Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[solex]

Adam claims that the network overhead in scaling Bitcoin is O(n^2), where n=transactions
Mike counters that it is O(nm), where m=nodes

The latter makes more sense to me, and further, that m is not as significant as it appears because it is highly parallelized.

The way I see it, if m nodes need to be made aware of n transactions, then the network overhead for bandwidth is O(nm).  

If we assume that the number of nodes is linearly proportional to the number of transactions, then m = kn and the network overhead is O(n²).  But as you mentioned, m is probably not this significant.  In fact, for the last several years m has gone down as n has gone up, so the network overhead empirically is more like O(n^0.7) (i.e., better than linear).  

Interesting question: right now the Bitcoin network processes about 1 transaction per second while the Visa network processor about 2000.  Right now there are about 6,000 full nodes. If Bitcoin grew to reach Visa's level of transactions per second (2000X growth), would we expect the number of full nodes to grow from 6,000 to 12,000,000?

The other thing I don't understand is why people focus on the network overhead rather than the overhead to run a single node.  As far as I can see, this should always be roughly O(n).  

Thanks Peter, this helps.
We can also think of it as O(2n) because of the re-broadcasting, which IBLT would do a lot to mitigate, especially as the re-broadcast is the time critical component, and the capacity of the network in a true O(n) state is already more like 300 tps than 3 tps.

I don't think the full node count would scale as far as 12m in the growth example above, but payment channels for node services would at least reverse the decline even when it becomes necessary to support that loading.

The other thing I don't understand is why people focus on the network overhead rather than the overhead to run a single node.  As far as I can see, this should always be roughly O(n).  

Its hard to scare people when you talk about O(n) costs per node.

Absolutely!

[1713571781]

1713571781

[1713571781]

1713571781

[1713571781]

1713571781

[1713571781]

1713571781

[Peter R]

I don't think the full node count would scale as far as 12m in the growth example above, but payment channels for node services would at least reverse the decline even when it becomes necessary to support that loading.

I agree.  

I've been thinking a lot about full node count lately, and I could also imagine a future where node count continues to decline but network decentralization actually improves.  

Let's imagine a distant future where:

  - Every major research university operates 1 full node on average (there's 108 in the US, 15 in Canada, and let's assume 150 elsewhere). That makes about 280 nodes.  

  - Every major bitcoin company in this "bitcoin future" and every mining pool operates a full node.  Assume another 280 nodes.  

  - Various branches of governments in most countries run a few nodes.  Assume 190 countries x 2 nodes = 380 nodes.

  - And a bunch of wealthy bitcoiners operate their own nodes.  Assume another 300 or so.
 
This gives a total of only ~1,240 nodes, but I think such a configuration would be more decentralized than the current state of the network.  

I'm not suggesting that this will actually happen, just pointing out that the network doesn't necessarily need hundreds of thousands of nodes.  

[Peter R]

All of these groups I identified would also be fairly insensitive to the cost of running a node.

- the academics will apply for grants to operate their nodes so they can perform research

- the businesses and miners will run nodes as a cost of doing business

- the governments will run nodes for law enforcement, surveillance, and other purposes.

- the power users will run nodes because they want to.

Would it really be so bad if the far future looked like this?  

[solex]

All of these groups I identified would also be fairly insensitive to the cost of running a node.

- the academics will apply for grants to operate their nodes so they can perform research

- the businesses and miners will run nodes as a cost of doing business

- the governments will run nodes for law enforcement, surveillance, and other purposes.

- the power users will run nodes because they want to.

Would it really be so bad if the far future looked like this?  

Maybe not that bad, and if general technology companies are considered separate from Bitcoin-focused businesses, then perhaps another 155 could be added for them, as per the MSCI World Index (IT).
https://www.msci.com/resources/factsheets/index_fact_sheet/msci-world-information-technology-index-usd-net.pdf

It is easy to imagine that even non-Bitcoin tech companies would want to run at least one node to have a hook into a real-world blockchain instance..

Microsoft supports Bitcoin XT! 

[TPTB_need_war]

and now this.  i really think it's a power play by the devs to keep control.  marcus said it flat out.  they want control.

This does appear to be a power struggle between the Bitcoin Foundation and the "core developers".

It appears that the Foundation side has decided that the "core developers" are dispensable and that they are gaining too much leverage which is dangerous given their business conflict-of-interest with Blockstream.

All of this is indicative of the fact that Bitcoin is not yet on auto-pilot and is not decentralized. It is rather a power struggle of vested interests.

It doesn't matter which direction this power play goes because the writing in already on the wall as to the overall outcome of Bitcoin core sinking into a morass and either a subsumption or orthogonal alternative via pegged side chains will eventually emerge.

