Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 04:23:29 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 ... 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 [1248] 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013492 times)
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
May 28, 2015, 07:30:54 PM
 #24941

there is another radical view from Justus, see here:

remove the block max size limit completely (b/c it's an artificial scarcity), while at the same time introduce a
price discovery mechanism into full nodes p2p network to determine nodes services prices (e.g. validation, txs relay, ect etc)

I may be wrong on details, but this is afaik already used in Monero. And sounds like a good plan.

It's a bit different I think, quoting myself here so the experts can make a judgement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

since noone mentioned it yet: https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/596622731711352832?s=09

Yes, an actually decent suggestion from Mark Frappacino.

This is already implemented in certain altcoins, for instance the CryptoNote family whereby Monero currently is the biggest (ignore Bytecoin, it had a 80% premine which actually is a danger to anonymity). I personally don't know the details of it, but this is what I could find:

Quote from: pinhead26 (reddit)
I think Cryptonote (Monero) actually adjusts the miner's reward depending on the size of his block, and updates the block size limit like this:

(median of past n blocks, with constant lower-limit) * 2

if I'm reading this correctly:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/c41d14b2aa3fc883d45299add1cbb8ebbe6c9ed8/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain.cpp#L2230-L2244

Quote from: tacotime (reddit)
Thats correct, our block size is dynamically scaled by the size of the previous blocks with no hard limit for the block size. Its been this way since the launch in early 2014. There is also a dynamic coinbase penalty above a size threshold to prevent people from making too large of blocks, too quickly. Gmaxwell and some of the other bitcore developers argued against such a design, saying that it gave too much power to miners to decide the size of the blocks.


source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35azxk/screw_the_hard_limit_lets_change_the_block_size/cr2phqd
note: Tacotime is one of the 7 core team members of Monero



Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
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.
1511497409
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511497409

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511497409
Reply with quote  #2

1511497409
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 08:15:45 PM
 #24942

to make a long story short: remove the block max size limit completely (b/c it's an artificial scarcity), while at the same time introduce a
price discovery mechanism into full nodes p2p network to determine nodes services prices (e.g. validation, txs relay, ect etc)

Price discovery as commonly described does not work for this because decentralization is a public good. Justus' idea is for clients to connect to multiple peers to express their desire for decentralization but is worthless for the same reason there are dozens of different brands of laundry detergent, breakfast cereal, even chocolate. in the supermarket but only a handful of manufacturers.

But to be realistic, none of the known solutions to this are incredibly good, and at least trying something is probably better than head-in-the-sand. That's what I have supported letting Monero's dynamic block size play out as an experiment, while recognizing problems with it too.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
May 28, 2015, 08:44:21 PM
 #24943

there is another radical view from Justus, see here:

remove the block max size limit completely (b/c it's an artificial scarcity), while at the same time introduce a
price discovery mechanism into full nodes p2p network to determine nodes services prices (e.g. validation, txs relay, ect etc)

I may be wrong on details, but this is afaik already used in Monero. And sounds like a good plan.

It's a bit different I think, quoting myself here so the experts can make a judgement.


I'm far from been an expert, but AFAIU Justus's proposing to remove completely the max block size limit.

His reasoning is based on the fact that block space is a naturally scarce resource and that it should be better
"regulated" by the free market rather than by a "central" authority through the application of production quota.

With "block space price" he meant the cost of adding a tx to a block, that will be computed taking into account
all the needed resources to complete such a task, so: bandwith, storage, etc. etc. involved in being a relay node,
a miner (not hasher) or a full node, you name it.

He then continues arguing that at the moment the bitcoin p2p network lacks of the necessary
price discovery mechanism for such a scarce resource.

To solve the problem this is his proposed solution:


... we need a mechanism via which the nodes can pay each other.
This mechanism exists in Bitcoin now, and it’s called micropayment channels.
Any two nodes can connect and they have this mechanism via which, if they can
agree on who owes what to whom, they can construct a payment and they can
adjust that payment as rapidly as they need to and settle it infrequently on the
Bitcoin block chain.

