Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[smooth]

According to the "high growth rate" curve in the graph above, the blockchain will be 10,000x as large in 2035.  Here's a quick estimate of some of the costs to run a node twenty years from now, assuming no change in the cost of disk space or Internet bandwidth for 20 years.

Nice work Peter R. I often find your presentations compelling and this is no exception.

One quibble. You gloss over the distinction between miners and nodes:

Even under these (a) optimistic growth rates, and (b) extremely pessimistic cost improvements for disk space and bandwidth, the cost is still not so prohibitive that there would only be "5 big miners left."  For example, I'd image that all major research universities, bitcoin corporations, various branches of governments, and power users (whales) would still run nodes (1000+ nodes).  The network could actually be more decentralized than it is now.

[1713579543]

1713579543

[1713579543]

1713579543

[cypherdoc]

According to the "high growth rate" curve in the graph above, the blockchain will be 10,000x as large in 2035.  Here's a quick estimate of some of the costs to run a node twenty years from now, assuming no change in the cost of disk space or Internet bandwidth for 20 years.

Nice work Peter R. I often find your presentations compelling and this is no exception.

One quibble. You gloss over the distinction between miners and nodes:

Even under these (a) optimistic growth rates, and (b) extremely pessimistic cost improvements for disk space and bandwidth, the cost is still not so prohibitive that there would only be "5 big miners left."  For example, I'd image that all major research universities, bitcoin corporations, various branches of governments, and power users (whales) would still run nodes (1000+ nodes).  The network could actually be more decentralized than it is now.

Although IBLT or something like it could considerably narrow that difference.

[Peter R]

One quibble. You gloss over the distinction between miners and nodes:

Fair point.  I took Odalv's comment to mean that there would be no nodes except for those run by these fictitious "5 big miners."  Maybe that's not what he meant.  

Anyways, I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.  And in such a future (~one thousand nodes), I'd imagine a much larger portion of these nodes would run mining pools, simply to help pay for the node's monthly costs.  

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

[lunarboy]

More facepalm

Let's implant doubling-cancer into bitcoin. I'm sure that more politicians will join(eat) us.

Concur.  Voted yes to the new poll, but would much rather see a dynamic size increase when the blocks get to a certain transaction density/time.

[cypherdoc]

More facepalm

Let's implant doubling-cancer into bitcoin. I'm sure that more politicians will join(eat) us.

Concur.  Voted yes to the new poll, but would much rather see a dynamic size increase when the blocks get to a certain transaction density/time.

Doubling can't occur unless 75%of miners concur.

[TPTB_need_war]

I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system.

KYC required on every transaction is one of many potential horrific outcomes of your "decentralization = 1000 nodes".

Smart?

TPTB_need_war was already confused thinking that the block subsidy would have become "so minuscule it has essentially stopped funding mining" by 2032  

WTF   I already explained your myopic incomprehension of what I wrote upthread. And you repeat your incomprehension again  

[Peter R]

I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system.

Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs?  I'm sure you could introduce several rouge nodes, but that wouldn't matter.  You have to control them all.  And then you need to control the nodes of the bitcoin companies, power users, and government agencies across the world. How are you going to do it, Anonymint?

Secondly, the ~1000 node scenario is not what I suspect will play out; it's just that even if that scenario does play out, the network could still be more decentralized than it is now.  

[TPTB_need_war]

Comparing a successful fork to a runaway sidechain.

A chain fork, while painful, will succeed only if the fork is better than the original. A bitcoiner need only do nothing to join the fork.

A sidechain will either be less valuable and therefore be very small, or more valuable and therefore run away. A bitcoiner might be left behind, unless he converts to the sidechain in time.

I prefer a chain fork to a runaway sidechain.

Yes, chain fork = (Peter R's) spin off, though the latter carries a connotation of being done in a somewhat less chaotic fashion. As I said before, spin offs make a lot more sense than side chains as a way to (potentially) upgrade bitcoin. Even Adam's one-way pegs are better than side chains, but spin offs are better than one way pegs.

But Blockstream's two-way pegged side chains don't runaway from your BTC value. Thus they are best, because they are not all-or-nothing choices, you can go back and forth, and your BTC value is protected.

Pegging two different, however slightly, money types together is a problem in theory and practice. As long as they are different, they will have different value. If the value is smaller, they will be converted to bitcoins. If the value is larger, they will be converted to sidecoins.

When a fiat system goes bust, a new one is created, and it is quite common to peg the value to for instance the dollar. This is to try to give people a reason to trust the new money. The reason to have local money at all, is to get the seigniorage, which otherwise would be wasted to another government. To peg the value, you need an institution to be the guarantor, that means a kind of bank with reserves in the other money type. In practice, exact pegging is not possible, because there will be leakage of value to speculants and money exchange services. Therefore there will be a band, where the value will be pegged to somewhere between the upper and lower limits. Even better, the exact limits are secret, to avoid speculation near the edge. This can go on for a while, until they have created too much (sometimes too little), the peg breaks and is set to another value.

If there is a mathematical peg defined by protocol and secured by the blockchain, the difference in value will have to escape somehow, and that is either the coins disappear if they are worth less than bitcoin, otherwise all bitcoins will be converted to sidecoins. It is not rocket science.

