Bitcoin Forum
August 19, 2017, 05:47:12 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 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 1032 1033 1034 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1953673 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 02:26:16 PM
 #19661

if I controlled enough hashing power I'd be manipulating the flow of BTC in and out trying to disturb a fixed market equilibrium buying low and converting back,

Please explain how you would do that.
Presumably he refers to sidechains.pdf section 6.1 which describes the forgeability during the contest period by sufficient proof of work via mining.

Quote from: sidechains.pdf
6.1 Hashpower attack resistance
The main thrust of this paper surrounds two-way peg using SPV proofs, which are forgeable by a 51%-majority and blockable by however much hashpower is needed to build a sufficiently-long proof during the transfer’s contest period. (There is a tradeoff on this latter point — if 33% hashpower can block a proof, then 67% is needed to successfully use a false one, and so on.)
Attacking the network in this way is no longer discouraged by having to forgo the income in the coin you are mining.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
1503121632
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503121632

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503121632
Reply with quote  #2

1503121632
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1503121632
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503121632

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503121632
Reply with quote  #2

1503121632
Report to moderator
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 02:32:29 PM
 #19662

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

Guys, 100k TPS would equate to 8.64 billion transactions per day.  There are only 7 billion people on earth.  That is theoretical upper upper upper limit... probably never be reached.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
NotLambchop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 02:52:41 PM
 #19663

...
Guys, 100k TPS would equate to 8.64 billion transactions per day.  There are only 7 billion people on earth.  That is theoretical upper upper upper limit... probably never be reached.

Because no one ever makes more than one financial transaction per day.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 03:17:15 PM
 #19664

nice quote Marc Andreessen

 Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Rawted
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 03:19:42 PM
 #19665

nice quote Marc Andreessen

Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.
I've been saying this for a long time now. The Blockchain will be the only aspect of Bitcoin that survives.

tabnloz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 961


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:02:57 PM
 #19666

nice quote Marc Andreessen

 Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

I thought the blockchain and the currency couldn't be separated. Can a blockchain exist without having a token to secure it? (or have I misinterpreted the entire thing - long day)
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:05:34 PM
 #19667

The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO.  Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out.  Our solution should be sidechains.  Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work.  Its time for this to happen.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:07:13 PM
 #19668

nice quote Marc Andreessen

 Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

I thought the blockchain and the currency couldn't be separated. Can a blockchain exist without having a token to secure it? (or have I misinterpreted the entire thing - long day)

No.  The currency and the blockchain cannot be separated.  A blockchain without a currency has no security.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


¯\_(ツ)_/¯


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 04:13:27 PM
 #19669

...
Guys, 100k TPS would equate to 8.64 billion transactions per day.  There are only 7 billion people on earth.  That is theoretical upper upper upper limit... probably never be reached.

Because no one ever makes more than one financial transaction per day.

Quite a few transactions are internal.    We do have places like Casinos producing alot of transactions but do they post every one to the blockchain separately ?
I think much less then 1 per person is reasonable as small commerce should not be broadcast with the same security as larger more important transactions that do need a full record
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:45:35 PM
 #19670

The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO.  Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out.  Our solution should be sidechains.  Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work.  Its time for this to happen.

no, not necessarily.  your assumption is that SC's are more secure than current exchange models.  the only way to achieve this is to obtain 100% MM cooperation from miners.  there is no model for this and the best we have is about 55% for NMC.  just given the fact that some miners won't be aware of SC existence if and when they do come to fruition means they won't be mining SC's which means there will be <100% for sure.  theoretically, anything <100% MM'ing is vulnerable and i'm sure this can be mathematically modelled.

plus, i'm not sure where all this desire comes from to "bailout" speculators on current exchanges.  b/c that is what they are, imo.  the reason i have never lost a coin is b/c i realize that Bitcoin is about increasing personal responsibility by becoming your own bank.  i have never used an exchange as a trading mechanism and have just used them to buy and move coin to my privkeys.  SC's are an attempt to bailout the individual speculator who wishes to leave their coin on some speculative trading platform.  but even that doesn't work b/c of the MM'ing fallacies i've outlined above.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:51:56 PM
 #19671