This free competition in an open market introduced by this will avoid the aforementioned
centralization problem.

ps Justus, sorry for any misinterpretations.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 28, 2015, 10:32:25 PM
 #24944

The reason we have to worry about miners producing "too large" blocks is because they don't pay for all the P2P network resources they use (neither do end users).

All the arguments we have about resource consumption are derived from that primary design flaw.

If we fix it, then we won't have to argue any more.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
May 28, 2015, 11:05:17 PM
 #24945

rising BTC price in the present is ultimately supported by people who DO care and DO research and BUY COINS when the price is NOT rising.

....

Bitcoin's "intrinsic value" is its future promise of certain functionality -- functionality that is described in every intro to bitcoin and VC pitch in existence.  This functionality -- hell even the simplest BTC P2P transfer -- does not work with 1MB blocks once the network transactions exceed its capacity consistently.  Even lightning network people calculated that overlay networks DO NOT WORK with 1MB blocks.

This ship is going to hit an iceberg, stop dead in its tracks and start leaking water as soon as the 1MB limit is hit consistently.  But  you are right the cat is out of the bag. For the technology.  The US government, in partnership with major banks, are going to be right there ready to deploy an "decentralized" solution but actually only banks can run full nodes (permission-required decentralized).  And it will trade USD.  And only banks and the govt can issue the "coinbase" txn or see the full blockchain, or allow the creation of new addresses (accounts).

Bitcoin's functional advantage will disappear and it will be reduced exactly to digital gold.  Except there's no reason to hold it vs gold or any other altcoin because you can't fucking transfer it anyway.

The problem with Bitcoin is that so many people didn't get on the train.  So now they hope it will fail so they can board a new train -- Monero, Etherium, whatever.  And they go onto these forums concern trolling as if they are actually Bitcoin proponents.  But suck it up. There is no other train available to you -- the next train will have exclusive membership and will actually be a rocketship (think Apple ipay) deployed simultaneously onto millions of POS, default installation in your phone, automatically connected with checking accounts for several major banks etc.


I've been solving blocks on the BTC train longer than you, and (like gmaxwell, tacotime, etc) am perfectly capable of simultaneously riding the XMR train as well.  We old-timers recognize a great train when we see one.  Too bad you missed the first half of the BTC movie and thus cannot tell the difference between a golden donkey and a thoroughbred unicorn.

BTC's "intrinsic value" is the fact is fulfills Aristotle's criteria for good money better than anything else (except Monero).

The BTC price is rising in terms of the last 5/4/3 years.  Zero to $250, by way of $1200.  Excellent performance by any definition.

The price rises when more people act on the optimistic zoomed out view than a cherry-picked local retrace.

The smart money already knows all about the hard UXTO limit, and is therefor investing in systems built on the core blockchain which offload tx pressure to sidechains and other off-main-chain whatnot.

The UXTO constraint may never be solved in an acceptable (sub)linear way, or the solution(s) could for political reasons never be implemented in BTC.

As for the Gresham's Law.

Yes, I do want people to HLOD their BTC.  Hoarding helps the price in terms of fiat trash rise, and invigorates the beneficial feedback loops driving adoption which ultimately result in a race condition that breaks petrodollar hegemony.  It's the Cartmanland principle: if people can't have Bitcoin they will want it more than ever.

Quote
This ship is going to hit an iceberg, stop dead in its tracks and start leaking water as soon as the 1MB limit is hit consistently.

Bro, do you even Nassim Taleb? 

If you did, you'd already know antifragile systems require adversity to grow stronger (BTW, BTC is not analogous to The Titanic).

If we coddle BTC and indulge it with lavish 20mb blocks to protect Gavin's delicate little feelings, it starts becoming a fat lazy Dodo Bird.  Like a child's immune system, BTC must encounter antigens to learn about its environment and prevent auto-immune diseases.

I'm getting really sick and tired of you faint-hearted hand-wringing Doubting Thomas, Panicky Penelope, and Nervous Nellie types.   Angry

You will be punished by Lord Satoshi for your disturbing lack of faith!

