Topic: [2018-08-15] New Transport Layer bloXroute Promises to Solve Bitcoin’s Biggest P (Read 245 times)
October 18, 2018, 11:30:35 AM
The Gateway code will be open-sourced from day 1. Anyone is free to download and fork it anyway they like. Necessarily, such "forked" code may or may not be compatible with the rest of the BDN network based on its implementation. If it is compatible, i.e., correctly implements the underlying protocol, then it should work.
August 21, 2018, 08:21:25 PM
@gembitz. Agreed. Anyone can already determine their scam right from the very beginning. Giving this a chance would be stupid, I reckon hehehe.
They should propose their ICO to bcash because its big blocks might need block compression that they might want to hype hehe.
They should propose their ICO to bcash because its big blocks might need block compression that they might want to hype hehe.
August 21, 2018, 06:05:34 PM
I get what they are trying to do, but I am saying that we should not discount any "alternative" thinking if it can add some kind of value. I hate the gigabyte Block size part of their solution, because that is similar to beating a dead horse, but the compression of the data got my attention, because it can be beneficial if someone could run with that idea.
In the end, nothing will be added without consensus, so we should not fear alternative ideas.
In the end, nothing will be added without consensus, so we should not fear alternative ideas.
So let me get this straight.
They have an untenable idea - not by opinion, but on technical merit. And we should still listen to them because.... reasons?
I don't understand that argument. "Give them a chance" only works when you have an idea that isn't a pile of garbage to begin with.
these chums actually kind of sound smart up until the point they start talking about their new shitoken!
lol August 19, 2018, 08:29:07 PM
I get what they are trying to do, but I am saying that we should not discount any "alternative" thinking if it can add some kind of value. I hate the gigabyte Block size part of their solution, because that is similar to beating a dead horse, but the compression of the data got my attention, because it can be beneficial if someone could run with that idea.
In the end, nothing will be added without consensus, so we should not fear alternative ideas.
In the end, nothing will be added without consensus, so we should not fear alternative ideas.
So let me get this straight.
They have an untenable idea - not by opinion, but on technical merit. And we should still listen to them because.... reasons?
I don't understand that argument. "Give them a chance" only works when you have an idea that isn't a pile of garbage to begin with.
Why are you so hostile and frustrated with my observation? I am just saying, these are a bunch of student with some strange ideas and this should not be simply disregarded as being rubbish. I have done my fair share of education and training and we appreciated every little bit of innovation that people brought to the table.
We did not disregard inputs as rubbish, but rather debated why it would not work and how they could improve on the idea or suggestion. You will be amazed by the response when you support someone with a bad idea, because they are challenged to improve and before you know it, this bad idea, turns into something amazing.
The "compression" of the data looked interesting, but they have to do more research on other solutions that are already out there and also the "restrictions" on Block size scaling methods.
Just calm down and see the bigger picture here. People are trying to improve Bitcoin and some people are just cutting them to pieces.
He was not hostile to you, he was hostile to the idea and how stupid for the bloXroute team to plan to make the community fund their idea without assurances for success.
Also, is there compression idea really good? Do you think it will work?
August 19, 2018, 06:18:13 AM
Why are you so hostile and frustrated with my observation? I am just saying, these are a bunch of student with some strange ideas and this should not be simply disregarded as being rubbish.
His posts are raw and to the point. Is he frustrated? Maybe, but that's well justified in the noob and scummy focused jungle that we have to browse through each day. If there was something good in it, he wouldn't have disregarded it but looked forward to further development. I'm happy that we at least have someone who's looking through everything thoroughly. Seriously, there aren't that many people left like that. We don't learn by going with the herd thinking everything is great and cool. If something isn't a useful contribution to Bitcoin, then it isn't.
People are trying to improve Bitcoin and some people are just cutting them to pieces.
I'm sure most of them are trying to fill their pockets more. Improving Bitcoin isn't necessary, the Core devs are the best at what they do. We need improvement when it comes to LN. People are free to contribute, but where are they? Is it because it's not profitable for them? Probably. August 19, 2018, 02:43:50 AM
I get what they are trying to do, but I am saying that we should not discount any "alternative" thinking if it can add some kind of value. I hate the gigabyte Block size part of their solution, because that is similar to beating a dead horse, but the compression of the data got my attention, because it can be beneficial if someone could run with that idea.
In the end, nothing will be added without consensus, so we should not fear alternative ideas.
In the end, nothing will be added without consensus, so we should not fear alternative ideas.
So let me get this straight.
They have an untenable idea - not by opinion, but on technical merit. And we should still listen to them because.... reasons?
