Bitcoin Forum
June 26, 2017, 12:27:53 AM *
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 ... 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 1400 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1921894 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 04:57:11 AM
 #26981

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.

(Please ignore PM. For some reason right after I sent it your chart rendered correctly.)

The mistakes (at least questionable assumptions) I see:

1. There is nothing in the chart that relates the growth rate to any underlying technological limits at all. It is like a chart of global population extrapolating unlimited growth forward without any consideration of food supply, water, population density, etc.

2. Why would you increase the slope starting now? If anything one should be conservative about sustainable growth rates going forward relative to the past, in the absence of clear knowledge of what scaling bottlenecks might exist.



1498436873
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498436873

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498436873
Reply with quote  #2

1498436873
Report to moderator
1498436873
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498436873

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498436873
Reply with quote  #2

1498436873
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1498436873
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498436873

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498436873
Reply with quote  #2

1498436873
Report to moderator
1498436873
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498436873

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498436873
Reply with quote  #2

1498436873
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:10:47 AM
 #26982

The truth is that both smaller and larger blocks will destroy low valued transactions unless centralization is achieved.

electerium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 179


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:21:42 AM
 #26983

by 2024, over 94% of all bitcoins will be completely mined.


the supply curve is too sharp for us to legitimately argue that by 2024, whereby we reach paypal level of TXs that 30,000 tx/s will be reachable solely by people exchanging value. We will undoubtedly need some existing legacy rail (e.g. Banking & financial institution & stock/equities) to be entirely placed on the blockchain to justify this harsh supply curve. In other words, relatively speaking, today's bitcoin's fundamentals lags far (1 order of magnitude) behind where we actually stand in today's supply curve.


This to me is very very concerning because it will pigeon hole bitcoin's pathways to massive value.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:29:01 AM
 #26984

by 2024, over 94% of all bitcoins will be completely mined.


the supply curve is too sharp for us to legitimately argue that by 2024, whereby we reach paypal level of TXs that 30,000 tx/s will be reachable solely by people exchanging value. We will undoubtedly need some existing legacy rail (e.g. Banking & financial institution & stock/equities) to be entirely placed on the blockchain to justify this harsh supply curve. In other words, relatively speaking, today's bitcoin's fundamentals lags far (1 order of magnitude) behind where we actually stand in today's supply curve.


This to me is very very concerning because it will pigeon hole bitcoin's pathways to massive value.

Why do you think Nasdaq and NYSE are poking around the tech right now?  Today's  announcement is great news for them.

Welcome to Bitcoin!
electerium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 179


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:33:38 AM
 #26985

by 2024, over 94% of all bitcoins will be completely mined.


the supply curve is too sharp for us to legitimately argue that by 2024, whereby we reach paypal level of TXs that 30,000 tx/s will be reachable solely by people exchanging value. We will undoubtedly need some existing legacy rail (e.g. Banking & financial institution & stock/equities) to be entirely placed on the blockchain to justify this harsh supply curve. In other words, relatively speaking, today's bitcoin's fundamentals lags far (1 order of magnitude) behind where we actually stand in today's supply curve.


This to me is very very concerning because it will pigeon hole bitcoin's pathways to massive value.

Why do you think Nasdaq and NYSE are poking around the tech right now?  Today's  announcement is great news for them.

Welcome to Bitcoin!

hello cypher,

excuse my ignorance, but can you link me to the news? I cant find anything new from nyse/nasdaq.

I know that they are using colored coins on the bitcoin network to track pre-IPO stock transfers as a pilot program, but i havent heard anything new since.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:42:00 AM
 #26986

by 2024, over 94% of all bitcoins will be completely mined.


the supply curve is too sharp for us to legitimately argue that by 2024, whereby we reach paypal level of TXs that 30,000 tx/s will be reachable solely by people exchanging value. We will undoubtedly need some existing legacy rail (e.g. Banking & financial institution & stock/equities) to be entirely placed on the blockchain to justify this harsh supply curve. In other words, relatively speaking, today's bitcoin's fundamentals lags far (1 order of magnitude) behind where we actually stand in today's supply curve.


This to me is very very concerning because it will pigeon hole bitcoin's pathways to massive value.

Why do you think Nasdaq and NYSE are poking around the tech right now?  Today's  announcement is great news for them.