I'm still numb from reading the Side Chain white paper and trying to figure how they plan to wrangle their mining pools into a reliable source of metadata. I'll await details on that.
If you think Side Chains are sketchy, check out the Internet of Coins white paper.
I only glanced at it so far. First of all, why does everyone seem to think PoS is so great an incentive? Answer: Because human labor can be farmed cheaper and easier than technology. Then there's Proof of Allocation. The thing is, you have to trade something for something else.  I came up with a rudimentary (and completely ignored) idea for a multicoin system in 2012 based on Rock Paper Scissors as the analog called Proof of Merit.

I don't understand these kitchen sink mentalities. I'm starting to like Bitcoin as money more and more, because humans will always find greater levels of abstraction.

What mining pools  Huh

talk about confused; even after Adam pointed out to you that federated servers are intermediaries that stand btwn the MC and SC.  son, mining pools are who are needed to MM the SC for security and transactional integrity, remember?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 04:52:58 PM
 #19672

nice quote Marc Andreessen

 Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

I thought the blockchain and the currency couldn't be separated. Can a blockchain exist without having a token to secure it? (or have I misinterpreted the entire thing - long day)

No.  The currency and the blockchain cannot be separated.  A blockchain without a currency has no security.

yep, this is the correct view.

just goes to show you how early we all are.  even our greatest public proponent seems not to get it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:11:09 PM
 #19673

how does the IBLT scale with the size of the block UTXO set?  linearly or by some other ratio?

edit:  actually iirc, it scales with the size of the difference btwn UTXO set estimates across the network.  iow, a UTXO set estimated to be 99% similar across the network will allow a miner to send a smaller IBLT when solving a block than a UTXO set estimated to be only 89% similar across the network.  is that right?

Yes. The size of an IBLT does depend upon the average expected number of differences between the unconfirmed tx mempools of the majority of the nodes. Because each node has independent choice on which tx to accept or reject then it is impossible to be precise, in advance, about how efficient IBLT will be. Miners will always want to propagate small blocks, so there will be an incentive for mining nodes to find consensus on their tx mempools. Gavin describes it:

RE: O(1) versus O(some-function-of-total-number-of-transactions):

Yes, it will depend on whether or not the number of differences goes up as the number of transactions goes up.

The incentives align so it is in everybody's best interest to make the differences as small as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if that causes innovations to drive the actual size to O(1) minus an increasing constant, as code gets better at predicting which transactions our peers do or don't have.

It is also worth noting that IBLT can be implemented on top of other block propagation models, such as Matt Corallo's block relay system, which already saves on bandwidth.

with anything new like this, i'm interested in knowing the upper and lower bounds of the IBLT data size.

lower bound:  theoretically, as the UTXO set difference shrinks to zero with 0 network latency, the IBLT will shrink similarly but can never reach zero since it has to at minimum relay enough data to convey the exact subset of tx's included in the miner's block.  how small can this data get esp in relation to the avg block size now?

upper bound:  if the UTXO set difference is 100%, how big does the IBLT data size get?  or does the entire IBLT concept fall apart at some intermediate set difference?
Patel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1267



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 05:11:11 PM
 #19674

Actually, a blockchain can have security without a currency.

It would be less decentralized though.

