Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 10:29:43 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 ... 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 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 09:42:00 PM
 #26741

BTW, does anyone know what the status of IBLT is? This one change (which doesn't require a fork) would do a lot for the network.

Gavin has been seriously distracted from this  Angry, just as the SC guys have been seriously distracted from their own work, by their blowback on the 1MB.

Yeah, you may well be right about SC/LN timing, I am still trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, FWIW (at least until Wladimir breaks ranks).




1513506583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506583
Reply with quote  #2

1513506583
Report to moderator
1513506583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506583
Reply with quote  #2

1513506583
Report to moderator
1513506583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506583
Reply with quote  #2

1513506583
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513506583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506583
Reply with quote  #2

1513506583
Report to moderator
1513506583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506583
Reply with quote  #2

1513506583
Report to moderator
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 10:05:07 PM
 #26742

Yeah, you may well be right about SC/LN timing, I am still trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, FWIW (at least until Wladimir breaks ranks).

That is why I think a permanent solution to the blocksize limit today is better than a limit increase that leaves the issue to be addressed later. Even with the 20MB change, we will have to implement another hard fork in 3-5 years. It is better to take care of the issue once and for all, and have future hard fork decisions be limited to a single proposed change.

The voting proposal is one form of a permanent solution, Gavin's doubling every 2 years is another, creating a floating limit that resets every x blocks to the average of recent blocks plus overhead is a third. Any of these three work fine and have their own pros and cons.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 17, 2015, 10:43:11 PM
 #26743

Bad ass analysis:

https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-5-stress-test-analysis
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 17, 2015, 10:54:25 PM
 #26744

this should work. nice and simple and pleases Chinese miners w/o giving miners in general any votes:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39ziy6/eli5_what_will_happen_if_there_is_a_hard_fork/cs7xe9o



If 75% of hashing power is producing up-version blocks

AND after some brave miner decides to actually produce a >1MB block.

8MB max block size (chinese miners were unhappy with 20 for not-entirely-clear reasons)
Earliest fork date 11 Jan 2016 (miners and others want sooner rather than later)
Activation when 750 of last 1,000 blocks are up-version (version 0x20000004 to be compatible with sipa's new versioning bits scheme)
2 week 'grace period' after 75% threshold reached before first >1MB block allowed to be mined
8MB cap doubles every two years (so 16MB in 2018, etc: unless there is a soft fork before then because 16MB is too much)

Not sure why limiting the date is necessary. I feel like we should be able to pull this off sooner, especially if we are backed into a corner by some kind of big rally.

i agree but miners need time to switch over and indicate so with the versioning.

Sure. But doesn't the 2 week grace period after 75% imply enough time?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuHfVn_cfHU

Gavin's solution is very good, and the 2-week grace period a smart move. The reason for this is that it gets the most people on-board with the >1MB change in a controlled manner. It is axiomatic that 100% of miners cannot be in the first 75% to upgrade even if they all wanted to. The 2-week period focuses minds on a known deadline and will likely see a "hockey-stick" uptick in the adoption curve. I would expect 85-90% mining power behind the change before the first >1MB block is mined. If 90% was the original target then Bitcoin's ecosystem growth, supported by the majority, could be stymied by a mere 11% of hold-out miners. The grace period also allows for non-mining nodes to upgrade who are not paying close attention to the whole process.

I like Jeff's BIP 100 with the miner voting, but not sure about the 90% he mentions because of the concern above.
Also, I really don't like a fixed date for everyone to upgrade (although this is far better than no change planned at all). Not using block versioning to change the 1MB means applying a sub-standard software solution for politically correct reasons, i.e. just so people can say "Aha, the users control Bitcoin and are telling the miners what to do." We already know the user consensus on a dozen btc and reddit polls, ecosystem business feedback, and now at least 50% of mining power opinion. So the change should be done as safely as possible. Gavin is perusing this path.