(Force_choke.gif)


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
May 28, 2015, 11:29:07 PM
 #24946

Sorry to pose a stupid question: what are the reasons why the limit cannot be raised?

main reasons that opponents to the increase state are:
 
 - centralization (BTC network becomes less diverse, diffuse, defensible, and/or resilient; big miners can fuck over small ones by gaming blocksize)
 
 - fees discovery price distortion (free rider problem is compounded, ecosystem adapts to artificially low fees, parasitic systems are subsidized)

 - UTXOs size will increase significantly (full nodes will begin to assplode at random)

 - Tor and slow connections like Lukejr's 5mb DSL could not be used anymore ("TOR" is shorthand for all hardened networks, especially super-bloaty steganographic types)

 - other things we don't know yet caused by rising block max size. (Mircea will deploy his 'GavinCoin Short' financial weapon of mass destruction, with utterly unpredictable consequences)


Expanded that for you.

For details see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.0 and the recent reddit threads where Gavin the Pointy-Haired Boss gets reamed by his Dilbert codemonkey (gmaxwell) and Wally engineer (pwuille).

TL;DR:

Quote
"Gavin is the only committer who supports [20MB blks] at this time. The rest have significant concerns" -gmaxwell


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
May 28, 2015, 11:30:37 PM
 #24947

...
The UXTO constraint may never be solved in an acceptable (sub)linear way, or the solution(s) could for political reasons never be implemented in BTC.
...

Almost certainly 'never' by any realistic definition of various things.

UTXO is the core of the information of who has what.  Coinage in circulation solves the problem in several ways, the most important being loss of information (which is why TPTB would like to and likely will at some point do away with it.)  Coinage is segmented into equal units which can scale due to the aformentioned loss of high resolution info.  UTXO is a minor optimization in the segmentation, but that optimization  vanishes with popularity.  Right now it is early and there are plenty of keys which control the equivalent of trillion-dollar bills.  That would vanish if the rather absurd dream of universal usage came into existence.  It would be relatively easy for Google-scale entities do the bookkeeping on individual satoshis in near real-time and relatively impossible for others to do so.

Solving 'the UTXO problem' would require what is by most definitions 'magic'.  Perhaps some future quantum-effect storage, communications, and processing schemes could 'solve' the problem but I'm not expecting to pick up such technology at Fry's by the next holiday season (Moore's law notwithstanding.)


Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 11:55:19 PM
 #24948

The reason we have to worry about miners producing "too large" blocks is because they don't pay for all the P2P network resources they use (neither do end users).

All the arguments we have about resource consumption are derived from that primary design flaw.

If we fix it, then we won't have to argue any more.

So why can't the protocol be tweaked to allow smaller blocks to propagate through the network of nodes faster than larger blocks. This is a market incentive for miners to regulate themselves. If it isn't working more like may not work, why not fix it.

This is how I always understood it to work, small blocks and maximum fees those who are not efficient will find themselves with a higher number of orphans, and those accepting fees too high will be circumvented, undercut by those doing high volume.

None of this comes into play for the next 6-10 years but I can't see how this market mechanism fails.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 12:00:07 AM
 #24949

you can't call me a noob.  and you probably came after me.

what you're missing is that Bitcoin is money born from the internet, by the internet, and for the internet.  it works on the same principles; it can route around damage.  and a key tenet of it's ability to do that is that it is located widely in different jurisdictions round the globe.  even if the US shutdown the internet, it would survive worldwide and the US would be back groveling in a few days wanting to get back on.  especially after pressure from the financial institutions.  

