Here is an analogy by Andreas Antonopoulos that refers blockchain and bitcoins on it to lego blocks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IT4s-6T__k
There always will be a backlog as long as lightening or segwit is not implemented to the network.
Topic: [2017-02-23]Bitcoin’s Transaction Backlog Hits All-Time High (Read 455 times)
Naturally this blocksize panic ignores that there's someone "chaining" a transaction with its own inputs and spending 300 USD an hour on fees to choke the mempool.
This shit isn't "natural", and it isn't "organic" growth flooding blocks. Its malicious bullshit behavior, and I bet someone whose last name starts with "V" knows exactly why its happening.
In other words, same old agenda, same old actors, same fucking bullshit.
Reference - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5vn8r8/someone_is_currently_chaining_12k_btc_over_and/
This shit isn't "natural", and it isn't "organic" growth flooding blocks. Its malicious bullshit behavior, and I bet someone whose last name starts with "V" knows exactly why its happening.
In other words, same old agenda, same old actors, same fucking bullshit.
Reference - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5vn8r8/someone_is_currently_chaining_12k_btc_over_and/
His last name starts with a "V"? I'm quite sure it's Bitalik Vuterin since he's pumping his ETH scam.
Seriously, I need to do a little research and find out who it is and his history with Bitcoin. I'm perplexed why someone would spend 300 usd an hour on fees to slowdown the network.
I think he is probably referring to Roger Ver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ver .
Naturally this blocksize panic ignores that there's someone "chaining" a transaction with its own inputs and spending 300 USD an hour on fees to choke the mempool.
This shit isn't "natural", and it isn't "organic" growth flooding blocks. Its malicious bullshit behavior, and I bet someone whose last name starts with "V" knows exactly why its happening.
In other words, same old agenda, same old actors, same fucking bullshit.
Reference - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5vn8r8/someone_is_currently_chaining_12k_btc_over_and/
This shit isn't "natural", and it isn't "organic" growth flooding blocks. Its malicious bullshit behavior, and I bet someone whose last name starts with "V" knows exactly why its happening.
In other words, same old agenda, same old actors, same fucking bullshit.
Reference - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5vn8r8/someone_is_currently_chaining_12k_btc_over_and/
His last name starts with a "V"? I'm quite sure it's Bitalik Vuterin since he's pumping his ETH scam.
Seriously, I need to do a little research and find out who it is and his history with Bitcoin. I'm perplexed why someone would spend 300 usd an hour on fees to slowdown the network.
Hey if you are rich, this backlog will mean nothing to you.... you just throw a little extra dollars at the problem and you move up in the queue.
I doubt that Satoshi would have wanted this extreme situation to evolve, but he did design it to be a payment network that must scale as the
network grow.... and this is not happening. {The Blockstream guys are making sure of that} The whole gridlock is happening because none of
the sides wants to back down. { I am sure, if someone just submit a single request that the Block size should be increased to say 3 MB, most
people will opt for that, instead of SegWit or BU } This is not the ideal solution, but it might just break the gridlock.
I doubt that Satoshi would have wanted this extreme situation to evolve, but he did design it to be a payment network that must scale as the
network grow.... and this is not happening. {The Blockstream guys are making sure of that} The whole gridlock is happening because none of
the sides wants to back down. { I am sure, if someone just submit a single request that the Block size should be increased to say 3 MB, most
people will opt for that, instead of SegWit or BU } This is not the ideal solution, but it might just break the gridlock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZCVQHtD2l4
check this clip , bitcoin is the new GOLDEN standard.
you dont need to use it for small payments , it could be handy but to store your welth against a failing fiat currency is more important
than a payment network for the priveliged west.
Hey if you are rich, this backlog will mean nothing to you.... you just throw a little extra dollars at the problem and you move up in the queue.
I doubt that Satoshi would have wanted this extreme situation to evolve, but he did design it to be a payment network that must scale as the
network grow.... and this is not happening. {The Blockstream guys are making sure of that} The whole gridlock is happening because none of
the sides wants to back down. { I am sure, if someone just submit a single request that the Block size should be increased to say 3 MB, most
people will opt for that, instead of SegWit or BU } This is not the ideal solution, but it might just break the gridlock.
