Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Odalv]

re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

FYI

Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps  today. => bitcoin need  more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations =>  1 GB every 10 min/s

it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )

why are Gavin's calcs so different?  when is he going to comment on SC's?

I do not know. It is only simple multiplication. Every who is able to use calculator can calculate.

Naught, naughty...doing math oneself!

You must be one of those old-timers who pre-date the common-core curriculum.  Modern people understand from their early education (drawing out a bunch of little circles and stuff) that even simple arithmetic becomes nearly impossible beyond about 4 digits and only Einstein is qualified to do it and come up with a valid result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxJ4nbqx8CY

The new “Connected Math” teaches our children in “Standard 3. Mathematics as Reasoning,…” that “…through discussing the problems and their solutions, the students are learning to reason about the mathematics. They learn that mathematics is man-made, that it is arbitrary, and good solutions are arrived at by consensus among those who are considered expert.” So, if a dozen “experts” say that “2 + 2 = 19,” then that’s the new “truth” according to “Connected Math.”

Children are being made mathematically illiterate on purpose!

Above from: http://www.and-the-pursuit-of-happiness.com/blog/all-about-sustainable-development-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/

A little more math.

1,000 tps = 60,000 tpmin = 3,600,000 tphour = 86,400,000 tpday

86 M tx / day is a joke.  I'm doing at least 1 tx/day.

Edit:
I did 4 transactions today.

[smooth]

Visa can process 10,000 tps

Visa says it can process 47,000 tps. They've already processed over 11,000 tps for extended periods on peak days. Actual short term peaks achieved are probably somewhere in between, but I haven't seen any actual numbers.

Add to that the other card networks that are direct competitors of Visa.

10,000 tps as a maximum is much too low.

[Odalv]

Visa can process 10,000 tps

Visa says it can process 47,000 tps. They've already processed over 11,000 tps for extended periods on peak days. Actual short term peaks achieved are probably somewhere in between, but I haven't seen any actual numbers.

Add to that the other card networks that are direct competitors of Visa.

10,000 tps as a maximum is much too low.

I agree with you. I underestimated numbers huge. They may be 5x higher only just Visa cards. And this visa cards transactions are only few % of world transactions.

[tvbcof]

re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

FYI

Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps  today. => bitcoin need  more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations =>  1 GB every 10 min/s

it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )

why are Gavin's calcs so different?  when is he going to comment on SC's?

I do not know. It is only simple multiplication. Every who is able to use calculator can calculate.

Naught, naughty...doing math oneself!

You must be one of those old-timers who pre-date the common-core curriculum.  Modern people understand from their early education (drawing out a bunch of little circles and stuff) that even simple arithmetic becomes nearly impossible beyond about 4 digits and only Einstein is qualified to do it and come up with a valid result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxJ4nbqx8CY

The new “Connected Math” teaches our children in “Standard 3. Mathematics as Reasoning,…” that “…through discussing the problems and their solutions, the students are learning to reason about the mathematics. They learn that mathematics is man-made, that it is arbitrary, and good solutions are arrived at by consensus among those who are considered expert.” So, if a dozen “experts” say that “2 + 2 = 19,” then that’s the new “truth” according to “Connected Math.”

Children are being made mathematically illiterate on purpose!

Above from: http://www.and-the-pursuit-of-happiness.com/blog/all-about-sustainable-development-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/

A little more math.

1,000 tps = 60,000 tpmin = 3,600,000 tphour = 86,400,000 tpday

86 M tx / day is a joke.  I'm doing at least 1 tx/day.

Edit:
I did 4 transactions today.

Dude!  Take a chill pill...check with your doctor because the pharma industry has produced plenty of options here.  The consensus led by eminent scientists like Gavin (fresh from his meeting with the CFR) is that everything will be fine.  And the consensus here on troll-talk is that no matter what happens, 'Moore's Law' will make everything fine.

Your only problem is that you picked up a dull pencil and flipped over an envelope to find some whitespace.  If you would join the modern world you're problems would be all behind you.  As it is you are just making people panic.

[notme]

1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork)

but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway

Maybe in your mind... in my opinion the whole point of SC is to allow innovation in the crypto space without diluting bitcoin.  Bitcoin doesn't need to be a timestamping service or a distributed computing platform, but both are valid uses cases of sidechains.

