Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

what is a "graduated limit" in the pole?

is that what we have, or is that like a limit determined by a quantifiable metric?

[1714221372]

1714221372

[cypherdoc]

what is a "graduated limit" in the pole?

is that what we have, or is that like a limit determined by a quantifiable metric?

A staged unspecified increase over time.

[Adrian-x]

what is a "graduated limit" in the pole?

is that what we have, or is that like a limit determined by a quantifiable metric?

A staged unspecified increase over time.

would it be automated, not requiring a hard fork to adjust?

[cypherdoc]

what is a "graduated limit" in the pole?

is that what we have, or is that like a limit determined by a quantifiable metric?

A staged unspecified increase over time.

would it be automated, not requiring a hard fork to adjust?

I guess I made it purposely vague to get a general sense of the sentiment out there.

[rocks]

SPV clients don't  normally carry the UTXO set around in their memory, correct?

Right the "UTXO client" we've been talking about is a different animal with a stronger security model...

2) SPV Clients

SPV clients only request information on transactions involving addresses that they care about (well actually they ask for a range of address to preserve some level of anonymity).

Using the merkle tree an SPV is able to link a single transaction up the tree to the block's header. Since they do maintain the header chain of the longest blockchain, this mechanism allows them to verify for themselves the validity of a transaction. However since they do not keep data on other addresses or transactions, they are not able to verify blocks or other new transactions on the P2P network. Think of them as leaves to the network. SPV clients take information, but do not contribute to the P2P network's security in any way, they are leaches.

1) "Archival nodes" [Full nodes operating with full history] &
3) "Pruned nodes" or "UTXO hash started nodes" [Full nodes operating without full history]

All full nodes maintain the full UTXO set. This is what enables them to verify blocks and new transactions on the network.

The UTXO hash clients mentioned before are still full clients. The only difference is how the node obtains the current UTXO set from the longest blockchain. One method is to download and process the complete history (i.e. 1 - Archival nodes; 3 - Pruned nodes) , another method is to download only the UTXO set (current as of block xxx) and verify that UTXO set within the current block with a hash embedded in the block (i.e. 3 - UTXO hash started nodes). Once done, such a node would be in the same state as another who processed the complete history and would contribute to the P2P network as a full node.

I would argue that a UTXO hash would be as secure as a coinbase transaction, which is very secure. The risk to UTXO hashes is that a miner might insert an invalid hash for a new incorrect UTXO set. Miners can do the same thing with coinbase transactions, i.e. reward themselves 1000 BTC instead of 25 BTC. But they don't because such a block is invalid and would be rejected. Same with a UTXO hash, a miner could insert an incorrect hash, but such a block is invalid and would be rejected. And if you were still worried you could always scan the complete history, there will always be some nodes who do so and who would scream if there was a falsification.

You're doing a great job articulating this but what's a bit confusing, at least for me, is from which type of node's perspective you're arguing from;  namely 1. Archival nodes, 2. SPV clients, or 3. Pruned nodes.

I think it matters because I don't think that current SPV clients have the capability to download the UTXO set to verify the UTXO hash embedded in their block headers. Do you think it would just be a small additional implementation detail that these wallet providers will insert once this protocol change gets enacted? Do smartphones have that memory capability?

Ah OK, I think I now see what you were getting at.

In the post above I was contrasting all three types, sorry if that was confusing. I edited the quoted text above to hopefully make the post more clear.

If I understand your question correctly, you're asking if thin clients such as smartphones could utilize some form of a UTXO set to verify transactions and blocks on the P2P network. That is an interesting possibility.

The reason smartphone type devices can't be full nodes today is due to both the storage and the bandwidth requirements. In terms of storage both 3) Pruned nodes and 3) UTXO hash started nodes could run on a smartphone since neither have to store the full blockchain. Bandwidth would still be an issue though. Pruned nodes would still need to download the full blockchain, over a mobile connection that would be expensive. UTXO hash started nodes however would only have to download the UTXO set, probably reasonable today, but it keeps growing. And that is just to get started, once started the node would need to transmit transactions & blocks. At over 1MB every 10 minutes, that will eat through any wireless plan's data allowances pretty fast.