For example, you have GovBlockchain. Secured by proof of work. The blockchain could be so important, that government would secure it without any financial incentives, and mandate all record keeping to be done on this blockchain, secured by hundreds of 3 letter agencies.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:12:03 PM
 #19675

The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO.  Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out.  Our solution should be sidechains.  Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work.  Its time for this to happen.

no, not necessarily.  your assumption is that SC's are more secure than current exchange models.  the only way to achieve this is to obtain 100% MM cooperation from miners.  there is no model for this and the best we have is about 55% for NMC.  just given the fact that some miners won't be aware of SC existence if and when they do come to fruition means they won't be mining SC's which means there will be <100% for sure.  theoretically, anything <100% MM'ing is vulnerable and i'm sure this can be mathematically modelled.

plus, i'm not sure where all this desire comes from to "bailout" speculators on current exchanges.  b/c that is what they are, imo.  the reason i have never lost a coin is b/c i realize that Bitcoin is about increasing personal responsibility by becoming your own bank.  i have never used an exchange as a trading mechanism and have just used them to buy and move coin to my privkeys.  SC's are an attempt to bailout the individual speculator who wishes to leave their on some speculative trading platform.  but even that doesn't work b/c of the MM'ing fallacies i've outlined above.

If
 a) you build exchange as SC using SNARK
and
 b) bitcoin protocol will be able to verify this SC (sequence of bid/ask/deposit/withdrawal signed by owners) using OP_SIDECHAIN_VERIFY
then
  NO MM is required. It will impossible to stole bitcoins from exchange.  

-> this is how I see SC.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 05:13:07 PM
 #19676

It is the particular approach to sharding that makes it less secure, to reduce bandwidth.

I agree that sharding reduces security. I wouldn't propose sharding the blockchain as a scapability solution.[/quote]

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.

You're saying that retaining the possibility for home computers to be full nodes is both necessary and desirable.

I understand that many people have made this claim over the years, but I am not aware of any attempts to actually prove either of those.

One of the problematic implicit assumptions I can identify in that claim is that if home users can't run nodes, the number of total nodes in the network would decrease.

Why would anyone assume that in a future Bitcoin economy that generated 100k tps of demand would not fewer business users running full nodes then than home users running full nodes today?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:14:32 PM
 #19677

Actually, a blockchain can have security without a currency.

It would be less decentralized though.

For example, you have GovBlockchain. Secured by proof of work. The blockchain could be so important, that government would secure it without any financial incentives, and mandate all record keeping to be done on this blockchain, secured by hundreds of 3 letter agencies.


but that is not practical nor realistic.

at that level of abstraction, gvt's should not bother with a blockchain as no one would trust the data integrity of GovBlockchain.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:22:45 PM
 #19678

The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO.  Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out.  Our solution should be sidechains.  Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work.  Its time for this to happen.

no, not necessarily.  your assumption is that SC's are more secure than current exchange models.  the only way to achieve this is to obtain 100% MM cooperation from miners.  there is no model for this and the best we have is about 55% for NMC.  just given the fact that some miners won't be aware of SC existence if and when they do come to fruition means they won't be mining SC's which means there will be <100% for sure.  theoretically, anything <100% MM'ing is vulnerable and i'm sure this can be mathematically modelled.

plus, i'm not sure where all this desire comes from to "bailout" speculators on current exchanges.  b/c that is what they are, imo.  the reason i have never lost a coin is b/c i realize that Bitcoin is about increasing personal responsibility by becoming your own bank.  i have never used an exchange as a trading mechanism and have just used them to buy and move coin to my privkeys.  SC's are an attempt to bailout the individual speculator who wishes to leave their on some speculative trading platform.  but even that doesn't work b/c of the MM'ing fallacies i've outlined above.

If
 a) you build exchange as SC using SNARK
and
 b) bitcoin protocol will be able to verify this SC (sequence of bid/ask/deposit/withdrawal signed by owners) using OP_SIDECHAIN_VERIFY
then
  NO MM is required. It will impossible to stole bitcoins from exchange.  