2. it increases the required resources for all miners

but i thought brg444 said ALL miners would end up MM'ing SC's?

I disagree with him on this point and so I won't argue in support of him here.

3. it reduces the value of transaction fees by increasing the supply of block space

maybe, maybe not if tx #'s grow significantly

Possibly, but the initial increase will cause a devaluation.  It may well establish a sound equilibrium after some time, but we won't know unless we try.  And if it fails, we're fucked because you insisted on doing it on the main chain instead of testing things on a segregated sidechain.

4. any hardcoded limit will just be hit again and any algorithmic limit has a lot of questions about proper incentives to answer

true

5. there is no genuine proposal for how to adjust the limit (Gavin's proposal merely addresses the issues with block transmission latency that are a prerequisite to raising the limit.  It should probably be done even if we leave the limit since it is a soft-fork change and currently miners who fill blocks to the limit are putting themselves at a disadvantage over empty blocks that propagate quicker)

why didn't the 0 tx block Mystery Miner take over a coupla yrs ago?

Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill.  Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in.  Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal.  I thought you were in favor of it?

[Adrian-x]

And just a rough back of the envelope calculation, if we were to complete with visa volume using monetarist theory MV = PQ in order to support that price around the next block halving, miners would be incentivize to consume about as much electricity as is output by Germany.
 
So there are some predetermined growth eras set by block halving, if they are to be violated people would be choosing between the value of turning on there lights or sending electricity to there local miner to create money.

At the end of the day it's assumed that if we are generating 1GB per block only a few data centers could handle it, and SC would disperse this to other ledgers that could be trimmed if abandoned.

What is overlooked is how much a Bitcoin would be worth if there was such high volume, managing a data center to handed that amount of traffic wouldn't be an un-viable  expense for someone who wants to ensure his 100 BTC on the network.

[notme]

where does he get this?:

But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.

That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.

After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.

Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable.  Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU.

So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput.  What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput.

I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain.

[tvbcof]

1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork)

but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway

To me (and I might be lonely) the magic of sidechains is exactly the opposite.  Bitcoin works very well as it is and is defensible by my calculations.  Any significant changes, and especially those designed to balloon it's capacity, are a huge threat.  If Bitcoin more or less freezes now with only bug-fixes I'm pretty confident to trust it with significant value.  The more 'good ideas' that get pumped into it the more wary I become.  Yes, accelerated developments made possible by SCs might feed back into bug-fixes in Bitcoin but that's the only advantage I see in this regard.

To me the suggestion that it could grow to even a tiny tiny fraction of the scale needed to service the world's exchange economy while preserving the aspects that made it interesting to me is beyond absurd and has been since I bought my first Bitcoin.  Trying to get 'part way there' will both fail miserably (due to it's basic design if nothing else) AND ruin the original aspects which made it great enough to reach the high water mark it has already left.  If it isn't torpedoed, I suspect that it will vastly exceed the existing high water mark absent any changes at all.  That's why I'm still significantly invested.

[notme]

1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork)

but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway

To me (and I might be lonely) the magic of sidechains is exactly the opposite.  Bitcoin works very well as it is and is defensible by my calculations.  Any significant changes, and especially those designed to balloon it's capacity, are a huge threat.  If Bitcoin more or less freezes now with only bug-fixes I'm pretty confident to trust it with significant value.  The more 'good ideas' that get pumped into it the more wary I become.  Yes, accelerated developments made possible by SCs might feed back into bug-fixes in Bitcoin but that's the only advantage I see in this regard.

To me the suggestion that it could grow to even a tiny tiny fraction of the scale needed to service the world's exchange economy while preserving the aspects that made it interesting to me is beyond absurd and has been since I bought my first Bitcoin.  Trying to get 'part way there' will both fail miserably (due to it's basic design if nothing else) AND ruin the original aspects which made it great enough to reach the high water mark it has already left.  If it isn't torpedoed, I suspect that it will vastly exceed the existing high water mark absent any changes at all.  That's why I'm still significantly invested.

Right, with one soft fork we can enable sidechains and never have to hard fork.

[Adrian-x]

Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill.  Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in.  Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal.  I thought you were in favor of it?

That's an assumption that may fall away, it isn't true if you get paid in TX fees on a side chain from MM, you could mine empty Bitcoin blocks all day, and get paid in SC tokens.