Here is a chart on the current UTXO set size. We are already at 650MB and growing. High end smartphones today only have 2-3GB of memory, and some of that is needed for other apps.
http://statoshi.info/#/dashboard/file/default.json?panelId=5&fullscreen&from=now-24h&to=now

So my guess is pretty soon the size of the UTXO set will be large enough that smartphone like devices couldn't run a full node, even if you ignore the bandwidth and storage limitations. Node memory requirements will become too large.

[cypherdoc]

SPV clients don't  normally carry the UTXO set around in their memory, correct?

Right the "UTXO client" we've been talking about is a different animal with a stronger security model...

2) SPV Clients

SPV clients only request information on transactions involving addresses that they care about (well actually they ask for a range of address to preserve some level of anonymity).

Using the merkle tree an SPV is able to link a single transaction up the tree to the block's header. Since they do maintain the header chain of the longest blockchain, this mechanism allows them to verify for themselves the validity of a transaction. However since they do not keep data on other addresses or transactions, they are not able to verify blocks or other new transactions on the P2P network. Think of them as leaves to the network. SPV clients take information, but do not contribute to the P2P network's security in any way, they are leaches.

1) "Archival nodes" [Full nodes operating with full history] &
3) "Pruned nodes" or "UTXO hash started nodes" [Full nodes operating without full history]

All full nodes maintain the full UTXO set. This is what enables them to verify blocks and new transactions on the network.

The UTXO hash clients mentioned before are still full clients. The only difference is how the node obtains the current UTXO set from the longest blockchain. One method is to download and process the complete history (i.e. 1 - Archival nodes; 3 - Pruned nodes) , another method is to download only the UTXO set (current as of block xxx) and verify that UTXO set within the current block with a hash embedded in the block (i.e. 3 - UTXO hash started nodes). Once done, such a node would be in the same state as another who processed the complete history and would contribute to the P2P network as a full node.

I would argue that a UTXO hash would be as secure as a coinbase transaction, which is very secure. The risk to UTXO hashes is that a miner might insert an invalid hash for a new incorrect UTXO set. Miners can do the same thing with coinbase transactions, i.e. reward themselves 1000 BTC instead of 25 BTC. But they don't because such a block is invalid and would be rejected. Same with a UTXO hash, a miner could insert an incorrect hash, but such a block is invalid and would be rejected. And if you were still worried you could always scan the complete history, there will always be some nodes who do so and who would scream if there was a falsification.

You're doing a great job articulating this but what's a bit confusing, at least for me, is from which type of node's perspective you're arguing from;  namely 1. Archival nodes, 2. SPV clients, or 3. Pruned nodes.

I think it matters because I don't think that current SPV clients have the capability to download the UTXO set to verify the UTXO hash embedded in their block headers. Do you think it would just be a small additional implementation detail that these wallet providers will insert once this protocol change gets enacted? Do smartphones have that memory capability?

Ah OK, I think I now see what you were getting at.

In the post above I was contrasting all three types, sorry if that was confusing. I edited the quoted text above to hopefully make the post more clear.

If I understand your question correctly, you're asking if thin clients such as smartphones could utilize some form of a UTXO set to verify transactions and blocks on the P2P network. That is an interesting possibility.

The reason smartphone type devices can't be full nodes today is due to both the storage and the bandwidth requirements. In terms of storage both 3) Pruned nodes and 3) UTXO hash started nodes could run on a smartphone since neither have to store the full blockchain. Bandwidth would still be an issue though. Pruned nodes would still need to download the full blockchain, over a mobile connection that would be expensive. UTXO hash started nodes however would only have to download the UTXO set, probably reasonable today, but it keeps growing. And that is just to get started, once started the node would need to transmit transactions & blocks. At over 1MB every 10 minutes, that will eat through any wireless plan's data allowances pretty fast.

