Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Peter R]

Here is a link to the Reddit post with the final graphic visualizing Gavin's recent code changes.  



I incorporated all the proposed improvements except adding notes on IBLTs and pruning.  I thought that discussion deserved a separate graphic.  

[Odalv]

Wouldn't IBLT drastically reduce the upload bit rate requirement for miners? 

Yes, It can drastically reduce the upload in case the other side is also full node.

[cypherdoc]

this is going to drive Adam, et al bonkers:

BITCOIN BLOCK SIZE CONFLICT ENDS WITH LATEST UPDATE


An issue that has been the source for months of debate and rancor throughout the Bitcoin mining and developer community over Bitcoin's block size appears to have reached a long-awaited resolution. Within the most recent BitcoinXT update, Gavin Andresen has begun the process of revising the block chain individual block size from 1 MB to 8 MB starting next year. This is deemed necessary for the overall growth and usability of Bitcoin, as the current limits of seven transactions per second are becoming insufficient for the growing global community as consumer and business interest increases.

These impending updates were revealed on GitHub, and this is what is in store for the upcoming “hard fork”, taken directly from GitHub, posted by Gavin Andresen:

Implement hard fork to allow bigger blocks. Unit test and code for a bigger block hard fork.

Parameters are:

8MB cap
Doubling every two years (so 16MB in 2018)
For twenty years
Earliest possible chain fork: 11 Jan 2016
After miner supermajority (code in the next patch)
And grace period once miner supermajority achieved (code in next patch)
The 1 MB block size debate has been a constant issue for months, with Andresen and Mike Hearn discussing the need to upgrade the block size to as much as 20 MB. China's major exchanges and mining interests came out against any block size changes initially, deriding the extra operating costs and complexities involved with mostly empty blocks. After further review, the increase was deemed warranted to an 8 MB size, much smaller than the 20 MB requests by the Core Developers. An accord was reached, and the revisions will take effect next year.

We attempted to contact Hearn and Andresen for more information and will provide updated information as it becomes available. It seems some details are still to be sorted out in the next coding batch within the coming days. We’ll keep our readers informed of any further developments.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-conflict-ends-latest-update/

[Odalv]

this is going to drive Adam, et al bonkers:

BITCOIN BLOCK SIZE CONFLICT ENDS WITH LATEST UPDATE


An issue that has been the source for months of debate and rancor throughout the Bitcoin mining and developer community over Bitcoin's block size appears to have reached a long-awaited resolution. Within the most recent BitcoinXT update, Gavin Andresen has begun the process of revising the block chain individual block size from 1 MB to 8 MB starting next year. This is deemed necessary for the overall growth and usability of Bitcoin, as the current limits of seven transactions per second are becoming insufficient for the growing global community as consumer and business interest increases.

These impending updates were revealed on GitHub, and this is what is in store for the upcoming “hard fork”, taken directly from GitHub, posted by Gavin Andresen:

Implement hard fork to allow bigger blocks. Unit test and code for a bigger block hard fork.

Parameters are:

8MB cap
Doubling every two years (so 16MB in 2018)
For twenty years
Earliest possible chain fork: 11 Jan 2016
After miner supermajority (code in the next patch)
And grace period once miner supermajority achieved (code in next patch)
The 1 MB block size debate has been a constant issue for months, with Andresen and Mike Hearn discussing the need to upgrade the block size to as much as 20 MB. China's major exchanges and mining interests came out against any block size changes initially, deriding the extra operating costs and complexities involved with mostly empty blocks. After further review, the increase was deemed warranted to an 8 MB size, much smaller than the 20 MB requests by the Core Developers. An accord was reached, and the revisions will take effect next year.

We attempted to contact Hearn and Andresen for more information and will provide updated information as it becomes available. It seems some details are still to be sorted out in the next coding batch within the coming days. We’ll keep our readers informed of any further developments.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-conflict-ends-latest-update/

It is not yet consensus. We will see in January.

[kazuki49]

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.

It concerns you because you think outside the myopic delusional bubble that is bitcointalk and /r/bitcoin, and thats exactly the reason Monero or other more suited and permanently disinflationary coin for p2p payment will eventually take over, you cant force people into one (public, transparent, NSA-stamped) blockchain.

[smith coins]

This is the right time to buy, after this downtrend period we are about to rise and reach again the $300 value.

[tvbcof]

Yes, you are right. But solex is presenting IBTL like it reduces bandwidth to 1/32

That's probably a misunderstanding. He said: "Obviously the real-time unconfirmed transaction overhead does remain. and is large long-term.".

Solex seems to have been envisioning IBLT's to be akin to how RAID obtains 'magic' results by use of parity bits.  He would be wrong about this...but...

...actually a Merkle tree structure offers the ability to do some pretty significant optimizations and 'magic'.  If, for instance, a branch can be cut off because it contains some taint, all of the twigs and leaves beyond it are irrelevant.  Pruning could be arbitrarily effective at discriminating and reducing bandwidth depending on the taint ratio.  1/32 is hardly inconceivable and it could be much more.

The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block.  My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

[cypherdoc]

Yes, you are right. But solex is presenting IBTL like it reduces bandwidth to 1/32

That's probably a misunderstanding. He said: "Obviously the real-time unconfirmed transaction overhead does remain. and is large long-term.".

Solex seems to have been envisioning IBLT's to be akin to how RAID obtains 'magic' results by use of parity bits.  He would be wrong about this...but...

...actually a Merkle tree structure offers the ability to do some pretty significant optimizations and 'magic'.  If, for instance, a branch can be cut off because it contains some taint, all of the twigs and leaves beyond it are irrelevant.  Pruning could be arbitrarily effective at discriminating and reducing bandwidth depending on the taint ratio.  1/32 is hardly inconceivable and it could be much more.

The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block.  My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

[cypherdoc]

This is the right time to buy, after this downtrend period we are about to rise and reach again the $300 value.

i fully agree.

if Bitcoin were to have failed, it would have done it by now.  instead, what XT is going to offer is hope for Bitcoin's long awaited and promised growth.  as this percolates thru the mkt place, we will reverse the 90% downtrend and start to climb probably accelerating thru next July's block halving.  i'm hoping for the next 10x ramp as we've seen several times in past years.

[tvbcof]

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block.  My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course.  It vastly expands the attack surface.

[cypherdoc]

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block.  My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course.  It vastly expands the attack surface.

perhaps.  then a different solution will be made.  key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come.  if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner.  Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  we should want that dissection to occur.

[Odalv]

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block. My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course.  It vastly expands the attack surface.

perhaps.  then a different solution will be made.  key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come.  if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner.  Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  we should want that dissection to occur.

Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer.

[tvbcof]

perhaps.  then a different solution will be made.  key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come.  if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner.  Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  we should want that dissection to occur.

Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer.

A closer match to SV40

[cypherdoc]

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block. My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course.  It vastly expands the attack surface.

perhaps.  then a different solution will be made.  key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come.  if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner.  Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  we should want that dissection to occur.

Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer.

That's OK. Then we just cut back.

I'd rather try than not try at all.

[av123]

oh Lordy, now i'm having to educate TBI on digital gold:

https://twitter.com/twobitidiot/status/612652436126363648

Saw that.

Not sure why he would be so flippant about increasing the hard cap.

[Odalv]

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block. My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course.  It vastly expands the attack surface.

perhaps.  then a different solution will be made.  key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come.  if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner.  Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  we should want that dissection to occur.

Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer.

That's OK. Then we just cut back.

I'd rather try than not try at all.

Not increasing block size will enable to start transaction's fee discovery and it creates environment for innovations. This innovations will reduce fees and move transaction to SC. BItcoin will stay decentralized and more powerful.

[cypherdoc]

oh Lordy, now i'm having to educate TBI on digital gold:

https://twitter.com/twobitidiot/status/612652436126363648

Saw that.

Not sure why he would be so flippant about increasing the hard cap.

Maybe because he's a TBI?

[cypherdoc]

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block. My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course.  It vastly expands the attack surface.

perhaps.  then a different solution will be made.  key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come.  if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner.  Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  we should want that dissection to occur.

Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer.

That's OK. Then we just cut back.

I'd rather try than not try at all.

Not increasing block size will enable to start transaction's fee discovery and it creates environment for innovations. This innovations will reduce fees and move transaction to SC. BItcoin will stay decentralized and more powerful.

Facepalm.

The debate has evolved considerably since last October.

[tvbcof]

Not increasing block size will enable to start transaction's fee discovery and it creates environment for innovations. This innovations will reduce fees and move transaction to SC. BItcoin will stay decentralized and more powerful.

Facepalm.

The debate has evolved considerably since last October.

A debate does not 'evolve' by one guy (no matter what his impression of himself) or group re-stating the same flawed assertions over and over again.  I and most others on my side of the philosophical debate are entirely unimpressed (and somewhat perplexed) at your activities, but oh well.

[cypherdoc]

Not increasing block size will enable to start transaction's fee discovery and it creates environment for innovations. This innovations will reduce fees and move transaction to SC. BItcoin will stay decentralized and more powerful.

Facepalm.

The debate has evolved considerably since last October.

A debate does not 'evolve' by one guy (no matter what his impression of himself) or group re-stating the same flawed assertions over and over again.  I and most others on my side of the philosophical debate are entirely unimpressed (and somewhat perplexed) at your activities, but oh well.

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