Bitcoin needs to have the same architecture and be spread worldwide to all corners of the Earth for maximum self preservation.  it can't do that if we hamstring it where it is now with just 1MB.  any idiot can see that.  

you want it to be a SOV.  it has the potential to do that.  but it won't happen if you force all tx's offchain to centralized entities, SC's included, that can shut anyone's acct down.  this requires increasing the block size.  all the core devs "say" they want that but they've been dragging their feet for 3y.

as for digital gold, it won't happen if only 0.001% of the global population ever hears about it, let alone uses it.  an African kid will never accept Bitcoin as digital gold as he can't touch it, feel it, carry it in his pocket, weigh it, or wear it.  thus, he will need to be able to transact with it and be able to analyze that it does in fact not increase in supply.  we know that he will have the tools to do this as fiber optic lines are being laid across Africa as we speak.  $10 Android phones are now available and soon 21 and phone makers look prepared to practically give away mining phones to grab market share.  but they have to be able to transact with Bitcoin in a reliable, cheap manner.  only then will they appreciate Bitcoin as a gold substitute.

90s Extropian/cyberpunk here.  I didn't miss money being born from the internet in the form of Bitcoin, I've was waiting and hoping for that to happen my entire early adult life.

Bitcoin has already "spread worldwide to all corners of the Earth."  Its_happening.gif was 2011.  We are now in the future we dreamed of.   Smiley

GavinCoin threatens to scour Bitcoin from those far flung corners, such as Lukejr's neighborhood in Florida where only 5mb DSL exits.

GavinCoin will also exile Bitcoin from TOR, etc, which are also critical far flung corners for users, full nodes, and miners to occupy for the sake of the system's self-preservation.

You keep selling this fear of 1mb Bitcoin dying alone and unloved except by her (cryptonerd) cats.  But all the non-Gavin core devs and I will not buy it.

We all agree the size should be raised "eventually" as Satoshi foretold.

But now (or Soon) is not the right time.  We need studies, simulations, and (most importantly) actual empirical feedback from persistent full blocks to best determine how and when to proceed with altering the 1mb parameter.

This nonsense of plucking magic numbers from the (Pointy-headed) CEO of Bitcoin's ass is not acceptable.

You, Hearn, and Gavin have succeeded in panicking the Redditards into a frenzy of "ZOMG BITCOIN IS GOING TO DIEEEE!!1!!  SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!1!!  QUICK DO IT NOW!!1!" hysteria.

That's why we've been advised by the incomparably redoubtable Nick Szabo to CALM. THE. FUCK. DOWN. AND. THINK. INSTEAD. OF. DRAMA. QUEENING:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/356twp/nick_szabo_zooko_pwuille_gavinandresen_infinity/


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 12:06:30 AM
 #24950

I had severe gastronomicalgastrointestinal issues manifesting towards end of 2011.

This must have been particularly hard for you to swallow.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 12:10:26 AM
 #24951

I believe the block size limit issue is getting critical.  You guys should check out Reggie Middleton's Veritaseum.  Quoting:

I still don't understand how the tickers are fed into veritaseum to settle the bets. Can you explain that?


Our server acts as an Oracle feeding commodity ticker data (think Reuters, Google, Bloomberg) into the wallets to adjudicate P&L.

There is research available on how to create a more decentralized, consensus driven oracle. Apologies I will not google now for a citation.

Edit: perhaps it was on Ethereum's blog that I saw some mention of research.

HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 12:10:57 AM
 #24952

Pretty bold claims from Middleton, but I have tried it and it works, at least in a beta phase, not vapor phase or proof of concept phase, but beta phase.  You can trade all tickers that Cypherdoc mentions on here.  

I still don't understand how the tickers are fed into veritaseum to settle the bets. Can you explain that?

Saying "it works" without understanding how it works is short-sighted.

Twice or thrice I tried to find technical documentation (wading through all the promotional crap) and was stifled, so I assumed it is centralized bullshit.

That's my assumption, too... until it's explained how it works and it works in a way I can trust (which I doubt, but I've been wrong before).

If it's Reggie typing in 50000 tickers every hour then there might be no "counterparty risk", but there's plenty of other risk.

EDIT: I PMed him, maybe he'll show up here and explain. If not, it hardens my assumption.