Welcome to Bitcoin!

hello cypher,

excuse my ignorance, but can you link me to the news? I cant find anything new from nyse/nasdaq.

I know that they are using colored coins on the bitcoin network to track pre-IPO stock transfers as a pilot program, but i havent heard anything new since.




No, nothing new.

Just the fact that they are experimenting with colored coins is a great sign. It's been clear to me by my reading if the news that for quite a while now traditional institutions have been laughing at us because of our miserable 2-3 TX/'s bottleneck. I'm sure they are laughing at the infighting as well.

But Gavin's announcement is sticking tight to the top of reddit and is the beginning of a new dawn for Bitcoin. It's a clear  signal that we are going to make an attempt to drive this thing hard. They won't be laughing any longer.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:46:54 AM
 #26987

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.

It looks awesome.
I would like to see one more white label. The introduction of the 1MB limit to limit spam.

Smooth, you've made a good point about spam however how do we weigh up the trade offs between limiting money velocity and spam?

On that note if I look at Peter's graphic the space available for spam was relatively high after the introduction of the limit and orders of magnitude greater back then that with the 8MB jump.

On a gut level I'd go with a limit until we have a 6.25 BTC block reward, until then I see transaction fees as inconsequential the motive is smaller blocks that propagate fast, and later once block subsidies have diminished there is a pressure to include and optimize fees.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
electerium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 179


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:51:43 AM
 #26988

by 2024, over 94% of all bitcoins will be completely mined.


the supply curve is too sharp for us to legitimately argue that by 2024, whereby we reach paypal level of TXs that 30,000 tx/s will be reachable solely by people exchanging value. We will undoubtedly need some existing legacy rail (e.g. Banking & financial institution & stock/equities) to be entirely placed on the blockchain to justify this harsh supply curve. In other words, relatively speaking, today's bitcoin's fundamentals lags far (1 order of magnitude) behind where we actually stand in today's supply curve.


This to me is very very concerning because it will pigeon hole bitcoin's pathways to massive value.

Why do you think Nasdaq and NYSE are poking around the tech right now?  Today's  announcement is great news for them.

Welcome to Bitcoin!

hello cypher,

excuse my ignorance, but can you link me to the news? I cant find anything new from nyse/nasdaq.

I know that they are using colored coins on the bitcoin network to track pre-IPO stock transfers as a pilot program, but i havent heard anything new since.




No, nothing new.

Just the fact that they are experimenting with colored coins is a great sign. It's been clear to me by my reading if the news that for quite a while now traditional institutions have been laughing at us because of our miserable 2-3 TX/'s bottleneck. I'm sure they are laughing at the infighting as well.

But Gavin's announcement is sticking tight to the top of reddit and is the beginning of a new dawn for Bitcoin. It's a clear  signal that we are going to make an attempt to drive this thing hard. They won't be laughing any longer.

Ok, and I also think those programs are insanely beneficial for the odds of a Winklevoss ETF kicking off.


But the supply curve really worries me. By 2024, the entire earth will be blanketed with wifi.


I do not think that you can justify people buying into a commodity that is 95% mined and only real hope is for a legacy rail to take over it. That's strictly from an investment perspective

Similarly, because 95% has been mined, I am not so sure that people will use bitcoin over an altcoin as a means of p2p transfer. It's supply in 2024 will be far too small to facilitate hundreds of million of people buying in to actually use it. Because by 2024, either the legacy rail has taken over and bitcoin is far too expensive relative to it's supply OR, it will not have happened and bitcoin will be worth nothing. Perhaps this is too simplistic an argument to make, but 10 years is not actually very long.

It didnt use to concern me, but it does now.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:52:31 AM
 #26989

It's been clear to me by my reading if the news that for quite a while now traditional institutions have been laughing at us because of our miserable 2-3 TX/'s bottleneck.

Bitcoin can in theory give them very high Txs/sec (and Txs/block) by centralizing the mining onto to higher powered miners.

They may not care when that centralization leads to mandatory KYC tags for all transactions on the block chain due to regulatory capture of hosted mining.

