Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

I'm still numb from reading the Side Chain white paper and trying to figure how they plan to wrangle their mining pools into a reliable source of metadata. I'll await details on that.
If you think Side Chains are sketchy, check out the Internet of Coins white paper.
I only glanced at it so far. First of all, why does everyone seem to think PoS is so great an incentive? Answer: Because human labor can be farmed cheaper and easier than technology. Then there's Proof of Allocation. The thing is, you have to trade something for something else.  I came up with a rudimentary (and completely ignored) idea for a multicoin system in 2012 based on Rock Paper Scissors as the analog called Proof of Merit.

I don't understand these kitchen sink mentalities. I'm starting to like Bitcoin as money more and more, because humans will always find greater levels of abstraction.

What mining pools  

[1714140692]

1714140692

[1714140692]

1714140692

[cbeast]

I'm still numb from reading the Side Chain white paper and trying to figure how they plan to wrangle their mining pools into a reliable source of metadata. I'll await details on that.
If you think Side Chains are sketchy, check out the Internet of Coins white paper.
I only glanced at it so far. First of all, why does everyone seem to think PoS is so great an incentive? Answer: Because human labor can be farmed cheaper and easier than technology. Then there's Proof of Allocation. The thing is, you have to trade something for something else.  I came up with a rudimentary (and completely ignored) idea for a multicoin system in 2012 based on Rock Paper Scissors as the analog called Proof of Merit.

I don't understand these kitchen sink mentalities. I'm starting to like Bitcoin as money more and more, because humans will always find greater levels of abstraction.

What mining pools  

I presumed miners are the functionaries for the federated peg as it's not specified. After all, they have exclusive access to the block header they mine.

[brg444]

I'm still numb from reading the Side Chain white paper and trying to figure how they plan to wrangle their mining pools into a reliable source of metadata. I'll await details on that.
If you think Side Chains are sketchy, check out the Internet of Coins white paper.
I only glanced at it so far. First of all, why does everyone seem to think PoS is so great an incentive? Answer: Because human labor can be farmed cheaper and easier than technology. Then there's Proof of Allocation. The thing is, you have to trade something for something else.  I came up with a rudimentary (and completely ignored) idea for a multicoin system in 2012 based on Rock Paper Scissors as the analog called Proof of Merit.

I don't understand these kitchen sink mentalities. I'm starting to like Bitcoin as money more and more, because humans will always find greater levels of abstraction.

What mining pools  

I presumed miners are the functionaries for the federated peg as it's not specified. After all, they have exclusive access to the block header they mine.

Page 17.

Federated peg can use oracles, voting pools, servers. Think of it as multisig

[samuel999]

Interesting to see where gold has gone since BTC has declined from around 1200.  Looks like mostly sideways, and down some.

[Adrian-x]

if I controlled enough hashing power I'd be manipulating the flow of BTC in and out trying to disturb a fixed market equilibrium buying low and converting back,

Please explain how you would do that.

Presumably he refers to sidechains.pdf section 6.1 which describes the forgeability during the contest period by sufficient proof of work via mining.

6.1 Hashpower attack resistance
The main thrust of this paper surrounds two-way peg using SPV proofs, which are forgeable by a 51%-majority and blockable by however much hashpower is needed to build a sufficiently-long proof during the transfer’s contest period. (There is a tradeoff on this latter point — if 33% hashpower can block a proof, then 67% is needed to successfully use a false one, and so on.)

Attacking the network in this way is no longer discouraged by having to forgo the income in the coin you are mining.

[HeliKopterBen]

He thinks he can get to 100k TPS.

What's the problem with doing 100k TPS on the main chain?

(other than non-answers like "it's hard to do")

I said what on the thread that you trimmed  security...

I really dont think you want that on the main chain because its weaker, and he cut down a lot of bitcoin features to get it.  But its useful.

I am talking about the specific sharding approach.  Its not easy sharding a block chain, and he made security tradeoffs to do it.

Nothing against someone doing it if they can do it securely (ie without impacting the security of the rest of the coins on the chain) or without making the centralisation very bad.

Adam

Seems he does not understand what is "100k TPS".

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day

Guys, 100k TPS would equate to 8.64 billion transactions per day.  There are only 7 billion people on earth.  That is theoretical upper upper upper limit... probably never be reached.

