Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

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

I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.

Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition

[1714056704]

1714056704

[1714056704]

1714056704

[1714056704]

1714056704

[1714056704]

1714056704

[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.

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...

What's your source, because my source (Computer Architecture: A Quantiative Approach 5th edidion, 2012), says that magnetic storage has been growing at about 40% per year since 2004:


Even flash is doubling every 2 years, not the 18 month timeline for moore's law.

Edit: not sure why my image is choking the proxy, http://yrral.net/storage_growth.png

[tvbcof]

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...

What's your source, because my source (Computer Architecture: A Quantiative Approach 5th edidion, 2012), says that magnetic storage has been growing at about 40% per year since 2004:


Even flash is doubling every 2 years, not the 18 month timeline for moore's law.

Edit: not sure why my image is choking the proxy, http://yrral.net/storage_growth.png

I've been fiddling with computers since the early 80's.  The magnetic capacities reasonably available to me as a relatively interested enthusiast are falling off a cliff.  I posted about it in this thread earlier.  So when it comes to Moore's Law, 'show me the beef', but don't lead me to NASA's supercomputer cluster to do so.  Anyway, Bitcoin is in it's tiny head-of-the-pin phase and already it has already gone through significant phases of struggle.

I will also say that people who not have actually tried transferring big wads of data around the global internet should keep their mouth's shut.  That includes transferring said data chunks from outfits like Amazon through very high-end connectivity to outfits like {very large tech company here.}  Even very experienced engineers who had not tried it were shocked when theory and practice didn't come anywhere close to meeting.  It comes down to basic physics and how TCP/IP works.  Yes, there are tricks to make the problems somewhat diminish but there are no silver bullets here...or at least ones which are very applicable to lower end users.  Maybe there will be, or they will develop, but absent a market demand it is not likely.  Opening 10.000 sockets is not going to be very welcome by one's ISP (even if they do have an OS and router and modem which handles it with grace.)

I once asked Gavin if he thought about trying to get the testnet up to maximum capacity.  Blank stare followed.  I shit you not!  That was back in 2011.  To bad nobody ever did try it or the emergency hard fork for the BDB mis-config (NOT 'bug') might not have been such a shocker.  At the very least one should try to run the 10-year out capacities (adjusted for a realistic effect of Moore's Law') as a test and make sure they can get it working before inserting the exponential system growth that Gavin promotes.  Not holding my breath for that one.  I expect that TBF's party line will be 'Don't worry, code will improve.'

edits: minor

[NewLiberty]

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.

so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.

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

Gavin's block size expansion is a hard forking change that will splinter the community.... I don't see how you could possibly think that is preferable to a soft fork change that solves the same problem while also opening up many other exciting possibilities (such as the document timestamping service of thezerg, or a proof of storage chain, or a chain for distributed computing, or. ...).

who is against increasing block size and why?  

I've been pretty vocally against Gavin's proposal.
In this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=815712.0
and in Gavin's thread.

And in more public forums
http://www.bizforum.org/Journal/www_journalJVP018.htm

And on LetsTalkBitcoin
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-bitcoin-game-3-joseph-vaughn-perling

And in private emails with Gavin.
And other places that I have probably forgotten about.

For many very good reasons. (I think)

[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

I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.

Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition

he even uses the words "gold collapses"!  is he here?

[SmoothCurves]

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

I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.

Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition

Yeah, that is a kick ass interview.

[brg444]

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

I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.

Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition

he even uses the words "gold collapses"!  is he here?

ask him for a shoutout on twitter, he'll probably get you even more views than me  

[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

I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.

Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition

he even uses the words "gold collapses"!  is he here?

ask him for a shoutout on twitter, he'll probably get you even more views than me  

 

[brg444]

looks like he was on CNBC Fast Money a couple of an hour or so ago. wondered if he repeated his prediction, would be bullish

[Erdogan]

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...

The current payment systems also have to store all transactions for many years, and those systems require far more bytes per transaction. They also have to store multiple copies, although not as many copies as our current number of full nodes. Based on this, I think that the storage space required is not crucial, and it is right to not focus too much on that.

[NewLiberty]

You're implying that atomic swaps apply only to scBTC and altcoin that belongs to the same chain, right?

I've gone through this thread and I find this post from Adam Back and it seems to confirm
that we can exchange coins across chains and, I dare to say, even BTC and scBTC.

You can do atomic swaps today.
You can do them between bitcoin and litecoin, it doesn't take a sidechain to do it.
But very few people use this feature.  

There is a good description of the process in the blockstream side chain pdf in Appendix C.
http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

[NewLiberty]

good, thanks.

After re-reading Appendix C and other comments from this and other threads, it seems to me that atomic swaps could be executed almost "instantaneously" (1). But maybe I'm wrong. 

(1) if we're considering exchanging BTC with scBTC through atomic swap, the exchange process duration should be a function of the confirmation time in btc blockchain, the sidechain's ledger
     confirmation time and locktime used in the txs involved in the swap.

Almost...  Well, they require sequential broadcasting of transactions (and sufficient confirmations).  At least two, possibly more if there is a problem needing a refund.
So not instantaneous if you want to do it trustlessly, but a lot quicker than 100 blocks.


For delivery of contracted goods, these provide refunds, "consumer protection" built into the protocol.
It really only works for on-chain assets though.