-> this is how I see SC.



that's interesting.  i tried listening to that video of SNARK and boy was that complex.  certainly not yet developed.

but let's say SNARKS do come to fruition.  wouldn't it be better to integrate it into Bitcoin if possible?  this would prevent existing cold wallets from having to migrate to the SNARK SC which would save alot of ppl time and headache, not to mention all the ppl who WON'T have heard of this new SC and the need to move their BTC. 

if it turns out SNARKS are not implementable into Bitcoin and are somehow able to prove that it's functionality is SO MUCH better than Bitcoin, then maybe.  we'll have to see about that.

but that's not really what we're talking about here.  we're discussing spvp, a 2 way peg.  if what you're talking about comes to fruition, we'd be only needing a 1 way peg, which technically is simpler and probably safer for Bitcoin MC.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:37:33 PM
 #19679

The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO.  Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out.  Our solution should be sidechains.  Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work.  Its time for this to happen.

no, not necessarily.  your assumption is that SC's are more secure than current exchange models.  the only way to achieve this is to obtain 100% MM cooperation from miners.  there is no model for this and the best we have is about 55% for NMC.  just given the fact that some miners won't be aware of SC existence if and when they do come to fruition means they won't be mining SC's which means there will be <100% for sure.  theoretically, anything <100% MM'ing is vulnerable and i'm sure this can be mathematically modelled.

plus, i'm not sure where all this desire comes from to "bailout" speculators on current exchanges.  b/c that is what they are, imo.  the reason i have never lost a coin is b/c i realize that Bitcoin is about increasing personal responsibility by becoming your own bank.  i have never used an exchange as a trading mechanism and have just used them to buy and move coin to my privkeys.  SC's are an attempt to bailout the individual speculator who wishes to leave their coin on some speculative trading platform.  but even that doesn't work b/c of the MM'ing fallacies i've outlined above.

Its not just speculators that use the exchanges.  The sidechain model is not a bailout, it is a potentially more secure financial system where users have much less exposure to theft.  While bitcoin is still in beta, I don't see any reason to not implement it.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2240


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 05:46:12 PM
 #19680


Doesn't matter if the transaction fees are high or low.  Doesn't matter if ....

To be honest, I have not previously considered the points you make above. I have always taken Satoshi's block rewards->fees evolution at face value, and am not convinced that the majority of miners will work for zero income. Obviously this does happen to some of them, occasionally.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see you say this.  Still, it's a hypothesis on my part, and the appropriate thing to do with a hypothesis is to file it away and match it against future observations.

Another somewhat weaker hypothesis is that some of the value streams that I alluded to are quite valuable indeed if enough data can be collected.  We could see mining completely subsidized in order to capture these value streams (and other's I've not thought of.)

With respect to the 'who spends what where' data, the 'who' part is still the most challenging.  Eventually Big Bro will probably solve that with a 'internet drivers license' type thing, but if/when that happens it's still not clear how available the data will be to private industry.  It will probably be a 'public/private partnership' arrangement with horse-trading that favors the big guys would be my guess.  In the here-and-now, when you see someone wanting you to use a particular authenticator, it's a pretty sure bet that that is what they are after.  Outfits with a large network footprint have other ways of course, but authentication optimizes things significantly.

A very common way to make money in tech is to achieve something that a big player will want then either sell it to them or sell the ability to obtain it (e.g., your company.)  One of my (very initial) hypothesis about OpenTransaction is that this might be their game because a successful transport layer would be a high-value item in a bunch of ways.

A real-world analogy must be the oil market. With the oil price down 45% a lot of producers are unprofitable, pumping for zero, and considering closing down. But there are profitable producers and the oil industry will continue, even if the price stays low and half of the producers go out of business.

The energy markets are probably about the worst example of a 'free market' that one could find.  For one, there are huge national security issues which touch almost every aspect of it.  For two, it's probably not a complete junk theory that our monetary system itself(!) is heavily tied in through what is monikered the 'petro-dollar' (and the 'world reserve currency' status of the USD.)  None-the-less, the old supply/demand laws are so powerful that they cannot be buried forever and they can be expected to rear their 'ugly heads' even in a heavily manipulated market like energy...with time...


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1032 1033 1034 ... 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!