Ordinals and other non-monetary "use cases" as miner reward on 2140+

[stompix]

Let's say that Dogecoin currently is at 150 GB, while Bitcoin is at 600 GB. Which means, that Bitcoin processed 4x more data than Dogecoin.
So, where are those "10x the blocks"?

Are we really discussing carrots and sandwiches here?
Fact! is Doge managed to outclass Bitcoin 7 times in a number of transactions:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-doge.html#6m
Without breaking down! And with users doing transactions on Doge because it was cheaper! Oh, and with maxis right here on the forum recommending Doge cause it's cheaper!

I will again put the emphasis on Doge, maybe some here get how ridiculous the situation has become, we're debating about a competition with a f* meme coin!!!!

What I don't understand is why after talking so much about on CPU power you don't say it, with past 2009 power we could manage 1 MB blocks, with the current processing power of the average CPU we can 2.78MB, 7.65 MB...what is the number?

I never posted anything about the dynamic being "mysterious", but there is a dynamic. Miners are speculators too, and because common sense tells every miner that higher difficulty = less profit - and therefore an increasing number of miners will be shutting off their ASICs, then other miners could see that as an opportunity.
Plus Bitcoin's price projection.

If as per the topic title, the reward is gone and we see the fees at this level it means the network won't be able to fund 600Exas but 18Exa, so it terms of raw number the amount spent on gear to overpower drops from 12 billion to 360 million! Same for the power requirement!

Also, miners don't protect against a Sybill type attacks, that's what nodes do!

Why not? Executing a Sybil attack requires re-doing the Proof-of-Work, otherwise the node can figure out it's surrounded by malicious nodes, since they will stop sending him blocks.

A Sybil attack means legit nodes will be broken between fake nods that would top them synchronizing and the false nodes would broadcast only their version of the blockchain, you don't need a majority in PoW since you don't need the chain with most work, you just need to make sure the chain with most work is not relayed between legit nodes!
With enough nodes, you can launch one even with 0.1% of the hashrate, just enough to actually create a block!

Besides what garlonicon said about the philosophy behind BSV, have you actually attempted to sync a BSV node? I don't know man, you might... be surprised.  

So, did it break?
The tweet says only something about economically feasible, 2022! , we are in 2024 and BSV chain still works despite all the mumbo jumbo about intergalactic CPUs needed to run it!

Nobody here actually answers this:
What would be the technical restraints and how much more would cost a user in 10 years if the chain would move from 1vMB to 8vMB assuming all blocks would be full? If anyone thinks it's not possible show me the numbers!!!!

Dogecoin has 1 MB block size, and 1 minute time interval. That's the equivalent of 10 MB Bitcoin block size. So, not 10x, but 2.5x.

So 2.5x is sustainable? It is it 3.3x? Or is it 5.87x? Which one?

[BlackHatCoiner]

With enough nodes, you can launch one even with 0.1% of the hashrate, just enough to actually create a block!

If the victim node reaches July 2024, and the attacker launches a Sybil attack on him with 0.1% of the hashrate, mining a block will take him 10/0.001 = 10,000 minutes, which is like a week. The victim can just look it up, if they notice they're stuck at the same block for days. If they don't, it's likely that their software might not even accept the block, even if its timestamp is altered to look as if it was mined a few minutes after the previous one, because the computer's clock would be far into the future. (And this would alarm the client.)

So, yes. That's why I don't see why eclipse or sybil attacks are so concerning. The worst they can do is network disruption. (More common if your only network is Tor.)

The tweet says only something about economically feasible, 2022! , we are in 2024 and BSV chain still works despite all the mumbo jumbo about intergalactic CPUs needed to run it!

Even Blockchair decided to stop hosting the BSV blockchain explorer...: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/vi3ui6/the_reality_is_that_9999_or_so_of_bitcoin_sv/

What would be the technical restraints and how much more would cost a user in 10 years if the chain would move from 1vMB to 8vMB assuming all blocks would be full? If anyone thinks it's not possible show me the numbers!!!!

You mean from 4 vMB to 8 vMB? The block size is not 1 MB, this is 2024!

So 2.5x is sustainable? It is it 3.3x? Or is it 5.87x? Which one?

I believe they're all quite sustainable, but beyond that, it'd be noticeably harmful for the ecosystem.

Once, you told me that I see Bitcoin as a "golden goose", which shouldn't change. What you're proposing has already been implemented and has a pretty active community; it's called Bitcoin Cash. You're in denial about the fact that what you're suggesting already exists. You just don't like that, financially speaking, the majority does not follow that protocol. It seems to me that you don't actually want to change the protocol just for the sake of having one with large blocks; as I said, this already exists. What you want is to force a change in behavior.

