Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 06:41:55 PM *
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 ... 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 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 [1321] 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1808027 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 12, 2015, 07:05:39 PM
 #26401

energy going off the cliff:



copper too:



emerging mkts.  no inflation here:



BHP-largest mine, sick:



ah yes, the sweet smell of deflation.
1481395315
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395315

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395315
Reply with quote  #2

1481395315
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481395315
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395315

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395315
Reply with quote  #2

1481395315
Report to moderator
1481395315
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395315

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395315
Reply with quote  #2

1481395315
Report to moderator
1481395315
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395315

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395315
Reply with quote  #2

1481395315
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 12, 2015, 09:03:10 PM
 #26402

Goldman Sachs:  oh yeah, that Bitcoin thingy, we ain't interested in that:

http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/talks-at-gs/evolution-of-bitcoin.html
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 12, 2015, 09:23:21 PM
 #26403

no VAT in Switzerland.  that's good news:

http://bitcoinassociation.ch/blog/no-vat-on-bitcoin-in-switzerland/

i get the distinct sense that there is actually some competition going on btwn diff countries to attract Bitcoin.  can u believe that?  Russia on the verge of making a significant policy turn around, Switzerland no VAT, Japan allowing self regulation, UK encouraging as a financial center, Brazil & Argentina increasing usage, China continuing to allow the largest mining pool & exchanges, etc.

it's happening guys.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 12, 2015, 09:27:10 PM
 #26404

Bitcoin revving up:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 12, 2015, 11:09:54 PM
 #26405

Chevron, an example of a large energy provider going over the cliff.  Exxon looks just as bad.  Deflation everywhere. Bitcoin inhaling:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 12, 2015, 11:19:13 PM
 #26406

Statoshi, aka Jameson Lopp, @24:40 states he thinks there are about 20,000 full nodes out there in actuality.  can /u/nullc respond to this?  i referenced our interactive posts yesterday.  and this from a guy who actually does measurements and works for BitGo.  that's good news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgETC2JMUBI&feature=youtu.be
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 12, 2015, 11:21:36 PM
 #26407

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/609371913748529153

Making Decentralized Economic Policy
BIP 100 ­ Theory and Discussion, v0.3 ­ draft
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>

a.k.a.

Another proposal to scale up bitcoin removing the max block size limit

Protocol changes proposed:

Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit.
Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB.
Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for December 11, 2015.
Default miner block size becomes 1MB (easily changeable by miner at any time, as today).
Changing the 2MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold.

This is fantastic news. Jeff is the one person who can push the 1MBers in Core Dev into a reasonable compromise.
Together with the Greek slow-motion Inception-style trainwreck finally off the rails...
...BITCOIN on the launchpad at $230.
UP!

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 12, 2015, 11:35:52 PM
 #26408

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/609371913748529153

Making Decentralized Economic Policy
BIP 100 ­ Theory and Discussion, v0.3 ­ draft
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>

a.k.a.

Another proposal to scale up bitcoin removing the max block size limit

Protocol changes proposed:

Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit.
Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB.
Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for December 11, 2015.
Default miner block size becomes 1MB (easily changeable by miner at any time, as today).
Changing the 2MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold.

This is fantastic news. Jeff is the one person who can push the 1MBers in Core Dev into a reasonable compromise.
Together with the Greek slow-motion Inception-style trainwreck finally off the rails...
...BITCOIN on the launchpad at $230.
UP!

yes, the charts are primed and ready.  inevitable, imo, with halving just over a year away.

yes, it is good news that Jeff is taking a leadership role.  too bad that Adam didn't take my advice yesterday.  he could have been that person and still can be.  i told him his extension block idea was overly complex given where we are in the dispute.  everyone is worn out and just wants something simple they can understand w/o too much effort as this is a complex issue that has been debated to death with all sorts of unknown variables that ppl honestly can't keep track of anymore.  or just don't want to.  Jeff's formula is simple which is why it has got some traction.  but nothing goes down w/o /u/nullc.  and he's in a sour mood so i'm not holding my breath.  and unfortunately, Adam has taken to a somewhat confrontational rhetoric on Twitter.  i know he's worried.  but he should be as the economic majority is going to follow Gavin:

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/609280982949187584
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 13, 2015, 12:04:29 AM
 #26409

yes, the charts are primed and ready.  inevitable, imo, with halving just over a year away.

