Article about the blockchain and Bitcoin scaling.

[Wind_FURY]

@Wind_FURY did you have a chance to read the article I posted?

No, when I saw "sub-second confirmations", then I already have assumed that it's centralized. Sorry, but that's the nature of a decentralized system like Bitcoin. Data propagation takes time.

[1713884008]

1713884008

[1713884008]

1713884008

[1713884008]

1713884008

[1713884008]

1713884008

[UnruffledST]

@Wind_FURY did you have a chance to read the article I posted?

No, when I saw "sub-second confirmations", then I already have assumed that it's centralized. Sorry, but that's the nature of a decentralized system like Bitcoin. Data propagation takes time.

Haha yes an obvious assumption still the beauty in our system is that we obtain salability while still being fully decentralized we utilize two chains on our system one solely establishes an order of event through a rotating leader in which leaves a paper trail to follow in which the other chain is utilized to reach consensus in which all the time that is needed for data propagation will be taken.  

Say YES to sub-second zero-confirmation transactions and say NO to instant transactions.

If you see our statement we say no to instant transactions those which reach verification/consensus instantly as they do not take the time to securely verify transactions as you said data propagation takes time. zero-confirmation transactions are totally different it means that you know that even though the transaction isn't confirmed that when the time comes to reach consensus that it will be through the security offered through the network. It is all explained in the article.

Would love your opinion as it is not the usual shitty article which forgets about the CAP theorem.

[UnruffledST]

Haha yes an obvious assumption still the beauty in our system is that we obtain salability while still being fully decentralized we utilize two chains on our system one solely establishes an order of event through a rotating leader in which leaves a paper trail to follow in which the other chain is utilized to reach consensus in which all the time that is needed for data propagation will be taken.

You missed his point, any protocol which uses leader, rotating leader, block producer, delegated, etc. is considered centralized or semi-centralized by him and most people on Bitcoin community.

We had this convo, leaders do not verify or have nothing to do with the verification of transactions or in reaching consensus all they are doing is establishing an order of events. The next leader adds his order of events in and so forth.  Centralization vs Decentralization in such system comes to the way in which consensus is reached, consensus is reached in a fully decentralized manner. We do not have a committee/delegates in which reach consensus or verify transactions before consensus is reached or during.

The way in which we use a rotating leader does not make our system centralized at all as these leaders have no say so in verifying transactions.

I understand what is considered centralized/semi-centralized and we are not that. We do not have block producers, no sole person verifying/validating transactions(centralized), no committee/delegates verifying/validating transactions(semi-centralization) rotating leaders only set a paper trail of order of events they have no say so on the verification/validation of transactions.

[cfbtcman]

We will not steal, just make the owners change address from time to time (10 years for example), nothing can grow forever, information grow without control will be one of biggest computer area problems in the next years, to much data, excess of data, we need to deal with it, sometime we will not have resources to make more data hosting.

LN will never be solution

That's why it's not the only avenue being explored.  No one is saying that Lightning is going to magically solve all our problems and we don't need to look at anything else.

To solve the huge number o information in all network there is another solution, we start to delete 1st blocks of blockchain after some number of blocks, example GENESIS block can be deleted and the money still in that address can be reward for miners

If you can find support for it, go right ahead.  Count me out, though.  I've seen enough iterations of "hey, let's steal old coins and put them back into circulation" threads to know that only a few well-intentioned-but-ultimately-misinformed fools want that.

[cfbtcman]

Pruned mode already realize your idea, user just need to store set of UTXO, recent blocks & all blocks header (which is only 80 bytes/block).

All block headers is trash, genesis block should be always the 1st block that still have addresses with balance bigger than zero, all the 1st blocks with only addresses with balance = 0 should be completed removed, this is good programming habits.

[cfbtcman]

It's called Sharding & already exist for years. The hard part is convincing the community to use sharding.

Maybe that is not so hard, what about making a open source sharding node to split the actual block size/blockchain with one auto-adjustment algorithm with blocksize variable and nº of sharding nodes variable that can be adapted to any future blocksize vs future number of nodes?

[UnruffledST]

Pruned mode already realize your idea, user just need to store set of UTXO, recent blocks & all blocks header (which is only 80 bytes/block).

All block headers is trash, genesis block should be always the 1st block that still have addresses with balance bigger than zero, all the 1st blocks with only addresses with balance = 0 should be completed removed, this is good programming habits.

so your really saying that block headers are trash? Dude so how would someone make sure that the blockchain was not modified? with block headesr who is keeping track on all transactions no one? that is the whole point of pruned mode. All that is kept is UTXO.

Lost me with that statement what are you trying to get at?

Maybe that is not so hard, what about making a open source sharding node to split the actual block size/blockchain with one auto-adjustment algorithm with blocksize variable and nº of sharding nodes variable that can be adapted to any future blocksize vs future number of nodes?

