Topic: ㅤ - page 2. (Read 739 times)

One solution, hopefully, the one, is a blockchain that adapts mining difficulty and transaction fee to transaction size, thereby following the dynamics of time dilation according to which for different masses come different perceptions of time. In Bitcoin terms, this would translate to each transaction being associated with its proper confirmation time according to its size in BTC units and based on a central reference.

The main purpose of this solution would be to scale the network of transactions in Bitcoin in the same way the Universe scales the network of interactions between bodies of different masses.

To solve any of Bitcoin's problems we must attune this monetary system to the laws that define how energy behaves in the Universe. We should compare the two systems, understand them by comparison, and apply the rules of the Universe to Bitcoin. And we should also understand that Bitcoin is outstanding and efficient the way it is thanks to Satoshi having based their system on the mechanics of the Universe, either consciously or unconsciously.

To solve Bitcoin's scalability issue, we need to learn how the Universe has solved it for itself. As it seems, It is doing it by associating each plane of observation of change/movement, and therefore, of time, with its proper dilation of the universal timeline. Each dilation has its pulse frequency, that is the rate at which data updates (block creation time), and so a unique, although related to every other dilation, display of relevant data. Then it is needed to identify the agent of this association, of which the base principle is energy’s interaction with spacetime.

In Bitcoin, this would mean creating a multi-plane blockchain that associates masses of monetary energy to proper confirmation times while simultaneously having and constituting a universal chain of reference.

It is similar to what we see when charting a financial asset across multiple timeframes. A financial asset has a single history, yet this history is subdivided into multiple planes of observation by changing the “pulse frequency”, that is the frequency at which a unit of time is being created. Candlesticks, the single temporal units, are blocks; a candle creation is the block creation; a timeframe (plane) is the confirmation time or block creation time; the candle chain in each timeframe is the different translation of the original chain, the asset’s financial history, as the blockchain for each confirmation time (pulse frequency) would be the different translation of the original blockchain, Bitcoin’s history.

The different planes of the blockchain, which would regard different confirmation times, would exist to scale transactions to their proper frequency according to their size. In other words, everyday transactions would be confirmed much more frequently than large transactions, proportionally according to correct mathematical manners. To have different confirmation times we should have different planes of mining difficulty. The grand feat of mind would then be knowing how to distribute the total hash rate across all planes and how to interconnect them while simultaneously representing a universal blockchain.

Blocks must have the same universal block size. In other words, they must appear one across all chains (but differ in the data they represent - just like single units of time on different planes of perception). This is fundamental concerning special relativity, as it seems such a universally fixed capacity is what permits each special observation to be the same if considered in an isolated way. That is, the perception of time is the same for every observer, but not when we put these perceptions to each other.

I’m open to discussing this solution with anyone interested in further development.

Ethereum is going to implement sharding so they are on a way of solving a problem of scalability. If it will work we'll see. As for bitcoin, its value is less connected with the amount of possible transactions. "Digital gold" conception can work for a while. Main problem is that we need bitcoin not just for holding, we want bitcoin to be a complete payment system and scalability problem must be solved for that. To stay on the top bitcoin should solve that problem. And I hope we'll see how it will be solved in the near future, at least partly.

Rather than create bitcoin cash they should have solved the problem on the original bitcoin. Now it looks like bitcoin is diluted with one that is geared towards low fees for retail, and the original stuck with high fees when it's overloaded. Top 2 marketcap coins suffering from the same problem, wonder how long they will keep the top 2 spots for

How do we not see problems with commissions? The problems are quite serious, since the whole bitcoin-community is alarmed. Even a binance temporarily suspended BTC withdrawals  due to excessively high fees. And ordinary users will think 10 times whether it is worth doing any actions with bitcoin now, especially with small amounts, if they need to pay a lot for the transaction. So it turns out that despite the workload of the mempool, there are few transactions from real BTC users, and everything else is garbage transactions from Ordinals.

It was impossible to allow this, but this event had already happened and there was a reason to solve this problem. Perhaps this is even for the better, because it will correct this defect and improve bitcoin-network and prevent a similar effect from occurring in the future. I am pleased to see that the community is not indifferent to what happened and as it happens, the problem will push to find a solution to the problem. It remains to wait for all this to stabilize, and now, it turns out, the bitcoin-network is temporarily dead for ordinary users.