yes, it is good news that Jeff is taking a leadership role.  too bad that Adam didn't take my advice yesterday.  he could have been that person and still can be.  i told him his extension block idea was overly complex given where we are in the dispute.  everyone is worn out and just wants something simple they can understand w/o too much effort as this is a complex issue that has been debated to death with all sorts of unknown variables that ppl honestly can't keep track of anymore.  or just don't want to.  Jeff's formula is simple which is why it has got some traction.  but nothing goes down w/o /u/nullc.  and he's in a sour mood so i'm not holding my breath.  and unfortunately, Adam has taken to a somewhat confrontational rhetoric on Twitter.  i know he's worried.  but he should be as the economic majority is going to follow Gavin:

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/609280982949187584

Agreed.

I am really puzzled as to why Adam is pushing the extension block proposal for the 1MB. It is obviously the wrong place for it, but is exactly what is needed to overcome the original 33.5MB message-size limit which still remains. Tier Nolan came up with the extension block idea about 2 years ago IIRC and it is very good, but too soon now. Also it should be coupled with IBLT as the two together will future-proof Bitcoin as far as block sizes are concerned (within Moore's Law) allowing on-chain scaling and elimination of a lot of the out-of-band block-stuffing miner spam.

I am also puzzled as to why Greg keeps wasting mind-boggingly large amounts of time spamming reddit with dead pro-1MB arguments. Surely his time is more valuable than that.

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 13, 2015, 12:27:49 AM
 #26410

I hate the fact that politics must be played.  But after this debacle, sidechains had better be more awesome than the second coming of Satoshi if they want to make mods that are so much more complicated than changing a constant that there is simply no comparative basis.

My guess is that they want to delay blocksize so they can cram sidechain mods into the same fork as a negotiated compromise.  But this is turning into a huge mistake.  They are burning all the goodwill they had, and making us suspect them of not wanting what's best for bitcoin.  This reputation is going to badly affect their ability to get consensus in the future.
STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile WWW
June 13, 2015, 12:35:42 AM
 #26411

Chevron, an example of a large energy provider going over the cliff.  Exxon looks just as bad.  Deflation everywhere. Bitcoin inhaling:


Chesapeake also but should be able to meet drilling costs and debts but this is a guess, the shares are in a five year low even while USA begins to export worldwide LNG a first in many decades.     Low world growth and higher supplies of energy with the Saudis offering to meet any future demand just to let speculators know they have the upper hand on this price, greatly helps the case for deflation
Its quite surreal they have become so determined to keep the price low, its to do with Iran having a higher cost of production and more investment needed and Saudis dont want them to expand their influence at all.  Im told Iran have been nominated as the strong man in the room for the middle east by the powers that be, this makes no sense to me as they fight in Syria but are opposed to Isis at least I suppose

My only thought is a quote from a former president
Quote
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."
The main point being there I think that its the whipsaw effect that does most damage, the volatility of a swing between the two extremes causes most loss.  While we certainly appear to have deflation on many fronts, it is certain they have expanded the total money supply greatly and GDP has not

gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030



View Profile
June 13, 2015, 12:45:40 AM
 #26412

I hate the fact that politics must be played.  But after this debacle, sidechains had better be more awesome than the second coming of Satoshi if they want to make mods that are so much more complicated than changing a constant that there is simply no comparative basis.
My guess is that they want to delay blocksize so they can cram sidechain mods into the same fork as a negotiated compromise.  But this is turning into a huge mistake.  They are burning all the goodwill they had, and making us suspect them of not wanting what's best for bitcoin.  This reputation is going to badly affect their ability to get consensus in the future.

The opposition to Gavin's 2000% jump proposal comes unanimously from every active technical contributor to Bitcoin Core who has spoken up. This should suggest to you that your understanding of the comparative basis likely miscalibrated.  Though there is no comparative basis, 2WP sidechains are something that just requires non-broken smart contracts, it's not something that needs a hard-fork (and the centralized fedpeg sidechain stuff is indistinguishable, uncensorable, and unblockable: you can't prevent people from using it no matter how much you think you should be able to tell them that they can manage their funds).

