Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 05:17:22 AM *
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 ... 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 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2008783 times)
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 09:26:14 PM
 #19961

Hey guys. What is being done (or what can be done) about competing with the likes of Visa as far as number of transactions it can accomodate and how quickly?

payment channels is the easiest best solution out there ... about 6 months away.

OT is next best, clumsy in comparison to payment channels but less bitcoin-centric and more versatile, any day we are repeatedly told ...

1510982242
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510982242

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510982242
Reply with quote  #2

1510982242
Report to moderator
1510982242
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510982242

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510982242
Reply with quote  #2

1510982242
Report to moderator
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.
1510982242
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510982242

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510982242
Reply with quote  #2

1510982242
Report to moderator
1510982242
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510982242

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510982242
Reply with quote  #2

1510982242
Report to moderator
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 09:55:02 PM
 #19962

Hey guys. What is being done (or what can be done) about competing with the likes of Visa as far as number of transactions it can accomodate and how quickly?

SIDECHAINS  Cheesy

Cypherdoc don't like sidechains. Are you poking him or is this your final answer? Cheesy

Cypherdoc does not understand tech.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:19:51 PM
 #19963

fantastic summary

thanks, keep in mind, though: this is my somewhat simplified view. I might have missed something or even misunderstood.

to clarify.  it still means that we need to increase the block size concurrently with this proposal to accommodate the eventual full block construction that every miner maintaining a full node will need to perform after the IBLT has arrived and been verified.  it's just that the IBLT will allow a faster and smaller data "announcement" across the network that a new block has been found by the announcing miner.  if a receiving miner verifies the IBLT announcement, it can immediately start crunching the next block, which saves everyone time.

Yes.

It saves time and it should reduce orphans, thus also increase security a bit because less hashrate is lost to orphans.

And yes: we still need to increase the max blocksize (or do other more fancy stuff) if we want to handle more transactions. But: use of this scheme greatly reduces a problem (namely the cost/disincentive to mine large blocks) that would only grow more relevant with increasing transaction rate / block sizes.

And if I thought this through correctly back then it's something that can be done without requiring a fork of any kind by just a subset of collaborating miners. There is economic incentive to do this, but maybe it's not large enough at this point to overcome the effort to orchestrate, develop and deploy. There might also be other, maybe even simpler schemes that achieve the same thing. For all I know this (or something like it) could be in use already even without us knowing.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:30:35 PM
 #19964

And yes: we still need to increase the max blocksize (or do other more fancy stuff) if we want to handle more transactions. But: use of this scheme greatly reduces a problem (namely the cost/disincentive to mine large blocks) that would only grow more relevant with increasing transaction rate / block sizes.

Absolutely. And looking some years ahead, this scheme is make or break when competing head-on with the likes of MC and VISA.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:39:38 PM
 #19965

Hey guys. What is being done (or what can be done) about competing with the likes of Visa as far as number of transactions it can accomodate and how quickly?

SIDECHAINS  Cheesy

Cypherdoc don't like sidechains. Are you poking him or is this your final answer? Cheesy

Cypherdoc does not understand tech.

Or the economics for that matter.  He gets things right occasionally in one of those 'every squirrel finds a nut sometimes' sort of ways.

 edit: typo.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:47:26 PM
 #19966

Hey guys. What is being done (or what can be done) about competing with the likes of Visa as far as number of transactions it can accomodate and how quickly?

SIDECHAINS  Cheesy

Cypherdoc don't like sidechains. Are you poking him or is this your final answer? Cheesy

Cypherdoc does not understand tech.

no, i just don't understand your tech.

btw, you never explained to all of us just how you've implemented your federated server SC model that you claim are already operating; as if we who are opposed to SC's should just capitulate for this very reason.  i already explained how fucked up and insecure your federated server with SC model is already.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:49:14 PM
 #19967

Hey guys. What is being done (or what can be done) about competing with the likes of Visa as far as number of transactions it can accomodate and how quickly?

