rpietila Altcoin Observer

[Jungian]

It got really quiet in this thread. Did I say something sufficiently offensive, shocking, or motivational? 

Haven't you heard that the Malla Summer Retreat is ongoing? 

The real question is why isn't he there. You could get him drunk and he might divulge all his secret crypto plans that he's alluded to.

September perhaps?

That's a great idea. Instead of giving him 2BTC, just donate a week at the resort with free drinks...

[Este Nuno]

http://www.jl777.org/darkpaper-teleport-revealed/

The formatting is painful 

[tacotime]

It got really quiet in this thread. Did I say something sufficiently offensive, shocking, or motivational?  

Here's a genuine Altcon Observation to discuss:

XCN successfully moved to pruned mode, and its price spiked up ~27% from the deep support at 0.00001375.

XCN cracks two hard nuts at once.  Mini-blockchain is ultimate prunability (so a full node may run on your phone).  And withdrawal limits on the account tree enable non-malleable zero-confirmation transactions.

Like E=MC^2, scarcely two dozen people in the world grasp the magnitude of this technology's implications.  

The shilling must end. This is worse than the HashFast thread, where you enticed people into losing millions of dollars.

[AnonyMint]

Party like it is 1999.

Don't get me drunk because I Would Die 4 U if you are the dancing gorilla that crashed my last high school party (Blazer 3).

[Majormax]

It got really quiet in this thread. Did I say something sufficiently offensive, shocking, or motivational?  

Here's a genuine Altcon Observation to discuss:

XCN successfully moved to pruned mode, and its price spiked up ~27% from the deep support at 0.00001375.

XCN cracks two hard nuts at once.  Mini-blockchain is ultimate prunability (so a full node may run on your phone).  And withdrawal limits on the account tree enable non-malleable zero-confirmation transactions.

Like E=MC^2, scarcely two dozen people in the world grasp the magnitude of this technology's implications.  

The shilling must end. This is worse than the HashFast thread, where you enticed people into losing millions of dollars.

Perhaps we should refute those claims specifically. The posters here may interested to hear why XCN is not a major advance and a novel solution (I realise it cannot be , because otherwise there would be more buying interest in the XCN market) to blockchain memory and bloat issues.

There must be a number of other alts addressing those issues more successfully (without the shill peddlers)

[Jungian]

It got really quiet in this thread. Did I say something sufficiently offensive, shocking, or motivational?  

Here's a genuine Altcon Observation to discuss:

XCN successfully moved to pruned mode, and its price spiked up ~27% from the deep support at 0.00001375.

XCN cracks two hard nuts at once.  Mini-blockchain is ultimate prunability (so a full node may run on your phone).  And withdrawal limits on the account tree enable non-malleable zero-confirmation transactions.

Like E=MC^2, scarcely two dozen people in the world grasp the magnitude of this technology's implications.  

The shilling must end. This is worse than the HashFast thread, where you enticed people into losing millions of dollars.

Perhaps we should refute those claims specifically. The posters here may interested to hear why XCN is not a major advance and a novel solution (I realise it cannot be , because otherwise there would be more buying interest in the XCN market) to blockchain memory and bloat issues.

There must be a number of other alts addressing those issues more successfully (without the shill peddlers)

I would love to hear why

[darkota]

Simply, any coins are are Bitcoin forks, will fail. Anything noteworthy on an altcoin, like mini-blockchain, Bitcoin can/may incorporate in the future, leaving said altcoin in the dust.

[tacotime]

Perhaps we should refute those claims specifically. The posters here may interested to hear why XCN is not a major advance and a novel solution (I realise it cannot be , because otherwise there would be more buying interest in the XCN market) to blockchain memory and bloat issues.

There must be a number of other alts addressing those issues more successfully (without the shill peddlers)

Mini blockchain (as I understand it) is basically a bitcoin blockchain with an attached ledger (a utxo set). The utxo set is in sync to the network. You can do this on any bitcoin blockchain by pushing some data in the coinbase tx (via OP_RETURN, or whatever) that contains a merkle proof of your utxo set and the merkle root of it (if you're storing your utxo ledger as a merklelized trie). If the proof or root in your coinbase is invalid, the block will be rejected by the network. I'm not 100% sure where this is stored in the mini blockchain scheme, but this is the idea. Bitcoin SPV clients are already doing something similar, although the majority of them with full node activity (eg Maaku's) aren't really production.