Considering how often cypherdoc brags about his thread here being filled with economic wisdom, it's surprising to see views like "changing a constant simple and safe", after all 21 million bitcoins is merely a constant (and, pedantically, one the system didn't originally enforce....).  Try another strawman. Smiley
 
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 13, 2015, 12:50:49 AM
 #26413

I hate the fact that politics must be played.  But after this debacle, sidechains had better be more awesome than the second coming of Satoshi if they want to make mods that are so much more complicated than changing a constant that there is simply no comparative basis.
My guess is that they want to delay blocksize so they can cram sidechain mods into the same fork as a negotiated compromise.  But this is turning into a huge mistake.  They are burning all the goodwill they had, and making us suspect them of not wanting what's best for bitcoin.  This reputation is going to badly affect their ability to get consensus in the future.

The opposition to Gavin's 2000% jump proposal comes unanimously from every active technical contributor to Bitcoin Core who has spoken up. This should suggest to you that your understanding of the comparative basis likely miscalibrated.  Though there is no comparative basis, 2WP sidechains are something that just requires non-broken smart contracts, it's not something that needs a hard-fork (and the centralized fedpeg sidechain stuff is indistinguishable, uncensorable, and unblockable: you can't prevent people from using it no matter how much you think you should be able to tell them that they can manage their funds).

Considering how often cypherdoc brags about his thread here being filled with economic wisdom, it's surprising to see views like "changing a constant simple and safe", after all 21 million bitcoins is merely a constant (and, pedantically, one the system didn't originally enforce....).  Try another strawman. Smiley
 
can you really not tell the difference between the money supply guarentee and a transaction rate limit?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 13, 2015, 12:53:17 AM
 #26414

I hate the fact that politics must be played.  But after this debacle, sidechains had better be more awesome than the second coming of Satoshi if they want to make mods that are so much more complicated than changing a constant that there is simply no comparative basis.

My guess is that they want to delay blocksize so they can cram sidechain mods into the same fork as a negotiated compromise.  But this is turning into a huge mistake.  They are burning all the goodwill they had, and making us suspect them of not wanting what's best for bitcoin.  This reputation is going to badly affect their ability to get consensus in the future.

Greg is hugely disappointed that the Elements thread is off the first pg of Reddit.  and rightfully so, it's a bad sign that's theres not more interest.  apparently the initial software is very buggy; not unexpected.  it's early, i know.  but i totally agree they've burned almost all their goodwill by being so obstinate and unforgiving in this debate.  unfortunately in finances and investing, the best deals are made on golf courses btwn friends and ppl you can trust.  Greg et al may the best cryptographers in the world but if no one trust their motivations on simple issues like Core code, how can they be trusted in deeply complex issues like SC Elements?  and i'm not talking about the crypto, i'm talking about the economic assumptions behind it and the business models upon which they are laid out and introduced to the community.  i wouldn't want to be investing in BS at this pt.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 13, 2015, 12:56:52 AM
 #26415

I hate the fact that politics must be played.  But after this debacle, sidechains had better be more awesome than the second coming of Satoshi if they want to make mods that are so much more complicated than changing a constant that there is simply no comparative basis.

My guess is that they want to delay blocksize so they can cram sidechain mods into the same fork as a negotiated compromise.  But this is turning into a huge mistake.  They are burning all the goodwill they had, and making us suspect them of not wanting what's best for bitcoin.  This reputation is going to badly affect their ability to get consensus in the future.

Greg is hugely disappointed that the Elements thread is off the first pg of Reddit.  and rightfully so, it's a bad sign that's theres not more interest.  apparently the initial software is very buggy; not unexpected.  it's early, i know.  but i totally agree they've burned almost all their goodwill by being so obstinate and unforgiving in this debate.  unfortunately in finances and investing, the best deals are made on golf courses btwn friends and ppl you can trust.  Greg et al may the best cryptographers in the world but if no one trust their motivations on simple issues like Core code, how can they be trusted in deeply complex issues like SC Elements?  and i'm not talking about the crypto, i'm talking about the economic assumptions behind it and the business models upon which they are laid out and introduced to the community.  i wouldn't want to be investing in BS at this pt.
There really should be more interest in Confidential Values. That's a great technique.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 13, 2015, 01:00:06 AM
 #26416

I hate the fact that politics must be played.  But after this debacle, sidechains had better be more awesome than the second coming of Satoshi if they want to make mods that are so much more complicated than changing a constant that there is simply no comparative basis.
My guess is that they want to delay blocksize so they can cram sidechain mods into the same fork as a negotiated compromise.  But this is turning into a huge mistake.  They are burning all the goodwill they had, and making us suspect them of not wanting what's best for bitcoin.  This reputation is going to badly affect their ability to get consensus in the future.

The opposition to Gavin's 2000% jump proposal comes unanimously from every active technical contributor to Bitcoin Core who has spoken up. This should suggest to you that your understanding of the comparative basis likely miscalibrated.  Though there is no comparative basis, 2WP sidechains are something that just requires non-broken smart contracts, it's not something that needs a hard-fork (and the centralized fedpeg sidechain stuff is indistinguishable, uncensorable, and unblockable: you can't prevent people from using it no matter how much you think you should be able to tell them that they can manage their funds).

Considering how often cypherdoc brags about his thread here being filled with economic wisdom, it's surprising to see views like "changing a constant simple and safe", after all 21 million bitcoins is merely a constant (and, pedantically, one the system didn't originally enforce....).  Try another strawman. Smiley
 

it's certainly a lot simpler than anything you've proposed; oh wait, maybe not, that'd be nothing. Grin

as for Adam's extension block, bless his heart, i know he's trying but at this pt it is just too complicated.  the other devs think so too.  i read the dev transcript. 
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030



View Profile
June 13, 2015, 01:16:31 AM
 #26417

it's certainly a lot simpler than anything you've proposed; oh wait, maybe not, that'd be nothing. Grin
Yes, you cannot be simpler than changing a constant-- but as I pointed out, changing a constant is no measure of safety, correctness, or ethics. There are plenty of one character changes that would utterly destroy the system if adopted.

And contrary to your claim, I've proposed many things--- even going back some time. For example, adjusting the limit to respect the impact on UTXO so that the costs better match the actual costs; adjusting blocks based on the 33rd percentile of miner preferences (similar to Jeff's proposal of 25th percentile), and allowing miners to mine blocks over the limit quadratically with increased effective-difficulty-- so if the network is actually backlogged with fees miners can catch up without being completely unhinged.

And then there is all the separate fundamental scaling work which I originally proposed, like the whole notion of UTXOs as a separately tracked and commutable resource, fraud proofs, etc.

apparently the initial software is very buggy; not unexpected. 
Huh?  Dunno what you're talking about there!  The network has been running flawlessly.  While we're sure there are, no doubt, lots of issues-- as we optimized for adding interesting features instead of QA-- and you really really really shouldn't go create an altcoin out of it (because it will crash and burn and we will laugh)... it works quite well, and I'm not aware of any complaints to the contrary.    Are you unable to exit FUD-everything-gmaxwell-touches mode for even a moment?

There really should be more interest in Confidential Values. That's a great technique.
Thanks. There are a couple of other angles that I think more people will be excited about once they 'click' for them.

Tying the subjects together-- for a given state of technology and amount of extra capacity (be it bandwidth, cpu, etc.) that capacity can be spent in various ways, by taking on increased load, by improving fungibility or privacy, by increasing decentralization. I happen to think we need all of these things. But a simplified understanding that only looks at one dimension isn't going to come up with a good engineering conclusion.  And sure, more X sound great if you consider it in isolation, but perhaps not when you realize it means less Y and never gaining any Z.  One of the reasons I think it's important to be cautious here is so that we can have CT (or a superior successor technology) in the Bitcoin network and not just in a sidechain.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 13, 2015, 01:31:35 AM
 #26418

it's certainly a lot simpler than anything you've proposed; oh wait, maybe not, that'd be nothing. Grin
Yes, you cannot be simpler than changing a constant-- but as I pointed out, changing a constant is no measure of safety, correctness, or ethics. There are plenty of one character changes that would utterly destroy the system if adopted.

well, we'll never know unless we try.  Bitcoin needs growth and artificial restriction at 1MB does not match Satoshi's original vision.
Quote

And contrary to your claim, I've proposed many things--- even going back some time. For example, adjusting the limit to respect the impact on UTXO so that the costs better match the actual costs; adjusting blocks based on the 33rd percentile of miner preferences (similar to Jeff's proposal of 25th percentile), and allowing miners to mine blocks over the limit quadratically with increased effective-difficulty-- so if the network is actually backlogged with fees miners can catch up without being completely unhinged.

And then there is all the separate fundamental scaling work which I originally proposed, like the whole notion of UTXOs as a separately tracked and commutable resource, fraud proofs, etc.

at this pt, you'd have to propose a concrete commitment plan and present it to Gavin to prove yourself.  no more talk.
Quote
apparently the initial software is very buggy; not unexpected.
Huh?  Dunno what you're talking about there!  The network has been running flawlessly.  While we're sure there are, no doubt, lots of issues-- as we optimized for adding interesting features instead of QA-- and you really really really shouldn't go create an altcoin out of it (because it will crash and burn and we will laugh)... it works quite well, and I'm not aware of any complaints to the contrary.    Are you unable to exit FUD-everything-gmaxwell-touches mode for even a moment?

i said it was expected.  you know there was thread on Reddit yesterday where some of the guys were talking about having problems.  it got shoved so far down that my just now search 3 full pages deep can't find it.  it's not a criticism, just interesting given your disappointment that the Elements announcement thread is now gone too.
Quote

There really should be more interest in Confidential Values. That's a great technique.
Thanks. There are a couple of other angles that I think more people will be excited about once they 'click' for them.

Tying the subjects together-- for a given state of technology and amount of extra capacity (be it bandwidth, cpu, etc.) that capacity can be spent in various ways, by taking on increased load, by improving fungibility or privacy, by increasing decentralization. I happen to think we need all of these things. But a simplified understanding that only looks at one dimension isn't going to come up with a good engineering conclusion.  And sure, more X sound great if you consider it in isolation, but perhaps not when you realize it means less Y and never gaining any Z.  One of the reasons I think it's important to be cautious here is so that we can have CT (or a superior successor technology) in the Bitcoin network and not just in a sidechain.



btw, i haven't heard your thoughts on Jeff's proposal.
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030



View Profile
June 13, 2015, 01:54:27 AM
 #26419

at this pt, you'd have to propose a concrete commitment plan and present it to Gavin to prove yourself.  no more talk.
LOL. Present it to Gavin?  You realize that Gavin hasn't actually tendered a specific proposal-- it's all talk and political maneuvering with the general public, right?  No BIP draft, no pull request, no development thread (except for the one created days after by opponents of his move in shock by the approach). As far as I can tell the whole situation was specifically constructed to be a big show and justify a "governance" crisis and land-grab (a belief also supported by the emails Mike was sending the gmx account a year ago). That noise about the XT hardfork?  No commits on the repository for months, and except for two patches even the months old stuff is just copying Bitcoin Core-- the work of all these other people who are so easily disrespected now. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. Meanwhile, beyond making proposals, creating simulations, oh yea and developing bunch of highly useful new free software for Bitcoin, the rest of the people who actually do the work continuing to truck on.  In any case-- these things have been proposed in the usual forums. Gavin seems unwilling to consider anything other than a massive uncontrolled jump in blocksize as far as I can tell, fortunately Jeff isn't interested in the same kind of purely political end run.

And here again we find that you say something untrue (that I hadn't made proposals related to block size), it's corrected (no, in fact I've tried several specific proposals), then the bar moves.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 13, 2015, 02:00:16 AM
 #26420

hadn't seen this simulation from the btcd folks before.  looks promising:

Conclusions

Aside from the obvious network and storage constraints of running a full Bitcoin node at large block sizes, it appears the Bitcoin network is capable of handling a substantially higher transaction volume than it does currently. The CPU time being dominated by ECDSA signature checks at high transaction rates suggests a clustered full node architecture could process credit-card-like transaction rates by using a load balancing / offload approach to ECDSA signature checking, e.g. a full node with a 10 machine cluster would top out at >2,000 tps.

The resources and know-how required to run a clustered node like this may impose a significant centralizing force on Bitcoin. Backpressure against the centralization of Bitcoin may well drive alternative solutions to having all transactions on-chain. Alternatively, it may end up that Bitcoin adoption grows slowly enough that the computing power of a single node grows quickly enough to avoid requiring a clustered full node architecture.

Do note that btcsim does nothing to address the current issues with block propagation time and block size. These are serious issues that are already being addressed by Gavin and the other Core developers.


https://blog.conformal.com/btcsim-simulating-the-rise-of-bitcoin/

maybe offchain for profit companies are pursuing the wrong strategy by limiting block sizes on MC if they truly want to push tx's to their products?  Grin

the important part of their conclusion is that they acknowledge that organic growth of tx volume doesn't necessarily immediately ramp to the block limit; it is in fact controlled by market forces and adoption by users.  even if tx volume did ramp to the max i actually wouldn't be afraid of a scenario like this.  that's b/c i'd bet dollars to donuts that exchange price would ramp with it thus allowing me personally to have some extra fun running a "supernode".
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 [1321] 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 ... 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!