smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:52:06 AM |
|
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
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:54:15 AM |
|
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
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:56:06 AM |
|
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
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:56:59 AM Last edit: June 21, 2015, 03:20:49 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
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
|
|
June 21, 2015, 03:04:27 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
|
June 21, 2015, 03:06:22 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 21, 2015, 03:09:07 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 21, 2015, 03:15:35 AM |
|
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 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 21, 2015, 03:22:19 AM |
|
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 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 21, 2015, 03:27:21 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
|
June 21, 2015, 03:35:16 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 21, 2015, 03:54:06 AM |
|
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
|
|
June 21, 2015, 03:58:55 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
|
June 21, 2015, 04:09:18 AM |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
Melbustus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1004
|
|
June 21, 2015, 04:27:33 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 21, 2015, 04:46:40 AM Last edit: June 21, 2015, 05:00:28 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
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/1wlut8ahttp://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k9fcp/pdf_on_sidechains_sidechained_bitcoin_substitutes/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
|
|
June 21, 2015, 04:51:25 AM Last edit: June 22, 2015, 12:43:02 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 21, 2015, 04:57:11 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 21, 2015, 05:10:47 AM |
|
The truth is that both smaller and larger blocks will destroy low valued transactions unless centralization is achieved.
|
|
|
|
|