Isn't that it? If that's so, then who's really seeing it as "golden goose"?

[d5000]

@stompix is of course correct that Doge from time to time has a much higher transaction count and also "data throughput" than Bitcoin. However, there are two things making me believe that the Doge chain is much "lighter" than a 10MB Bitcoin chain would be.

First, let's see longer terms:


We see that until 2023 the Doge transaction count was much, much lower than Bitcoin's, even if the capacity in theory was higher. This should have resulted also in a smaller UTXO set, and UTXOs are one of the "bottlenecks" for full nodes. The average should be quite close for the recent 2 years.

In addition Doge's "usage boost" in 2023 is a phenomenon very closely related to the Doginals (Ordinals pseudo-clone) boom. This means there were some huge transaction "waves" with "NFTs" created on the Doge chain, even more than what occurred on Bitcoin. While they have more impact on the UTXO set than Runes or the original Ordinals because they don't inscribe in a witness but in an output as far as I'm aware of, per transaction it should be lower than a "payment" transaction because a lot of the data can be ignored by validators.

In general I think a 10MB Bitcoin chain should still be ok. But it would harm the fee market (transaction fees would probably go back close to 1 sat/vByte) and thus miner income. And in addition it probably needs a hard fork, and as I wrote in the discussion with MeGold666 I think the hassle isn't worth it and L2s are a better option.

[garlonicon]

Fact! is Doge managed to outclass Bitcoin 7 times in a number of transactions

The number of transactions is quite bad estimator, because you can have transactions, which takes 100 bytes, and you can have transactions, which takes 100 kB. You can have a single-user transaction, and you can have a CoinJoin, or some batched transaction, involving hundreds of users. Should all of them be counted as "1 transaction = 1 transaction"?

A better estimate would be to count unique public keys and signatures, but it is harder to create a chart like that.

we are in 2024 and BSV chain still works despite all the mumbo jumbo about intergalactic CPUs needed to run it!

Do you have BSV node? Does your friend have it? People are whining on forum, that they don't want to run BTC full node, with 600 GB, and you want to tell them, that 10 TB is fine?

Of course, the network can work indefinitely, because as long as at least one node is willing to mine it, then it can still be alive and well, as long as people are fine with taking part in a centralized system. If you look at mining pools on BSV, it is pretty centralized, and seeing 51% on one of huge pools like TAAL is normal: https://sv.coin.dance/blocks

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_is_not_ruled_by_miners#Efficiency

Efficiency

If you are OK with 10 or so individuals controlling the currency, then you can design a much better system than Bitcoin. For example, you can design a system using chaumean e-cash with the following properties:

    20 independent entities are designated as signers.
    As long as a majority of signers are honest, the system remains secure.
    The system has perfect anonymity. The signers cannot know anything about the flow of money.
    Transactions are instant, requiring only communication with the signers and a small amount of computation.

If you want to preserve the mining mechanism, you can create a simple proof-of-work block chain which simply determines the current signers and creates coins. Users of the system would look at the most recent blocks only to determine the public keys and IP addresses of the current signers, and then use the system as previously described.

This system would be better than Bitcoin in several ways. But the point of Bitcoin is to be decentralized, so Satoshi rejected this idea (which has been well-known for over 20 years) and created Bitcoin instead.

Which means, that you probably won't see chains like BSV "crashing". You see them "centralizing", and becoming ruled by "10 or so individuals" (because non-mining nodes will simply not exist, and even block explorers like blockchair will stop sharing that chain with users, so it will stop being audited by anyone).

Also, let's assume that you have some SPV node, and you notice a transaction like this: https://mempool.space/testnet4/tx/914a6348ba832b79c631a6f70ea9e2c3e1e433ee0b90633d51e3fe1164c05dc0

How do you want to make sure, that those 10k coins are not created out of thin air, without fully validating the chain? If only miners run full nodes, then future blocks can contain transactions like that, but creating coins not out of fees, but out of thin air. And no SPV node would validate it deeply enough to know, that some block, 123 blocks deeper, is invalid for some reason. And then, the coin will not collapse: it will be just more similar to the banking system, where you have to trust the issuer, instead of verifying the supply.

[Wind_FURY]

I never posted anything about the dynamic being "mysterious", but there is a dynamic. Miners are speculators too, and because common sense tells every miner that higher difficulty = less profit - and therefore an increasing number of miners will be shutting off their ASICs, then other miners could see that as an opportunity.
Plus Bitcoin's price projection.