Probably the biggest reason that Core Dev is prepared to let the 1MB limit be constantly hit is that they think they can manage the situation. Perhaps they need to look up the word "hubris" in the dictionary.

A big bazooka in Core Dev's (fairly small) armory needed to "manage" a blocks-limit-full situation is prior roll-out of a change to purge unconfirmed tx from node mempools. This would in theory blunt some of the nasty effects in Mike's Crash Landing scenario.

So, no surprise that a pull request exists to do this:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6281

Quote
Restrict the maximum memory pool size to avoid potential DoS issues.
The mechanism is simply to recursively remove the transactions which have the lowest priority until the memory pool is below the maximum size.

(my emphasis)
Hmm, DoS issues like ordinary users legitimately trying to use Bitcoin after tx are backing up when free block-space has vanished?

However, what appears to be a bed of roses rapidly turns into a bed of thorns...

Quote
@sipa ah so if a wallet transaction is evicted from the mempool the conflict tracking stuff will all break? that's nasty
the rabbit's hole of things to fix gets ever deeper

Their bazooka has a barrel bent into a U-shape.

Another big concern about mempool limiting is the implications for IBLT, which is Bitcoin's best hope for challenging the likes of Visa and MC in the medium, not long-term.
Randomly ejecting unconfirmed tx, or allowing a user-configurable max-mempool-size, creates non-uniform mempools. This seriously degrades the potential for IBLT, especially when miners want to clear most of the unconfirmed tx, to maximize revenue when the block reward is lower.

The is no mempool limit right?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 17, 2015, 10:57:18 PM
 #26745

Probably the biggest reason that Core Dev is prepared to let the 1MB limit be constantly hit is that they think they can manage the situation. Perhaps they need to look up the word "hubris" in the dictionary.

I think they want to make sure a hard fork is already needed around the same time they are ready to launch Blockstream's LN and SC changes. This would make it easier to push the changes through. i.e. "OK, transactions recently hit the 8MB limit and we need to increase the limit today, here are some additional updates to include in the fork".

If there is no pressing need for another hard fork (because the blocksize issue was already dealt with), then the entire discussion is focused on if people want to make a drastic change, and there is no rush to do so. Combining the two might accelerate the process.

For a VC backed firm, that has limited time to demonstrate adoption or revenue, running into a wall where it takes 2 years just to convince the Bitcoin ecosystem to change for you, can be a killer.

They forget that people will remember this incident and that there will be pay back time when they want to change the protocol for their own reasons. Not too smart.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 17, 2015, 10:59:02 PM
 #26746

BTW, does anyone know what the status of IBLT is? This one change (which doesn't require a fork) would do a lot for the network.

Gavin has been seriously distracted from this  Angry, just as the SC guys have been seriously distracted from their own work, by their blowback on the 1MB.

Yeah, you may well be right about SC/LN timing, I am still trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, FWIW (at least until Wladimir breaks ranks).





From the recent language I've read from Wlad, this doesn't sound too likely.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 11:16:53 PM
 #26747

...
In short he is either knowingly acting as a gatekeeper, senile, or just not that smart. I would bet on the first conclusion.

I'll agree with your bet.  Classic controlled opposition.  

No, I think both of you conspiracy theorists are smarter than Chomsky. Chomsky is a slave of the establishment and both of you conspiracy theorists are free hero members of the society.
If you brake your leg or your neck, you should consult a quack instead of a university trained doctor of the establishment.

Some 'trained' doctor told my mom not very long ago that she should take some medication for cholesterol.  When she asked about the reports of liver damage, the guy said "Oh, we can do liver transplants now."

From my research into vaccines I am sure that 90% of 'trained' doctors have very little knowledge of how the various parts of our immune systems interact and how the ecology of diseases themselves actually work.  They are trained to 'know' what the pharmaceutical industry wants them to know and nothing more though some of them will, thankfully, not stop there.