Some other individuals will care about privacy and be pissed off that Bitcoin became another fiat, and they will leave to coin that can remain decentralized and anonymous.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:55:04 AM
 #26990

Similarly, because 95% has been mined, I am not so sure that people will use bitcoin over an altcoin as a means of p2p transfer. It's supply in 2024 will be far too small to facilitate hundreds of million of people buying in to actually use it. Because by 2024, either the legacy rail has taken over and bitcoin is far too expensive relative to it's supply OR, it will not have happened and bitcoin will be worth nothing. Perhaps this is too simplistic an argument to make, but 10 years is not actually very long.

It didnt use to concern me, but it does now.

Unless they are given BTC loans. The masses have always used leveraged money (fractional reserves) and not real money, because the capitalists have all the real money.

The real game here is not changing whether the masses will use leveraged money. (nothing will ever change that)

It is the game of protecting the (knowledge age) capitalists from the State (industrial age capitalists+masses).

I have argued that a Knowledge Age is replacing the Industrial Age and the age of high fixed capital is being replaced by active knowledge. Knowledge capitalists don't want to be dictated to by a State because it is incompatible with knowledge production.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:55:32 AM
 #26991

Smooth, you've made a good point about spam however how do we weigh up the trade offs between limiting money velocity and spam?

I think you may have slightly misunderstood my point. It isn't that spam itself needs to be limited, it is that the system is vulnerable to a sort of denial of service from having too much data (whether that happens to be spam or "real" data, although obviously spam is less desirable) stuffed into it. Satoshi made a judgement at one time that 1 MB was an appropriate limit based on that vulnerability, considering the state of the technology, storage, propagation, etc.. What is the evidence for that vulnerability being sufficiently smaller now or in the near future that a 8x or 20x or 1000x is appropriate instead?

I'm sorry but I just see a lot of wishful thinking going on. Of course, we all want it to scale, but instead of actually improving how it scales, the proposal today is to simply push back the safety limit and change not much else. (A bit like ripping out the airbags and safety belts from a car to cut weight and make it go faster.)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:00:01 AM
 #26992

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

That can't be overstated, Bitcoin won't / can't securely scale if those fees move somewhere else.
Federated Sidechains are ok as people trust the server owner enough to do business with them, there is a balance risk reward.

But changing the Bitcoin rules to make tools to move those fees of the blockchain and calling it an upgrade to the Bitcoin protocol  is short sited or just plain evil.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:06:54 AM
 #26993



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.

Another great chart Peter.

One suggestion. Is it worth mentioning IBLT because by the time 16MB blocks are being mined they will likely be taking up just 500KB of bandwidth overhead to propagate. Obviously the real-time unconfirmed transaction overhead does remain. and is large long-term.

Just as during the 1MB debate so many people kept confusing the block size limit as the average block size, so is the case with Gavin's doubling schedule. These big block sizes are disk block sizes, the bandwidth-using blocks will be far smaller.

Full blocks will only need to be sent between nodes on resync and bootstrapping, not a normal state for most nodes. Even then, future Bitsat-type blockchain download services should mean that nodes catching up have a faster option than relying on terrestrial broadband.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:09:44 AM
 #26994

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

That can't be overstated, Bitcoin won't / can't securely scale if those fees move somewhere else.
Federated Sidechains are ok as people trust the server owner enough to do business with them, there is a balance risk reward.

But changing the Bitcoin rules to make tools to move those fees of the blockchain and calling it an upgrade to the Bitcoin protocol  is short sited or just plain evil.

Unless the mining on the side chain does not require fees (which can be accomplished in numerous ways!), in which case, maybe it wasn't going to be paid on the Core chain either.

Remember you all want unlimited size blocks right? So that means transaction fees should approach 0 (as the cost of bandwidth and CPU is probably insignificant).

And you are thus encouraging a power vacuum where cartels and monopolies come to raise scarcity and pricing.

All this shit is way more complex than all the silly, simpleton "sound bite" summaries.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:13:20 AM
 #26995



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.

Another great chart Peter.

One suggestion. Please mention IBLT because by the time 16MB blocks are being mined they will likely be taking up just 500KB of bandwidth overhead to propagate.

Just as during the 1MB debate so many people kept confusing the block size limit as the average block size, so is the case with Gavin's doubling schedule. These big block sizes are disk block sizes, the bandwidth-using blocks will be far smaller.