Sharding is already in existent. Bitcoin will not adopt it because it weakens security when reaching concensus. No one in Bitcoin is going to go for weaking security just to gain faster transactions, they would rather have longer wait times while being fully secured. Other projects are looking at sharding such as Ethereum and many are backing away from it because it will have weaker security thus making it more vulnerable to attacks.

Dude did you really have to make 3 seperate post ?

[DooMAD]

We will not steal, just make the owners change address from time to time (10 years for example), nothing can grow forever, information grow without control will be one of biggest computer area problems in the next years, to much data, excess of data, we need to deal with it, sometime we will not have resources to make more data hosting.

Whether you opt to call it stealing or not, you are still effectively threatening to change the ownership of someone else's coins if they neglect to move them.  It's a concept people have proposed on numerous occasions in the past and you are more than welcome to search for some previous topics where people have outlined the reasons why it's not likely to happen in Bitcoin.  If I were on my PC I'd do it for you and post some links, but it's a ballache to do on a phone.

[UnruffledST]

We will not steal, just make the owners change address from time to time (10 years for example), nothing can grow forever, information grow without control will be one of biggest computer area problems in the next years, to much data, excess of data, we need to deal with it, sometime we will not have resources to make more data hosting.

Whether you opt to call it stealing or not, you are still effectively threatening to change the ownership of someone else's coins if they neglect to move them.  It's a concept people have proposed on numerous occasions in the past and you are more than welcome to search for some previous topics where people have outlined the reasons why it's not likely to happen in Bitcoin.  If I were on my PC I'd do it for you and post some links, but it's a ballache to do on a phone.

The only reason coins need to be moved at all is when switching to a quantum resistant digital signature cryptography.

[squatter]

We will not steal, just make the owners change address from time to time (10 years for example), nothing can grow forever, information grow without control will be one of biggest computer area problems in the next years, to much data, excess of data, we need to deal with it, sometime we will not have resources to make more data hosting.

Whether you opt to call it stealing or not, you are still effectively threatening to change the ownership of someone else's coins if they neglect to move them.  It's a concept people have proposed on numerous occasions in the past and you are more than welcome to search for some previous topics where people have outlined the reasons why it's not likely to happen in Bitcoin.

It's unfortunate, because eventually that will have real implications for Bitcoin's monetary policy. Consider, for instance, what will happen if quantum computing breaks ECDSA. Implementing a new signature scheme won't do anything about all the bitcoins that don't move to safe addresses. That could result in millions of previously lost bitcoins being reintroduced into circulation.

Hypothetically, on an ethical level, I don't mind the idea of owners being required to move coins every n epochs/blocks/years. The problem is this was never established in Bitcoin's rule set early on -- users never agreed to it. Now, consensus change seems impossible.

[cfbtcman]

Pruned mode already realize your idea, user just need to store set of UTXO, recent blocks & all blocks header (which is only 80 bytes/block).

All block headers is trash, genesis block should be always the 1st block that still have addresses with balance bigger than zero, all the 1st blocks with only addresses with balance = 0 should be completed removed, this is good programming habits.

so your really saying that block headers are trash? Dude so how would someone make sure that the blockchain was not modified? with block headesr who is keeping track on all transactions no one? that is the whole point of pruned mode. All that is kept is UTXO.

Lost me with that statement what are you trying to get at?

Maybe that is not so hard, what about making a open source sharding node to split the actual block size/blockchain with one auto-adjustment algorithm with blocksize variable and nº of sharding nodes variable that can be adapted to any future blocksize vs future number of nodes?

Sharding is already in existent. Bitcoin will not adopt it because it weakens security when reaching concensus. No one in Bitcoin is going to go for weaking security just to gain faster transactions, they would rather have longer wait times while being fully secured. Other projects are looking at sharding such as Ethereum and many are backing away from it because it will have weaker security thus making it more vulnerable to attacks.

Dude did you really have to make 3 seperate post ?

All block headers of blocks that are in the begining of blockchain and dont have any address moved with balance are completly trash, any information is trash, you can simply delete it and say block 2 is the new genesis, what we lost?

The problem is that one guy that have 1 Satoshi in the genesis block can stay to eternity with that money there even if the next 1 million blocks have all addresses with 0 balance, so we would need to keep record of millions of blocks in all the full-nodes just because one guy haves 1 Satoshi in the genesis block in 1999!!!!

Bitcoin code is not Moses tablets and Satoshi was not god, we need to keep improving, one database that cant delete records would become a white elephant sooner or later, so its better we think sooner and do it now!

Sharding can be done without bitcoin adopt it or not, its like pruned nodes, everybody can do one and use it, the bitcoin network will block something if its not OK. Imagine that you and me implement one and you save 50% of the blocks and me another 50% and our nodes work together to make new moves, what can other people/nodes do if we follow the same rules as them?