Here is a chart on the current UTXO set size. We are already at 650MB and growing. High end smartphones today only have 2-3GB of memory, and some of that is needed for other apps.
http://statoshi.info/#/dashboard/file/default.json?panelId=5&fullscreen&from=now-24h&to=now

So my guess is pretty soon the size of the UTXO set will be large enough that smartphone like devices couldn't run a full node, even if you ignore the bandwidth and storage limitations. Node memory requirements will become too large.

Great explanation.

So I see we really  have 4 types of node's:

1. Archival
2. Pruned
3. UTXO hash started
4. SPV

As for smartphones, I just got my Samsung S6 with 64GB. Could've have gotten the 128 GB.  Plenty of space for even an archival node. So storage isn't an issue anymore. Also, as far as download and verification of the blockchain, to save bandwidth, you could download on your home pc and transfer to the phone later. This could be done for a pruned chain as well. As for relaying tx's and blocks, most of my day is at work connected to the office router. With the blockchain loaded, you could act   as a temporary full node. Full nodes work fine with just  1GB of RAM (with some swap) and definitely with 2GB. With all the phones out there owned by Bitcoiners that might be willing to do this we could logarithmically  increase the number of full nodes and thus security of the network significantly, I'd  think.

[_mr_e]

SPV clients don't  normally carry the UTXO set around in their memory, correct?

Right the "UTXO client" we've been talking about is a different animal with a stronger security model...

2) SPV Clients

SPV clients only request information on transactions involving addresses that they care about (well actually they ask for a range of address to preserve some level of anonymity).

Using the merkle tree an SPV is able to link a single transaction up the tree to the block's header. Since they do maintain the header chain of the longest blockchain, this mechanism allows them to verify for themselves the validity of a transaction. However since they do not keep data on other addresses or transactions, they are not able to verify blocks or other new transactions on the P2P network. Think of them as leaves to the network. SPV clients take information, but do not contribute to the P2P network's security in any way, they are leaches.

1) "Archival nodes" [Full nodes operating with full history] &
3) "Pruned nodes" or "UTXO hash started nodes" [Full nodes operating without full history]

All full nodes maintain the full UTXO set. This is what enables them to verify blocks and new transactions on the network.

The UTXO hash clients mentioned before are still full clients. The only difference is how the node obtains the current UTXO set from the longest blockchain. One method is to download and process the complete history (i.e. 1 - Archival nodes; 3 - Pruned nodes) , another method is to download only the UTXO set (current as of block xxx) and verify that UTXO set within the current block with a hash embedded in the block (i.e. 3 - UTXO hash started nodes). Once done, such a node would be in the same state as another who processed the complete history and would contribute to the P2P network as a full node.

I would argue that a UTXO hash would be as secure as a coinbase transaction, which is very secure. The risk to UTXO hashes is that a miner might insert an invalid hash for a new incorrect UTXO set. Miners can do the same thing with coinbase transactions, i.e. reward themselves 1000 BTC instead of 25 BTC. But they don't because such a block is invalid and would be rejected. Same with a UTXO hash, a miner could insert an incorrect hash, but such a block is invalid and would be rejected. And if you were still worried you could always scan the complete history, there will always be some nodes who do so and who would scream if there was a falsification.

You're doing a great job articulating this but what's a bit confusing, at least for me, is from which type of node's perspective you're arguing from;  namely 1. Archival nodes, 2. SPV clients, or 3. Pruned nodes.

I think it matters because I don't think that current SPV clients have the capability to download the UTXO set to verify the UTXO hash embedded in their block headers. Do you think it would just be a small additional implementation detail that these wallet providers will insert once this protocol change gets enacted? Do smartphones have that memory capability?

Ah OK, I think I now see what you were getting at.

In the post above I was contrasting all three types, sorry if that was confusing. I edited the quoted text above to hopefully make the post more clear.

If I understand your question correctly, you're asking if thin clients such as smartphones could utilize some form of a UTXO set to verify transactions and blocks on the P2P network. That is an interesting possibility.