I doubt that Satoshi would have wanted this extreme situation to evolve, but he did design it to be a payment network that must scale as the
network grow.... and this is not happening. {The Blockstream guys are making sure of that} The whole gridlock is happening because none of
the sides wants to back down. { I am sure, if someone just submit a single request that the Block size should be increased to say 3 MB, most
people will opt for that, instead of SegWit or BU } This is not the ideal solution, but it might just break the gridlock.
It's not the first time, and definitely won't be the last time without a proper solution to this whole discussion about block sizes. I don't rule out that the increased price may also play an important role as to why the transaction volumes have increased so massively, but there is definitely manipulation going on as TraderTimm also points at. It's ridiculous that someone who is claimed to be a high level Bitcoiner that people used to look up to, is now doing everything to make Bitcoin look bad for its own benefit. Eventually he will see that it is no longer viable to continue his trolling rampage as it's just a big waste of money.
Naturally this blocksize panic ignores that there's someone "chaining" a transaction with its own inputs and spending 300 USD an hour on fees to choke the mempool.
This shit isn't "natural", and it isn't "organic" growth flooding blocks. Its malicious bullshit behavior, and I bet someone whose last name starts with "V" knows exactly why its happening.
In other words, same old agenda, same old actors, same fucking bullshit.
Reference - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5vn8r8/someone_is_currently_chaining_12k_btc_over_and/
This shit isn't "natural", and it isn't "organic" growth flooding blocks. Its malicious bullshit behavior, and I bet someone whose last name starts with "V" knows exactly why its happening.
In other words, same old agenda, same old actors, same fucking bullshit.
Reference - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5vn8r8/someone_is_currently_chaining_12k_btc_over_and/
Did not see anything of this 6 confirmations in 1 hour!
Just add required fees!
Going short in a hard limited (21 000000 btc ever) market is stupid and only could works by spreading this kind fake news.
Just add required fees!
Going short in a hard limited (21 000000 btc ever) market is stupid and only could works by spreading this kind fake news.
The block size has to be increased.
Segwit miners need to have fees to make the network work!
Did not see anything of this 6 confirmations in 1 hour!
Just add required fees!
Going short in a hard limited (21 000000 btc ever) market is stupid and only could works by spreading this kind fake news.
Just add required fees!
Going short in a hard limited (21 000000 btc ever) market is stupid and only could works by spreading this kind fake news.
The block size has to be increased.
Did not see anything of this 6 confirmations in 1 hour!
Just add required fees!
Going short in a hard limited (21 000000 btc ever) market is stupid and only could works by spreading this kind fake news.
Just add required fees!
Going short in a hard limited (21 000000 btc ever) market is stupid and only could works by spreading this kind fake news.
Almost 100,000 bitcoin transactions are currently stuck, waiting to move, with around $30,000 in fees queued for miners to pick up. The mempool backlog is above 56MB. The network is running above capacity, usually operating at more than 4 txs/s. Users are once more complaining.
Price appears resilient and even going higher due to many other factors, primarily the much-anticipated ETF decision. As far as the protocol is concerned, the tape is stuck on repeat, the debate is on endless loop, the community is paralyzed, a solution is nowhere in sight.
Miners appear to be preferring neither Segregated Witnesses (segwit) nor Bitcoin Unlimited. They are stuck in the middle, unable to choose, because if they go with segwit a considerable portion of the bitcoin community will consider the currency doomed. If they go with Bitcoin Unlimited, a considerable portion will likewise consider it failed.
As always in these cases, it is probable that neither is fully right or fully wrong. The problem is, the two can’t quite be reconciled. Their visions are diametrically opposed. Segwit proponents want full blocks. BU proponents want the block space to be above capacity. Segwit proponents think that would centralize it. BU proponents think Segwit would centralize it. A classic, intractable, argument, which, like most intractable arguments, is based on subjective mere opinions.
How Did We Get Here?
To really understand how we got here, we need to go to a more peaceful and free-er time, the 90s. To be more precise, Friday, 27th of November, 1998, when Wei Dai – who allegedly worked at Microsoft as a cryptographer, but google doesn’t provide much credible information on his background, thus might just as well be a pseudonym – announced b-money.
This is one of the first conceptualization of how digital money could work and it describes two layers. The base layer, which Dai says “is impractical, because it makes heavy use of a synchronous and unjammable anonymous broadcast channel. However it will motivate the second, more practical protocol.” And the second layer:
“In the second protocol, the accounts of who has how much money are kept by a subset of the participants (called servers from now on) instead of everyone. These servers are linked by a Usenet-style broadcast channel. The format of transaction messages broadcasted on this channel remain the same as in the first protocol, but the affected participants of each transaction should verify that the message has been received and successfully processed by a randomly selected subset of the servers.”