If as per the topic title, the reward is gone and we see the fees at this level it means the network won't be able to fund 600Exas but 18Exa, so it terms of raw number the amount spent on gear to overpower drops from 12 billion to 360 million! Same for the power requirement!

If we're going back to that debate, then the blockchain should have other uses/different kinds of utility for different kinds of users so that miners will continue to be incentivized to secure the network. But that still doesn't say that there is no dynamic between the mining difficulty, the miners as speculators, the current price of Bitcoin, and it's projected price in the future.

We shouldn't be laughing at dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain, we should probably be encouraging it?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[vjudeu]

we should probably be encouraging it?

Why? A batched transaction is more useful, and serves more users, than just some on-chain JPEG. And it can have the same fee, if users would be able to join their transactions. Which means, that if you will have transaction fee set to 0.01 BTC, but there will be 1k users behind it, then each user will only pay 1k satoshis for all of that.

In general, a single UTXO per subnetwork should be enough. Then, you could have some transaction, taking one kilobyte, but serving thousands of users.

It is all about compression. It is easier to compress regular payments, than some JPEGs.

[ABCbits]

Besides what garlonicon said about the philosophy behind BSV, have you actually attempted to sync a BSV node? I don't know man, you might... be surprised.  

So, did it break?
The tweet says only something about economically feasible, 2022! , we are in 2024 and BSV chain still works despite all the mumbo jumbo about intergalactic CPUs needed to run it!

If you only care about whether it break, then you might as well as use Solana as comparison. Old estimation on https://solana.stackexchange.com/a/989 shows all TX already in tens of TB, while storage for running it's archival node already in hundreds of TB.

Nobody here actually answers this:
What would be the technical restraints and how much more would cost a user in 10 years if the chain would move from 1vMB to 8vMB assuming all blocks would be full? If anyone thinks it's not possible show me the numbers!!!!

The concern isn't technical restraints, but rather cost to run full node and IBD duration. And personally i feel 8 vMB is fine with today's hardware (excluding SBC such as Raspberry Pi 4).

What would be the technical restraints and how much more would cost a user in 10 years if the chain would move from 1vMB to 8vMB assuming all blocks would be full? If anyone thinks it's not possible show me the numbers!!!!

You mean from 4 vMB to 8 vMB? The block size is not 1 MB, this is 2024!

As reminder, vMB and MB are 2 different unit. Maximum block size is 1 vMB or 4 million weight unit, where theoretically a block can reach almost 4MB in size.

[BlackHatCoiner]

How do you want to make sure, that those 10k coins are not created out of thin air, without fully validating the chain?

Here's another argument against gigantic block size: If the blockchain grows faster than the rate you verify transactions, you can never reach the chain tip on regular hardware.

As reminder, vMB and MB are 2 different unit. Maximum block size is 1 vMB or 4 million weight unit, where theoretically a block can reach almost 4MB in size.

They are two different units, but we've softforked to vMB. It'd be wrong to measure things in MB, since there's an entire field which can handle more information than before.

[cryptosize]

we should probably be encouraging it?

Why? A batched transaction is more useful, and serves more users, than just some on-chain JPEG. And it can have the same fee, if users would be able to join their transactions. Which means, that if you will have transaction fee set to 0.01 BTC, but there will be 1k users behind it, then each user will only pay 1k satoshis for all of that.

In general, a single UTXO per subnetwork should be enough. Then, you could have some transaction, taking one kilobyte, but serving thousands of users.

It is all about compression. It is easier to compress regular payments, than some JPEGs.

This sounds like RFC 1918.

It's the only viable solution for scaling.

[stompix]

If the victim node reaches July 2024, and the attacker launches a Sybil attack on him with 0.1% of the hashrate, mining a block will take him 10/0.001 = 10,000 minutes, which is like a week. The victim can just look it up, if they notice they're stuck at the same block for days.
~
That's why I don't see why eclipse or sybil attacks are so concerning.

You understand I said 0.1% just for the sake of saying it, to show the actual threat!
There is no "victim" node in a sybill attack, it's an attacker isolating from miners other nodes, your node will still be fed information that will be accepted as true since it's real legit information, it will simply be cut from the other what you call "legit" block, but this block will also be legit!
I love how you dismiss things that even the bitcoin wiki treats as problematic.

The number of transactions is quite bad estimator, because you can have transactions, which takes 100 bytes, and you can have transactions, which takes 100 kB. You can have a single-user transaction, and you can have a CoinJoin, or some batched transaction, involving hundreds of users. Should all of them be counted as "1 transaction = 1 transaction"?