I don't think that the congestion in the mempool will contribute to mass adoption. Rather the opposite. This will scare off regular users who are currently unable to use BTC due to expensive fees. It seems to me that for the most part, the activity of real btc users will slow down now, instead of increasing, as you think, thanks to the influx of NFT fans.

So, can you throw some estimates?
For example how much longer it will take for a 4vMB block to propagate through the network compared to a 1vMB?
It might be also interesting to scale this appropriately and with the internet speed difference between 2009 and 2023
Cause I have a feeling hobby miners in remote regions would have had more trouble uploading 1 MB then than 10 MB now....just saying.

Same for the cost of running a full node.
What extra cost would a 4vMB imply over the next 4 years let's say compared to a 1vMB?


That boat has already sailed a decade ago:
https://btc.com/stats/pool

Larger blocks increase centralization.

Let's say you and I are both miners, both working to find a block at height 800,000. I successfully mine a block at height 800,000. I broadcast that block to other nodes. Each node which receives my block has to validate the entire block, and then propagate it to other nodes, which also validate it before further propagating it, and so on. The larger the block is, then the longer this process takes. So after I've found block 800,000, I already know it is valid and can immediately start attempting to mine block 800,001. However you are at the other side of the network, so the whole time my block is propagating you know nothing about it and continue to attempt to mine at height 800,000. I have a distinct advantage here since I can attempt to mine at 800,001 for potentially several minutes before you.

Large and well connected mining operations have an advantage over smaller miners here, and not just because of better hardware and connections meaning they can receive and validate blocks more quickly. If a mining pool has 30% of the hashrate then they find 30% of blocks on average, meaning they have a propagation delay disadvantage 70% of the time. If a small miner has only 1% of the hashrate, then they are at a disadvantage 99% of the time. Over time the smaller mining cannot survive, and hashrate becomes more centralized.

There are other considerations too, as larger blocks increase the hardware cost to run a full node (again tending towards centralization), and the longer propagation time as I've outlined above also increases the rate of stale blocks and chain splits.

You can take this to the extreme and look at BSV with its 4 GB blocks, which experiences chain re-orgs of over 100 blocks and has essentially only 2 mining pools.

You are referring to the blocksize wars of 2017 and that ended up in the big blockers going to Bitcoin Cash and the small blockers staying here, and also a marginal increase in block capacity by using segwit.

The network is decentralized and based on consensus mechanism, so it is not in the hands of anyone to just increase the block size limit, there has to be consensus within the community, and it is always hard to get everyone to agree on an upgrade, it would either lead to a soft or hard fork.
I did a small research on this question when ordinal spam became a problem, though i was not satisfied with the result, but i found out there are BTC developers who support smaller block size, while there are some who support bigger block size, but one point i found interesting in support of people who support smaller block size is that an increase in the block size will reduce the tx fees that miners earn from transactions. If the block size is too big, i don't have to pay too much because there is no competition for blocks, and it may be a problem once block rewards are no more and the network has to depend on only tx fees, so if miners are not incentivized to continue mininig, it can disrupt the security of the network. I am also eager to learn more about this from more technical users like o_e_l_e_o, pooya87 and others.

I must admit, this is truly troubling. While we do not see too much problem with the fees right now, I can already imagine how big of a problem the fees will be in the future when another bull run happens and we reach new ATHs. I am not against NFTs but for it to be stuffed on bitcoin when there are dozens of other options for NFTs and is affecting the function and the main purpose of bitcoin, it just doesn't seem right.

Yes, it may have a small impact in increasing mass adoption due to the increase of popularity of NFTs nowadays but in my opinion, it isn't worth all the trouble that it causes to Bitcoin. What use is there even for popularity if we can't even use Bitcoin the way we wanted to or envisioned to when we first started jumping into this industry? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Looks quite decentralized and resistant to censorship. Abusing such methods is a good way to turn bitcoin into a comfortable sofa dog.

The blockchain is created for Peer to Peer transactions so stop making transactions sounds very weird idea. So will the Bitcoin blockchain need to exist either?

It is true that if Bitcoin adoption becomes bigger and bigger which I believe will happen, blocksize must be increased and increased again. I don't know that why in 2017, people only decided to increase it to 4MB maximally for a block (1MB Witness, 3MB Non-Witness data)?

Why don't increase it to like 100 MB/ block?