When you have a ledger like this, you can just discard the blocks themselves after a certain amount of time, if not immediately, so long as your ledger is sufficient to provide network consensus 100% of the time. It's a known optimization for Bitcoin (and is in the original Bitcoin whitepaper).

There are a few other minor optimizations present in XCN, like pubkey regen from sig

[fluffypony]

Simply, any coins are are Bitcoin forks, will fail. Anything noteworthy on an altcoin, like mini-blockchain, Bitcoin can/may incorporate in the future, leaving said altcoin in the dust.

Seconded - 99.9% of the "features" out there can be incorporated into Bitcoin's codebase in a heartbeat.

Stealth addresses from the genesis block on (an important privacy aspect) are one of the few things they can't do, not without a roll-over to a new genesis block with all outputs being reissued to stealth addresses computed from existing privkeys (read: practically impossible).

For everything else, there's MasterCard Bitcoin.

[Este Nuno]

Simply, any coins are are Bitcoin forks, will fail. Anything noteworthy on an altcoin, like mini-blockchain, Bitcoin can/may incorporate in the future, leaving said altcoin in the dust.

Seconded - 99.9% of the "features" out there can be incorporated into Bitcoin's codebase in a heartbeat.

Stealth addresses from the genesis block on (an important privacy aspect) are one of the few things they can't do, not without a roll-over to a new genesis block with all outputs being reissued to stealth addresses computed from existing privkeys (read: practically impossible).

For everything else, there's MasterCard Bitcoin.

You two really think that Gavin et al are ever incorporating any major features that are found in an alt in to their 8 billion dollar baby?

If it's not something that solves a direct threat or major problem with Bitcoin I would put my money on 'never'. Or at least not in the next 5-10 years.

Everyone always says it would be easy to for Bitcoin to do xyz, but in reality even the simplest things are bogged down in politics.

That's not to say that the Bitcoin's devs aren't doing a great job at what they set out to do: Develop a stable codebase. Competing in the market as a product isn't how I think Bitcoin is run right now. That could change of course, but its not likely to for a long time if ever.

[Este Nuno]

It got really quiet in this thread. Did I say something sufficiently offensive, shocking, or motivational? 

Here's a genuine Altcon Observation to discuss:

XCN successfully moved to pruned mode, and its price spiked up ~27% from the deep support at 0.00001375.

XCN cracks two hard nuts at once.  Mini-blockchain is ultimate prunability (so a full node may run on your phone).  And withdrawal limits on the account tree enable non-malleable zero-confirmation transactions.

Like E=MC^2, scarcely two dozen people in the world grasp the magnitude of this technology's implications.   

The shilling must end. This is worse than the HashFast thread, where you enticed people into losing millions of dollars.

Perhaps we should refute those claims specifically. The posters here may interested to hear why XCN is not a major advance and a novel solution (I realise it cannot be , because otherwise there would be more buying interest in the XCN market) to blockchain memory and bloat issues.

There must be a number of other alts addressing those issues more successfully (without the shill peddlers)

Well from our discussions earlier in the thread a lot of people have come to the conclusion that blockchain bloat just isn't that much of an issue. Or at least in won't be in the future when a blockchain reaches sizes we consider 'bloated' now.

[rdnkjdi]

It got really quiet in this thread. Did I say something sufficiently offensive, shocking, or motivational?  

Here's a genuine Altcon Observation to discuss:

XCN successfully moved to pruned mode, and its price spiked up ~27% from the deep support at 0.00001375.

XCN cracks two hard nuts at once.  Mini-blockchain is ultimate prunability (so a full node may run on your phone).  And withdrawal limits on the account tree enable non-malleable zero-confirmation transactions.

Like E=MC^2, scarcely two dozen people in the world grasp the magnitude of this technology's implications.  

The shilling must end. This is worse than the HashFast thread, where you enticed people into losing millions of dollars.