And suddenly you went from CPU requirements to the size of the tx, please do tell me what the difference in CPU power needs to verify a 100kb inscription versus a 10kb one! Is it s10x?  

What would be the technical restraints and how much more would cost a user in 10 years if the chain would move from 1vMB to 8vMB assuming all blocks would be full? If anyone thinks it's not possible show me the numbers!!!!

You mean from 4 vMB to 8 vMB? The block size is not 1 MB, this is 2024!

My bad, if we keep shifting through units at one point it's inevitable I would use even virtual Mbps.

Do you have BSV node? Does your friend have it? People are whining on forum, that they don't want to run BTC full node, with 600 GB, and you want to tell them, that 10 TB is fine?

If you are OK with 10 or so individuals controlling the currency, then you can design a much better system than Bitcoin.

Do you have a miner? I have still 3 of them! Do you have the power to run them? Do you expect people to live in houses with 10kw power draw and heat-producing louder than a Karcher industrial vacuum thing?

Are you ok with 10 companies controlling the whole mining?
Weird how the threat of decentralization appears only when we talk about nodes, when we talk about mining it's crickets!

I think a 10MB Bitcoin chain should still be ok. But it would harm the fee market (transaction fees would probably go back close to 1 sat/vByte) and thus miner income.

You know what's funny?
I know 5 guys who still mine on this forum and are still active, pretty weird that their opinion is different.Why would be that?
Because it's simple, fees at 5/sat are worth 1 million a day, please don't make me do the math again for how much hashrate would that be able to keep alive, but it's 3 times LESS than what Core alone has, and 50% of what the next two big guys have!

And with this, we're finally touching the subject!

Instead of you all criticizing me and the block size, do you guys have a solution for this longterm as the title says?

The issue is simple
-fees are right now 1 million a day
-efficiency is around 20w per th, at 5 cents kwh it's 2.5 cents per day
-used gear is for sale at $5 per the th/s

Do the math on how much is needed and tell me how impossible it would be for someone targeting a 2 trillion market to do it!

And of course, nobody promoting PoS coins would even think of launching such an attack cause it won't .....
How much profit do you think bagholders from ETH would gain when the leading PoW coin is attacked?

[garlonicon]

what the difference in CPU power needs to verify a 100kb inscription versus a 10kb one! Is it s10x?

Verification is similar, as long as both are just huge OP_NOPs, which are never executed. However, in 100kB transaction, you can fit more OP_CHECKSIGs, than in 10kB. And if you increase the maximum size of the block, without changing anything else, then you will make some attacks worse, than they currently are. For example: https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=140078

Which means, that if you will have an inscription, in the form of:

Code:

<random data push> <random data push> OP_CHECKSIG
<random data push> <random data push> OP_CHECKSIG
<random data push> <random data push> OP_CHECKSIG
...
<random data push> <random data push> OP_CHECKSIG
OP_TRUE

Then, 100kb inscription is definitely worse than 10kb one. The same with 1-of-3 multisig flood, which we can sometimes observe, where a single key is real, and everything else is just used to push some data (but it also slows down verification, because OP_CHECKMULTISIG has O(n^2) complexity).

if we keep shifting through units at one point it's inevitable I would use even virtual Mbps

New units will be there, if new compression algorithms will be deployed. Because if inscriptions will be abused, and if some node owners will be sued, because of transmitting copyrighted materials (like in torrents), then more and more people will think about data compression, and removing those inscriptions from IBD. Then, instead of an actual inscription, you may download a proof, that it hashes to a particular value, without actually storing it, and accessing the content. Would you also tell everyone in that case, that "1 byte = 1 byte"? Would you tell everyone, that "200 OP_REPEAT OP_CHECKSIG OP_ENDREPEAT" should be counted as "five bytes", even though you would pay the same price for processing it, as you would pay for 200 OP_CHECKSIGs?

Do you have a miner?

I only mine with CPUs.

Do you have the power to run them?

Not everyone has to be a miner. The whole reason why non-mining nodes are important, is because they are peers in the P2P network, while SPV nodes are only "visitors", which can only attach to other full nodes. And as long as SPV nodes can be fed with false information, and we don't have any kind of "SPV-alerts", then we have, what we have. In general, P2P full nodes are trustless. SPV nodes are based on some level of trust, that simplified proofs are correct, so they are based on a weaker security assumptions.

Do you expect people to live in houses with 10kw power draw and heat-producing louder than a Karcher industrial vacuum thing?