[NewLiberty]

i hate articles like these, esp from guys like J Levin who i think is generally respected in the community b/c of his Oxford CS training and Coinometrics.  i however have not been impressed with his previous thinking as he is one of the geeks who doesn't fully get Bitcoin:

https://medium.com/@jony_levin/i-love-the-blockchain-just-not-bitcoin-354c511ad3e5

same reason, same hate from me:  he implies that the Bitcoin currency unit can be changed or that it can somehow be replaced or added to with another token (currency unit).  he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion.  a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.

this is still a problem i have with making protocol changes; how do you insert a protocol change that doesn't favor a certain group of ppl or disadvantage the ppl that have come before the change?  b/c Bitcoin is an open community, outside voices are allowed to be heard loud and clear.  however, we never know to what extent they are personally invested in the former rule set (protocol) as opposed to the new rule set they are proposing.

Don't you understand?  Its still gold even though it looks like paper... see you can trade it in for gold and its easier to carry! You can trade it in only if you are in the right place during working hours and can prove its you and that you haven't stolen the paper and aren't a criminal or said anything bad about people who you aren't allowed to say bad things about, and that none of your relatives are either, and we decide to let you

[NewLiberty]

Unfortunately that doesn't address my question, which is specifically: how do we check if the random number chosen by A is known?  Verifying signatures is obviously supported, but how do you go about first requiring a number be known without already knowing it (hash it I'd guess), and then what OP code do you use to verify it?

jgarzik was kind enough to put the recipe in cookbook form here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112007.msg1212356#msg1212356

[NewLiberty]

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.

This one is a battle I am fighting as best I can.
I have made several proposals which are objectively better than Gavin's, and he has read them, but is unwavering.

and then there is this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300809.msg3305064#msg3305064

At which point I ought to just laugh, but instead I worry.

[marcus_of_augustus]

 

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

I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.

Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition

...sounds like he's 'got it'. Good to see some off the smarter mainstream money managers digging down into the essence of it, finally.

He hasn't really said anything that wasn't being said around here in late 2010, early 2011, etc except for maybe the over-confidence in bitcoin's ability to be regulated (it can't) ... but good to see nonetheless.

These guys haven't quite figures that 10,000 coders aren't remaking the financial system in their spare time only to have it regulated into unusability by plonkers from ABC agency. Any bitcoin regulation is merely one github fork away from irrelevance, they just shouldn't waste everyone's time by vain attempts at unauthorised control.

[tvbcof]

...
These guys haven't quite figures that 10,000 coders aren't remaking the financial system in their spare time only to have it regulated into unusability by plonkers from ABC agency. Any bitcoin regulation is merely one github fork away from irrelevance, they just shouldn't waste everyone's time by vain attempts at unauthorised control.

+1.  Well said, but I caution against over-confidence.  If Bitcoin reaches beyond the beginnings of a threat level the push-back will be forceful.  I am sure of that, and also sure that most users (and devs for that matter) do not fully appreciate the forces that can be brought to bear if need be.  Bitcoin has the potential to make a big difference but there is no more sure way to lose a war than to become overconfident and not understand one's opponent.  Remember that we are still at Satoshi's 7 TPS setting so, notwithstanding the significant off-chain load bearing that is occurring, we are still very near birth on this thing.

[NewLiberty]

...
These guys haven't quite figures that 10,000 coders aren't remaking the financial system in their spare time only to have it regulated into unusability by plonkers from ABC agency. Any bitcoin regulation is merely one github fork away from irrelevance, they just shouldn't waste everyone's time by vain attempts at unauthorised control.

+1.  Well said, but I caution against over-confidence.  If Bitcoin reaches beyond the beginnings of a threat level the push-back will be forceful.  I am sure of that, and also sure that most users (and devs for that matter) do not fully appreciate the forces that can be brought to bear if need be.  Bitcoin has the potential to make a big difference but there is no more sure way to lose a war than to become overconfident and not understand one's opponent.  Remember that we are still at Satoshi's 7 TPS setting so, notwithstanding the significant off-chain load bearing that is occurring, we are still very near birth on this thing.

Whilst it is true that the regulation of Bitcoin is only what is in the code.  There really isn't a safe place on the planet for "Satoshi Nakamoto" to stand.  The governments have the guns, the lawmakers, the judges, the jails, and the uncontested right to use all of those any way they please.  For as long as we are made of meat and not code, we are vulnerable to those things even if Bitcoin isn't.

[smooth]

we are still very near birth on this thing.

As I've said before BTC is priced at approximately a 0.1% chance to succeed as money on the scale of fiat, if not lower. That doesn't meant there is such a low chance (anyone holding BTC is betting on the chance being higher) but that gives perspective of where we are in terms of maturity.

[iCEBREAKER]

I will also say that people who not have actually tried transferring big wads of data around the global internet should keep their mouth's shut.  That includes transferring said data chunks from outfits like Amazon through very high-end connectivity to outfits like {very large tech company here.}  Even very experienced engineers who had not tried it were shocked when theory and practice didn't come anywhere close to meeting.  It comes down to basic physics and how TCP/IP works.  Yes, there are tricks to make the problems somewhat diminish but there are no silver bullets here...or at least ones which are very applicable to lower end users.  Maybe there will be, or they will develop, but absent a market demand it is not likely.  Opening 10.000 sockets is not going to be very welcome by one's ISP (even if they do have an OS and router and modem which handles it with grace.)

So that Internet2 stuff didn't work out, except for the IPv6 part?