It works from an end-user standpoint, which is more than I've seen from any other project.  Tickers prices are fed through an oracle, which is centralized.  Also, the code is not open source... yet, which i cant blame them for not wanting all their work to just be copied into another system.  In a nutshell, it appears to be blockchain.info 2.0.  The blockchain.info model has proven to work thus far with zero trust issues, but we will just have to wait for more info to become available. 

Thanks for the info regarding the centralized oracle.

I don't understand your comparison to blockchain.info.

I compare it to blockchain.info in that users retain control of their keys while using the service but without running a full node themselves - it is much more convenient and less resource-intensive.  Of course it's not a Web client but they may have plans for that.

@Reggie Middleton
Do you have plans to develop a hosted Web interface for your product?

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 12:28:11 AM
 #24953

Bitcoin is not just for the rich, even when transaction capacity is severely limited. We will have off chain service companies to handle that. Here is how it could work:  A base equity capital. Let's say around 100 bitcoin to cover assets under management 1000 bitcoin. The board and the CEO is made responsible with all their assets (that has been the case in earlier times). Time deposits, let's say in general 3 years. You can pay immediately by transferring your deposits, but you can not immediately withdraw your bitcoins. Loans made to others also timed, say the same, 3 years. The institution keeps a sizeable reserve, let's say 30 %. This will probably be prudent, the market will decide. Due to fractional reserve banking, the money volume should therefore increase by about 3333 (the current system with zero reserve sometimes, would not be possible). There will be no deposit insurance and no bailouts. Sometimes such a bank will fail to pay back, with customers loosing money, and the market will have to keep the industry in check.

I believe the death of the Industrial Age and the birth of the Knowledge Age will kill usury without causing a Middle Ages (Dark Age). I have covered the reasoning extensively in the One-world reserve currency and the Economic Devastation threads (as AnonyMint and various other pseudonyms).

IMO, you are describing a high fixed capital investment Industrial Age economy that is dying into a NWO outcome.

Many of us are tired of that shit of trusting people. We want a meritocracy where to earn one must “Show me the code, talk is cheap” (Linus Torvalds).

In other words, we want 100% transparency on the merits of value and exchange (this is orthogonal to anonymity, which is more about escaping politics, slavery, and the refusal to forgive and forget irrelevant factors[1]). We are tired of that Old World morass, power vacuum, slavery bullshit. Tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. Tired. Of. That. Shit.

Such businesses can produce added value: Interest, loyalty function, price, speed, guarantees, insurance, cool factor, advertisements and so on. They are necessary as long as the blockchain can not serve all transactions. There is no point in working against the appearance of these services, they will exist if they are profitable, and they will expand the bitcoin volume in existence with debt.

The crucial difference is no government sponsored deposit insurance and bailouts. Therefore, it is not the same as the banking fraud going on now.

It corrupts people because it is a power vacuum (no matter how localized at the genesis) and even in cases of upstanding intentions[2] because people get themselves into promises they can't keep, then are forced to corrupt themselves (e.g. making deals with politicians and cartels, etc).

[1]
CoinCube I pretty well fucked myself in that errant discretion area long ago, e.g. picture my resume "1994 - 2015 resided most of the time in Mindanao". So I had no choice but to exit the system and work for a system where the pedantic, irrelevant past can't matter.

I assert that having a good record in the dying NWO system is of diminishing utility. Hope you cash in your NWO chips with good timing.

A system which can't forgive the irrelevant is obviously bankrupted.
[2]Randy Travis - Good Intentions

If it's Reggie typing in 50000 tickers every hour ... there's plenty of other risk.

<joke>Even if discounting the Jack Daniels attack.</joke>

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 12:45:46 AM
 #24954

But now (or Soon) is not the right time.  We need studies, simulations, and (most importantly) actual empirical feedback from persistent full blocks to best determine how and when to proceed with altering the 1mb parameter.
Wrong. We already know it will be a clusterfuck.