[NotLambchop]

...
Guys, 100k TPS would equate to 8.64 billion transactions per day.  There are only 7 billion people on earth.  That is theoretical upper upper upper limit... probably never be reached.

Because no one ever makes more than one financial transaction per day.

[Adrian-x]

nice quote Marc Andreessen

 Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

[Rawted]

nice quote Marc Andreessen

Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

I've been saying this for a long time now. The Blockchain will be the only aspect of Bitcoin that survives.

[tabnloz]

nice quote Marc Andreessen

 Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

I thought the blockchain and the currency couldn't be separated. Can a blockchain exist without having a token to secure it? (or have I misinterpreted the entire thing - long day)

[HeliKopterBen]

The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO.  Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out.  Our solution should be sidechains.  Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work.  Its time for this to happen.

[HeliKopterBen]

nice quote Marc Andreessen

 Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

I thought the blockchain and the currency couldn't be separated. Can a blockchain exist without having a token to secure it? (or have I misinterpreted the entire thing - long day)

No.  The currency and the blockchain cannot be separated.  A blockchain without a currency has no security.

[STT]

...
Guys, 100k TPS would equate to 8.64 billion transactions per day.  There are only 7 billion people on earth.  That is theoretical upper upper upper limit... probably never be reached.

Because no one ever makes more than one financial transaction per day.

Quite a few transactions are internal.    We do have places like Casinos producing alot of transactions but do they post every one to the blockchain separately ?
I think much less then 1 per person is reasonable as small commerce should not be broadcast with the same security as larger more important transactions that do need a full record

[cypherdoc]

The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO.  Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out.  Our solution should be sidechains.  Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work.  Its time for this to happen.

no, not necessarily.  your assumption is that SC's are more secure than current exchange models.  the only way to achieve this is to obtain 100% MM cooperation from miners.  there is no model for this and the best we have is about 55% for NMC.  just given the fact that some miners won't be aware of SC existence if and when they do come to fruition means they won't be mining SC's which means there will be <100% for sure.  theoretically, anything <100% MM'ing is vulnerable and i'm sure this can be mathematically modelled.

plus, i'm not sure where all this desire comes from to "bailout" speculators on current exchanges.  b/c that is what they are, imo.  the reason i have never lost a coin is b/c i realize that Bitcoin is about increasing personal responsibility by becoming your own bank.  i have never used an exchange as a trading mechanism and have just used them to buy and move coin to my privkeys.  SC's are an attempt to bailout the individual speculator who wishes to leave their coin on some speculative trading platform.  but even that doesn't work b/c of the MM'ing fallacies i've outlined above.

[cypherdoc]

I'm still numb from reading the Side Chain white paper and trying to figure how they plan to wrangle their mining pools into a reliable source of metadata. I'll await details on that.
If you think Side Chains are sketchy, check out the Internet of Coins white paper.
I only glanced at it so far. First of all, why does everyone seem to think PoS is so great an incentive? Answer: Because human labor can be farmed cheaper and easier than technology. Then there's Proof of Allocation. The thing is, you have to trade something for something else.  I came up with a rudimentary (and completely ignored) idea for a multicoin system in 2012 based on Rock Paper Scissors as the analog called Proof of Merit.

I don't understand these kitchen sink mentalities. I'm starting to like Bitcoin as money more and more, because humans will always find greater levels of abstraction.

What mining pools  

talk about confused; even after Adam pointed out to you that federated servers are intermediaries that stand btwn the MC and SC.  son, mining pools are who are needed to MM the SC for security and transactional integrity, remember?

[cypherdoc]

nice quote Marc Andreessen

 Paraphrasing (Bitcoin's value is it's blockchain not the BTC)

My fundamental issue with SC is they don't secure the value just the BTC. SC offer economic hackers a way to steal that value.

It's economic ignorance to believe the value in the blockchain is inherent.

I thought the blockchain and the currency couldn't be separated. Can a blockchain exist without having a token to secure it? (or have I misinterpreted the entire thing - long day)

No.  The currency and the blockchain cannot be separated.  A blockchain without a currency has no security.

yep, this is the correct view.

just goes to show you how early we all are.  even our greatest public proponent seems not to get it.

[cypherdoc]

how does the IBLT scale with the size of the block UTXO set?  linearly or by some other ratio?

edit:  actually iirc, it scales with the size of the difference btwn UTXO set estimates across the network.  iow, a UTXO set estimated to be 99% similar across the network will allow a miner to send a smaller IBLT when solving a block than a UTXO set estimated to be only 89% similar across the network.  is that right?

Yes. The size of an IBLT does depend upon the average expected number of differences between the unconfirmed tx mempools of the majority of the nodes. Because each node has independent choice on which tx to accept or reject then it is impossible to be precise, in advance, about how efficient IBLT will be. Miners will always want to propagate small blocks, so there will be an incentive for mining nodes to find consensus on their tx mempools. Gavin describes it:

RE: O(1) versus O(some-function-of-total-number-of-transactions):

Yes, it will depend on whether or not the number of differences goes up as the number of transactions goes up.

The incentives align so it is in everybody's best interest to make the differences as small as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if that causes innovations to drive the actual size to O(1) minus an increasing constant, as code gets better at predicting which transactions our peers do or don't have.

It is also worth noting that IBLT can be implemented on top of other block propagation models, such as Matt Corallo's block relay system, which already saves on bandwidth.

with anything new like this, i'm interested in knowing the upper and lower bounds of the IBLT data size.

lower bound:  theoretically, as the UTXO set difference shrinks to zero with 0 network latency, the IBLT will shrink similarly but can never reach zero since it has to at minimum relay enough data to convey the exact subset of tx's included in the miner's block.  how small can this data get esp in relation to the avg block size now?

upper bound:  if the UTXO set difference is 100%, how big does the IBLT data size get?  or does the entire IBLT concept fall apart at some intermediate set difference?

[Patel]

Actually, a blockchain can have security without a currency.

It would be less decentralized though.

For example, you have GovBlockchain. Secured by proof of work. The blockchain could be so important, that government would secure it without any financial incentives, and mandate all record keeping to be done on this blockchain, secured by hundreds of 3 letter agencies.

[Odalv]

The Bitstamp hacking highlights the need for sidechains IMHO.  Central bank's solution is to print money and bail out.  Our solution should be sidechains.  Bitshares could be forked onto a sidechain, potentially allowing all trade and storage to be done on protocol with bitcoin as the backing collateral... or perhaps the truthcoin model would work.  Its time for this to happen.

no, not necessarily.  your assumption is that SC's are more secure than current exchange models.  the only way to achieve this is to obtain 100% MM cooperation from miners.  there is no model for this and the best we have is about 55% for NMC.  just given the fact that some miners won't be aware of SC existence if and when they do come to fruition means they won't be mining SC's which means there will be <100% for sure.  theoretically, anything <100% MM'ing is vulnerable and i'm sure this can be mathematically modelled.

plus, i'm not sure where all this desire comes from to "bailout" speculators on current exchanges.  b/c that is what they are, imo.  the reason i have never lost a coin is b/c i realize that Bitcoin is about increasing personal responsibility by becoming your own bank.  i have never used an exchange as a trading mechanism and have just used them to buy and move coin to my privkeys.  SC's are an attempt to bailout the individual speculator who wishes to leave their on some speculative trading platform.  but even that doesn't work b/c of the MM'ing fallacies i've outlined above.

If
 a) you build exchange as SC using SNARK
and
 b) bitcoin protocol will be able to verify this SC (sequence of bid/ask/deposit/withdrawal signed by owners) using OP_SIDECHAIN_VERIFY
then
  NO MM is required. It will impossible to stole bitcoins from exchange.  

-> this is how I see SC.

[justusranvier]

It is the particular approach to sharding that makes it less secure, to reduce bandwidth.

I agree that sharding reduces security. I wouldn't propose sharding the blockchain as a scapability solution.[/quote]

That if your home computer had to do 2.25TB/day down to be a full node you might not be able to do it, which is a centralising factor.

You're saying that retaining the possibility for home computers to be full nodes is both necessary and desirable.

I understand that many people have made this claim over the years, but I am not aware of any attempts to actually prove either of those.

One of the problematic implicit assumptions I can identify in that claim is that if home users can't run nodes, the number of total nodes in the network would decrease.

Why would anyone assume that in a future Bitcoin economy that generated 100k tps of demand would not fewer business users running full nodes then than home users running full nodes today?