B-money wasn’t developed, presumably because its actualization had many difficulties. It does, in a skeleton way, describe mining, but the linkage between miners appears to have many flaws. That is – it lacks a consensus mechanism.
Nonetheless, it appears to have laid down this idea that there must be a base layer and a second layer. An idea which was then gradually developed to what used to be called bitbanks and now is called Lightning Network (LN) hubs.
When Nakamoto made his announcement, it appears that the bitbank idea was so entrenched, it was seemingly taken for granted any digital money must have a second layer. Interestingly, it appears that Nakamoto was unaware of these discussions or of b-money/bit-gold.
It seems that Nakamoto firstly contacted Hal Finney, who made him aware of Szabo’s bit-gold thoughts, and further introduced Nakamoto to Adam Back. Back, in turn, made Nakamoto aware of b-money.
Hal Finney, a Caltech graduate, developed Reusable Proofs of Work (RPOW), which was based on Adam Back’s hashcash and was developed in collaboration with the “IBM Crypto Team” and the Department of Computer Science at Dartmouth College, according to RPOW’s page. The latter probably published academic papers on RPOW, which is probably what led Nakamoto to Finney.
Neither Dai nor Szabo are known to have published anything academic on digital money, thus perhaps explaining Nakamoto’s lack of awareness. As such, it appears that Nakamoto came to the problem and its solution from a more thorough, scientific based, study and analysis, rather than thinking out loud, throwing things out there, mailing list discussions.
While the seemingly collaborative thinking of Finney, Back, Szabo and Dai led to an entrenched path with no solution, it appears that Nakamoto’s fresh thinking, unburdened by pre-conceived assumptions, allowed him to tie it all together.
Much of the above is speculation, but looking at the facts and using some common-sense thinking, the described unraveling of events appears likely.
To come to the present day, Gregory Maxwell and Peter Todd seem to have taken part in these discussions between Finney, Back, etc., and thus appear to have built the same assumptions that were then taken for granted and seem to originate from the b-money idea.
Like the Aztecs, who, based on one assumption, went on to create utterly complicated and entangled math systems, constantly building on top of it and spending much of the time trying to go around limitations of their original assumption, so too it seems the pre-Nakamoto era was focused on solving the limitations of b-money, developing that further and by it being entangled. Instead of starting anew.
That brings us to the current two, apparently irreconcilable, visions. Nakamoto’s on-chain scaling on one hand, or Finney’s bitbanks on the other. Arguably, both can co-exist, but the latter would be difficult to implement without full blocks.
Where to Now?
As Nakamoto has made it clear that bitcoin can scale on-chain, it will likely be very difficult to persuade a significant part of bitcoin’s community that blocks should always be full. As Finney’s followers are convinced there must be a second layer, they too might not be persuaded that blocks should not be full.
The former need to increase on-chain capacity. The latter need segwit if layer twos are to be of any use. Neither is getting what they want, but the latter does currently have their full blocks. However, without a layer two, they are most probably aware full blocks are fully damaging.
The miners are choosing neither. If they do, they’ll be attacked by the other side. We appear, therefore, to have gridlock. The worst possible outcome.
Nonetheless, price is going up, the times are good, the party can go on, but when the music stops, the hangover might considerably hurt.
link:https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoins-transaction-backlog-hits-all-time-high/
Price appears resilient and even going higher due to many other factors, primarily the much-anticipated ETF decision. As far as the protocol is concerned, the tape is stuck on repeat, the debate is on endless loop, the community is paralyzed, a solution is nowhere in sight.
Miners appear to be preferring neither Segregated Witnesses (segwit) nor Bitcoin Unlimited. They are stuck in the middle, unable to choose, because if they go with segwit a considerable portion of the bitcoin community will consider the currency doomed. If they go with Bitcoin Unlimited, a considerable portion will likewise consider it failed.
As always in these cases, it is probable that neither is fully right or fully wrong. The problem is, the two can’t quite be reconciled. Their visions are diametrically opposed. Segwit proponents want full blocks. BU proponents want the block space to be above capacity. Segwit proponents think that would centralize it. BU proponents think Segwit would centralize it. A classic, intractable, argument, which, like most intractable arguments, is based on subjective mere opinions.
