Bitcoin Forum
June 25, 2017, 05:36:02 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 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 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1921764 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 02:47:09 AM
 #26961

yeah, but as stated by the Chinese miners, they don't have superior connectivity.  in fact, it's lower connectivity.  thus, how can these largest 5 miners of all be a problem to small miners?

I'm not going to comment on the specifics of some Chinese miners and what connectivity they specifically have, between each other and with miners outside China. I also don't think it matters much and find it hard to believe you think that matters. In a year or a few years the network might look entirely different. But there will still always be a range of connectivity (and other resources for that matter) available to miners. That is the more important issue.

actually, i'm not the one who brought up the attack initially.  it was the 1MB'ers obsessing about yet another theoretical attack that has now been debunked.
Quote

The term "anti-spam" means exactly preventing abusers from submitting more volume of activity into the system as a whole than the system as a whole can handle. That "system as a whole" includes a large (ideally decentralized) network that exists over a wide range of geographic, economic, and technological constraints. Again I fail to see what improvements have been made in ability of the system to absorb spam, aside from relatively modest improvements in the underlying bandwidth, storage, etc., since 1 MB that would justify an 8x or 20x increase in that limit.

5 yr after 1MB, the network is much bigger, stronger, and more resilient.  one can always obsess about these theoretical problems but the fact is that Bitcoin hasn't been broken and hasn't been attacked.  there are quite a few network experts who've agreed with Gavin that scaling shouldn't be a problem.  of course, the proof is in the pudding.
1498412162
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498412162

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498412162
Reply with quote  #2

1498412162
Report to moderator
1498412162
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498412162

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498412162
Reply with quote  #2

1498412162
Report to moderator
POLONIEX TRADING SIGNALS
+50% Profit and more via TELEGRAM
ALTCOINTRADER.CO
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 02:47:43 AM
 #26962

tvbcof, I agree with you that two days isn't out of the question for critical and high-value transactions, but Bitcoin main chain handles those perfectly well too, without the added cost and delay, and without security compromises. The competitive advantage of involving a sidechain specifically for critical or high value transactions is nil or negative.

Cripes smooth wtf happened to you? Has the real smooth been kidnapped?

Er. Anonymity? Hiding the value of that transaction with Blockstream's C.T.?

I've never been sold on that until and unless a sidechain becomes so popular that cypherdoc's fear of all the value being sucked out of the main chain and decoupling is realized, which makes the new chain just a replacement for Bitcoin, and again side chains don't continue to exist in a meaningful sense. (And obviously in that case my objection to failing to share Bitcoin's network effect doesn't exist either.)

In order to make that critical high-value transaction you are going to have to move a high volume of BTC to the sidechain, then perform the tranasction, then move the high-value back. Both sides of that will be not only visible but highly conspicuous on the Bitcoin blockchain. Neither you nor the recipient is likely to want to keep your high-value on a side chain for an indefinite period of time with worse security.



smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 02:52:06 AM
 #26963

5 yr after 1MB, the network is much bigger, stronger, and more resilient.

Is the capacity of the network to handle large blocks 8x bigger, or 20x bigger? Is there a high degree of confidence that it can handle 1000x bigger blocks in 15 years?

I think the answer to all of these questions, as a purely factual technical matter is no.

As I said I would support a smaller increase and a smaller automatic rate of increase going forward. But an immediate 8x along with 2x every two years is reckless, just as an immediate 20x was (in fact worse imo)

The other thing nobody seems to address is that even these rates of scaling don't really do that much. 8x a few transactions per second is still only a few (maybe 20) transactions per second. Even 1000x does not reach globe-spanning capacity with everything everyone might want to do being handled on-chain. So all of the off-chain and demand-limiting fee increases stuff that big-block proponents are worried about is going to happen anyway.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 02:54:15 AM
 #26964

In order to make that critical high-value transaction you are going to have to move a high volume of BTC to the sidechain

Unless you buy BTC on the sidechain to start with. For example, they spend BTC to buy mining hardware to mine anonymously. Isn't that how you got your XMR.

And anonymity is not likely the only feature that can appeal to slower transactions from the high valued demographic.

You can see every possible feature now? Wow you are omniscient.

And slow transfers between Core and side chains for high valued is not the only case, as I pointed out upthread.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 02:56:06 AM
 #26965

In order to make that critical high-value transaction you are going to have to move a high volume of BTC to the sidechain

Unless you buy BTC on the sidechain to start with. For example, they spend BTC to buy mining hardware to mine anonymously. Isn't that how you got your XMR.

It's hard to envision how this works in the foreseeable future. If you buy mining equipment and mine the merged-mined sidechain, the vast majority of your rewards will still be main chain BTC. You will get only some small fees in sidechain coins.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 02:56:59 AM
 #26966

In order to make that critical high-value transaction you are going to have to move a high volume of BTC to the sidechain

Unless you buy BTC on the sidechain to start with. For example, they spend BTC to buy mining hardware to mine anonymously. Isn't that how you got your XMR.

It's hard to envision how this works in the foreseeable future. If you buy mining equipment and mine the merged-mined sidechain, the vast majority of your rewards will still be main chain BTC. You will get only some small fees in sidechain coins.

Who said all side chains will be exclusively merged mined, i.e. it is possible to combine two PoW simultaneously?

I believe it was PPCoin that combined PoS and PoW?

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 03:04:27 AM
 #26967

5 yr after 1MB, the network is much bigger, stronger, and more resilient.  one can always obsess about these theoretical problems but the fact is that Bitcoin hasn't been broken and hasn't been attacked.  there are quite a few network experts who've agreed with Gavin that scaling shouldn't be a problem.  of course, the proof is in the pudding.

If you repeat illogical myopic nonsense STRAWMEN enough times, perhaps the readers will forget the logic.

You consistently construct STRAWMEN arguments which stray far from the logic that must be weighed.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 03:06:22 AM
 #26968

5 yr after 1MB, the network is much bigger, stronger, and more resilient.

Is the capacity of the network to handle large blocks 8x bigger, or 20x bigger? Is there a high degree of confidence that it can handle 1000x bigger blocks in 15 years?


I suspect the answer is yes.  Here's what it might look like graphically:



If anyone can see a mistake in the above chart, please let me know.  I'd like to post it to r/bitcoin once I'm confident it's correct.

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 03:09:07 AM
 #26969

Here's what it might look like graphically

Visa level right about when the debasement becomes so miniscule it has essentially stopped funding mining and the effect of block variance on delays due to nominal transaction fees will destroy any remaining decentralization Bitcoin.

Realize the miner cares about nominal not the percentage of the value you are transacting.

Refer to the logic.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 03:12:26 AM
 #26970

Apparently Gavin is violating the Wiki:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes#Require_unanimous_consent

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes#Require_miner_consensus

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 03:15:35 AM
 #26971

5 yr after 1MB, the network is much bigger, stronger, and more resilient.

Is the capacity of the network to handle large blocks 8x bigger, or 20x bigger? Is there a high degree of confidence that it can handle 1000x bigger blocks in 15 years?


I suspect the answer is yes.  Here's what it might look like graphically:



If anyone can see a mistake in the above chart, please let me know.  I'd like to post it to r/bitcoin once I'm confident it's correct.

wow, another beautiful graph from PeterR.

looks good to me.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 03:22:19 AM
 #26972

wow, another beautiful graph from PeterR.

looks good to me.

Gatekeeper just had to post some noise to hide my prior post.

you are the noise.

Skype address please.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 03:27:21 AM
 #26973

and since we're on the topic of large miners with good connections causing increased centralization by disadvantaging small miners, how about the argument that SC's exacerbates mining centralization b/c these exact large miners with better connections are the only ones who can do all the merge mining required to secure SC's?
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 03:35:16 AM
 #26974


Visa level right about when the debasement becomes so miniscule it has essentially stopped funding mining and the effect of block variance on delays due to nominal transaction fees will destroy any remaining decentralization Bitcoin.

Realize the miner cares about nominal not the percentage of the value you are transacting.
...

Let's talk nominal:

Right now, the block reward is 25 BTC x $250 / BTC = $6250.  In 2032, the inflation rate should be be 0.78 BTC / block.  Each bitcoin would then need to be worth

   $6250 / 0.78 BTC = $8,000 / BTC

to achieve the same security ignoring transaction fees.  $8,000 / BTC is a very modest price if we assume this level of growth.

But transaction fees would no longer be negligible and will help improve security too.  If there's 2,000 TPS in 2032, that's 1.2 million transactions per block.  Ignoring the block reward now, the average fee required to maintain the current level of security is:

   $6250 / 1,200,000 txs = 0.5 cents / tx.

This is a very affordable fee, and still gives the same security level as today even ignoring the block reward.

Any way you slice it, if we assume continued growth, the network security should be greater in 2032 than now.  

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 03:54:06 AM
 #26975


Visa level right about when the debasement becomes so miniscule it has essentially stopped funding mining and the effect of block variance on delays due to nominal transaction fees will destroy any remaining decentralization Bitcoin.

Realize the miner cares about nominal not the percentage of the value you are transacting.
...

Let's talk nominal:

Right now, the block reward is 25 BTC x $250 / BTC = $6250.  In 2032, the inflation rate should be be 0.78 BTC / block.  Each bitcoin would then need to be worth

   $6250 / 0.78 BTC = $8,000 / BTC

to achieve the same security ignoring transaction fees.  $8,000 / BTC is a very modest price if we assume this level of growth.

But transaction fees would no longer be negligible and will help improve security too.  If there's 2,000 TPS in 2032, that's 1.2 million transactions per block.  Ignoring the block reward now, the average fee required to maintain the current level of security is:

   $6250 / 1,200,000 txs = 0.5 cents / tx.

This is a very affordable fee, and still gives the same security level as today even ignoring the block reward.

Any way you slice it, if we assume continued growth, the network security should be greater in 2032 than now.  


And that's precisely why we need to keep all those TX's on the mainchain.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 03:58:55 AM
 #26976

Let's talk nominal:

I was writing about the nominal amount of each transaction fee, in that smaller transactions will pay a higher percentage to match the same nominal value as a larger valued transaction.


to achieve the same security ignoring transaction fees.  $8,000 / BTC is a very modest price if we assume this level of growth.

In 2032, how do you know $1 won't be worth a $0.01 in current purchasing power?

My point was never about absolute values but relative weight of transaction value versus debasement value. You entirely missed my point, as indicated below...

If there's 2,000 TPS in 2032, that's 1.2 million transactions per block...

Any way you slice it, if we assume continued growth, the network security should be greater in 2032 than now.  

The point of my logic was not about whether we would have network security, rather whether we would have decentralization.

Why do you always construct strawmen and lose the plot?


And that's precisely why we need to keep all those TX's on the mainchain.

So you can kill decentralization.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 04:09:18 AM
 #26977

to achieve the same security ignoring transaction fees.  $8,000 / BTC is a very modest price if we assume this level of growth.
In 2032, how do you know $1 won't be worth a $0.01 in current purchasing power?

I think it was implied that I meant 2015 $s.  

My point was never about absolute values but relative weight of transaction value versus debasement value. You entirely missed my point, as indicated below...

If there's 2,000 TPS in 2032, that's 1.2 million transactions per block...Any way you slice it, if we assume continued growth, the network security should be greater in 2032 than now.  

The point of my logic was not about whether we would have network security, rather whether we would have decentralization.

Why do you always construct strawmen and lose the plot?

Your exact words:

Visa level right about when the debasement becomes so miniscule it has essentially stopped funding mining

I showed that the block subsidy would very likely not be "so minuscule it has essentially stopped funding mining."

...and the effect of block variance on delays due to nominal transaction fees will destroy any remaining decentralization Bitcoin.

^ I couldn't parse this statement.  

Do you have a point?

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

Activity: 1596



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 04:27:33 AM
 #26978


Visa level right about when the debasement becomes so miniscule it has essentially stopped funding mining and the effect of block variance on delays due to nominal transaction fees will destroy any remaining decentralization Bitcoin.

Realize the miner cares about nominal not the percentage of the value you are transacting.
...

Let's talk nominal:

Right now, the block reward is 25 BTC x $250 / BTC = $6250.  In 2032, the inflation rate should be be 0.78 BTC / block.  Each bitcoin would then need to be worth

   $6250 / 0.78 BTC = $8,000 / BTC

to achieve the same security ignoring transaction fees.  $8,000 / BTC is a very modest price if we assume this level of growth.

But transaction fees would no longer be negligible and will help improve security too.  If there's 2,000 TPS in 2032, that's 1.2 million transactions per block.  Ignoring the block reward now, the average fee required to maintain the current level of security is:

   $6250 / 1,200,000 txs = 0.5 cents / tx.

This is a very affordable fee, and still gives the same security level as today even ignoring the block reward.

Any way you slice it, if we assume continued growth, the network security should be greater in 2032 than now.  


And that's precisely why we need to keep all those TX's on the mainchain.


+1.

As an aside, it's amusing that people like Pierre Rochard and Tim Swanson are essentially both trolling on the same side of the argument. Pierre wants to use the blocksize to throttle transactions and artificially jack up fees for the sake of security, which is effectively the same argument that perpetual-concern-troll Swanson makes in his overlong and tedious diatribes against the fact that bitcoin's security is (currently) effectively subsidized by inflation.

Some variant of the above calcs would show plenty of viable future equilibrium conditions for bitcoin where mining is paid for by transaction fees at security levels higher than today's.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 04:46:40 AM
 #26979

I was going to ask for a link to his analysis of side chains, until I read that myopic "analysis" on the block size limit.

Did this guy every hear of arbitrage? If the market is undervaluing the peg, then there is an incentive to trade back to main chain, vice versa back to side chain. The technical peg insures that arbitrage will destroy any deviation. NuBits only has an algorithmic (qualified) arbitrage peg to $USD and it appears to working. An absolute technical peg is even stronger.

http://bit.ly/1wlut8a
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k9fcp/pdf_on_sidechains_sidechained_bitcoin_substitutes/

Quote
Whenever   an SBS changes hands through a transfer   of control on its own
sidechain,   
  it   
  should   
  be   
  expected   
  to   
  do   
  so   
  at   
  some   
  
floating   
  
market   
  rate
(
barring   
  
legal   
   price   
  
controls)
.   
   However,   
   this
rate
may   
   well   
  
not
perfectly   
   match   
  
current   
  
m
arket   
  rates   
  for   
  bitcoin,   
  that   
  is,   
  
an
SBS’s   
  technical   
  conversion   
  rate
with   
  bitcoin
may   
  not   
  
be
the   
  sole   
  factor   
  
influencing
its   
  
market   
  rate.
The
se
rates   
  
could
match,   
  
but   
  
the
grounds   
  for   
  assum
ing   
  that   
  they   
  actually   
  would   
  
in   
  any   
  given   
  case
do   
  not   
  
seem   
  compelling
.
T
he   
  two
-­‐
way   
  peg
,   
  while   
  certainly   
  
expected   
  to   
  be   
  
a   
  large   
  valuation   
  factor,
coexists   
  
with   
  
other   
  
complex   
   discounting
and   
   premium
factors
.   
   These   
   could   
   combine
to
result   
   in   
   each   
  
SBS
trading   
   at   
   a
market
rate
that   
  
diverges   
   from   
   that   
   of
bitcoin
within   
  some   
  unpredictable   
  and   
  
changing
range
.
Each   
  SBS   
  
might   
  
likewise
differ   
  in   
  
current   
   market   
  
value   
   from   
   each   
   other   
  
o

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 04:51:25 AM
 #26980

to achieve the same security ignoring transaction fees.  $8,000 / BTC is a very modest price if we assume this level of growth.
In 2032, how do you know $1 won't be worth a $0.01 in current purchasing power?

I think it was implied that I meant 2015 $s.  

My point was never about absolute values but relative weight of transaction value versus debasement value. You entirely missed my point, as indicated below...

If there's 2,000 TPS in 2032, that's 1.2 million transactions per block...Any way you slice it, if we assume continued growth, the network security should be greater in 2032 than now.  

The point of my logic was not about whether we would have network security, rather whether we would have decentralization.

Why do you always construct strawmen and lose the plot?

Your exact words:

Visa level right about when the debasement becomes so miniscule it has essentially stopped funding mining

I showed that the block subsidy would very likely not be "so minuscule it has essentially stopped funding mining."

...and the effect of block variance on delays due to nominal transaction fees will destroy any remaining decentralization Bitcoin.

^ I couldn't parse this statement.  

Do you have a point?

"essentially stopped funding mining" means relative to transaction fees as pertains to the logic I presented that block size variance's effect on "transaction delays" due to fees will grow as transaction fees are relatively more of the nominal revenue relative to debasement by 2032.

Are you an engineer? You have very low reading comprehension. You are not able to apply the logic from a prior post to a subsequent one to understand the context.

You can still can't parse that last quote given the context?

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 ... 1559 »
  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!