[cfbtcman]

We will not steal, just make the owners change address from time to time (10 years for example), nothing can grow forever, information grow without control will be one of biggest computer area problems in the next years, to much data, excess of data, we need to deal with it, sometime we will not have resources to make more data hosting.

Whether you opt to call it stealing or not, you are still effectively threatening to change the ownership of someone else's coins if they neglect to move them.  It's a concept people have proposed on numerous occasions in the past and you are more than welcome to search for some previous topics where people have outlined the reasons why it's not likely to happen in Bitcoin.  If I were on my PC I'd do it for you and post some links, but it's a ballache to do on a phone.

The only reason coins need to be moved at all is when switching to a quantum resistant digital signature cryptography.

So, it will need to happen sooner or later, garbage collection its so important as safety or else someday we cant feed the white elephant, coul be 100 years and after that, the money reverts for miners or else we will have another problem too like money losting, we could solve 2 problems at once.

[cfbtcman]

Maybe that is not so hard, what about making a open source sharding node to split the actual block size/blockchain with one auto-adjustment algorithm with blocksize variable and nº of sharding nodes variable that can be adapted to any future blocksize vs future number of nodes?

auto-adjustment algorithm with blocksize variable? It's already exist on various altcoin (such as Monero) and few BIP mention it as on-chain solution (which rejected, obviously)

nº of sharding nodes variable that can be adapted to any future blocksize vs future number of nodes? There's no way to get reliable number of full nodes of P2P network, so it's impossible.

The only reason coins need to be moved at all is when switching to a quantum resistant digital signature cryptography.

ECDSA which used by Bitcoin is partially quantum-resistant, only address whose public key exposed is at risk of quantum computer.
People who follow one-time address practice shouldn't be at risk, unless quantum computer could crack private key in few seconds where it could be used for double-spend attack.

Nothing is impossible programming, you can set variables like each time detected nodes are double the number of groups in the sharding node is advised to scale too and user can choose to scale to save space or keep the same groups and keeps using too much space.

Basically sharding nodes will work like knowledge and people, as long as there are people there is knowledge, but all the people dont need to have the same knowledge, they can share knowledge !

About quantum resistant i woul not be so optimistic, Germany lost the war because thinked the same way about ENIGMA, i read in the past that a bitcoin address can be cracked in 7 years with quantum computers, dont know if it is true or not, i dont have a quantum computer yet to try it.

[UnruffledST]

We will not steal, just make the owners change address from time to time (10 years for example), nothing can grow forever, information grow without control will be one of biggest computer area problems in the next years, to much data, excess of data, we need to deal with it, sometime we will not have resources to make more data hosting.

Whether you opt to call it stealing or not, you are still effectively threatening to change the ownership of someone else's coins if they neglect to move them.  It's a concept people have proposed on numerous occasions in the past and you are more than welcome to search for some previous topics where people have outlined the reasons why it's not likely to happen in Bitcoin.  If I were on my PC I'd do it for you and post some links, but it's a ballache to do on a phone.

The only reason coins need to be moved at all is when switching to a quantum resistant digital signature cryptography.

So, it will need to happen sooner or later, garbage collection its so important as safety or else someday we cant feed the white elephant, coul be 100 years and after that, the money reverts for miners or else we will have another problem too like money losting, we could solve 2 problems at once.

How would that be a problem why not just let long term unnacessed funds be, if a fund goes like 50 years without being moved does not mean it would need to be put back in rotation it could just be accounted as that unnaccesed funds and would bring up the value of Bitcoin a win/win.

Maybe that is not so hard, what about making a open source sharding node to split the actual block size/blockchain with one auto-adjustment algorithm with blocksize variable and nº of sharding nodes variable that can be adapted to any future blocksize vs future number of nodes?

auto-adjustment algorithm with blocksize variable? It's already exist on various altcoin (such as Monero) and few BIP mention it as on-chain solution (which rejected, obviously)

nº of sharding nodes variable that can be adapted to any future blocksize vs future number of nodes? There's no way to get reliable number of full nodes of P2P network, so it's impossible.

The only reason coins need to be moved at all is when switching to a quantum resistant digital signature cryptography.

ECDSA which used by Bitcoin is partially quantum-resistant, only address whose public key exposed is at risk of quantum computer.
People who follow one-time address practice shouldn't be at risk, unless quantum computer could crack private key in few seconds where it could be used for double-spend attack.

About quantum resistant i woul not be so optimistic, Germany lost the war because thinked the same way about ENIGMA, i read in the past that a bitcoin address can be cracked in 7 years with quantum computers, dont know if it is true or not, i dont have a quantum computer yet to try it.

The reason ECDSA is easily crack-able by quantum computers is because of the ECC used, it is basically a format of calculations in which a quantum computer could easily reverse. You might be thinking that it would take 7 years for it to become mainstream.

[Wind_FURY]

Hahaha. There are two posters here, or maybe it's actually one person, that are tag-teaming all of you with debates of nonesense.

Mods, lock this topic.