So, no, I won't go to a quack.  I'll evaluate the situation myself and decide who is most appropriate to help me out then I'll evaluate what they tell me and double-check that it is not self-serving bullshit.  I am sure that almost no medical doctors are deliberately evil.  Just that they are humans like everyone else.  You probably have to be in the upper 10% in terms of native intelligence to obtain a doctorate (medical or otherwise) but that is certainly not sufficient to be immune against intellectual laziness and various socio-economic pressures.


Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 17, 2015, 11:42:02 PM
 #26748

Speaking of O(n2) scaling:



I took some creative liberties  Grin

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 12:05:47 AM
 #26749

Oleganza arguing with me that Bitcoin has already achieved gold status and can do so w/o more scaling.  c'mon, i don't even argue that.  i say it is in the process of doing so:

https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/611298778667220992
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 12:10:01 AM
 #26750

Oleganza arguing with me that Bitcoin has already achieved gold status and can do so w/o more scaling.  c'mon, i don't even argue that.  i say it is in the process of doing so:

https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/611298778667220992

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a0qfn/another_reason_why_we_need_to_raise_the_blocksize/cs8rqjn
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 12:35:01 AM
 #26751

Oleganza arguing with me that Bitcoin has already achieved gold status and can do so w/o more scaling.  c'mon, i don't even argue that.  i say it is in the process of doing so:

https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/611298778667220992

The reason the Gold bug's dream is never realized, despite the fact that all of the monetary abuses they predicted came true, is simply because gold is not directly used in day to day transactions. If something is not used in day to day transactions, it is not viewed as money.

CBs have gotten away with their abuses simply because they outlawed real money alternatives to fiat for long enough that the public lost memory of the very existence of alternatives to CB money. Everyone sees the dollar/euro/pound/yen as money because they use them every day, so no one runs away from these mechanisms no matter how they are abused. What would they run to?

The only way to make something else be viewed as money, is if it is used as money in day to day transactions. Using something and knowing others will accept it a basic requirement here. Gold lost that usage which is why it has not come back.

This is what is so frustrating about those blocking the blocksize increase. If people can't use bitcoin directly, the entire project is doomed to a fate worse than gold.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:00:09 AM
 #26752

Oleganza arguing with me that Bitcoin has already achieved gold status and can do so w/o more scaling.  c'mon, i don't even argue that.  i say it is in the process of doing so:

https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/611298778667220992

The reason the Gold bug's dream is never realized, despite the fact that all of the monetary abuses they predicted came true, is simply because gold is not directly used in day to day transactions. If something is not used in day to day transactions, it is not viewed as money.

CBs have gotten away with their abuses simply because they outlawed real money alternatives to fiat for long enough that the public lost memory of the very existence of alternatives to CB money. Everyone sees the dollar/euro/pound/yen as money because they use them every day, so no one runs away from these mechanisms no matter how they are abused. What would they run to?

The only way to make something else be viewed as money, is if it is used as money in day to day transactions. Using something and knowing others will accept it a basic requirement here. Gold lost that usage which is why it has not come back.

This is what is so frustrating about those blocking the blocksize increase. If people can't use bitcoin directly, the entire project is doomed to a fate worse than gold.

right, i'm trying to point out to him that Bitcoin has a much higher bar to leap to become digital gold.  that's b/c it can't be coddled, displayed, shown off, polished, etc. Think back to that time when you first sent BTC to yourself, most likely.  the amazement when it appeared on the other device and then counting down confirmations.  now imagine the little African kid getting an unconfirmed tx that gets stuck from filled blocks.  he will drop Bitcoin right then and there and go back to going down holes for hunks of gold.  we should want all those kids and the entire mining industry to drop what their doing and convert to digital gold right now.  only then will Bitcoin be secure and decentralized.

who will resist gvt censorships more?  gmax or the little African?  gmax would rollover in an instant, i guarantee you that.  he would have to as CEO of Blockstream.  not only that, he doesn't have the strength of conviction to resist.  hell, i don't, living here in the US.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 01:04:50 AM
 #26753

CBs have gotten away with their abuses simply because they outlawed real money alternatives to fiat for long enough that the public lost memory of the very existence of alternatives to CB money. Everyone sees the dollar/euro/pound/yen as money because they use them every day, so no one runs away from these mechanisms no matter how they are abused. What would they run to?
As long as central banks have existed their activities have been subsidized via (government-provided) monolopy and via taxation.