I don't understand that argument. "Give them a chance" only works when you have an idea that isn't a pile of garbage to begin with.
Why are you so hostile and frustrated with my observation? I am just saying, these are a bunch of student with some strange ideas and this should not be simply disregarded as being rubbish. I have done my fair share of education and training and we appreciated every little bit of innovation that people brought to the table.
We did not disregard inputs as rubbish, but rather debated why it would not work and how they could improve on the idea or suggestion. You will be amazed by the response when you support someone with a bad idea, because they are challenged to improve and before you know it, this bad idea, turns into something amazing.
The "compression" of the data looked interesting, but they have to do more research on other solutions that are already out there and also the "restrictions" on Block size scaling methods.
Just calm down and see the bigger picture here. People are trying to improve Bitcoin and some people are just cutting them to pieces.
August 18, 2018, 09:22:55 PM
I reckon it should be easy for a legendary member in the forum like Kakmakr to know that bloXroute is a bad idea on first sight.
Also, why did the Bitcoinist waste their time by giving them the publicity.
Also, why did the Bitcoinist waste their time by giving them the publicity.
August 18, 2018, 03:19:05 PM
I get what they are trying to do, but I am saying that we should not discount any "alternative" thinking if it can add some kind of value. I hate the gigabyte Block size part of their solution, because that is similar to beating a dead horse, but the compression of the data got my attention, because it can be beneficial if someone could run with that idea.
In the end, nothing will be added without consensus, so we should not fear alternative ideas.
In the end, nothing will be added without consensus, so we should not fear alternative ideas.
So let me get this straight.
They have an untenable idea - not by opinion, but on technical merit. And we should still listen to them because.... reasons?
I don't understand that argument. "Give them a chance" only works when you have an idea that isn't a pile of garbage to begin with.
August 18, 2018, 02:27:27 AM
People are too quick to label something as a scam. I think we must step back and be open to alternative ideas for scaling, other than the Lightning Network as the only solution for this problem. I have not seen anyone coming up with suggestions to compress the data that are going on-chain as a scaling solution, so for me this was refreshing to consider another angle to this debate.
The greatest thing about Bitcoin is the fact that anyone can make suggestions for the improvement of the technology, just imagine for a moment if Microsoft owned Bitcoin and you wanted to write code for it as someone that was not employed by them.
After all, these are a bunch of students, so let's just give them a opportunity to take a crack at solving this problem with their angle on the solution.
The greatest thing about Bitcoin is the fact that anyone can make suggestions for the improvement of the technology, just imagine for a moment if Microsoft owned Bitcoin and you wanted to write code for it as someone that was not employed by them.
After all, these are a bunch of students, so let's just give them a opportunity to take a crack at solving this problem with their angle on the solution.
They have it right in their paper - they are using a broadcast protocol mindset, which is like saying you can get the blocks to everyone, just as long as they have REALLY BIG BLOCKS, super fast CONFIRM TIMES, and it will be like being on a LOCAL AREA NETWORK.
That doesn't scale. There is no debate about it, anyone who has done networking will tell you having a bunch of hosts in a broadcast domain is a poor choice.
Did you miss the part where their system requires FUNDAMENTAL changes to the coins that participate?
This is a bunch of people who haven't followed the developments over the last year or so, and if they have, they didn't learn anything from it.
I get what they are trying to do, but I am saying that we should not discount any "alternative" thinking if it can add some kind of value. I hate the gigabyte Block size part of their solution, because that is similar to beating a dead horse, but the compression of the data got my attention, because it can be beneficial if someone could run with that idea.
In the end, nothing will be added without consensus, so we should not fear alternative ideas.
August 17, 2018, 08:38:05 PM
People are too quick to label something as a scam. I think we must step back and be open to alternative ideas for scaling, other than the Lightning Network as the only solution for this problem. I have not seen anyone coming up with suggestions to compress the data that are going on-chain as a scaling solution, so for me this was refreshing to consider another angle to this debate.
The greatest thing about Bitcoin is the fact that anyone can make suggestions for the improvement of the technology, just imagine for a moment if Microsoft owned Bitcoin and you wanted to write code for it as someone that was not employed by them.
After all, these are a bunch of students, so let's just give them a opportunity to take a crack at solving this problem with their angle on the solution.
The greatest thing about Bitcoin is the fact that anyone can make suggestions for the improvement of the technology, just imagine for a moment if Microsoft owned Bitcoin and you wanted to write code for it as someone that was not employed by them.
After all, these are a bunch of students, so let's just give them a opportunity to take a crack at solving this problem with their angle on the solution.