Perhaps we should refute those claims specifically. The posters here may interested to hear why XCN is not a major advance and a novel solution (I realise it cannot be , because otherwise there would be more buying interest in the XCN market) to blockchain memory and bloat issues.

There must be a number of other alts addressing those issues more successfully (without the shill peddlers)

Well from our discussions earlier in the thread a lot of people have come to the conclusion that blockchain bloat just isn't that much of an issue. Or at least in won't be in the future when a blockchain reaches sizes we consider 'bloated' now.

I do have a question about this.  (I'm very very simpleton in crypto terms - so please don't eat me)

I understand in theory the blockchain shouldn't be an issue.  Even cryptonote (I was reading about how the blockchain when it grew to BTC size would be 10X as big as BTC).  But as a consumer downloading a 20GB database is a fairly big deal with my internet connection.  (I understand I can use litewallets that sync with other servers)

But isn't the blockchain size fairly relevant to keeping decentralization in the sense that bitcoin was originally invented - to be duplicated across hundreds of thousands of consumer machines?  Even at 20GB - with my internet connection I really don't want to download the entire blockchain ...

[JorgeStolfi]

Seconded - 99.9% of the "features" [ of new bitcoin-like altcoins ] out there can be incorporated into Bitcoin's codebase in a heartbeat.

One feature that cannot be incorporated into Bitcoin is the brand new blockchain (i.e. the "radical fork" that starts with a new genesis block).  Also, it would be politically impossible to change the maximum number of Bitcoins (and hence a change in the block reward schedule).

[tacotime]

I do have a question about this.  (I'm very very simpleton in crypto terms - so please don't eat me)

I understand in theory the blockchain shouldn't be an issue.  Even cryptonote (I was reading about how the blockchain when it grew to BTC size would be 10X as big as BTC).  But as a consumer downloading a 20GB database is a fairly big deal with my internet connection.  (I understand I can use litewallets that sync with other servers)

But isn't the blockchain size fairly relevant to keeping decentralization in the sense that bitcoin was originally invented - to be duplicated across hundreds of thousands of consumer machines?  Even at 20GB - with my internet connection I really don't want to download the entire blockchain ...

To even host a full node in a few years will likely consume terabytes to petabytes of data in a month -- this goes for Bitcoin, let alone any of the alts. If you can provide this bandwidth, you can be a full node. As it stands, without running dedicated hosts on corporate connections, most people will never be able to run full nodes, regardless of even their storage space. The real issue restricting centralization is bandwidth, and I doubt this will ever be solved, because you need all the block and tx data that is shipped out across the network. Gavin's latest proposal is a way to optimize it to perhaps 20-50% less bandwidth usage (aside from making syncing much more rapid), but the bandwidth issue still exists and is severe.

So, basically, the idea of totally decentralized full nodes on any cryptocurrency that is even marginally popular is a moot point: it's never going to be the case that ever household in the US is sitting around running a Bitcoin full node because of the bandwidth usage. Perhaps there are ways to form miniature consensus networks on top of the Bitcoin network to address this, but I'm not exactly sure how.

[smooth]

But isn't the blockchain size fairly relevant to keeping decentralization in the sense that bitcoin was originally invented - to be duplicated across hundreds of thousands of consumer machines?  Even at 20GB - with my internet connection I really don't want to download the entire blockchain ...

In the case where hundreds of thousands of people are wanting a copy of a 20 GB block chain we might imagine many possibilities such as:

1. Hundreds of thousands of people have faster internet connections than you, so they download the blockchain, even if you don't.
2. The blockchain comes preloaded on your computer.
3. You buy a 32 GB USB flash drive with the block chain on it. Current retail price for a 32 GB USB drive is $15-20.

I''m sure there others.

[rdnkjdi]

I do have a question about this.  (I'm very very simpleton in crypto terms - so please don't eat me)

I understand in theory the blockchain shouldn't be an issue.  Even cryptonote (I was reading about how the blockchain when it grew to BTC size would be 10X as big as BTC).  But as a consumer downloading a 20GB database is a fairly big deal with my internet connection.  (I understand I can use litewallets that sync with other servers)

But isn't the blockchain size fairly relevant to keeping decentralization in the sense that bitcoin was originally invented - to be duplicated across hundreds of thousands of consumer machines?  Even at 20GB - with my internet connection I really don't want to download the entire blockchain ...

To even host a full node in a few years will likely consume terabytes to petabytes of data in a month -- this goes for Bitcoin, let alone any of the alts. If you can provide this bandwidth, you can be a full node. As it stands, without running dedicated hosts on corporate connections, most people will never be able to run full nodes, regardless of even their storage space. The real issue restricting centralization is bandwidth, and I doubt this will ever be solved, because you need all the block and tx data that is shipped out across the network. Gavin's latest proposal is a way to optimize it to perhaps 20-50% less bandwidth usage (aside from making syncing much more rapid), but the bandwidth issue still exists and is severe.

So, basically, the idea of totally decentralized full nodes on any cryptocurrency that is even marginally popular is a moot point: it's never going to be the case that ever household in the US is sitting around running a Bitcoin full node because of the bandwidth usage. Perhaps there are ways to form miniature consensus networks on top of the Bitcoin network to address this, but I'm not exactly sure how.

thank you for the explanation .. will cryptonote bandwidth be 1/1 on storage requirement increases per transaction over bitcoin?  (Bandwidth requirements = 10X bitcoins)?

[Este Nuno]

It got really quiet in this thread. Did I say something sufficiently offensive, shocking, or motivational?  

Here's a genuine Altcon Observation to discuss:

XCN successfully moved to pruned mode, and its price spiked up ~27% from the deep support at 0.00001375.

XCN cracks two hard nuts at once.  Mini-blockchain is ultimate prunability (so a full node may run on your phone).  And withdrawal limits on the account tree enable non-malleable zero-confirmation transactions.

Like E=MC^2, scarcely two dozen people in the world grasp the magnitude of this technology's implications.  

The shilling must end. This is worse than the HashFast thread, where you enticed people into losing millions of dollars.

Perhaps we should refute those claims specifically. The posters here may interested to hear why XCN is not a major advance and a novel solution (I realise it cannot be , because otherwise there would be more buying interest in the XCN market) to blockchain memory and bloat issues.

There must be a number of other alts addressing those issues more successfully (without the shill peddlers)

Well from our discussions earlier in the thread a lot of people have come to the conclusion that blockchain bloat just isn't that much of an issue. Or at least in won't be in the future when a blockchain reaches sizes we consider 'bloated' now.

I do have a question about this.  (I'm very very simpleton in crypto terms - so please don't eat me)

I understand in theory the blockchain shouldn't be an issue.  Even cryptonote (I was reading about how the blockchain when it grew to BTC size would be 10X as big as BTC).  But as a consumer downloading a 20GB database is a fairly big deal with my internet connection.  (I understand I can use litewallets that sync with other servers)

But isn't the blockchain size fairly relevant to keeping decentralization in the sense that bitcoin was originally invented - to be duplicated across hundreds of thousands of consumer machines?  Even at 20GB - with my internet connection I really don't want to download the entire blockchain ...

I think it's a valid point but compared to something like mining centralization it's relatively minor. It's much easier to have thousands of full nodes all over the world running on VPSs and enthusiast machines than to actually have a healthy distribution of miners.

I know you didn't ask about miners but even having 1000 people running full nodes that enable people to use thin clients is still pretty good while I see mining as the major bottleneck that causes the most centralisation. Much more than lack of node distribution I think.

Having a million nodes would be good too though. A million people running full nodes solo mining on their cell phones would be pretty decentalised.

[smooth]

I do have a question about this.  (I'm very very simpleton in crypto terms - so please don't eat me)

I understand in theory the blockchain shouldn't be an issue.  Even cryptonote (I was reading about how the blockchain when it grew to BTC size would be 10X as big as BTC).  But as a consumer downloading a 20GB database is a fairly big deal with my internet connection.  (I understand I can use litewallets that sync with other servers)

But isn't the blockchain size fairly relevant to keeping decentralization in the sense that bitcoin was originally invented - to be duplicated across hundreds of thousands of consumer machines?  Even at 20GB - with my internet connection I really don't want to download the entire blockchain ...

