Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 09:56:03 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: z  (Read 2576 times)
znort987
Early bitcoin miner
VIP
Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 74



View Profile
z
June 04, 2012, 08:15:35 AM
 #1

z

1Fj3WdCLXhYtKY25xZAdBv38mLoPfoHry
1481190963
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481190963

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481190963
Reply with quote  #2

1481190963
Report to moderator
1481190963
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481190963

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481190963
Reply with quote  #2

1481190963
Report to moderator
1481190963
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481190963

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481190963
Reply with quote  #2

1481190963
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481190963
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481190963

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481190963
Reply with quote  #2

1481190963
Report to moderator
Graet
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile WWW
June 04, 2012, 09:14:07 AM
 #2

satoshidice....

| Ozcoin Pooled Mining Pty Ltd https://ozcoin.net Double Geometric Reward System https://lc.ozcoin.net for Litecoin mining DGM| https://crowncloud.net VPS and Dedicated Servers for the BTC community
Fuzzy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560



View Profile
June 04, 2012, 09:30:09 AM
 #3

satoshidice....

will ironically be the death of bitcoin  Tongue
unclescrooge
aka Raphy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
June 04, 2012, 09:32:51 AM
 #4

I see no reason why the network won't be able to handle the transactions. But the hardware required will be more and more consequent...

eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2012, 10:43:55 AM
 #5

SatoshiDice is really giving the network a taste of high volume transaction processing [compared to what we've seen in the past].  There was another block above 1k txes just a few hours ago.  Might be time for more efforts to be spent on blockchain pruning.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile WWW
June 04, 2012, 12:43:08 PM
 #6

Let's see, 50 BTC mining reward / 1322 transactions = 0.0378 BTC which would be the fee per transaction in the future in order to keep miners motivated to secure the network, I think that's acceptable.

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
Mushoz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


Bitbuy


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2012, 01:19:39 PM
 #7

I see no reason why the network won't be able to handle the transactions. But the hardware required will be more and more consequent...

The network should be fine, but I'm increasingly worried
about the satoshi client and the fact that it needs the whole
blockchain locally.


Agreed. There's a thread addressing this exact issue. Although I don't understand exactly how it works, it seems like a very good solution.

Here's the link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83645.0

www.bitbuy.nl - Koop eenvoudig, snel en goedkoop bitcoins bij Bitbuy!
Technomage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Affordable Physical Bitcoins - Denarium.com


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2012, 01:19:55 PM
 #8

Not everyone needs to use the Satoshi client. Nobody uses the original BitTorrent client either. It's clear that running Bitcoin as a full node is going to require a bit more but I don't see that as a serious problem.

We need some optimization though and I think that SatoshiDice is the perfect incentive to start doing something about it.

As far as it being a problem currently, it is really not. Our blockchain is growing faster but the blocks themselves still have a lot of room for transactions on average. None of the blocks are hitting the maximum size.

Denarium - Leading Physical Bitcoin Manufacturer - Special Xmas deals now live!
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
June 04, 2012, 01:23:24 PM
 #9

IF Satoshi dice ends up being the "death of Bitcoin" then nothing much was lost.

1322 * 6 * 24 * 365 = ~70 million tx per year.  

Paypal ~ 1 billion tx per year
VISA ~ 80 billion tx per year
ThomasV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722



View Profile WWW
June 04, 2012, 02:25:26 PM
 #10

Let's see, 50 BTC mining reward / 1322 transactions = 0.0378 BTC which would be the fee per transaction in the future in order to keep miners motivated to secure the network, I think that's acceptable.


and we are soon going to enter a phase where transaction fees are necessary for miners to mine profitably;
once transaction fees are about 5% of the total block reward, miners who mine empty block will not cover their costs.

Electrum: the convenience of a web wallet, without the risks
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
June 04, 2012, 05:48:47 PM
 #11

Let's see, 50 BTC mining reward / 1322 transactions = 0.0378 BTC which would be the fee per transaction in the future in order to keep miners motivated to secure the network, I think that's acceptable.
+1 interesting observation

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
etotheipi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2012, 06:02:37 PM
 #12


This will not come to pass.
Way too complicated indeed.



I disagree.  Bitcoin is complicated, not just this pruning/compression solution.  I'm not saying that the linked thread is "the best way", but I assure you there will be no simple way to do it. 

However, the solutions are usually very simple in concept:  represent the current state of the network as only the remaining unspent coins, you can throw away everything else.  The details are in the algorithms for computing these unspent-output-trees, and sharing/verifying answers with other nodes.

I used to think this was a pipe dream, because it would cause a hard fork to implement this securely in the network (because you'd have to modify the headers), but the linked thread brings up the fact that it can be done in a parallel blockchain with merged mining.  This means that the pruning/compression would be strictly opt-in:  users who don't care only use the regular network.  Nodes that want the compression/pruning, can subscribe to the second chain and only download the most recent unspent-output-tree and latest blocks.

With this in mind, it's actually feasible.  And if there's a strong enough incentive -- like ensuring decentralization by enabling home computers to still participate in the network as full nodes -- then something should be done, even if it's not exactly this solution.