This is why I have suggested to Gregory that they just give up the control and march on. Their tech can't be controlled by Bitcoin core, so they should just ignore this power struggle and focus on where their inherit power is implicit.

Any way, none of it matters to my work (not even the timing of the viability of pegged side chains). I can carry on where my power is implicit.

What I do know is that after spending a lot of time reading about Bitcoin for the past several years, and getting a feel for some of the people involved, I would prefer to stay far, far away from anything that is related to Mike Hearn. For the life of me, I can't even understand why someone like him is interested in Bitcoin (unless it's to change it into something else entirely). I'm thankful that he has barely touched Bitcoin Core.

So I oppose BitcoinXT, but not necessarily a block size increase.

Astute separation-of-concerns.

The other thing I don't understand is why people focus on the network overhead rather than the overhead to run a single node.  As far as I can see, this should always be roughly O(n).  

Its hard to scare people when you talk about O(n) costs per node.

Scary only if you want anyone in the world to be able to directly participate in mining consensus.

If you don't care about some centralization due to the regulatory oversight (an example of an out-of-band incentive that obviates the assumption of a Nash equilibrium) that can placed on those who can meet much higher minimum resource requirements, then sure go on your merry way. Regulatory capture is incestuous.

But don't even begin to dream about on-the-block-chain micropayments with any semblance of decentralization.

[TPTB_need_war]

check out of the gold collapse

I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming.

I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement.

[Zarathustra]

check out of the gold collapse

I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming.

I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement.

What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed!

[nanobrain]

check out of the gold collapse

I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming.

I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement.

What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed!

Has it ever been any different?

What you have to remember about this thread is that if all the egos were laid end to end....


...no-one would be in the least bit surprised.

[freakying99]

check out of the gold collapse

I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming.

I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement.

What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed!

Has it ever been any different?

What you have to remember about this thread is that if all the egos were laid end to end....


...no-one would be in the least bit surprised.

TRUE. One huge egotrip in this thread. It should be locked and forgotten about.
But BTC is dropping and gold will climb, so at the very least it should have it's title changed.

[Zarathustra]

check out of the gold collapse

I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming.

I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement.

What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed!

Has it ever been any different?

What you have to remember about this thread is that if all the egos were laid end to end....


...no-one would be in the least bit surprised.

TRUE. One huge egotrip in this thread. It should be locked and forgotten about.
But BTC is dropping and gold will climb, so at the very least it should have it's title changed.

No. A clever writer with charisma (cypherdoc) and hence some more clever thinkers in this thread. A few stalkers are realising it but can't lure them into their own threads. That is the reason why they are here and not elsewhere.

[Torque]

Meanwhile in other news:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-china-becomes-first-chinese-bank-to-help-set-gold-price-1434453559

Great, now China is set to get in on the Gold price fixing (fraud).  Is this good news?

[sidhujag]

Meanwhile in other news:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-china-becomes-first-chinese-bank-to-help-set-gold-price-1434453559

Great, now China is set to get in on the Gold price fixing fraud.

That was a no brainer.. Jpm basically left the game and moved onto something else.. What that is who knows.

[TPTB_need_war]

check out of the gold collapse

I told you all upthread there would likely be a bounce this June in both gold and BTC but the final lows are still coming.

I continue (via Armstrong) to predict every price move. Yet I (and he) get no acknowledgement.

What a shame! The feet of the prophets are to be kissed!

He is still pissed off because I don't buy into his "we are going back to cavemen" theory of economics.

Careful. Notice those rises are getting smaller, so expect to break $250, yet still expect to break down again to lower lows < $155.

Why? Because it is not yet time for the bottom. Remember private assets won't be ready for prime time until after Oct 2015 according to Armstrong's model.

There will be a massive surge into safe haven assets as Greece defaults or exits. Initially this will drive up gold (and thus Bitcoin), but as the liquidity contagion ignites as of October, then people have to sell their most liquid assets, e.g. gold. This is what happened in 2007-2008, where silver made a high at $21 in early 2008, then dumped into the shitter < $9. It is slightly different now because silver peaked in 2011 and has already declined significantly. So we are just looking for the final capitulation.

Draw a line from along the bottom of the start of the rally back in Oct 2013 (starting on the bottom of the candlestick below the X in EXANTE and through the bottom of the tiny pink or the green candlestick at the end of Sept last before the big rise) with the recent bounce to $300ish hugging the bottom of the line, i.e. we had broken down below that long-term trend line and thus it has become resistance. We could rise back up to that long-term trend line which is approximately $320ish right now and rising.

If we break significantly above that (e.g. $400), then the bottom is behind us and the long-term trend line becomes support.