You are conflating a physical peg with a peg enforced by market exchange dominance. The latter is destined to fail when the dominator exhausts resources. The former fails only if the physical peg fails, i.e. the side chain breaks the protocol rules of the peg.

I do no  such thing. If you by physical peg mean an unbreakable peg - that means only that the difference in value will find another way to escape.

Escape as I explained via arbitrage of flow to or from the main chain which is precisely the way side coins are advertised to perform.

[smooth]

Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs?  I'm sure you could introduce several rouge nodes, but that wouldn't matter.  You have to control them all.

For a lot of things only control over 50% (or perhaps less) of the hash rate is needed. That's only a fraction of the fraction of the 1000 nodes that are mining.

[TPTB_need_war]

I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system.

Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs?

Are you really serious asking that?

Did you not read the upthread discussion about how the universities are captured.

How else do you think they foisted the lie of Man Made Global Temperature Change on us?

Universities are the easiest the regulate. They aren't moving.

If you are this naive, there isn't any reason for us to talk further. How can a child have a conversation about how the world works.

Why would any professor risk his jobcareer or university risk its reputation by doing illegal activities?

[smooth]

Universities are the easiest the regulate. They aren't moving.

This is a bit behind the times. Major universities are becoming multinational entities, some are already recognizable as such. Nevertheless I still agree with your conclusion that relatively few nodes at identified major institutions are relatively easy to regulate.

[TPTB_need_war]

Universities are the easiest the regulate. They aren't moving.

This is a bit behind the times. Major universities are becoming multinational entities, some are already recognizable as such. Nevertheless I still agree with your conclusion that relatively few nodes at identified major institutions are relatively easy to regulate.

Politicians and governance are becoming multi-national too.

Welcome to the NWO. You can't even vote for the European Commission any more.

[TPTB_need_war]

if Bitcoin were to have failed, it would have done it by now.

Depends on what the goal was.

For me the goal was 1) censorship-freedom money aka permission-less commerce, and 2) immutable protocol enforced rules including money supply.

Bitcoin has already failed at #2, because the protocol is being changed now. And this proves it can be changed in any way that the masses can be fooled to support.

And #1 failure is just around the corner.

Peter R,

distributed != decentralization

You assume the former provides the latter.

[Peter R]

I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system.

Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs?

Are you really serious asking that?

Yes.  And you didn't answer.  Specifically, how would you achieve this (remember, there are research universities in numerous legal jurisdictions and in order to be effective you have to control nodes at a lot of them)?

[TPTB_need_war]

I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system.

Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs?

Are you really serious asking that?

Yes.  And you didn't answer.  Specifically, how would you achieve this (remember, there are research universities in numerous legal jurisdictions and in order to be effective you have to control nodes at a lot of them)?

Observe and watch the G20 and world government take form (very slowly like death by a 1000 paper cuts). It will be sight to behold. Like a "1000 points of light" as Grandady Bush put it.

You continue to it oblivious and naive one.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

And legions of developers working to give us alternatives.

Luckily pegged side chains will make that a reality so we can ignore you.

[Peter R]

I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system.

Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs?

Are you really serious asking that?

Yes.  And you didn't answer.  Specifically, how would you achieve this (remember, there are research universities in numerous legal jurisdictions and in order to be effective you have to control nodes at a lot of them)?

Observe and watch the G20 and world government take form (very slowly like death by a 1000 paper cuts). It will be sight to behold. Like a "1000 points of light" as Grandady Bush put it.

You continue to it oblivious and naive one.

You still didn't answer.

Come on, even I can think of plausible story [but one that I don't suspect will play out].

[TPTB_need_war]

That's OK. Then we just cut back.

I'd rather try than not try at all.

Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer.

A closer match to SV40

A medical doctor who never understood the exponential function. On the Nth day the Lily pads covered 50% of the pond, so Cypherdoc proclaimed we had time to cut back, then we woke up and the pond was smothered. WTF? The exponential function.

And the only way he can keep that promise is to become a dictator. We'll at least their intentions are now mathematically inviolable.

[cypherdoc]

I can't see a future with less than a thousand or so nodes.

I don't buy the "centralization" fears related to increased blocksize.

Because you don't factor in the government's ease of regulating 1000 permanently sited nodes compared to zillions of ephemeral nodes in a truly decentralized system.

Imagine that every major research university runs a full node. If you were this "scary, monolithic government" that you seem to fear, how would you go about controlling the software that scientists are running in their cryptocurrency labs?  I'm sure you could introduce several rouge nodes, but that wouldn't matter.  You have to control them all.  And then you need to control the nodes of the bitcoin companies, power users, and government agencies across the world. How are you going to do it, Anonymint?

Secondly, the ~1000 node scenario is not what I suspect will play out; it's just that even if that scenario does play out, the network could still be more decentralized than it is now.  

Did he bother to watch that video of the Chinese mine I posted earlier today?

He's a disinformation agent.

[TPTB_need_war]

You still didn't answer.

I answered. Oblivious, naive ones don't see it as an answer.

Did he bother to watch that video of the Chinese mine I posted earlier today?

He's a disinformation agent.

Got to love that propaganda that China is not fully on board the NWO plans. (even if not, that the G20 couldn't filter traffic from China that didn't comply)

You protest much. Why? Trying to mind control the readers?