The reason smartphone type devices can't be full nodes today is due to both the storage and the bandwidth requirements. In terms of storage both 3) Pruned nodes and 3) UTXO hash started nodes could run on a smartphone since neither have to store the full blockchain. Bandwidth would still be an issue though. Pruned nodes would still need to download the full blockchain, over a mobile connection that would be expensive. UTXO hash started nodes however would only have to download the UTXO set, probably reasonable today, but it keeps growing. And that is just to get started, once started the node would need to transmit transactions & blocks. At over 1MB every 10 minutes, that will eat through any wireless plan's data allowances pretty fast.

Here is a chart on the current UTXO set size. We are already at 650MB and growing. High end smartphones today only have 2-3GB of memory, and some of that is needed for other apps.
http://statoshi.info/#/dashboard/file/default.json?panelId=5&fullscreen&from=now-24h&to=now

So my guess is pretty soon the size of the UTXO set will be large enough that smartphone like devices couldn't run a full node, even if you ignore the bandwidth and storage limitations. Node memory requirements will become too large.

Great explanation.

So I see we really  have 4 types of node's:

1. Archival
2. Pruned
3. UTXO hash started
4. SPV

As for smartphones, I just got my Samsung S6 with 64GB. Could've have gotten the 128 GB.  Plenty of space for even an archival node. So storage isn't an issue anymore. Also, as far as download and verification of the blockchain, to save bandwidth, you could download on your home pc and transfer to the phone later. This could be done for a pruned chain as well. As for relaying tx's and blocks, most of my day is at work connected to the office router. With the blockchain loaded, you could act   as a temporary full node. Full nodes work fine with just  1GB of RAM (with some swap) and definitely with 2GB. With all the phones out there owned by Bitcoiners that might be willing to do this we could logarithmically  increase the number of full nodes and thus security of the network significantly, I'd  think.

But what we are missing are incentives to run any such nodes. Altruism can only take us so far.

[cypherdoc]

SPV clients don't  normally carry the UTXO set around in their memory, correct?

Right the "UTXO client" we've been talking about is a different animal with a stronger security model...

2) SPV Clients

SPV clients only request information on transactions involving addresses that they care about (well actually they ask for a range of address to preserve some level of anonymity).

Using the merkle tree an SPV is able to link a single transaction up the tree to the block's header. Since they do maintain the header chain of the longest blockchain, this mechanism allows them to verify for themselves the validity of a transaction. However since they do not keep data on other addresses or transactions, they are not able to verify blocks or other new transactions on the P2P network. Think of them as leaves to the network. SPV clients take information, but do not contribute to the P2P network's security in any way, they are leaches.

1) "Archival nodes" [Full nodes operating with full history] &
3) "Pruned nodes" or "UTXO hash started nodes" [Full nodes operating without full history]

All full nodes maintain the full UTXO set. This is what enables them to verify blocks and new transactions on the network.

The UTXO hash clients mentioned before are still full clients. The only difference is how the node obtains the current UTXO set from the longest blockchain. One method is to download and process the complete history (i.e. 1 - Archival nodes; 3 - Pruned nodes) , another method is to download only the UTXO set (current as of block xxx) and verify that UTXO set within the current block with a hash embedded in the block (i.e. 3 - UTXO hash started nodes). Once done, such a node would be in the same state as another who processed the complete history and would contribute to the P2P network as a full node.

I would argue that a UTXO hash would be as secure as a coinbase transaction, which is very secure. The risk to UTXO hashes is that a miner might insert an invalid hash for a new incorrect UTXO set. Miners can do the same thing with coinbase transactions, i.e. reward themselves 1000 BTC instead of 25 BTC. But they don't because such a block is invalid and would be rejected. Same with a UTXO hash, a miner could insert an incorrect hash, but such a block is invalid and would be rejected. And if you were still worried you could always scan the complete history, there will always be some nodes who do so and who would scream if there was a falsification.

You're doing a great job articulating this but what's a bit confusing, at least for me, is from which type of node's perspective you're arguing from;  namely 1. Archival nodes, 2. SPV clients, or 3. Pruned nodes.

I think it matters because I don't think that current SPV clients have the capability to download the UTXO set to verify the UTXO hash embedded in their block headers. Do you think it would just be a small additional implementation detail that these wallet providers will insert once this protocol change gets enacted? Do smartphones have that memory capability?