How Did We Get Here?
To really understand how we got here, we need to go to a more peaceful and free-er time, the 90s. To be more precise, Friday, 27th of November, 1998, when Wei Dai – who allegedly worked at Microsoft as a cryptographer, but google doesn’t provide much credible information on his background, thus might just as well be a pseudonym – announced b-money.
This is one of the first conceptualization of how digital money could work and it describes two layers. The base layer, which Dai says “is impractical, because it makes heavy use of a synchronous and unjammable anonymous broadcast channel. However it will motivate the second, more practical protocol.” And the second layer:
“In the second protocol, the accounts of who has how much money are kept by a subset of the participants (called servers from now on) instead of everyone. These servers are linked by a Usenet-style broadcast channel. The format of transaction messages broadcasted on this channel remain the same as in the first protocol, but the affected participants of each transaction should verify that the message has been received and successfully processed by a randomly selected subset of the servers.”
B-money wasn’t developed, presumably because its actualization had many difficulties. It does, in a skeleton way, describe mining, but the linkage between miners appears to have many flaws. That is – it lacks a consensus mechanism.
Nonetheless, it appears to have laid down this idea that there must be a base layer and a second layer. An idea which was then gradually developed to what used to be called bitbanks and now is called Lightning Network (LN) hubs.
When Nakamoto made his announcement, it appears that the bitbank idea was so entrenched, it was seemingly taken for granted any digital money must have a second layer. Interestingly, it appears that Nakamoto was unaware of these discussions or of b-money/bit-gold.
It seems that Nakamoto firstly contacted Hal Finney, who made him aware of Szabo’s bit-gold thoughts, and further introduced Nakamoto to Adam Back. Back, in turn, made Nakamoto aware of b-money.
Hal Finney, a Caltech graduate, developed Reusable Proofs of Work (RPOW), which was based on Adam Back’s hashcash and was developed in collaboration with the “IBM Crypto Team” and the Department of Computer Science at Dartmouth College, according to RPOW’s page. The latter probably published academic papers on RPOW, which is probably what led Nakamoto to Finney.
Neither Dai nor Szabo are known to have published anything academic on digital money, thus perhaps explaining Nakamoto’s lack of awareness. As such, it appears that Nakamoto came to the problem and its solution from a more thorough, scientific based, study and analysis, rather than thinking out loud, throwing things out there, mailing list discussions.
While the seemingly collaborative thinking of Finney, Back, Szabo and Dai led to an entrenched path with no solution, it appears that Nakamoto’s fresh thinking, unburdened by pre-conceived assumptions, allowed him to tie it all together.
Much of the above is speculation, but looking at the facts and using some common-sense thinking, the described unraveling of events appears likely.
To come to the present day, Gregory Maxwell and Peter Todd seem to have taken part in these discussions between Finney, Back, etc., and thus appear to have built the same assumptions that were then taken for granted and seem to originate from the b-money idea.
Like the Aztecs, who, based on one assumption, went on to create utterly complicated and entangled math systems, constantly building on top of it and spending much of the time trying to go around limitations of their original assumption, so too it seems the pre-Nakamoto era was focused on solving the limitations of b-money, developing that further and by it being entangled. Instead of starting anew.
That brings us to the current two, apparently irreconcilable, visions. Nakamoto’s on-chain scaling on one hand, or Finney’s bitbanks on the other. Arguably, both can co-exist, but the latter would be difficult to implement without full blocks.
Where to Now?
As Nakamoto has made it clear that bitcoin can scale on-chain, it will likely be very difficult to persuade a significant part of bitcoin’s community that blocks should always be full. As Finney’s followers are convinced there must be a second layer, they too might not be persuaded that blocks should not be full.
The former need to increase on-chain capacity. The latter need segwit if layer twos are to be of any use. Neither is getting what they want, but the latter does currently have their full blocks. However, without a layer two, they are most probably aware full blocks are fully damaging.
The miners are choosing neither. If they do, they’ll be attacked by the other side. We appear, therefore, to have gridlock. The worst possible outcome.
Nonetheless, price is going up, the times are good, the party can go on, but when the music stops, the hangover might considerably hurt.
link:https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoins-transaction-backlog-hits-all-time-high/
Jump to: