Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 10:59:09 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 ... 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 1401 1402 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010684 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 08:59:42 PM
 #27021


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

Why ? If we split same amount of transactions into 10,000 chains then
a) you can mine all 10,000 chains (it will cost you same resources as 1 BIG chain)  -> big corporation
b) you can mine/verify only 1-3 small chains on your phone -> 99.9% ordinary people

i pointed out upthread how that will lead to tremendous centralization of mining as small miners with poor connectivity would be crushed trying to deal with 10000 chains at once in terms of resources, maintenance, coding reqs, etc.

not good.

It isn't really clear whether one chain 10000x as large is better or worse for small miners than 10000 separate chains. In the latter case at least a smaller miner could drop some of the least important/valuable chains. You can't drop part of blocks.


It is even more important if you are not miner. With 10,000x as large chain ordinary user cannot verify if block is valid.  If there are only last 5 big miners left then they can start to produce fake block. b/c there is nobody (except 5 miners)  who has enough resources to verify all blocks.


Edit:
Everyone must verify everything is bad design. => this will collapse.

More facepalm
1511261949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511261949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511261949
Reply with quote  #2

1511261949
Report to moderator
1511261949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511261949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511261949
Reply with quote  #2

1511261949
Report to moderator
1511261949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511261949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511261949
Reply with quote  #2

1511261949
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 09:01:39 PM
 #27022


Please let us know how well Elements is working. I honestly want to know.

Go to hell.  You can stand by and find out whether Maxwell and company's stuff pans out better than your assumptions that technology will keep up with exponential growth and Bitcoin will be unmolested by TPTB as it takes over for fiat.

You could piddle around with gmax's cli while you wait if you want since the stuff is already in released alpha it seems.

Confidential Transactions
 -> it is another excellent project from gmaxwell

Quote
Confidential Transactions is enabled in Elements and used by default by all ordinary transactions.

and

...

Just wow.  I lacked the ability and interest to think up such stuff.

I was negative about all the bells and whistles being added to the native Bitcoin protocol over the years.  Because I was by and large to lazy to follow the commits and technical discussions, I took my impression of the technical capabilities as the core team as a group from my impression of Gavin and his talking-paperclip class nonsense and nearly complete disregard/misunderstanding of the salient risk factors more than I should have.  This made me feel that there was great risk to putting almost anything into Core since it could be sufficient as a backing store in it's very primitive form.  Now I'm starting to see the genius of what some of these less visible players were shooting for in some of their work over the years.  My hat is off to them!

There really is a significant risk, I think, that what is evolving is simply so powerful that it will have to be stopped by TPTB by any and all means possible.  I've long held that this battle would be best to happen earlier than later.  My only hope was that it would start up before the likes of Hearn managed to contaminate the existing blockchain whereupon the value I have within it would ultimately be significantly reduced.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 09:14:04 PM
 #27023


Please let us know how well Elements is working. I honestly want to know.

Go to hell.  You can stand by and find out whether Maxwell and company's stuff pans out better than your assumptions that technology will keep up with exponential growth and Bitcoin will be unmolested by TPTB as it takes over for fiat.

You could piddle around with gmax's cli while you wait if you want since the stuff is already in released alpha it seems.

Confidential Transactions
 -> it is another excellent project from gmaxwell

Quote
Confidential Transactions is enabled in Elements and used by default by all ordinary transactions.

and

...

Just wow.  I lacked the ability and interest to think up such stuff.

I was negative about all the bells and whistles being added to the native Bitcoin protocol over the years.  Because I was by and large to lazy to follow the commits and technical discussions, I took my impression of the technical capabilities as the core team as a group from my impression of Gavin and his talking-paperclip class nonsense and nearly complete disregard/misunderstanding of the salient risk factors more than I should have.  This made me feel that there was great risk to putting almost anything into Core since it could be sufficient as a backing store in it's very primitive form.  Now I'm starting to see the genius of what some of these less visible players were shooting for in some of their work over the years.  My hat is off to them!

There really is a significant risk, I think, that what is evolving is simply so powerful that it will have to be stopped by TPTB by any and all means possible.  I've long held that this battle would be best to happen earlier than later.  My only hope was that it would start up before the likes of Hearn managed to contaminate the existing blockchain whereupon the value I have within it would ultimately be significantly reduced.



my, such anger.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 09:17:30 PM
 #27024


my, such anger.