Ah OK, I think I now see what you were getting at.

In the post above I was contrasting all three types, sorry if that was confusing. I edited the quoted text above to hopefully make the post more clear.

If I understand your question correctly, you're asking if thin clients such as smartphones could utilize some form of a UTXO set to verify transactions and blocks on the P2P network. That is an interesting possibility.

The reason smartphone type devices can't be full nodes today is due to both the storage and the bandwidth requirements. In terms of storage both 3) Pruned nodes and 3) UTXO hash started nodes could run on a smartphone since neither have to store the full blockchain. Bandwidth would still be an issue though. Pruned nodes would still need to download the full blockchain, over a mobile connection that would be expensive. UTXO hash started nodes however would only have to download the UTXO set, probably reasonable today, but it keeps growing. And that is just to get started, once started the node would need to transmit transactions & blocks. At over 1MB every 10 minutes, that will eat through any wireless plan's data allowances pretty fast.

Here is a chart on the current UTXO set size. We are already at 650MB and growing. High end smartphones today only have 2-3GB of memory, and some of that is needed for other apps.
http://statoshi.info/#/dashboard/file/default.json?panelId=5&fullscreen&from=now-24h&to=now

So my guess is pretty soon the size of the UTXO set will be large enough that smartphone like devices couldn't run a full node, even if you ignore the bandwidth and storage limitations. Node memory requirements will become too large.

Great explanation.

So I see we really  have 4 types of node's:

1. Archival
2. Pruned
3. UTXO hash started
4. SPV

As for smartphones, I just got my Samsung S6 with 64GB. Could've have gotten the 128 GB.  Plenty of space for even an archival node. So storage isn't an issue anymore. Also, as far as download and verification of the blockchain, to save bandwidth, you could download on your home pc and transfer to the phone later. This could be done for a pruned chain as well. As for relaying tx's and blocks, most of my day is at work connected to the office router. With the blockchain loaded, you could act   as a temporary full node. Full nodes work fine with just  1GB of RAM (with some swap) and definitely with 2GB. With all the phones out there owned by Bitcoiners that might be willing to do this we could logarithmically  increase the number of full nodes and thus security of the network significantly, I'd  think.

But what we are missing are incentives to run any such nodes. Altruism can only take us so far.

Right now I'm paying $38/yr/vps to run a bunch of full nodes. I have plenty of motivation despite not being paid.

But my point above is that if we can have WiFi connected phones running as full nodes at no cost to the user except for a little effort to set it up, that would be huge and is think allot of us wouldn't mind doing that.

MOST of the time my phone is WiFi connected at work during the day and at home at night. Even at coffee shops where I'm sitting right now.

[_mr_e]

But if it drains your already scarce battery resource I doubt many people would keep it running when there's little incentive.

[rocks]

Great explanation.

So I see we really  have 4 types of node's:

1. Archival
2. Pruned
3. UTXO hash started
4. SPV

As for smartphones, I just got my Samsung S6 with 64GB. Could've have gotten the 128 GB.  Plenty of space for even an archival node. So storage isn't an issue anymore. Also, as far as download and verification of the blockchain, to save bandwidth, you could download on your home pc and transfer to the phone later. This could be done for a pruned chain as well. As for relaying tx's and blocks, most of my day is at work connected to the office router. With the blockchain loaded, you could act   as a temporary full node. Full nodes work fine with just  1GB of RAM (with some swap) and definitely with 2GB. With all the phones out there owned by Bitcoiners that might be willing to do this we could logarithmically  increase the number of full nodes and thus security of the network significantly, I'd  think.

I like the 4 types categorization. Today we have 1, 2 & 4. Adding UTXO hashes would give another method to participate.

A Galaxy type smartphone has the storage space to run a full node (64GB or 128GB). It also has enough memory today, but probably not in a couple years. The UTXO set today is 650MB and an S6 has 3GB memory (as in RAM). So it would work today, but expect to stay plugged in to the wall most of the time...