I venture my opinion from 30 years experience in IT, when it appears that you have zilch and should just speak to what you know about (Monero? Hashfast?)


good re-read.  and i'm pretty sure he changed that write-up.  initially, he claimed the entire UTXO was held in RAM but down in the Reddit comments for the thread several ppl pointed out that it was held on disk with a 100MB high speed cache.  so, bottom line, it doesn't necessarily appear that this is a problem except for maybe miners.  given that tx growth won't immediately go to 20MB/block, i think it's safe to say this space problem should be worked out in time.

I really think there is a fast and simple constraint on UTXO bloat which can be done:
Allowing the existing free transaction space to be used for tx which reduce UTXOs (i.e. negative delta) instead of being based upon the number of days destroyed, which was to encourage old coins being spent, something less important.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 12:45:55 AM
 #24955

...
The UXTO constraint may never be solved in an acceptable (sub)linear way, or the solution(s) could for political reasons never be implemented in BTC.
...
Almost certainly 'never' by any realistic definition of various things.
...
Solving 'the UTXO problem' would require what is by most definitions 'magic'.  Perhaps some future quantum-effect storage, communications, and processing schemes could 'solve' the problem but I'm not expecting to pick up such technology at Fry's by the next holiday season (Moore's law notwithstanding.)

A comment from chriswilmer got me thinking…

The UTXO set is actually bounded. The total amount of satoshis that will ever exists is

   (21x10^6) x (10^8) = 2.1 x 10^15 = 2.1 "peta-sats"

The UTXO set is maximized if every output is exactly 1 satoshi; in this case, the UTXO set consists of 2.1x10^15 outputs.  

For each output, let's assume we store the transaction hash (32 bytes), the value (8 bytes max), and the scriptpubkey (25 bytes for P2PkH), which is a total of 65 bytes.  So, a reasonable "worst case" upper bound on the size of the UTXO set is:

   (2.1x10^15) x (65 bytes) = 137 petabytes.  

How much memory is this?  A quick google search turned up 128 gigabyte microSD cards:



To store the worst-case UTXO set on an array of these cards would require about one million of them:

    (137 x 10^15) / (128 x 10^9) = 1.07 x 10^6.

This calculation shows that storing the worst case UTXO set is currently beyond the limits of a home user, but it's actually within the limits of large data centers such as the Prineville campus for Facebook that stores 1,000 petabytes of data...


...OK, now let's be reasonable!  Let's assume that 10 billion people on earth each control about 4 unspent outputs on average.  That's a total of 40 billion outputs, or

    (40 x 10^9) x (65 bytes) = 2.6 terabytes

With these assumptions, it now only takes about 20 of those SD cards to store the UTXO set:

    (2.6 x 10^12) / (128 x 10^9) = 20.3,

or, three 1-terrabyte SSDs, for a total cost of about $1,500.  

Of course, by the time there's a need to store this much data, we will likely have special-purpose hardware to do so quite efficiently.  

TLDR:
1. Large data centers could already store the UTXO set even if every satoshi was a unique unspent output.
2. Under more reasonable assumptions, power users and small businesses should be able to store the UTXO set even if 10 billion people each had 4 unspent outputs.


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 01:01:05 AM
 #24956

Download the client and give it a try. It's a fully functional system and you can see that it runs cleanly.

It is probably impossible (short of reverse engineering or building an extensive test kit) to determine that it runs cleanly without seeing the source code, because for example how do we evaluate how it might work in extreme or panic market conditions, under DDoS or high-frequency trading attacks, etc..

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 01:04:44 AM
 #24957

TLDR:
2. Under more reasonable assumptions, power users and small businesses should be able to store the UTXO set even if 10 billion people each had 4 unspent outputs.


The more limiting factor is probably the transaction rate and the bandwidth of the connection.

An 8 Mbps connection only gets you to perhaps Visa-scale (at best[1]) and no where near the micropayments scale. Do you really think Visa-scale comprises all the transactions occurring daily in the world today (not even within an order-of-magnitude I bet!), not to mention the 100X growth that will occur with internet transactions in real-time (which will open huge new markets).

Even a 1 Gbps connection won't be enough in the current crypto-currency designs.

All current crypto-currency is fundamentally flawed. Can't scale. Checkmate.