Does block size increase will bring some technical problems to miners and nodes? Like they have to upgrades their resources.

Hodl is never a solution, it is just a way to wait out the problem. If not stupid pictures then something else will happen — like stompix said about possibility of 100 millions of Indians to start using bitcoin for small payments. Scalability problem can't be solved by not making transactions. Even increasing a block size will be a temporary solution as we need billions transactions a day to compete with main centralized payment-processing services. If devs will not find a reasonable way to solve a scalability problem we will face the same situations again and again and bitcoin will not become a real mass payment system.

I don't think this is an issue since we had times with blocks being half full just a month ago, if nobody wanted to make a spam attack they won't be doing it with a 4vMB block size. As for the disk space, what would be the additional cost in let's say 3 years of full x4 blocks for a node?
50k blocks a year, 150k in three years, extra 500GB!

Also:
On BTC a 1 sat/b tx costs 4 cents on Bitcoin cash it's 200 times cheaper in $ value, so you could send about 2000 of them for the price of a soda can.

That would be a good start but it would somehow have to be done in a way to avoid the pitfalls facing BCash and BSV - most transactions in a block are not real transactions but they are spam, but the only difference is, instead of flooding the mempool, they will eventually overwhelm the full nodes beyond disk capacity (remember that a large percentage of nodes are hosted on Hetzner and AWS).

So it's not something I see happening as it's currently idealized right now.

And Western Union! Remember how it was expensive to pay 5$ for a 100$ cash transfer?  


Ok, let's assume everyone would be like you, and we would have those 100 million Bitcoin users in India some claim they really exist, doing a single transaction to buy stuff. Suddenly you would have 100 million tx in the mempool, not 400k. How would that work?

Let's start admitting the past mistakes, sticking to this 1vMB block size it's just stupid!
It might have sounded reasonable by 2009 costs per TB and internet speeds back then but we're in 2023 when I can get 80Mbps on my phone in the mountains and a fucking 2tb EVO is 110$.

If the protocol that was supposed to bring down the whole old order, banks, central banks, and governments, change the global economy, raise millions out of poverty will die before achieving that because:
- you can't have a few thousand pay 200$ for a full node while we brag about 10000x profits
- a horde of jpg monkeys is crashing the network with daily fees that match only what the US Navy is spending daily on one! aircraft carrier group
then we must admit something went completely wrong in the planning!

A soft fork basically, but yeah you're on the spot. It's going to have a footnote at the end though:

"Please be advised that your failure to agree to these changes by 1 November 2023 will result in a User Activated Soft Fork getting deployed to forcibly resolve the issue."

It worked for Segwit, it nearly scared them to death that time.

If you read the entire post of mine that you have quoted, you will see I was responding to a quote outlining a specific scenario where someone (usually an exchange) dumps a batch of transactions on the mempool at once, all of which pay a higher fee than needed, which then causes various wallets and websites to grossly and inappropriately increase their recommended fee to compensate. This remains a problem, but it is clearly not is what is happening right now. You only need to look at the transactions paying these exorbitant fees right now to see they are ordinals.

You are spitting facts.
The only way to fight this nonsense would be to just not send any BTC anywhere and HODL. Unfortunately we will receive less BTC because of the high transaction fees, which is bad, but whatever. Just stay in a safe place until the storm goes away and this ordinals trend/hype slowly dies. The BTC miners obviously want this BRC-20 protocol, because they make more money from the higher transaction fees. I don't know how are we going to hardfork Bitcoin Core and kick out all the BRC-20 supporters. Maybe some of the Bitcoin Core developers must step in and express their opinions about this problem.

I always knew that those stupid Ordinals will be a problem, and this could go on for years, using a technology for something it was not created for, the person that detected this thinks they are smart but they are dub, If Buterin could went ahead and create Ethereum, he know that smart contract is impossible on Bitcoin, it's going to cause a big problem for Bitcoin, and here we are today.

I do not know if you guys remembered the time when a casino (I think it was SatoshiDice) had all their bets on the Blockchain at one stage and it caused a lot of congestion. The forum went crazy and people agreed that use cases like this was causing too much congestion on-chain.

Well, that site is not operational anymore and things resolved it self.... so it is time for us to either find solutions for the problem OR to get rid of the problem. (Example : Creating a off-chain solution for those types of transactions)