SIDECHAINS  Cheesy

Cypherdoc don't like sidechains. Are you poking him or is this your final answer? Cheesy

Cypherdoc does not understand tech.

Or the economics for that matter.  He gets things right occasionally in one of those 'ever squirrel finds a nut sometimes' sort of ways.



says the assclown who thinks SC's are tokens; or at least should be.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:52:28 PM
 #19968

Hey guys. What is being done (or what can be done) about competing with the likes of Visa as far as number of transactions it can accomodate and how quickly?

SIDECHAINS  Cheesy

Cypherdoc don't like sidechains. Are you poking him or is this your final answer? Cheesy

Cypherdoc does not understand tech.

Or the economics for that matter.  He gets things right occasionally in one of those 'ever squirrel finds a nut sometimes' sort of ways.

says the assclown who thinks SC's are tokens; or at least should be.

Some implemented in the back-end as such when it makes sense to do so given the goals of the particular sidechain.  Gotta problem with that cypherthick?


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:59:08 PM
 #19969

Hey guys. What is being done (or what can be done) about competing with the likes of Visa as far as number of transactions it can accomodate and how quickly?

SIDECHAINS  Cheesy

Cypherdoc don't like sidechains. Are you poking him or is this your final answer? Cheesy

Cypherdoc does not understand tech.

Or the economics for that matter.  He gets things right occasionally in one of those 'ever squirrel finds a nut sometimes' sort of ways.

says the assclown who thinks SC's are tokens; or at least should be.

Some implemented in the back-end as such when it makes sense to do so given the goals of the particular sidechain.  Gotta problem with that cypherthick?



yeah, i do have a problem with that, given the general philosophy around here by most that we're trying to reduce our dependence on centralized corrupt entities.

but of course, given your Socialistic background and propensity to favor statist tendencies, this is probably right up your alley, tvbcroc?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 11:08:48 PM
 #19970

it should reduce orphans, thus also increase security a bit because less hashrate is lost to orphans.

thanks.  i hadn't appreciated these 2 additional points.
Quote

And if I thought this through correctly back then it's something that can be done without requiring a fork of any kind by just a subset of collaborating miners.

how so?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 11:49:36 PM
 #19971


says the assclown who thinks SC's are tokens; or at least should be.

Some implemented in the back-end as such when it makes sense to do so given the goals of the particular sidechain.  Gotta problem with that cypherthick?

yeah, i do have a problem with that, given the general philosophy around here by most that we're trying to reduce our dependence on centralized corrupt entities.

but of course, given your Socialistic background and propensity to favor statist tendencies, this is probably right up your alley, tvbcroc?

You don't understand 'dependency' either, eh?  Who could have guessed.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 11, 2015, 01:01:20 AM
 #19972


says the assclown who thinks SC's are tokens; or at least should be.

Some implemented in the back-end as such when it makes sense to do so given the goals of the particular sidechain.  Gotta problem with that cypherthick?

yeah, i do have a problem with that, given the general philosophy around here by most that we're trying to reduce our dependence on centralized corrupt entities.

but of course, given your Socialistic background and propensity to favor statist tendencies, this is probably right up your alley, tvbcroc?

You don't understand 'dependency' either, eh?  Who could have guessed.



well, why don't you explain just how your token SC system would work exactly, so we can all pick it apart?
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 02:15:30 AM
 #19973

well, why don't you explain just how your token SC system would work exactly, so we can all pick it apart?
Thank you. Enough with engaging in hypotheticals. You can't stop anyone from inventing something by arguing. Same with SCs as with altcoins. Let them put THEIR money where their mouth is.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1050



View Profile
January 11, 2015, 02:18:16 AM
 #19974

well, why don't you explain just how your token SC system would work exactly, so we can all pick it apart?
Thank you. Enough with engaging in hypotheticals. You can't stop anyone from inventing something by arguing. Same with SCs as with altcoins. Let them put THEIR money where their mouth is.

