Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[electerium]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[electerium]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[solex]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[cypherdoc]

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]

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

What is funny to me is you haven't considered that if a very popular application of anonymity arises which demands millions of transactions per day, Bitcoin can not fill this market.

That market if it exists will leave Bitcoin behind.

And there is nothing you can say which will change that fact.

Black swans are not easy for people to see.

[smooth]

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.

"full TX fees" is a meaningless concept given that there is no set fee, it can be arbitrarily low. Just paying enough to motivate one (who happens to be the most accommodating) miner doesn't cover the entire cost to everyone on the network. Vitalik wrote about this once. Let me find it...okay here you go:

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/02/01/on-transaction-fees-and-the-fallacy-of-market-based-solutions/

Adrian-x: I'll agree there is some merit to your idea of jump into the deep end and then figure out how to swim. Dangerous as fuck, but definitely a strong motivation to Get It Done.