If mining isn't decentralized, then you've lost control over Bitcoin to the financial elite.

...

Blockchain size is not the main issue with micropayments (no amount of pruning is scalable if the unpruned chain isn't scalable, i.e. scalability is a different complexity class from bounded compression). Rather as I discussed with thezerg upthread, at some scale micropayments force centralization of full nodes due to processing and bandwidth requirements. I argued that renting a hosting server is not decentralization, because the authorities can regulate the ISPs. Anonymity derives from mixing targeted activity (monopolization of mining by the cartel that runs our world) with untargeted activity (users surfing the net from a home ISP connection).

...

[1] That assumes the overhead for P2P and anonymity networks is 0, which won't be the case.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 29, 2015, 01:11:57 AM
 #24958

I really think there is a fast and simple constraint on UTXO bloat which can be done:
Allowing the existing free transaction space to be used for tx which reduce UTXOs (i.e. negative delta) instead of being based upon the number of days destroyed, which was to encourage old coins being spent, something less important.

I agree.  Incentivizing transactions that reduce the total number of outputs would be helpful.  Gmaxwell has mentioned similar ideas in the past as well.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 29, 2015, 01:35:19 AM
 #24959

Pretty bold claims from Middleton, but I have tried it and it works, at least in a beta phase, not vapor phase or proof of concept phase, but beta phase.  You can trade all tickers that Cypherdoc mentions on here.  

I still don't understand how the tickers are fed into veritaseum to settle the bets. Can you explain that?

Saying "it works" without understanding how it works is short-sighted.

Twice or thrice I tried to find technical documentation (wading through all the promotional crap) and was stifled, so I assumed it is centralized bullshit.

That's not a fair presumption. Most tech dudes (and most people in general) use the financial system and have absolutely no idea how it works. Does that mean that your money doesn't spend? Veritaseum, from a capital perspective, is fully decentralized. It is the only automated system that I know of that is fully autonomous in that you keep your private keys private and on your client under your control. All transactions are peer to peer through the blockchain, and our server doesn't touch, house, hold, custody or control a single satoshi of your coin. Read http://veritaseum.com/index.php/homes/1-blog/128-will-new-vc-investment-trump-the-returns-of-the-early-movers-in-the-digital-currency-space-quite-possibly-let-me-show-you-how and http://veritaseum.com/index.php/homes/1-blog/94-bitcoin-1-0-vs-2-0-or-a-comparison-of-legacy-exchanges-veritaseum-s-ultracoin for the difference between centralized and decentralized systems.
As an aside, the vast majority of bitcoin traders don't seem to have a problem with centralized systems as they freely send their decentralized assets to fully centralized entities to house, trade and exchange. Just a little food for thought.

If it is really just a protocol, then by definition there is nothing to stop someone from bypassing your client and writing directly to the protocol, cutting out the Middleton-man.

I am assuming there is some proprietary lockin somewhere in there, but without code and technical documentation, why should I (or other hackers/geeks/tech dudes) consume my (our) time trying to understand the system using inefficient means of trying to deobfuscate what you ostensibly (at least last time I looked) want to obfuscate. I will take a quick glance at the links above, but if they don't get direct to the technical points (as what I saw on your website before) then I will not expend more time.

P.S. some of us do understand both economics and programming. That is not to say I have any insider or real-world WallStreet experience (thank the almighty for that blessing).

Edit: I glanced at the links. Reggie we know already all about the virtues and design of decentralized exchanges. We understand the use of a mutually trusted "Facilitator" (Escrow agent). We understand the need for decentralized, consensus data feeds (which you apparently don't yet have in your system). We do not need to read all that shit over and over again. When we ask for technical documentation, we mean precisely that and none of this marketing overhead. Some of us are much more aware than you may think. We are also thinking about these sorts of designs and markets too (believe me you were not any where close to being the first).