Full blocks will only need to be sent between nodes on resync and bootstrapping, not a normal state for most nodes. Even then, future Bitsat-type blockchain download services should mean that nodes catching up have a faster option than relying on terrestrial broadband.


Well if he's gonna mention IBLT he might as well mention pruning because that is now. As in available now and probably in the next release. That's almost more exciting to me. I'm looking to add about a dozen more XT nodes to my portfolio once I figure out how to set that set up.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:18:58 AM
 #26996

Yep. I will be running my node as XT, but waiting for the patch before changing.
I still hope that Core Dev just adds the patch to BitcoinCore and they get on with normal dev work, rather than sulking about it.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:30:06 AM
 #26997

Yep. I will be running my node as XT, but waiting for the patch before changing.
I still hope that Core Dev just adds the patch to BitcoinCore and they get on with normal dev work, rather than sulking about it.

Unfortunately, they are going to remain entrenched until they see a cross over in XT vs Core nodes in Bitnodes. And or a majority of XT version blocks.

The gamble they make is if they wait too long their core dev positions probably come into jeopardy as Gavin will probably want to clean house at that point. Can you blame him?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:30:13 AM
 #26998

Smooth, you've made a good point about spam however how do we weigh up the trade offs between limiting money velocity and spam?

I think you may have slightly misunderstood my point. It isn't that spam itself needs to be limited, it is that the system is vulnerable to a sort of denial of service from having too much data (whether that happens to be spam or "real" data, although obviously spam is less desirable) stuffed into it. Satoshi made a judgement at one time that 1 MB was an appropriate limit based on that vulnerability, considering the state of the technology, storage, propagation, etc.. What is the evidence for that vulnerability being sufficiently smaller now or in the near future that a 8x or 20x or 1000x is appropriate instead?

I'm sorry but I just see a lot of wishful thinking going on. Of course, we all want it to scale, but instead of actually improving how it scales, the proposal today is to simply push back the safety limit and change not much else. (A bit like ripping out the airbags and safety belts from a car to cut weight and make it go faster.)


I like the car analogies they've worked well for me. So "spam " just being a term for denial of service or an overload of inappropriately priced transaction data, leaves me thinking it isn't quite wishful thinking making room for it.

Reflecting on the  issue has lead real smart people to find solution that I think are nonsense (picking on Sidechains here) in my experience sometimes jumping in the deep end and being overwhelmed leaving one focused on solving the issue as they happen necessity is the mother of invention and I think allowing it is a great way to do RnD, something I feel is partly in keeping with the spirit of Bitcoin.


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:35:07 AM
 #26999

Smooth, you've made a good point about spam however how do we weigh up the trade offs between limiting money velocity and spam?

I think you may have slightly misunderstood my point. It isn't that spam itself needs to be limited, it is that the system is vulnerable to a sort of denial of service from having too much data (whether that happens to be spam or "real" data, although obviously spam is less desirable) stuffed into it. Satoshi made a judgement at one time that 1 MB was an appropriate limit based on that vulnerability, considering the state of the technology, storage, propagation, etc.. What is the evidence for that vulnerability being sufficiently smaller now or in the near future that a 8x or 20x or 1000x is appropriate instead?

I'm sorry but I just see a lot of wishful thinking going on. Of course, we all want it to scale, but instead of actually improving how it scales, the proposal today is to simply push back the safety limit and change not much else. (A bit like ripping out the airbags and safety belts from a car to cut weight and make it go faster.)


I like the car analogies they've worked well for me. So "spam " just being a term for denial of service or an overload of inappropriately priced transaction data, leaves me thinking it isn't quite wishful thinking making room for it.

Reflecting on the  issue has lead real smart people to find solution that I think are nonsense (picking on Sidechains here) in my experience sometimes jumping in the deep end and being overwhelmed leaving one focused on solving the issue as they happen necessity is the mother of invention and I think allowing it is a great way to do RnD, something I feel is partly in keeping with the spirit of Bitcoin.



I mean heck, if the "spam" is paying full TX fees, how can you fault that? How do you even tell it's spam? Either way the miners will be made healthy.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:36:00 AM
 #27000



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.
Still loving the graph thanks.

Some other data that may be relevant in presenting the opportunity for TX fees is actually including the projected block halving and mark each halving with the relative inflation rate at each occasion.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1400 ... 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!