Founder and CEO of Armory Technologies, Inc.
Armory Bitcoin Wallet: Bringing cold storage to the average user!
Only use Armory software signed by the Armory Offline Signing Key (0x98832223)

Please donate to the Armory project by clicking here!    (or donate directly via 1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX -- yes, it's a real address!)
Aseras
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
June 04, 2012, 06:12:22 PM
 #13

Let's see, 50 BTC mining reward / 1322 transactions = 0.0378 BTC which would be the fee per transaction in the future in order to keep miners motivated to secure the network, I think that's acceptable.

OK how about if bitcoins were worth significantly more than they are now. Lets say they are worth $20 to $50 each. Do you want to pay $1-2 per transaction. People bitch now about a few cents extra for credit card or a cash discount.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
June 04, 2012, 06:15:15 PM
 #14

OK how about if bitcoins were worth significantly more than they are now. Lets say they are worth $20 to $50 each. Do you want to pay $1-2 per transaction. People bitch now about a few cents extra for credit card or a cash discount.

If BTC was worth 10x as much fees 1/10th as high would pay the miners the same amount (in fiat terms).  Since miner's costs are 99.9% fiat based the nominal amount of BTC is irrelivent.

Today miners get paid ~$250 per block.  In this block that worked out to $0.18 per tx.  Given Bitcoin is in its infancy it is certainly possible the network can reach equilibrium at 10x as many tx and 2x higher block rewards. 

Something like ~15,000 tx per block and $500 reward =~$0.04 per tx.
dinker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 102



View Profile
June 04, 2012, 06:50:21 PM
 #15

So does more tx mean it takes more time/power to solve a block?


Help Me Help You Donations:
14kP6tNtrz3woESs9nEE5aDB81QTybGyyZ
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2012, 06:53:15 PM
 #16

So does more tx mean it takes more time/power to solve a block?



More TX mostly means more HDD space for storage, and a little more CPU usage and disk usage for verifying the blocks when downloading the chain.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 04, 2012, 07:16:20 PM
 #17

So does more tx mean it takes more time/power to solve a block?



Nominally, yes.  Practically, no.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
coretechs
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 362



View Profile
June 04, 2012, 09:01:52 PM
 #18


This will not come to pass.
Way too complicated indeed.



I disagree.  Bitcoin is complicated, not just this pruning/compression solution.  I'm not saying that the linked thread is "the best way", but I assure you there will be no simple way to do it.  

However, the solutions are usually very simple in concept:  represent the current state of the network as only the remaining unspent coins, you can throw away everything else.  The details are in the algorithms for computing these unspent-output-trees, and sharing/verifying answers with other nodes.

I used to think this was a pipe dream, because it would cause a hard fork to implement this securely in the network (because you'd have to modify the headers), but the linked thread brings up the fact that it can be done in a parallel blockchain with merged mining.  This means that the pruning/compression would be strictly opt-in:  users who don't care only use the regular network.  Nodes that want the compression/pruning, can subscribe to the second chain and only download the most recent unspent-output-tree and latest blocks.

With this in mind, it's actually feasible.  And if there's a strong enough incentive -- like ensuring decentralization by enabling home computers to still participate in the network as full nodes -- then something should be done, even if it's not exactly this solution.

I had a similar reply started but this says it perfectly.  A "rolling balance" alt-chain is a very interesting idea and complementary use would present a lot of potential benefits.   What would need to be worked out is how to pay miners to mine the chain independently of block rewards and transaction fees paid by the bitcoin network, assuming another alt-coin is undesirable.

On the other hand, if the difficulty of a balance chain is 1000x higher maybe it could spit out a single indivisible "bitdiamond" every time a block is solved and do so indefinitely.  That would appease the deflationary-spiral folks too...  Grin

http://bitcoindoc.com - The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin | http://nxtportal.org - Nxt blockchain explorer
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 04, 2012, 09:18:57 PM
 #19

Let's see, 50 BTC mining reward / 1322 transactions = 0.0378 BTC which would be the fee per transaction in the future in order to keep miners motivated to secure the network, I think that's acceptable.

OK how about if bitcoins were worth significantly more than they are now. Lets say they are worth $20 to $50 each. Do you want to pay $1-2 per transaction. People bitch now about a few cents extra for credit card or a cash discount.

It's quite impossible for bitcoin to exceed, or likely even approach, a condition that would result in transaction fees exceeding those of credit card companys; for no other reason than bitcoin users would switch back and forth as it suits them, and the more it costs the fewer people it suits.

That said, higher numbers of transactions per block also spreads the burdens.  The more (paying) transactions that a block includes, the more miners are going to stay after the block reward decreases.  No miners are required to include free transactions, so if there are more paying transactions in the queue than could fit within a single block, free transactions are simply going to have to wait till the rush passes.  That's fine for donations, or transactions between trusting parties, but higher transaction values & those with limited mutual trust are simply going to have to pay the market transaction costs to get things done faster.  If it's cheaper in transaction costs to buy your new car on credit, people will do it.  If it's cheaper to pay the bitcoin transaction fee and wait an hour, people will do that.  It's futile to try to guess how such contrived scenarios would work out, because the market would never let things get that far.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
June 04, 2012, 09:36:03 PM
 #20

So does more tx mean it takes more time/power to solve a block?

In theory yes, in reality no.

Every tx added to the block requires one additional has for the merkle tree but the amount of computational work in creating and validating a block is a rounding error compared to the quadrillions of clock cycles spent (collectively) looking for a hash which solves the block.
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!