No. Bitcoin is not miners-only blockchain. If it would be, then we wouldn't have a single coinbase transaction, but instead, every transaction would work like a coinbase, and every user would get some fractions of the reward, depending on their hashrate. But Bitcoin does not work in that way.

Are you ok with 10 companies controlling the whole mining?

No, and I am trying to change it. In general, if we would have decentralized mining pools, instead of the currently used centralized ones, then those companies would no longer "control the whole mining". But it is hard to avoid "big server farms" scenario.

do you guys have a solution for this longterm as the title says?

Of course, data compression. As long as we don't have transaction joining, people can only shout about increasing the size of the block. But they don't see that if transactions can be joined, then you can increase TPS, without changing the maximum size of the block.

[d5000]

Instead of you all criticizing me and the block size, do you guys have a solution for this longterm as the title says?

I have already proposed a solution several times -> merged-mined sidechains. This would basically be the same thing as tail emission, only that the tail emission goes on on different chains, not on the main chain.

I personally like the Drivechain model, but it's not critical for me, if a sustainable dynamic federation concept, a working ZK rollup concept or whatever is found, then I'd say ... go with it. That's also why I opened the L2 observer thread, although the current situation is still not satisfying, but there are some projects which could be described as "a start".

How much profit do you think bagholders from ETH would gain when the leading PoW coin is attacked?

Judging from the fact that Ethereum dipped in the Goxcoin panic too even if ETH didn't even exist in MtGox's times, and also the German BKA didn't sell a single ETH, the impact could even be negative for them.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I love how you dismiss things that even the bitcoin wiki treats as problematic.

I really don't understand what I said that was so wrong, but anyway.

Weird how the threat of decentralization appears only when we talk about nodes, when we talk about mining it's crickets!

To me, simply running a node does not contribute to the decentralization of the network. It merely enables Bitcoin to function as intended: peer-to-peer cash without intermediaries. If you need to trust someone else, it indicates we are heading in the wrong direction.

Do the math on how much is needed and tell me how impossible it would be for someone targeting a 2 trillion market to do it!

Do what? Attack the network? The entire concept is based on the fact that such an action would be completely irrational. Not that it is, and will always be, infeasible.

[philipma1957]

This whole question is wrong because you are only focusing on a tiny insignificant thing (fees) while there are a million different things that are much more important. For starters in 100 years from now, Bitcoin may not even exist. The cryptography used in Bitcoin is going to will have been obsolete for years by 2140, so by then Bitcoin either will have had significant changes (hard forks) that would fundamentally change it or a more probably thing is alternatives will have been invented that replace Bitcoin.

As for fees, people don't tend to use a payment system that is expensive. If that becomes regular in Bitcoin, it would kill it. That means it stops being used by regular people for payment and it will lose its "hype" and subsequently there won't be any reason for scam attacks such as Ordinals to be using the "bitcoin name".

this is a good point. I can send 1-999 usd via Zelle in under a minute for free.

Why use BTC ?

Now Zelle is not world wide like btc is but it is cheap and fast to do.

I can do up to 2500 but I need a fee more checks to go over 1000 to 2500

[cryptosize]

This whole question is wrong because you are only focusing on a tiny insignificant thing (fees) while there are a million different things that are much more important. For starters in 100 years from now, Bitcoin may not even exist. The cryptography used in Bitcoin is going to will have been obsolete for years by 2140, so by then Bitcoin either will have had significant changes (hard forks) that would fundamentally change it or a more probably thing is alternatives will have been invented that replace Bitcoin.

As for fees, people don't tend to use a payment system that is expensive. If that becomes regular in Bitcoin, it would kill it. That means it stops being used by regular people for payment and it will lose its "hype" and subsequently there won't be any reason for scam attacks such as Ordinals to be using the "bitcoin name".

this is a good point. I can send 1-999 usd via Zelle in under a minute for free.

Why use BTC ?

Now Zelle is not world wide like btc is but it is cheap and fast to do.

I can do up to 2500 but I need a fee more checks to go over 1000 to 2500

It depends on what you wanna do and where you're located.

For EU/SEPA, Revolut is a better option.

Bitcoin is a global, unified payment system/standard (unlike SEPA vs SWIFT vs PayPal etc.) and currently fees are low enough to send let's say $1000.

Just like TCP/IP is a global networking standard (that wasn't always the case, back in the 80s/90s we also had BBS, AppleTalk, IPX etc.)

[anarkiboy]

Just like TCP/IP is a global networking standard (that wasn't always the case, back in the 80s/90s we also had BBS, AppleTalk, IPX etc.)

Bitcoin is HTTP
Monero is HTTPS