Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 11:13:47 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1050 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807782 times)
xcrabber
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:55:52 PM
 #19981

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
1481368427
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481368427

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481368427
Reply with quote  #2

1481368427
Report to moderator
1481368427
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481368427

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481368427
Reply with quote  #2

1481368427
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481368427
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481368427

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481368427
Reply with quote  #2

1481368427
Report to moderator
1481368427
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481368427

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481368427
Reply with quote  #2

1481368427
Report to moderator
BlindMayorBitcorn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Blockchain Theorist


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 07:57:23 PM
 #19982

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

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.
xcrabber
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 08:01:26 PM
 #19983

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
A little of both   Cheesy
BlindMayorBitcorn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Blockchain Theorist


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 08:05:45 PM
 #19984

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
A little of both   Cheesy

Was scalability even addressed in the sidechains whitepaper?

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.
xcrabber
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 08:12:46 PM
 #19985

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
A little of both   Cheesy

Was scalability even addressed in the sidechains whitepaper?

Thats one of the main points, but its way above my pay grade, better let others hash out the good and bad.   Undecided
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 08:14:10 PM
 #19986

btw, thx for your contributions to the IBLT discussion over on Reddit.  insightful.  feel free to share them here to help us all understand better as we go forward.

do you mean this thread started 5 months ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2d7ofh/technical_discussion_of_gavins_o1_block/ ?

yep

not sure which parts you found insightful, but here's the gist about this proposed application of IBLT (invertible bloom lookup tables) from my point of view for anyone who wants a tldr on this:

fantastic summary
Quote

IBLTs (Invertible Bloom Lookup Tables) are a data structure of tremendous beauty. They allow synchronization of sets of key/value pairs using constant (pre-determined) size of the synchronization message. They work well if the differences are expected to be small, but can potentially fail completely if they are too large for the size chosen. Another nice feature is that in case of a one way master -> slave synchronization, there is only one synchronization message that can be used in identical form to synchronize an unlimited number of potentially different 'slave' sets. Essentially the synchronization method contains information about the complete master set, but in a lossy way such that it can only be retrieved if a large enough number of key/values of the set are already known by the slave.

The idea is to apply this to the problem of bitcoin block transmission. The assumption can be made that the set of transactions in a freshly found block is already known to a large extent by the other miners because transactions have already been broadcast and inclusion policies are fairly uniform or at least predictable. So an IBLT of a chosen size (the miner can choose the size) can be used to propagate the transactions of the block (master) to the other miners (slaves). Since the slaves can make a pretty good estimate of the set of transactions that might be in a newly found block by using some standard inclusion policy, the size of the IBLT can likely be chosen to be quite small.

One effect of this scheme is that this IBLT synchronization message would be the same size, no matter how many transactions are included in a block. This is in contrast to the current situation where the synchronization message is essentially the block itself, so its size depends greatly on the number and size of transactions included. It is clear that miners are incentivized to mine smaller blocks because that greatly increases the probability of winning a potential race in case another miner found a block at a similar time due to transmission and therefor block propagation delays in the network. Thus using this scheme would remove the incentive to mine small blocks by removing the cost of larger blocks. Gavin calculated this cost to be some non-negligible number.

A possible downside could be that non-standard inclusion policies (think eligius, for example) might necessitate a large IBLT und thus be disincetivised.

that's the price for LukeJr will have to be willing to pay for being a non-conformist
Quote
What this doesn't do: it doesn't magically solve any scaling issues. At most it reduces the overall bandwidth requirements by 50%. Miners still need to have enough bandwidth to receive all transactions that are being broadcast.


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.
79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 178

◕_◕


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 08:56:08 PM
 #19987

wouldn't this tend to decrease time between blocks, and would that be an issue?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 09:03:19 PM
 #19988

wouldn't this tend to decrease time between blocks, and would that be an issue?

no.  that's determined by the difficulty only.  the IBLT simply speeds the transmisssion "announcement"  across the network that a new block has been found and aligns the incentive across miners to include the complete set of unconfirmed tx's in their mempools into blocks.
600watt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 09:19:32 PM
 #19989

http://www.ericsson.com/industry-transformation/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2014/11/ict-and-the-future-of-financial-services.pdf


this is the thread where participants are able to comprehend text going beyond three sentences in a row. i throw in 44 pages of beauty. amazing. those guys are saying that banking did not evolve that far from its origins in ancient sumerian times and that it will face a major disruption due to ict. bitcoin mentioned.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 09:26:14 PM
 #19990

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 ...

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 09:55:02 PM
 #19991

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: 2142



View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:19:51 PM
 #19992

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
 #19993

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: 1988


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:39:38 PM
 #19994

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
 #19995

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
 #19996

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: 1988


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 10:52:28 PM
 #19997

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
 #19998

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
 #19999

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: 1988


View Profile
January 10, 2015, 11:49:36 PM
 #20000


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.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1050 ... 1560 »
  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!