way to combat this is for nodes to set a minimum fee that they require for them towill accept and relay to other nodes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the capacity of the blocks.


Then what's the hurry? I believe Bitcoin will need to hard fork to bigger blocks later at any rate. If it gets consensus.

But Bitcoin Core will not bow to a group of people demanding bigger blocks now because reasons. It is politics, and some group of people will always want control. Remember "2X".

Quote


I'm not asking. It is reality. Cool

By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?


I think it is interesting that you mention Segwit and smaller blocks when part of what Segwit did was introduced increased block capacity. Perhaps they will be able to do something similar with future improvements to BTC.


Then why aren't you happy? Cool

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

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
bones261
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1727



View Profile
November 28, 2018, 05:39:52 AM
 #94


What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?

You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.


In 100 years, I think a toaster will probably be able to handle 32mb blocks. No detrimental effect on decentralization. Also, someone can attempt to "flood the mempool," now with ultra low fee and zero fee transactions. The only way to combat this is for nodes to set a minimum fee that they require for them towill accept and relay to other nodes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the capacity of the blocks.


Then what's the hurry? I believe Bitcoin will need to hard fork to bigger blocks later at any rate. If it gets consensus.

But Bitcoin Core will not bow to a group of people demanding bigger blocks now because reasons. It is politics, and some group of people will always want control. Remember "2X".


      I'm not in a hurry. I just hope bitcoin core isn't thinking the scaling problem is solved with LN. They should be working on optimizations. It would be nice if they came up with a way that you could run a pruned node or a sharded node, and not have to devote a bunch of HD to the initial sync. Not sure why you can't prune as you go on the initial sync.
      I also remember the 2x. When they were supposed to attempt the fork, it locked up. Obviously the software wasn't adequately vetted and tested.


I'm not asking. It is reality. Cool

By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?


I think it is interesting that you mention Segwit and smaller blocks when part of what Segwit did was introduced increased block capacity. Perhaps they will be able to do something similar with future improvements to BTC.


Then why aren't you happy? Cool

I'm not happy with LN for several reasons.
1) Requires you to be online at all times. Offline time=risk of funds. Online time=funds in hot wallet=risk of funds.
2) Hope your channel partner is online at all times in order to function optimally.
3) When making a transaction requiring hops, hope no one happens to disconnect or transfer funds along the hop, before your transaction completes. Otherwise, your funds are locked up for days.




.Mix coins.
 
Your BITCOIN Transaction
made Truly ANONYMOUS
 

███████
█████████████████
████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████
██████████                    ██████████
█████████                          █████████
███████                                    ████████
          ███████                                        ███████        ██
          █████████████████████████████████████      ███
          █████████████████████████████████████  █████
          ████████████████████████████████████  ██████
        ██████████████████████████████████████████
  █████████████████████████████████████████
█████                                        ████████████
                                  ██████████████
██                          █████████████████████          ██      
█████              ███████████████████████          ████      
█████████████████████████████            █████████      
██████████████████                      ████████████        
██████████████████████████████████████      
████████████████████████  ███████  
    ██████████              █████
                      ████████
      ████████████████    █
        ██████████████████
                  █████      ███
                      █████
                    ████

Blender
 
The ULTIMATE BITCOIN Mixer
with an ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
 

███████████    
███████████████████████    
████████████████████████████      
██████████████████████████████      
██████████████████████████████     
 

                                          █████████████
                                          ███████████
██████
                                          ███████████
██████
                                          ███████████
        ██
                                        ████████████
        ██
    ██                              █████████████
        ██
    ████                      ███████████████
        ██
    ██████              █████████████████
        ██
    █████████████████████████████
          ██  
      ███████████████████████████
          ███
      ██████  ████████████████████
        ████
      ██████████████████████████
  ██████
      ██████████████████████████
███████
  █████      ████████████████████
███
████          ████████████████
████ 
████          ████████████████        
████████████████████████
 

   
█████████████████████████        
███████████████████████████        
█████████    ██    ███    ██████████      
███████████    ██    ███     ██████████        
███████████    ██    ███     ███████████      
██████████████████████████████████      
██████████████████████████████████       
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 2211

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2018, 07:48:07 PM
 #95

Then what's the hurry? I believe Bitcoin will need to hard fork to bigger blocks later at any rate. If it gets consensus.