But...scalability?

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 02:19:00 AM
 #19975

well, why don't you explain just how your token SC system would work exactly, so we can all pick it apart?
Thank you. Enough with engaging in hypotheticals. You can't stop anyone from inventing something by arguing. Same with SCs as with altcoins. Let them put THEIR money where their mouth is.

But...scalability?
Chicken, meet egg.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 11, 2015, 02:32:13 AM
 #19976

well, why don't you explain just how your token SC system would work exactly, so we can all pick it apart?
Thank you. Enough with engaging in hypotheticals. You can't stop anyone from inventing something by arguing. Same with SCs as with altcoins. Let them put THEIR money where their mouth is.

don't worry.  we won't hear anything concrete from tvbcof.  he loves bullshitting.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 02:38:58 AM
 #19977

SCs and altcoins:
 "“You do all the work for us, honeybadger, and we’ll just eat whatever you find. How’s that? Whaddaya say, Stupid?”

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
January 11, 2015, 05:32:09 AM
 #19978

Hey guys. What is being done (or what can be done) about competing with the likes of Visa as far as number of transactions it can accomodate and how quickly?

SIDECHAINS  Cheesy

Cypherdoc don't like sidechains. Are you poking him or is this your final answer? Cheesy

Cypherdoc does not understand tech.
It's not the tech that has issue• it's the economics that change the incentives that makes sidechains a bad idea.

•the tech is just assumed to work, it will still may have issues.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 07:14:59 AM
 #19979


You don't understand 'dependency' either, eh?  Who could have guessed.

well, why don't you explain just how your token SC system would work exactly, so we can all pick it apart?

Firstly, Bitcoin has no dependency on sidechains.  They are irrelevant (with some of the potential 'whale' effects that I've previously outlined.)

As for tokens, one potential implementation would be that they would be issued for Bitcoin pegs and redeemed in the same way.  The system would prove the circulation.  The sidechain back-end would serve mainly as an 'assay' agent which would make sure that the token was not bogus.  Probably transactions would normally involve having the tokens re-issued as a way to extinguish any previous claim after a transaction (which would probably involve a layered system of digital signatures.)  A nicety would be that they could probably be used 'off-line' in situations where one could at least temporarily trust the seller to be somewhat honest for a time and not be creating and issuing bogus tokens.  In the real world many transactions are done between parties who know one another and/or have reputations to promote, so for small sum transactions this would actually work quite well.

As I understand things, NXT is (in addition to probably being a scam) a token based system that (in theory) relies on 'proof of stake'.  A Bitcoin-backed token-flavored sidechain would not need 'POS' since it's backing is native Bitcoin.

Since you are so amazingly thick, let me again stress that this is but one in an infinite set of potential implementations for sidechains.  Most or all sidechains would need an interface layer where they interact with Bitcoin, and usually (if not always) support Bitcoin through the same old POW sha256 hash mining mechanism which, as I've also previously outlined, is conceptually economically broken as an enduring method of system support in a stand-alone ecosystem.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 07:27:01 AM
 #19980

SCs and altcoins:
 "“You do all the work for us, honeybadger, and we’ll just eat whatever you find. How’s that? Whaddaya say, Stupid?”

That could be an issue, but if Bitcoin can get to a point where transaction fees are actually in the equation then a sidechain who was not willing to contribute could find themselves shut out.

What might evolve would be a situation where for a sidechain to make sure their pegs were exercised, they need to be friends with (or owners of) a reasonable amount of sha256 hashing regardless of the fees paid.

Such a scenario would resolve my riddle of mining net revenue on native Bitcoin blockchain always falling to zero due to unlimited supply of durable hashing gear.  And do so in a way which requires neither of the two ugly alternatives.  Ever-present inflation, or subsidizing infrastructure by monetizing intelligence streams at the expense of the userbase.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 ... 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!