[notme]

Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill.  Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in.  Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal.  I thought you were in favor of it?

That's an assumption that's may fall away, it isn't true if you get paid in TX fees on a side chain from MM, you could mine empty Bitcoin blocks all day, and get paid in SC tokens.

Sure, solving the block propagation issue should be addressed, and can be without a hard fork.  I support Gavin's proposed solution, but I don't want to see it followed up by raising the block size limit.

[Odalv]

where does he get this?:

But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.

That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.

After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.

Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable.  Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU.

So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput.  What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput.

I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain.

I agree and I would like to add.
You cannot store 20 years old unspent output into archive. You need to have instant access to those bitcoin if you are miner.

[justusranvier]

I think committed UTXO sets will eventually be secure enough that not even miners will store the full, unpruned history all the way back to the genesis block.

Once that objection has been answered, and once price discovery for bandwidth has been achieved, there won't be any credible reasons to have an explicit transaction rate cap.

[thezerg]

where does he get this?:

But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.

That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.

After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.

Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable.  Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU.

So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput.  What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput.

I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain.

I agree and I would like to add.
You cannot store 20 years old unspent output into archive. You need to have instant access to those bitcoin if you are miner.

Don't be so sure that you won't be able to store 20 years of UTXO dust 15 years from now.  You'll probably be able to do it in a $5 chip the size of a postage stamp.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6815/sandisk-ulltradimm-ddr3-400gb-ssd-enterprise-review/index.html

Storage density is EXCEEDING Moore's law for the last 10+ years...

[brg444]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US

this guy can see it coming. interesting insight on the oncoming loss of confidence in fiat money

[cypherdoc]

1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork)

but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway

Maybe in your mind... in my opinion the whole point of SC is to allow innovation in the crypto space without diluting bitcoin.  Bitcoin doesn't need to be a timestamping service or a distributed computing platform, but both are valid uses cases of sidechains.

in brg444's mind as well.  and i agree with his preference, if i were to call it that, b/c MM'ing SC's forever is inherently wasteful as well in terms of data

2. it increases the required resources for all miners

but i thought brg444 said ALL miners would end up MM'ing SC's?

I disagree with him on this point and so I won't argue in support of him here.

3. it reduces the value of transaction fees by increasing the supply of block space

maybe, maybe not if tx #'s grow significantly

Possibly, but the initial increase will cause a devaluation.  It may well establish a sound equilibrium after some time, but we won't know unless we try.  And if it fails, we're fucked because you insisted on doing it on the main chain instead of testing things on a segregated sidechain.

me?  why, thank you.  i had no idea.

4. any hardcoded limit will just be hit again and any algorithmic limit has a lot of questions about proper incentives to answer

true

5. there is no genuine proposal for how to adjust the limit (Gavin's proposal merely addresses the issues with block transmission latency that are a prerequisite to raising the limit.  It should probably be done even if we leave the limit since it is a soft-fork change and currently miners who fill blocks to the limit are putting themselves at a disadvantage over empty blocks that propagate quicker)

why didn't the 0 tx block Mystery Miner take over a coupla yrs ago?

Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill.  Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in.  Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal.  I thought you were in favor of it?

i am in favor of it.

[Odalv]

where does he get this?:

But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.

That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.

After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.

Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable.  Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU.

So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput.  What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput.

I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain.

I agree and I would like to add.
You cannot store 20 years old unspent output into archive. You need to have instant access to those bitcoin if you are miner.

Don't be so sure that you won't be able to store 20 years of UTXO dust 15 years from now.  You'll probably be able to do it in a $5 chip the size of a postage stamp.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6815/sandisk-ulltradimm-ddr3-400gb-ssd-enterprise-review/index.html

Storage density is EXCEEDING Moore's law for the last 10+ years...

I'm playing with SD card as a storage ... capacity is god but it is getting slower and slower every day.

[brg444]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US

this guy can see it coming. interesting insight on the oncoming loss of confidence in fiat money

also refreshing to see someone dismiss the Bitcoin with the B and concentrate on the bitcoin currency

[cypherdoc]

i see about 10 guys commenting on about 5 different ways to do this.  what happens when you don't get a consensus?  do nothing?

[cypherdoc]

Moon?  i lol'ed:

"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US