But Bitcoin Core will not bow to a group of people demanding bigger blocks now because reasons. It is politics, and some group of people will always want control. Remember "2X".
      I'm not in a hurry. I just hope bitcoin core isn't thinking the scaling problem is solved with LN. They should be working on optimizations. It would be nice if they came up with a way that you could run a pruned node or a sharded node, and not have to devote a bunch of HD to the initial sync. Not sure why you can't prune as you go on the initial sync.
      I also remember the 2x. When they were supposed to attempt the fork, it locked up. Obviously the software wasn't adequately vetted and tested.

I agree, but few developers are working on MuSig:Schnorr Signature which should help on-chain scaling. There's another proposal such as MAST, but i can't find information whether it's on development/not.

As for 2x, AFAIK that happens because there were very few active developer and tester/reviewer.

I'm not happy with LN for several reasons.
1) Requires you to be online at all times. Offline time=risk of funds. Online time=funds in hot wallet=risk of funds.
2) Hope your channel partner is online at all times in order to function optimally.
3) When making a transaction requiring hops, hope no one happens to disconnect or transfer funds along the hop, before your transaction completes. Otherwise, your funds are locked up for days.

I also don't happy with LN at current state, but
1. This can be solved by using watchtower (software/service which have all HTLC and watch blockchain 24/7). But this either require 3rd party trust or another server/device which run 24/7 and act as watchtower.
In case where user run their own watchtower, there's no hot wallet as wallet could only connect to watchtower server on local connection.
2. Yes, but in some cases (such as the channel partner only make payment and never receive payment), online all times isn't too important.

Zin-Zang
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 11

Killing Lightning Network with a 51% Ignore attack


View Profile
November 29, 2018, 04:13:00 AM
 #96

Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.

Hmm,
So what in your viewpoint makes BTC more secure than say LTC ?

For me, one is as safe as the other, but I would be interested to know your specific thoughts on the matter.


I was Red Tagged because Lauda Blows Theymos to get back on DT
The rest are just lauda's personal butt monkeys=> Hhampuz , Vod, TMAN , achow101
bones261
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1727



View Profile
November 29, 2018, 04:25:28 AM
 #97

Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.

Hmm,
So what in your viewpoint makes BTC more secure than say LTC ?

For me, one is as safe as the other, but I would be interested to know your specific thoughts on the matter.



Quote
If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.


.Mix coins.
 
Your BITCOIN Transaction
made Truly ANONYMOUS
 

███████
█████████████████
████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████
██████████                    ██████████
█████████                          █████████
███████                                    ████████
          ███████                                        ███████        ██
          █████████████████████████████████████      ███
          █████████████████████████████████████  █████
          ████████████████████████████████████  ██████
        ██████████████████████████████████████████
  █████████████████████████████████████████
█████                                        ████████████
                                  ██████████████
██                          █████████████████████          ██      
█████              ███████████████████████          ████      
█████████████████████████████            █████████      
██████████████████                      ████████████        
██████████████████████████████████████      
████████████████████████  ███████  
    ██████████              █████
                      ████████
      ████████████████    █
        ██████████████████
                  █████      ███
                      █████
                    ████

Blender
 
The ULTIMATE BITCOIN Mixer
with an ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
 

███████████    
███████████████████████    
████████████████████████████      
██████████████████████████████      
██████████████████████████████     
 