Smartphone & tablet memory (RAM) is not scaling much going forward. Desktop PCs today generally ship with 4GB or 8GB, mobile clients need less and most roadmaps I've seen have 3GB for the high end for a bit and then maybe 4GB, point is RAM content is definitely not doubling every two years. More RAM means more DRAM bits that need refreshing, which means worse battery life. So in a couple years I wouldn't be surprised to see the UTXO set no longer fitting into a high end smartphone.

[cypherdoc]

But if it drains your already scarce battery resource I doubt many people would keep it running when there's little incentive.

mine is plugged in most of the time as well.  i'm not saying everyone would be altruistic, but i think alot of ppl would be especially since there would be no cost except for minor wear and tear on the phone.  for me, i replace my phones once a year so it's not a big deal. 

no doubt there are always those who ask not what they can do to help the network but only what the network can do to help them.

[explorer]

But if it drains your already scarce battery resource I doubt many people would keep it running when there's little incentive.

mine is plugged in most of the time as well.  i'm not saying everyone would be altruistic, but i think alot of ppl would be especially since there would be no cost except for minor wear and tear on the phone.  for me, i replace my phones once a year so it's not a big deal. 

no doubt there are always those who ask not what they can do to help the network but only what the network can do to help them.

Leave an old phone plugged in in the corner instead of gathering dust in a drawer somewhere.  Small, cheap (paid for) node.

[cypherdoc]

But if it drains your already scarce battery resource I doubt many people would keep it running when there's little incentive.

mine is plugged in most of the time as well.  i'm not saying everyone would be altruistic, but i think alot of ppl would be especially since there would be no cost except for minor wear and tear on the phone.  for me, i replace my phones once a year so it's not a big deal. 

no doubt there are always those who ask not what they can do to help the network but only what the network can do to help them.

Leave an old phone plugged in in the corner instead of gathering dust in a drawer somewhere.  Small, cheap (paid for) node.

leave a few old phones plugged into a wall socket at work as full nodes.  no one will ever guess.

[thezerg]

With UTXO merkle tree the whole thing does not need to be in phone RAM.  Or even on the phone.  phone clients could validate and fwd txns iff they are connected to wifi.  The only parts of the UTXO merkle tree that needs to be processed is the logn route from each UTXO involved in a txn to the tree root.  So very doable on today's mid range smart phone esp with a good sized uSD expansion.

[smooth]

With UTXO merkle tree the whole thing does not need to be in phone RAM.  Or even on the phone.  phone clients could validate and fwd txns iff they are connected to wifi.  The only parts of the UTXO merkle tree that needs to be processed is the logn route from each UTXO involved in a txn to the tree root.  So very doable on today's mid range smart phone esp with a good sized uSD expansion.

You are absolutely right. The current transaction rate is something like 1-2 tx/sec. That's perfectly feasible to validate even with the UXTO stored on flash instead of RAM. Likely still going to be CPU bound on the actual validation. In fact that's probably still true even scaling it up an order of magnitude or two.

[Adrian-x]

what is a "graduated limit" in the pole?

is that what we have, or is that like a limit determined by a quantifiable metric?

A staged unspecified increase over time.

would it be automated, not requiring a hard fork to adjust?

I guess I made it purposely vague to get a general sense of the sentiment out there.

I guess I'm open to both options, so long as neither is representative of the status quo.

[scryptasicminer]

Bitcoin price has gone down even more than gold in the last 12 months.

Risk of holding bitcoin is high as it has no fundamental value with many competitions.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Bitcoin price has gone down even more than gold in the last 12 months.

Risk of holding bitcoin is high as it has no fundamental value with many competitions.

... gold went down yesterday too, so there. 

who opened this board to pre-schoolers?

[lexuz]

Bitcoin price has gone down even more than gold in the last 12 months.

Risk of holding bitcoin is high as it has no fundamental value with many competitions.

So investment gold is guarantee profit or the price will be high when you sell?
For example: when you buy $1 in 1 year price will be $2. No offense

[cypherdoc]

scryptasicminer, hmm lemme guess. Litecoin much?