They have it right in their paper - they are using a broadcast protocol mindset, which is like saying you can get the blocks to everyone, just as long as they have REALLY BIG BLOCKS, super fast CONFIRM TIMES, and it will be like being on a LOCAL AREA NETWORK.
That doesn't scale. There is no debate about it, anyone who has done networking will tell you having a bunch of hosts in a broadcast domain is a poor choice.
Did you miss the part where their system requires FUNDAMENTAL changes to the coins that participate?
This is a bunch of people who haven't followed the developments over the last year or so, and if they have, they didn't learn anything from it.
August 17, 2018, 06:26:06 PM
@Kakmakr. Using all of your years of following the cryptospace, do you reckon that bloXroute labs white paper is a good idea on first look?
Also, there were 3 letters in the white paper that shows it might be a scam. I C O hehehe.
Also, there were 3 letters in the white paper that shows it might be a scam. I C O hehehe.
August 17, 2018, 07:40:39 AM
It's wouldn't be bad if we had some alternatives to Lightning, but this project is not one
It is actually bad to have an alternative tier 2 layer competing with LN because it does nothing but bring confusion and potentially slow down progress.Instead of money hungry entities trying to raise money to fund their project (ahum, fill their pockets), they can better allocate time to look at how they can improve LN where needed, and see how routing can become far more efficient, and more importantly, successful, because that's eventually what we will be relying on to conduct transactions once fully deployed.
and there already is an altcoin that wants to get gigabyte blocks - it's called Bcash.
That's hilarious. In order to have the network validate a 1GB block, it would probably need an hour to do so, and in that time frame empty blocks need to be minted in order to prevent the network from being exploited by malicious entities. August 17, 2018, 06:20:27 AM
People are too quick to label something as a scam. I think we must step back and be open to alternative ideas for scaling, other than the Lightning Network as the only solution for this problem. I have not seen anyone coming up with suggestions to compress the data that are going on-chain as a scaling solution, so for me this was refreshing to consider another angle to this debate.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Nearly every ICO is some sort of a scam, that alone is enough to be extremely suspicious of this project. Scaling Bitcoin by hard-forking to gigabyte-size blocks is completely outlandish idea, there's no chance it will ever get accepted by Bitcoin community. So, what we have is just another ICO with a stupid and unrealistic idea that just tries to lure clueless noobs.
It's wouldn't be bad if we had some alternatives to Lightning, but this project is not one, because it's incompatible with Bitcoin's protocol, it can only be implemented as an altcoin, and there already is an altcoin that wants to get gigabyte blocks - it's called Bcash.
August 17, 2018, 01:24:36 AM
Christ, when I thought I've seen everything.
First, they are putting an ICO out there for their funding - great, just what we needed, another shit-token for raising funds.
Second, they have the following in their whitepaper:
They are comparing it to a "broadcast" network model, which doesn't scale worth a shit. And what the fuck is up with that GIGABYTE SIZED BLOCK shit?
Oh, there's more of this shit sandwich:
OH? Is that all? You just want us to increase the blocksize and change the confirm rate? Gosh golly gee, where did these people come from -- have they not paid attention
to what is going on in the cryptocurrency space for the last fucking YEAR or so?
Here's a great article why the stupid shit mentioned in bloXroute's whitepaper isn't going to work - broadcast vs unicast -- https://medium.com/@melik_87377/lightning-network-enables-unicast-transactions-in-bitcoin-lightning-is-bitcoins-tcp-ip-stack-8ec1d42c14f5
You've got to be fucking kidding me with this BLOXCRAP bullshit.
Oh, and Jgilpulg -- posting that huge image was a good tip-off that this thing was a piece of shit too.
First, they are putting an ICO out there for their funding - great, just what we needed, another shit-token for raising funds.
Second, they have the following in their whitepaper:
Quote
"To achieve scalability, bloXroute utilizes (i) system-wide caching that enables faster propagation and Gigabyte-
size blocks, and (ii) cut-through routing that enables swift and efficient transmission of blocks through the network."
"In essence, bloXroute implements and provides an efficient broadcast primitive to the blockchain nodes, via a network
of Gateways, making them operate as if they are on the same Local Area Network, while in reality they might be residing at
opposite parts of the globe."
size blocks, and (ii) cut-through routing that enables swift and efficient transmission of blocks through the network."
"In essence, bloXroute implements and provides an efficient broadcast primitive to the blockchain nodes, via a network
of Gateways, making them operate as if they are on the same Local Area Network, while in reality they might be residing at
opposite parts of the globe."
They are comparing it to a "broadcast" network model, which doesn't scale worth a shit. And what the fuck is up with that GIGABYTE SIZED BLOCK shit?
