Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 04:33:55 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 [981] 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010878 times)
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 09:08:38 PM
 #19601

He thinks he can get to 100k TPS.
What's the problem with doing 100k TPS on the main chain?

(other than non-answers like "it's hard to do")

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...

Quote from: adam3us
I really dont think you want that on the main chain because its weaker, and he cut down a lot of bitcoin features to get it.  But its useful.

I am talking about the specific sharding approach.  Its not easy sharding a block chain, and he made security tradeoffs to do it.

Nothing against someone doing it if they can do it securely (ie without impacting the security of the rest of the coins on the chain) or without making the centralisation very bad.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
1511282035
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511282035

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511282035
Reply with quote  #2

1511282035
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511282035
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511282035

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511282035
Reply with quote  #2

1511282035
Report to moderator
1511282035
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511282035

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511282035
Reply with quote  #2

1511282035
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:09:15 PM
 #19602

...
Some bizarre form of Tourette Syndrome

What question?

The question was snipped in a cowardly weasely and entirely unsurprising sort of way, but the link still works.  I think even you will be able to understand it, but I'll try to make it even more elementary if need be.  Note that even Justus readily admits that the actual reward that miners can achieve will approach zero due to unlimited supply of hashing power.  Knock yourself out.

Btw, you said above you would prefer SC's to be tokenized  systems because of efficiency, speed  and ease of use. Are you crazy or is this a holdover from your socialist days?

It's a holdover from the last time I pulled out my wallet and paid my neighbor for something he had and I wanted.

You really have zero ability to visualize abstraction do you?  Read my post above where I outlined some of the REAL problems with sidechains.  It doesn't matter how the back-end of a sidechain happens to work, and there are a vast number of possibilities (that's one of the main points of sidechains!)  If you don't like or don't understand a particular sidechain, don't use it.  What is it about freedom of choice that confuses you Libertarians so thoroughly?


Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:13:49 PM
 #19603

He thinks he can get to 100k TPS.
What's the problem with doing 100k TPS on the main chain?

(other than non-answers like "it's hard to do")

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...

Quote from: adam3us
I really dont think you want that on the main chain because its weaker, and he cut down a lot of bitcoin features to get it.  But its useful.

I am talking about the specific sharding approach.  Its not easy sharding a block chain, and he made security tradeoffs to do it.

Nothing against someone doing it if they can do it securely (ie without impacting the security of the rest of the coins on the chain) or without making the centralisation very bad.

Adam


Seems he does not understand what is "100k TPS".

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:34:11 PM
 #19604

He thinks he can get to 100k TPS.
What's the problem with doing 100k TPS on the main chain?

(other than non-answers like "it's hard to do")

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...

Quote from: adam3us
I really dont think you want that on the main chain because its weaker, and he cut down a lot of bitcoin features to get it.  But its useful.

I am talking about the specific sharding approach.  Its not easy sharding a block chain, and he made security tradeoffs to do it.

Nothing against someone doing it if they can do it securely (ie without impacting the security of the rest of the coins on the chain) or without making the centralisation very bad.

Adam


Seems he do not understand what is 100k TPS.

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day

True, but that would be 10x Visa's peak rate. Their average rate is more like 2000.

I'm not sure of 100k was meant as the peak or average, I'd assume peak. 

My home cablemodem connection can handle 10,000.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:34:57 PM
 #19605


Seems he do not understand what is 100k TPS.

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day

In all honesty, that's not a particular challenge, but you'll be able to do it more efficiently than your competition if you have some of these scattered around the world:



but you probably won't be allowed to operate it for long without hooking up to one of these:



Actually, the real meat of the problem is related to network stuff which is harder to explain pictorially.


JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:42:06 PM
 #19606

Gold outperformed every currency apart from the US $ in 2014, 0.8% down on the year

Wait, but why are you looking only at the last year?  If you look at, say, the last 4 years, the picture is quite different.
If that is the way we should look at the bitcoin price...  Grin

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:48:13 PM
 #19607

Gold outperformed every currency apart from the US $ in 2014, 0.8% down on the year

Wait, but why are you looking only at the last year?  If you look at, say, the last 4 years, the picture is quite different.
If that is the way we should look at the bitcoin price...  Grin

Wait, but why are you looking only at the last 4 year? If you look at, say, the last 40 years, the picture is quite different.
markj113
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:52:19 PM
 #19608

Gold outperformed every currency apart from the US $ in 2014, 0.8% down on the year

Wait, but why are you looking only at the last year?  If you look at, say, the last 4 years, the picture is quite different.
If that is the way we should look at the bitcoin price...  Grin

Because I started buying gold Jan 2014

Gold 1985 to date -






░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀█████████
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████
░░░░▄███████▄░░░░████████
░░░░███████████░░░░██████
░░░▀███████████░░░░████░░
███▄░░░░░░░░░░▀████░░░███░░██
█████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████░░░██░░██
█████████████▄░░████░░░░░
░░█████████████░░█████
░░░░█████████▀░░░██████▌
░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀░░░░▄████████▌
░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄███████
SuperNET.org
..BarterDEX..
.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
DECENTRALIZED CRYPTOCURRENCY EXCHANGE
Developed to Unite Coin Communities | ✔ SECURE ✔ FREE ✔ VISIBILITY ✔ EASY INTEGRATION |

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 09:55:56 PM
 #19609

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...
I though you meant one particular method of doing 100k tps was insecure, not the mere fact of achieving that rate.

Can you explain what about higher transaction rates inherently makes the blockchain less secure?

Seems he does not understand what is "100k TPS".

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day
Yes, I can do math.

So 100k TPS means 2.25 TB / day of transaction data.

What's your point?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:59:21 PM
 #19610


And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.

You are so confused. :-)

Yeah right. I think you are based on what you've said. Why did you confirm what JStolfi said and that is the concept we've gone over many times.

Id also like to see evidence of just who is MM'ing your federated servers that you claim are running.  
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:01:24 PM
 #19611

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...
I though you meant one particular method of doing 100k tps was insecure, not the mere fact of achieving that rate.

Can you explain what about higher transaction rates inherently makes the blockchain less secure?

Seems he does not understand what is "100k TPS".

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day
Yes, I can do math.

So 100k TPS means 2.25 TB / day of transaction data.

What's your point?

Looks like you know how to improve MC so we can do 100k TPS. Please explain.
Do not respond with "Increase blocksize to 16 GB."
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:03:08 PM
 #19612

Yet this from you:

what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain  Huh

You have spoken at length about federated servers without ever actually understanding how they work.

Why should I take your opinion seriously or even consider your attacks on sidechains if I cannot trust anymore whether or not you grok them?

This discussion has been all over the place and plastered with comments and critiques from people who have apparently not even taken a minute to understand the concepts behind the sidechain technology.

What's more concerning is the actions of others who are blindly supporting these assertions and increasing the confusion.

I appreciate the contributions of most here, especially Adam but some would really benefit from stepping outside this cacophony and sharpen their understanding instead of adding to the noise.

It doesn't change any of the conclusions I've made. We've talked about this many times and you've never bothered to clarify the concept so I doubt you understand any better than the rest of us. Your noise to signal ratio is so high.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:35:37 PM
 #19613


And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.

You are so confused. :-)

actually i think you are incredibly confused since you're trying to secure all these supposed federated server SC's you claim are running with minimal MM'ing.  you should let me know where these are located so i can go perform a 51% and destroy them  Grin
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:48:00 PM
 #19614

 It doesn't matter how the back-end of a sidechain happens to work, and there are a vast number of possibilities (that's one of the main points of sidechains!)  

if that's how you view SC's then we don't need them.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:51:33 PM
 #19615

Please let me try again to spread my ignorance about sidechains.  Grin

Perhaps the sidechains project could be renamed "ways in which the bitcoin network (BCN) can interact with other internet services, and how the bitcoin protocol (BCP) would have to be modified to allow them".  These "other services" being the "sidechains".

Different people have different ideas of what sort of services would qualify for "sidechains", but let's not focus on that, focus instead on the interactions.  In order to exclude those variable assumptions, I will use the term "bitcoin-dependent service" (BDS) instead of "sidechain".

I gather that there are at least three kinds of interactions that are being discussed:

1. Bitcoins may be somehow be "moved"  from the BTC blockchain to the BDS, who would handle them in some way, and eventually "return" them to the BTC blockchain.  

   This kind of interaction does not seem to require any change in the BCP
   or the BCN, and in fact is routinely used by exchanges
   and other similar services.   It would suffice to move the coins
   to BTC addresses whose private keys are known and
   managed by the BDS. To "return" the coins, the BDS
   would have only to sign transactions out of those
   addresses.
  
   The BDS is free to manage the private keys of its
   addresses any way it sees fit. The BDS may allow its
   users to generate those addresses and keep the keys, or
   it may keep the keys in its central servers, or it may
   use the standard bitcoin multisig mechanism, etc.
  
   Thus the bitcoin network does not even need to know that
   the BDS exists; and this use of the BCN by the BDS is
   "fair use" by tradition and design.

2. The BDS may exploit the power of the BCN to secure its data structures against tampering or rewind

   This interaction too does not seem to require any
   additional mechanism in the BCN or the BCP. The BDS
   computes a SHA hash of the data it wants to secure, and
   sends to the BCN a transaction request containing that
   hash, possibly disguised.  Once the transaction is
   included in the bitcoin blockchain, anyone can detect if
   the original data is posted by the BDS and has
   not been tampered with.
  
   The BDS could do this operation at a rate higher than the
   bitcoin block rate, in which case each bitcoin block will
   contain several of those hashes. However, BDS users wishing
   to verify the hashes would still have to wait for the
   next bitcoin block, and possibly several blocks. These
   BDS hashes may be Merkle-chained and combined with any
   Byzantine generals mechanism by the BDS to achieve other
   kinds of security.  The BCN does not need to know that.
  
   One thing "morally wrong" with this solution is that it
   is "parasitic": the BDS would enjoy, almost for free,
   the same level of  security against tampering that would
   otherwise require a separate network with the same power
   of the BCN. The BDS would have to pay a transaction fee
   to the BCN for each stamp, but the fees currently are
   negligible compared to  the cost of the BCN. That is an
   unfortunate consequence of the BCP, that offloads
   the cost of the BCN to the the buyers of new bitcoins.
  
3. The BDS could use the full power of the BCN to implement its own PoW mechanisms by merged mining

   I don't understand enough of the discussion to tell
   whether this kind of interaction would provide more
   utility to the BDS than item 2 above, but let's suppose
   it does.  On the other hand, it would provide more
   incentives to the BCN, though which may be important
   if the rewards and fees derived from bitcoin mining
   were to dwindle.
  
   If I understood correctly, in the simplest scheme each
   node in the BCN would collect work requests from the
   affiliated BDSes. Each request would contain a hash of some
   arbitrary data that the BDS wants to secure. The node
   assembles a bitcoin block containing some bitcoin
   transactions and those BDS hashes, and then tries to solve
   the PoW puzzle for that block, as in the current
   protocol.

   Each work request would also specify an
   associated difficulty level and a reward value, either in
   bitcoins or in some tokens defined by the BDS. The bitcoin block
   itself would be one of those requests. As the node keeps
   working, its best solution will satisfy an increasing
   subset of the work requests. At any moment the node may
   decide to stop, collect the rewards it has won, and start
   all over, or continue trying to find a better solution.
   To claim the rewards the node sends the whole bitcoin
   block, with the best nonce, to each BDS in that subset.
  
   Is this a vaguely correct description of merged mining?
  
   If so, I suppose that some nontrivial mechanism/protocol
   would be needed to ensure that the affiliated BDSes pay
   the promised rewards, either in BTC or in their own
   tokens.  Would this require a change in the BCP?
  
   Merged mining would proveide an incentive for miners to service
   all BDSes that pay enough rewards.  The BDSes, in turn, would again
   get the power of the full BCN for a fraction of the cost.
   Indeed, merge mining would support a larger network than
   could be supported by bitcoin alone.  

   A BDS could get faster turnaround than bitcoin's (say 1 request
   every 10 seconds) by specifying a lower difficulty and
   proportionally lower reward.
  
   A possible "danger" that I see in this idea is that
   bitcoin itself would be just a BDS like any other
   (except that it dictates the format of the solved block,
   which the other BDSs would have to accept). Thus the
   miners may eventually abandon bitcoin if it is not
   profitable enough compared with the other BDSes.
  
Does this make any sense?

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:55:54 PM
 #19616


And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.

You are so confused. :-)

actually i think you are incredibly confused since you're trying to secure all these supposed federated server SC's you claim are running with minimal MM'ing.  you should let me know where these are located so i can go perform a 51% and destroy them  Grin

You do not understand tech. :-)
 - 1 timestamp is equal to 100% MM
 - SC can use POS or login to central server ... I really do not need to share my blockchain with 7B unknown people. (I work together with only few people, and do shopping in less than 100 local shops )
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 11:02:47 PM
 #19617

Please let me try again to spread my ignorance about sidechains.  Grin

Perhaps the sidechains project could be renamed "ways in which the bitcoin network (BCN) can interact with other internet services, and how the bitcoin protocol (BCP) would have to be modified to allow them".  These "other services" being the "sidechains".

Different people have different ideas of what sort of services would qualify for "sidechains", but let's not focus on that, focus instead on the interactions.  In order to exclude those variable assumptions, I will use the term "bitcoin-dependent service" (BDS) instead of "sidechain".

I gather that there are at least three kinds of interactions that are being discussed:

1. Bitcoins may be somehow be "moved"  from the BTC blockchain to the BDS, who would handle them in some way, and eventually "return" them to the BTC blockchain.  

   This kind of interaction does not seem to require any change in the BCP
   or the BCN, and in fact is routinely used by exchanges
   and other similar services.   It would suffice to move the coins
   to BTC addresses whose private keys are known and
   managed by the BDS. To "return" the coins, the BDS
   would have only to sign transactions out of those
   addresses.
  
   The BDS is free to manage the private keys of its
   addresses any way it sees fit. The BDS may allow its
   users to generate those addresses and keep the keys, or
   it may keep the keys in its central servers, or it may
   use the standard bitcoin multisig mechanism, etc.
  
   Thus the bitcoin network does not even need to know that
   the BDS exists; and this use of the BCN by the BDS is
   "fair use" by tradition and design

I'm sorry but these are not sidechains. In this scenario there exist only one blockchain, Bitcoin's, where the units are stored/assigned to wallets and not a secondary blockchain.

Exchanges for example have multiple wallets storing their clients' fund and an internal ledger of ownership that determines how much bitcoins every clients are storing.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 11:14:12 PM
 #19618

 It doesn't matter how the back-end of a sidechain happens to work, and there are a vast number of possibilities (that's one of the main points of sidechains!)  

if that's how you view SC's then we don't need them.

Looks like you've been reduced to utter babble as best I can tell.  You must have had a peek at my question and it fused your couple dozen neurons together.


JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 11:33:48 PM
 #19619

I gather that there are at least three kinds of interactions that are being discussed:
1. Bitcoins may be somehow be "moved"  from the BTC blockchain to the BDS, who would handle them in some way, and eventually "return" them to the BTC blockchain.  
I'm sorry but these are not sidechains. In this scenario there exist only one blockchain, Bitcoin's, where the units are stored/assigned to wallets and not a secondary blockchain.
Exchanges for example have multiple wallets storing their clients' fund and an internal ledger of ownership that determines how much bitcoins every clients are storing.

Sorry, I was not clear.  The three items I listed are not alternative views of "sidechains", but three independent interaction mechanisms that would together comprise the "sidechains proposal".  (Or perhaps only 1+2, or 1+3 if 2 is superfluous once one has 3).

My understanding is that interactions of type 1 and 2 do not require a change in protocol or in the mining software, and in fact the bitcoin network cannot prevent them.  I suppose that interactions of type 3 (merged mining) would require restructuring of the BCN but no change in the BCP, and each miner would be free to choose which "sidechains" it wants to merge-mine.

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 11:40:48 PM
 #19620

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...
I though you meant one particular method of doing 100k tps was insecure, not the mere fact of achieving that rate.

Can you explain what about higher transaction rates inherently makes the blockchain less secure?

You probably didnt read what I said about pettycoin, nor the 1hr video where Rusty Russel explains it at a conference.

It is the particular approach to sharding that makes it less secure, to reduce bandwidth.  He proposes to shard it 100 ways and have each node only validate two shards, but mine all 100 via (the other 98 blind assuming the other miners are not cheating, they have a way to prove fraud, so long as no one succeeds to jam them)

Not directly less secure, but indirectly Bitcoin security also relies on decentralisation and that'd be a 15 GB block, and not many people have enough bandwidth to do that.  (And sharding it is also less secure).

Snarks could do something but we cant rely on this yet IMO and I am not sure if they're fast enough to keep up computationally.

Quote from: JustusRanvier
Seems he does not understand what is "100k TPS".

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day
Yes, I can do math.

What's your point?

That if your home computer had to do 2.25TB/day down to be a full node you might not be able to do it, which is a centralising factor.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
Pages: « 1 ... 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 [981] 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 ... 1558 »
  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!