Edit: we are now in the negative emotions paradigm below the trend line; whereas since Oct 2013, we had been in the positive emotions paradigm until we broke down through the long-term trend line at the end of 2014 (when oil collapsed). Emotions won't shift that quickly, there will need to be capitulation and some fundamental change in the markets. So the rally now is a trap for those who hope against their purchases > $400.

[TPTB_need_war]

No. A clever writer with charisma (cypherdoc) and hence some more clever thinkers in this thread. A few stalkers are realising it but can't lure them into their own threads. That is the reason why they are here and not elsewhere.

I know how to play that game but I don't waste my time on small potatoes. I am here to change the world, not just for my own personal enrichment (and this will become very clear).

If you only had any clue as to the major coup I have achieved (in the back channels) due to my brief participation in this thread.

I made it very clear I came to thread to propose my solution to this problem and find investors and collaborators (in short an anonymous group). And wow did I!

Soon you will know...

[Peter R]

I think I've heard all the arguments, but I still cannot understand the opposition to increasing the blocksize.

I don't have an (maybe I should say: a valid) opinion on the block size debate. I would prefer to err on the side of decentralization, but at this point I'm not even sure what that is. I think magic numbers are a poor solution (but I'm sure they are sometimes necessary).

I'm not afraid of forks, like most people seem to be. I think that everyone should be prepared for how they will deal with possible forks in the future.

What I do know is that after spending a lot of time reading about Bitcoin for the past several years, and getting a feel for some of the people involved, I would prefer to stay far, far away from anything that is related to Mike Hearn. For the life of me, I can't even understand why someone like him is interested in Bitcoin (unless it's to change it into something else entirely). I'm thankful that he has barely touched Bitcoin Core.

So I oppose BitcoinXT, but not necessarily a block size increase.

Disclaimer: I use Mycelium for convenience from time to time and do not know whether or not that is based on any of Hearn's BitcoinJ.

Thanks for commenting, Holliday.  I've always valued your opinion.  

Yes, what exactly does it mean for bitcoin to be decentralized?  In my opinion, the more people using and holding Bitcoin, the more robust the network becomes.  For this reason, we should try our best to allow bitcoin to grow.  DeathAndTaxes also explains here how absurdly small 1MB is in any sort of success case for bitcoin, and how permanently keeping the 1MB restriction would actually be centralizing.  

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes. There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "only a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

[TPTB_need_war]

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

[cypherdoc]

Meanwhile in other news:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-china-becomes-first-chinese-bank-to-help-set-gold-price-1434453559

Great, now China is set to get in on the Gold price fixing (fraud).  Is this good news?

the mere fact that it can be set indicates there's a problem there.

[cypherdoc]

Meanwhile in other news:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-china-becomes-first-chinese-bank-to-help-set-gold-price-1434453559

Great, now China is set to get in on the Gold price fixing fraud.

That was a no brainer.. Jpm basically left the game and moved onto something else.. What that is who knows.

with China snarfing up all the world's gold and the US on the brink of disaster with it's 44 yr history of fiat debasement while now at the zero bound and with Blythe Master's pumping Bitcoin, one could be surprised what JPM decides to go after.

and that actually would be a good thing.

[cypherdoc]

with all this talk about the advantages of Matt Corallo's relay network inferring onto large miners, one of the first things i'm going to do when i get around to it is to hook up a bunch of full nodes to said relay network which, imo, will help negate any latency large blocks might infer to large miners trying to exploit a large block attack by choking full nodes and small miners.

essentially, the way i understand it, is that the relay network is a form of IBLT which limits the need for tx propgation to one.

[cypherdoc]

I now see full-node count as a red herring; the number of full nodes is dropping because we don't need that many full nodes (see my arguments above).  There's a huge gap between running bitcoin on a raspberry pie and "only the Googles of the world will be able to run bitcoin."  According to all my analysis, we are so far away from bitcoin being runnable by "a few mega corporations," that the "don't-increase-the-blocksize-because-centralization-arguments" come across as hyperbole to me.  

You are forgetting propagation delay and the need for IBLT to deal with it, which is a paradigm which will eventually hand a winner-take-all to the entities that can handle Visa volume on the block chain.

I believe before the big boys throw their transactions at Bitcoin, they want to make sure the paradigm is in place for them to capture it. Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc its all primed and ready to go after IBLT is implemented or large enough block size to handle the scale they want to throw at Bitcoin and force IBLT.

Mike Hearn and the Foundation appears to be captured by those big boys (TPTB).

Blockstream is attempting a rear guard and trying to not give them so much headroom all at once.

Or you might have two factions of the TPTB competing (since the end result if the same for as long as PoW is not fixed).

In any case, I don't really care. It is a morass and needs to be replaced by something that remains truly decentralized long-term.

you do realize the Foundation has been defunct for months now?