                                          █████████████
                                          ███████████
██████
                                          ███████████
██████
                                          ███████████
        ██
                                        ████████████
        ██
    ██                              █████████████
        ██
    ████                      ███████████████
        ██
    ██████              █████████████████
        ██
    █████████████████████████████
          ██  
      ███████████████████████████
          ███
      ██████  ████████████████████
        ████
      ██████████████████████████
  ██████
      ██████████████████████████
███████
  █████      ████████████████████
███
████          ████████████████
████ 
████          ████████████████        
████████████████████████
 

   
█████████████████████████        
███████████████████████████        
█████████    ██    ███    ██████████      
███████████    ██    ███     ██████████        
███████████    ██    ███     ███████████      
██████████████████████████████████      
██████████████████████████████████       
Zin-Zang
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 11

Killing Lightning Network with a 51% Ignore attack


View Profile
November 29, 2018, 04:33:37 AM
 #98

Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.

Hmm,
So what in your viewpoint makes BTC more secure than say LTC ?

For me, one is as safe as the other, but I would be interested to know your specific thoughts on the matter.



Quote
If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.


I had no intention of arguing against your personal viewpoint, was just interested to hear them.   Smiley

I was Red Tagged because Lauda Blows Theymos to get back on DT
The rest are just lauda's personal butt monkeys=> Hhampuz , Vod, TMAN , achow101
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 875


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
November 29, 2018, 06:16:46 AM
 #99


What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?

You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.


In 100 years, I think a toaster will probably be able to handle 32mb blocks. No detrimental effect on decentralization. Also, someone can attempt to "flood the mempool," now with ultra low fee and zero fee transactions. The only way to combat this is for nodes to set a minimum fee that they require for them towill accept and relay to other nodes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the capacity of the blocks.


Then what's the hurry? I believe Bitcoin will need to hard fork to bigger blocks later at any rate. If it gets consensus.

But Bitcoin Core will not bow to a group of people demanding bigger blocks now because reasons. It is politics, and some group of people will always want control. Remember "2X".


      I'm not in a hurry. I just hope bitcoin core isn't thinking the scaling problem is solved with LN. They should be working on optimizations. It would be nice if they came up with a way that you could run a pruned node or a sharded node, and not have to devote a bunch of HD to the initial sync. Not sure why you can't prune as you go on the initial sync.
      I also remember the 2x. When they were supposed to attempt the fork, it locked up. Obviously the software wasn't adequately vetted and tested.


You mean the research being done on optimizations such as this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHIuuKCm53o

Watch that. That's real, and efficient scaling. Unlike Bitcoin Cash's plan to keep hard forking to increase the block size.

Quote


I'm not asking. It is reality. Cool

By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?


I think it is interesting that you mention Segwit and smaller blocks when part of what Segwit did was introduced increased block capacity. Perhaps they will be able to do something similar with future improvements to BTC.


Then why aren't you happy? Cool

I'm not happy with LN for several reasons.
1) Requires you to be online at all times. Offline time=risk of funds. Online time=funds in hot wallet=risk of funds.
2) Hope your channel partner is online at all times in order to function optimally.
3) When making a transaction requiring hops, hope no one happens to disconnect or transfer funds along the hop, before your transaction completes. Otherwise, your funds are locked up for days.


I believe Bitcoin will still go forward on a layered architecture if Lightning was a failure. On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is not scalable.

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

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
Zin-Zang
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 11

Killing Lightning Network with a 51% Ignore attack


View Profile
November 29, 2018, 06:57:05 AM
 #100

I believe Bitcoin will still go forward on a layered architecture if Lightning was a failure.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is not scalable.

Hmm,

Hate to break it to you, but On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is scalable.

What you meant to say , is that you are too cheap to update your node to increase it's scalability with the rest of the network.  Cheesy

FTFY,  Wink

I was Red Tagged because Lauda Blows Theymos to get back on DT
The rest are just lauda's personal butt monkeys=> Hhampuz , Vod, TMAN , achow101
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  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!