I don't do anger very much, but I will admit to being fairly passionate about Bitcoin.  I've been dicking around with it off and on for a long while and I've got something riding on it both in monetary and philosophical terms.


smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 09:33:41 PM
 #27025


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

Why ? If we split same amount of transactions into 10,000 chains then
a) you can mine all 10,000 chains (it will cost you same resources as 1 BIG chain)  -> big corporation
b) you can mine/verify only 1-3 small chains on your phone -> 99.9% ordinary people

i pointed out upthread how that will lead to tremendous centralization of mining as small miners with poor connectivity would be crushed trying to deal with 10000 chains at once in terms of resources, maintenance, coding reqs, etc.

not good.

It isn't really clear whether one chain 10000x as large is better or worse for small miners than 10000 separate chains. In the latter case at least a smaller miner could drop some of the least important/valuable chains. You can't drop part of blocks.


It is even more important if you are not miner. With 10,000x as large chain ordinary user cannot verify if block is valid.  If there are only last 5 big miners left then they can start to produce fake block. b/c there is nobody (except 5 miners)  who has enough resources to verify all blocks.

It isn't clear that having non-miners using 1 of 10,000 chains is good either. It means you can't transact with someone using one of the other 9999 chains without an intermediary.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 09:37:19 PM
 #27026


More facepalm

Let's implant doubling-cancer into bitcoin. I'm sure that more politicians will join(eat) us.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 09:50:42 PM
 #27027



It isn't clear that having non-miners using 1 of 10,000 chains is good either. It means you can't transact with someone using one of the other 9999 chains without an intermediary.


- Usually you are not transacting with all people in the world (if you are not world wide spread corporation and you have office in all regions).

- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).

 - I think you are not interested in collecting and verifying all transaction from China or Russia, USA, EU

=> 9,997 chains are irrelevant for you. You only cares if number of bitcoins is same .. less than 21,000,000 and if chain holding your coins is valid
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:00:53 PM
 #27028

- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).

Incorrect.

Nevertheless the idea of partitioning payment systems by some sort of natural (if fuzzy) boundaries is reasonable.

I still prefer off-chain (possibly partitioned) payment systems with a single settlement chain though. Not sold on merged mining at all.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:08:18 PM
 #27029

- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).

Incorrect.

Nevertheless the idea of partitioning payment systems by some sort of natural (if fuzzy) boundaries is reasonable.

I still prefer off-chain (possibly partitioned) payment systems with a single settlement chain though. Not sold on merged mining at all.



Merge mining, the hidden requested SC subsidy.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:12:10 PM
 #27030

- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).

Incorrect.

Nevertheless the idea of partitioning payment systems by some sort of natural (if fuzzy) boundaries is reasonable.

I still prefer off-chain (possibly partitioned) payment systems with a single settlement chain though. Not sold on merged mining at all.



ok, if you do not like "natural boundaries" we can create corporate chains. :-)
 a) local-Tesco-Sidechain  
 b) or you can use Coca-Cola-Sidechain
 c) or use Free-Wifi-Geaks-Sidechain
 d) ... some local drug dealer chain

I do not know exactly how to build TREE OF CHAINS what will serve all people needs .. but I know that it is possible and free market will choose what is important and what is not
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:30:50 PM
 #27031

- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).

Incorrect.

Nevertheless the idea of partitioning payment systems by some sort of natural (if fuzzy) boundaries is reasonable.

I still prefer off-chain (possibly partitioned) payment systems with a single settlement chain though. Not sold on merged mining at all.



ok, if you do not like "natural boundaries" we can create corporate chains. :-)
 a) local-Tesco-Sidechain  
 b) or you can use Coca-Cola-Sidechain
 c) or use Free-Wifi-Geaks-Sidechain
 d) ... some local drug dealer chain

I do not know exactly how to build TREE OF CHAINS what will serve all people needs .. but I know that it is possible and free market will choose what is important and what is not

Instead of putting the entire Bitcoin protocol at risk for your speculative endeavors, why don't you just have the balls to build those businesses that accept BTC?
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:39:29 PM
 #27032

- 99% of your transaction are located in your town (quarter).

Incorrect.

Nevertheless the idea of partitioning payment systems by some sort of natural (if fuzzy) boundaries is reasonable.

I still prefer off-chain (possibly partitioned) payment systems with a single settlement chain though. Not sold on merged mining at all.



ok, if you do not like "natural boundaries" we can create corporate chains. :-)
 a) local-Tesco-Sidechain  
 b) or you can use Coca-Cola-Sidechain
 c) or use Free-Wifi-Geaks-Sidechain
 d) ... some local drug dealer chain

I do not know exactly how to build TREE OF CHAINS what will serve all people needs .. but I know that it is possible and free market will choose what is important and what is not

I never said anything negative about natural boundaries. It is merged mining of multiple chains that is a sham, and also attempting to peg units of different assets (with different security, liquidity, network, etc. properties) to the same price.

I see nothing wrong with payment channels though. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to put routine micro transactions on a chain (side- or otherwise) at all.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:55:30 PM
 #27033

New poll above reminder.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 10:58:57 PM
 #27034

Instead of putting the entire Bitcoin protocol at risk for your speculative endeavors, why don't you just have the balls to build those businesses that accept BTC?

I'm not putting the entire Bitcoin protocol at risk for my speculative endeavors. ... lol, do you think I have the power to build all new businesses that will accept all BTCs ? ... do you think I will rule ALL THE WORD ? -> You are WRONG I will NOT and at the same time I will not let you to rule my word.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 11:26:11 PM
 #27035

Instead of putting the entire Bitcoin protocol at risk for your speculative endeavors, why don't you just have the balls to build those businesses that accept BTC?

I'm not putting the entire Bitcoin protocol at risk for my speculative endeavors. ... lol, do you think I have the power to build all new businesses that will accept all BTCs ? ... do you think I will rule ALL THE WORD ? -> You are WRONG I will NOT and at the same time I will not let you to rule my word.


Its not you I'm worried  about. It's your ideas.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 11:28:00 PM
 #27036

With 10,000x as large chain ordinary user cannot verify if block is valid.  If there are only last 5 big miners left then they can start to produce fake block. b/c there is nobody (except 5 miners)  who has enough resources to verify all blocks.



According to the "high growth rate" curve in the graph above, the blockchain will be 10,000x as large in 2035.  Here's a quick estimate of some of the costs to run a node twenty years from now, assuming no change in the cost of disk space or Internet bandwidth for 20 years.



Even under these (a) optimistic growth rates, and (b) extremely pessimistic cost improvements for disk space and bandwidth, the cost is still not so prohibitive that there would only be "5 big miners left."  For example, I'd image that all major research universities, bitcoin corporations, various branches of governments, and power users (whales) would still run nodes (1000+ nodes).  The network could actually be more decentralized than it is now.  


Everyone must verify everything is bad design. => this will collapse.

Only full nodes need to verify everything.  Not every user needs to run a full node.  

Why do so many people equate users with full nodes?

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

Activity: 1596



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 11:33:06 PM
 #27037

According to the "high growth rate" curve in the graph above, the blockchain will be 10,000x as large in 2035.  Here's a quick estimate of some of the costs to run a node twenty years from now, assuming no change in the cost of disk space or Internet bandwidth for 20 years.

Nice work Peter R. I often find your presentations compelling and this is no exception.

One quibble. You gloss over the distinction between miners and nodes:

Quote
Even under these (a) optimistic growth rates, and (b) extremely pessimistic cost improvements for disk space and bandwidth, the cost is still not so prohibitive that there would only be "5 big miners left."  For example, I'd image that all major research universities, bitcoin corporations, various branches of governments, and power users (whales) would still run nodes (1000+ nodes).  The network could actually be more decentralized than it is now.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 11:37:43 PM
 #27038

According to the "high growth rate" curve in the graph above, the blockchain will be 10,000x as large in 2035.  Here's a quick estimate of some of the costs to run a node twenty years from now, assuming no change in the cost of disk space or Internet bandwidth for 20 years.

Nice work Peter R. I often find your presentations compelling and this is no exception.

One quibble. You gloss over the distinction between miners and nodes:

Quote
Even under these (a) optimistic growth rates, and (b) extremely pessimistic cost improvements for disk space and bandwidth, the cost is still not so prohibitive that there would only be "5 big miners left."  For example, I'd image that all major research universities, bitcoin corporations, various branches of governments, and power users (whales) would still run nodes (1000+ nodes).  The network could actually be more decentralized than it is now.

Although IBLT or something like it could considerably narrow that difference.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 12:09:16 AM
 #27039

One quibble. You gloss over the distinction between miners and nodes:

Fair point.  I took Odalv's comment to mean that there would be no nodes except for those run by these fictitious "5 big miners."  Maybe that's not what he meant.  

Anyways, I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.  And in such a future (~one thousand nodes), I'd imagine a much larger portion of these nodes would run mining pools, simply to help pay for the node's monthly costs.  

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 12:11:59 AM
 #27040


More facepalm

Let's implant doubling-cancer into bitcoin. I'm sure that more politicians will join(eat) us.

Concur.  Voted yes to the new poll, but would much rather see a dynamic size increase when the blocks get to a certain transaction density/time.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1401 1402 ... 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!