I do not understand how to expect to gain traction. You can leverage your reputation and connections in the financial sphere, but afaics you do not know how to interface with the tech dudes who are the core of the Bitcoin sphere. IMO, if you want us on board, this has to be a collaborative effort and open source system. And so then how do you make your ROI on this? Does this project have its own coin (I think not). The world is not going to adopt Reggie-wallet. Sorry. You will need an open protocol and another way to make your ROI.

Perhaps there is some way to leverage your strengths and the open source community, but afaics you haven't partnered with the right CTO to get it done. I see more of a closed-source, proprietary, marketing spin philosophy thus far.

Also you appear to be building a specific protocol for trading options. Ethereum (and CounterParty?) is in the space of creating a programmable block chain wherein there can be a free market competition amongst protocols. I suggested last year that Ethereum can never scale and the only solution is merge-minded chains for programmable chains.

Some of us are thinking much bigger and more open than you. You should not assume you are the next Google. I highly doubt it.

P.S. your calls on Apple and Google were obvious to me also (before I found out about you on Zerohedge). I had written similar predictions on http://esr.ibiblio.org perhaps before you did. My point is your very boastful marketing spins are out of proportion to the technical acumen display openly thus far. Perhaps your team are technical wizards, but I don't know.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2015, 02:10:07 AM
 #24960

But now (or Soon) is not the right time.  We need studies, simulations, and (most importantly) actual empirical feedback from persistent full blocks to best determine how and when to proceed with altering the 1mb parameter.
Wrong. We already know it will be a clusterfuck.

I venture my opinion from 30 years experience in IT, when it appears that you have zilch and should just speak to what you know about (Monero? Hashfast?)

I really think there is a fast and simple constraint on UTXO bloat which can be done


You fixed the UXTO bloat?  That great!  Now show us the code so Wlad can test/pull it.

Oh wait, does your constraint require a hard fork?  If it does, good luck getting it past the neo-royalist reactionaries of #bitcoin-assets (aka MP personality cult).

So you are an old fart like cypher.  Big effing deal.  In 10 years, I'll have 30 years of experience in IT.  Drink an Ensure and change your Depends grandpa, because I'm not going to turn down my dubstep nor get off your lawn.   Tongue

Nobody cares how many floppies you formatted or copies of Windows you installed in the 80s.  You are new here, Mr. 2013 Registration Date.

You're not just calling me wrong, you're also second-guessing gmax, pwuille, petertodd, and jgarzik (among others):

Quote
Gavin is the only committer to Bitcoin core who supports this particular proposal at this time. The rest of us have significant concerns about the impact on the security and the decentralization of the network; and potentially some process concerns.

You may not have heard these concerns because as you may note that this isn't a proposal tendered to bitcoin-development; it's being taken directly to the general public; which isn't necessarily inappropriate as it has significant consequences for everyone who uses and holds Bitcoin and what form the future of Bitcoin will take. Unfortunately, these tradeoffs haven't yet been well communicated.

-nullc [gmaxwell]

I would ask how your "30 years in IT" stack (sorry for IT pun) up against their pedigrees/resumes, but I don't want to embarrass you any more than necessary.   Grin

Waiting for >1 block to get a confirmation is not a "clusterfuck" unless you are (mis/mal)construing and (mis/mal)applying Bitcoin to be some kind of real-time POS system.

Bigger systems run slower; slow water runs deep.  That's why ACH and other "wire" transfers take days or weeks to settle.

We Knights of Satoshi will not comply with your histrionic 'faster please' demands to fix Bitcoin until it breaks.

This "clusterfuck" is entirely self-imposed by Gavin.  It is a manufactured crisis.  We will resist all efforts, whether internal or external, destroy Bitcoin in order to save it from some imaginary doom, no matter the source or how loud the deafening clamor of the peanut gallery.

We will not give in to your politics of fear and parade of hobgoblins.

We will not be stampeded into premature hard forks because the pointy-haired boss and his mob of Redditard sycophants demands Action Now.

Gavin's absurd call for <10 minute blocks indicates he has been (internally and/or externally) compromised.  You would do well to abandon that ship (and its fanboys) before it sinks...


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Pages: « 1 ... 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 [1248] 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 ... 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!