To even host a full node in a few years will likely consume terabytes to petabytes of data in a month -- this goes for Bitcoin, let alone any of the alts. If you can provide this bandwidth, you can be a full node. As it stands, without running dedicated hosts on corporate connections, most people will never be able to run full nodes, regardless of even their storage space. The real issue restricting centralization is bandwidth, and I doubt this will ever be solved, because you need all the block and tx data that is shipped out across the network. Gavin's latest proposal is a way to optimize it to perhaps 20-50% less bandwidth usage (aside from making syncing much more rapid), but the bandwidth issue still exists and is severe.

So, basically, the idea of totally decentralized full nodes on any cryptocurrency that is even marginally popular is a moot point: it's never going to be the case that ever household in the US is sitting around running a Bitcoin full node because of the bandwidth usage. Perhaps there are ways to form miniature consensus networks on top of the Bitcoin network to address this, but I'm not exactly sure how.

Gavin says 7 TB, certainly not petabytes, and he says his home internet connection could theoretically handle 45k transactions per second (though currently monthly bandwidth limits would prevent this -- in the future who knows).

Scroll to the bottom:

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2

[darkota]

Simply, any coins are are Bitcoin forks, will fail. Anything noteworthy on an altcoin, like mini-blockchain, Bitcoin can/may incorporate in the future, leaving said altcoin in the dust.

Seconded - 99.9% of the "features" out there can be incorporated into Bitcoin's codebase in a heartbeat.

Stealth addresses from the genesis block on (an important privacy aspect) are one of the few things they can't do, not without a roll-over to a new genesis block with all outputs being reissued to stealth addresses computed from existing privkeys (read: practically impossible).

For everything else, there's MasterCard Bitcoin.

You two really think that Gavin et al are ever incorporating any major features that are found in an alt in to their 8 billion dollar baby?

If it's not something that solves a direct threat or major problem with Bitcoin I would put my money on 'never'. Or at least not in the next 5-10 years.

Everyone always says it would be easy to for Bitcoin to do xyz, but in reality even the simplest things are bogged down in politics.

That's not to say that the Bitcoin's devs aren't doing a great job at what they set out to do: Develop a stable codebase. Competing in the market as a product isn't how I think Bitcoin is run right now. That could change of course, but its not likely to for a long time if ever.

Yes he might, there was a thread on the Bitcoin Discussion board about this. Bitcoin would incorporate features that are noteworthy to its cause in the future(so no anonymous features, but mini-blockchain would def be on the list)

[Este Nuno]

Simply, any coins are are Bitcoin forks, will fail. Anything noteworthy on an altcoin, like mini-blockchain, Bitcoin can/may incorporate in the future, leaving said altcoin in the dust.

Seconded - 99.9% of the "features" out there can be incorporated into Bitcoin's codebase in a heartbeat.

Stealth addresses from the genesis block on (an important privacy aspect) are one of the few things they can't do, not without a roll-over to a new genesis block with all outputs being reissued to stealth addresses computed from existing privkeys (read: practically impossible).

For everything else, there's MasterCard Bitcoin.

You two really think that Gavin et al are ever incorporating any major features that are found in an alt in to their 8 billion dollar baby?

If it's not something that solves a direct threat or major problem with Bitcoin I would put my money on 'never'. Or at least not in the next 5-10 years.

Everyone always says it would be easy to for Bitcoin to do xyz, but in reality even the simplest things are bogged down in politics.

That's not to say that the Bitcoin's devs aren't doing a great job at what they set out to do: Develop a stable codebase. Competing in the market as a product isn't how I think Bitcoin is run right now. That could change of course, but its not likely to for a long time if ever.

Yes he might, there was recently a thread on the Bitcoin Discussion board about this. Bitcoin would incorporate features that are noteworthy to its cause in the future(so no anonymous features, but mini-blockchain would def be on the list)

Given Satoshi's original writings on Bitcoin you would think that anonymity would be considered noteworthy to Bitcoin's cause.