Almost from the moment people stopped using gold coins and switched to gold IOUs for their daily transactions, gold has been a government welfare program.

There's no such thing as a free market reserve currency. To obtain what the crypto goldbugs want they'll need national governments to take control of most of the Bitcoins in circulation and use their taxing capabilities to support the price.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:05:55 AM
 #26754

The is no mempool limit right?

Only by the addressable memory on each node, which varies. It would take a phenomenal number of unconfirmed tx to break nodes, but maybe enough of them would happen if wallets keep sending tx for thousands of frustrated BTC holders who are trying to get coins onto the exchanges as the price falls way below any TA support.

Oleganza arguing with me that Bitcoin has already achieved gold status and can do so w/o more scaling.  c'mon, i don't even argue that.  i say it is in the process of doing so:

https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/611298778667220992

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a0qfn/another_reason_why_we_need_to_raise_the_blocksize/cs8rqjn

Oleganza is nuts if he thinks that $100 tx fees would ever be normal. How could Bitcoin keep any market share in that situation if another crypto-coin had 10x the volume and fees of about $1? How could Bitcoin keep any semblance of "digital gold" in that environment? (leaving aside the definition of it).

There is another reason why Bitcoin should not be allowed to hit a network-wide hard limit at any time, and ironically, for a trust-less system, it is trust in the system as a whole.
All users of Bitcoin have to trust that the trust-less network works and is viable. It has proved this over 6.5 years. That trust is hard-earned. Think about a relationship or a business partner, it takes years to earn trust, but that trust can be squandered over one serious event. If a partner cheats after years of loyalty, then how many years does it take to regain trust in that person again? Never?
Same with bitcoin, because: money.
A loss of trust just once is a scar for life.

79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 192

◕_◕


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:07:09 AM
 #26755

Link to World Bank report on preparedness against cyberattacks targeting CBs and other financial institutions:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/vq30p298b8kwksm/Cyber_Security_Paper_May_2015.pdf

TL;DR: 1) not prepared 2) strengthening security will be difficult and costly; sr. management is clueless.

[If you don't trust the FTP service or my pdf, but need to read the report, you may go to
http://www.worldbank.org/en/events/2015/05/18/cyber-preparedness-seminar
and email the listed contact for a copy; it has not been posted yet].
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:18:47 AM
 #26756

even guys like Michael Goldstein and Pierre Rochard from Nakamoto Institute don't seem to understand that Bitcoin has not gained the network effect yet to ascend to that of true Digital Gold.  they think we're done.  how disappointing.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:27:29 AM
 #26757

thank goodness Bitpay gets it:

""User adoption is the most important success factor for BitPay. Bitcore and Copay provide infrastructure that people can use to build new services and tools that ultimately increase Bitcoin adoption. The more Bitcoin users there are, the more valuable BitPay's business services become."

https://www.zapchain.com/a/l/bitpay-ceo-bitcoin-will-secure-almost-all-electronic-payments-in-5-years/4ImQSvTBx0
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:39:21 AM
 #26758

thank goodness Bitpay gets it:

""User adoption is the most important success factor for BitPay. Bitcore and Copay provide infrastructure that people can use to build new services and tools that ultimately increase Bitcoin adoption. The more Bitcoin users there are, the more valuable BitPay's business services become."

https://www.zapchain.com/a/l/bitpay-ceo-bitcoin-will-secure-almost-all-electronic-payments-in-5-years/4ImQSvTBx0

another way to phrase where we are in the adoption cycle is that Bitcoin today is composed mostly of hodlers.  the money velocity is low b/c everyone currently involved is looking for the inevitable price ramps.  that's ok as long as we keep onboarding new users as we head towards 2140 when the issuance curve levels off and price stability has a chance to be achieved.  until then, user growth is paramount to dampen the inevitable bubble crashes and grow the user base towards worldwide adoption.  only then will Bitcoin be secure due to the ultimate in decentralization down to the poorest 3rd world user who won't give a shit about gvt coercion and who will primarily care about the reliable payment network that Bitcoin can provide for him to buy a loaf of bread.  money velocity will then have matched the SOV function.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 03:22:37 AM
 #26759

great post on Big O notation by awemany on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a5f1v/mike_hearn_on_those_who_want_all_scaling_to_be/csa5grv

Ok. Lets say you are going to a party on new years eve. At 0:00, you go and greet and wish the best for next year to everyone who is around you. Because it is customs, everyone else does the same. Lets further assume that you are in a single room with everyone else, and for the greetings to happen orderly, only one person can greet another person at any single time.
Now, doing a greeting takes time, lets say d seconds.
For a party with 10 people, you'd greet 9 others. Assuming each greeting takes a second, and everyone else would do the same, so there would be 10 people each greeting 9 people, 10 x 9 == 90 greetings, taking just 1.5 minutes.
Now assume you are going to a bigger party instead, with 100 guests.
Naively, you might assume something along the lines of: 'Ok, ten greeting each takes 1.5min, so 100 must take 15min.'.
But at the party with 100 guests, one hundred people are greeting 99 other guests each, so a total of 9900 greetings. And that takes 2h 45min.
Whoops!
The reason being, of course, that for n guests, it takes
d * n * (n-1)
seconds to do the greetings. And the term n * (n-1) becomes big rather quickly!
So this process of doing new years greetings is something that clearly doesn't really work for large crowds. If you'd train everyone who goes to the party to talk really, really quickly (reducing d), you might get the greetings done within the assumed 15min. But then, this process would still break if you'd go to a crowd of a thousand.
Computer science people would say it is an algorithm that scales rather badly. They say it is in O ( n ^ 2 ).
Now, clearly, d * n * (n-1) is not the same as n * n for almost all choices of t and n.
But for very large n, n * (n-1) gets very close to just n ^ 2. And the factor t, the time it takes to shout the greeting, isn't really affecting so much the problem that at some large crowd size, it becomes infeasible to use the above greeting algorithm.
And this is captured in O( n ^ 2 ). It only gives you the overall, rough behaviour of a scheme or algorithm, without the unnecessary details. Consider that algorithms on a computer can be very complex, and there can be many such factors and weird numbers in front of the n2 part. This so called big O notation requires some more (but still relatively simple) math of which the specifics are not relevant to you as a 5 year old. But you can read more on Wikipedia, for example.
Ok. So now lets turn to the topic of Bitcoin, or rather the topic of its scalability.
The Bitcoin network consists of a set of nodes that send messages to each other to inform each other about new transactions to process. For Bitcoin to work as proper money, the whole network has to somehow agree on what transactions have been done, and which have not.
There is now of course a lot of complexity and thought into the specifics on how this all works, but what is interesting in the context of this discussion is that somehow, all full nodes need to learn about all transactions from all other full nodes.
And here we can go back to the above picture of the party on new year's eve.
Imagine a Bitcoin full node is a party guest, and greeting means passing a transaction on to others.
If Bitcoin would work like the party, all n nodes would announce a new transaction (the greeting), to everyone else.
As the CS guy says: This is O(n 2 ), this doesn't scale.
But the problem is, that this is the wrong picture of the Bitcoin network.
In the equivalent picture from above, a Bitcoin full node would make a greeting (forward a transaction) to every single other node in the network.
And I think you can see the problem here: There is no party going on among the full nodes (they are not sentient yet), and they do not care whether they receive the SAME transaction from every other node personally. Rather, they just care about somehow receiving it at all.
And so, the Bitcoin network has been designed in an more efficient manner. Basically, a transaction is gossiped across the network. If a node hears a valid transaction, it just forwards it to whatever other neighboring, connected node has not seen it yet.
And if you now think about it, a network of full nodes that are all somehow connected just needs 'n gossipings' to get a message to everyone in the village.
That is O(n) behavior, and that is an algorithm that scales a lot better. That's linear behavior.
Now, and this might not be exactly ELI5 anymore, the situation is of course more complex. Because full nodes are not the same as users in Bitcoin, one actually needs to introduce another variable describing the number of users in the network (let that be u) and the number of transactions a typical user makes in a given period of time, let that be t.
Could it be that somehow, the load on the network, the number of transactions to push around, is something that grows too fast with more users joining, or with the number of transactions going up?
It can be assumed that every one of the u users wants to make a certain average number of transactions per day, t, and so the number of transactions going into the Bitcoin network scales like O(u * t).
The total number of transaction transmissions in the network then are in O(n * u * t), because, as we discussed above, every full node sees every transaction.
If you assume that every user just has to have a node under his desk, it is n == u, and so, the scaling of the whole Bitcoin network would be O(u ^ 2 * t), which is quadratic, CS guy doesn't like it, doesn't scale, forget it!
But wait a bit! First of all, the metric that we used here was for the whole network. In the context of the blocksize debate, some people worry about decentralization, and have some (unstated, vague and ill-defined, one might add) idea on how many full nodes there ought to be in the network. They argue that a full node might become too expensive to run in a non-scaling Bitcoin network. The metric, though, that every user would use to decide whether to run a node or not, is not in O(u ^ 2 * t), the whole network, it is rather the load per node, which is in O(u * t).
And secondly, but equally important, the idea that every user is going to run a full node is not the state of and has never been the vision for Bitcoin. Satoshi himself said and proposed that most users are going to use SPV (simplified payment verification) wallets, which are very thin clients interacting with the network, and not full nodes.
Finally, a thing should be said about the number of transactions t. There is this thing called Metcalfe's law, that states that the value of a network with u users goes like O(u ^ 2), as each user can connect to each other in the network.
If this would accurately describe the total number of transactions in the network, Bitcoin would be not scalable, as full network transactions would go like O(n * u ^ 2) and per node as O(u ^ 2). That would not be scalable.
Now, it is certainly to be expected that with a larger network, a user might do more Bitcoin transactions, as the network has more utility to him/her. He might shift more of the usual cash or banking transactions to Bitcoin, as soon as the Bitcoin network allows him to do so. In any case, he's not going to interact with all u users, just because they are there!
But it can reasonably be expected that there is (on average) a certain number of banking and cash transactions a user wants to make per day, overall, and if Bitcoin would take over all those transactions, it would still level out at some point. Technically, this would be O(1) in the final state.
However we are not there yet and, certainly, some growth is indeed to be expected with a growing Bitcoin user base. In here, Metcalfe's law is discussed in the context of the first dotcom boom. In there, an argument is made that the value of a network with u users rather grows like O(u log u) than O(u ^ 2). Assuming that this growth in value reflects fully in the actual transaction rate, the growth in transactions per node on the Bitcoin network would then also be O(u log u), which is benign, and scalable.
Interestingly, it should be noted that in that paper, they argue against Metcalfe's law as being too optimistic of the growth in value of a network.
Ironically, here we have people now trying to stop Bitcoin because it might grow too much, it might be too successful!
Does this EILYA5 to you sufficiently?
Phew. I think this is actually pretty comprehensive. /u/mike_hearn, feel free to make/mix this into a blog post, if you think it helps.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 04:38:50 AM
 #26760

read this article.  is also helpful:

http://www.cse.unr.edu/~yuksem/teaching/nae/reading/2006-briscoe-metcalfes.pdf
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 ... 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!