Oh, there's more of this shit sandwich:
Quote
"Cryptocurrencies require no protocol change beyond adjusting the block size and inter-block time interval to fully utilize bloXroute’s capacity."
OH? Is that all? You just want us to increase the blocksize and change the confirm rate? Gosh golly gee, where did these people come from -- have they not paid attention
to what is going on in the cryptocurrency space for the last fucking YEAR or so?
Here's a great article why the stupid shit mentioned in bloXroute's whitepaper isn't going to work - broadcast vs unicast -- https://medium.com/@melik_87377/lightning-network-enables-unicast-transactions-in-bitcoin-lightning-is-bitcoins-tcp-ip-stack-8ec1d42c14f5
You've got to be fucking kidding me with this BLOXCRAP bullshit.
Oh, and Jgilpulg -- posting that huge image was a good tip-off that this thing was a piece of shit too.
Thank you for the whitepaper review. It was not that hard for you to notice that it was a scam I presume hehehe.
In any case, I want to know why the bitcoinist printed that scam, who requested them to and also if they were paid to.
People are too quick to label something as a scam. I think we must step back and be open to alternative ideas for scaling, other than the Lightning Network as the only solution for this problem. I have not seen anyone coming up with suggestions to compress the data that are going on-chain as a scaling solution, so for me this was refreshing to consider another angle to this debate.
The greatest thing about Bitcoin is the fact that anyone can make suggestions for the improvement of the technology, just imagine for a moment if Microsoft owned Bitcoin and you wanted to write code for it as someone that was not employed by them.
After all, these are a bunch of students, so let's just give them a opportunity to take a crack at solving this problem with their angle on the solution.
August 16, 2018, 06:02:37 PM
Christ, when I thought I've seen everything.
First, they are putting an ICO out there for their funding - great, just what we needed, another shit-token for raising funds.
Second, they have the following in their whitepaper:
They are comparing it to a "broadcast" network model, which doesn't scale worth a shit. And what the fuck is up with that GIGABYTE SIZED BLOCK shit?
Oh, there's more of this shit sandwich:
OH? Is that all? You just want us to increase the blocksize and change the confirm rate? Gosh golly gee, where did these people come from -- have they not paid attention
to what is going on in the cryptocurrency space for the last fucking YEAR or so?
Here's a great article why the stupid shit mentioned in bloXroute's whitepaper isn't going to work - broadcast vs unicast -- https://medium.com/@melik_87377/lightning-network-enables-unicast-transactions-in-bitcoin-lightning-is-bitcoins-tcp-ip-stack-8ec1d42c14f5
You've got to be fucking kidding me with this BLOXCRAP bullshit.
Oh, and Jgilpulg -- posting that huge image was a good tip-off that this thing was a piece of shit too.
First, they are putting an ICO out there for their funding - great, just what we needed, another shit-token for raising funds.
Second, they have the following in their whitepaper:
Quote
"To achieve scalability, bloXroute utilizes (i) system-wide caching that enables faster propagation and Gigabyte-
size blocks, and (ii) cut-through routing that enables swift and efficient transmission of blocks through the network."
"In essence, bloXroute implements and provides an efficient broadcast primitive to the blockchain nodes, via a network
of Gateways, making them operate as if they are on the same Local Area Network, while in reality they might be residing at
opposite parts of the globe."
size blocks, and (ii) cut-through routing that enables swift and efficient transmission of blocks through the network."
"In essence, bloXroute implements and provides an efficient broadcast primitive to the blockchain nodes, via a network
of Gateways, making them operate as if they are on the same Local Area Network, while in reality they might be residing at
opposite parts of the globe."
They are comparing it to a "broadcast" network model, which doesn't scale worth a shit. And what the fuck is up with that GIGABYTE SIZED BLOCK shit?
Oh, there's more of this shit sandwich:
Quote
"Cryptocurrencies require no protocol change beyond adjusting the block size and inter-block time interval to fully utilize bloXroute’s capacity."
OH? Is that all? You just want us to increase the blocksize and change the confirm rate? Gosh golly gee, where did these people come from -- have they not paid attention
to what is going on in the cryptocurrency space for the last fucking YEAR or so?
Here's a great article why the stupid shit mentioned in bloXroute's whitepaper isn't going to work - broadcast vs unicast -- https://medium.com/@melik_87377/lightning-network-enables-unicast-transactions-in-bitcoin-lightning-is-bitcoins-tcp-ip-stack-8ec1d42c14f5
You've got to be fucking kidding me with this BLOXCRAP bullshit.
Oh, and Jgilpulg -- posting that huge image was a good tip-off that this thing was a piece of shit too.
Thank you for the whitepaper review. It was not that hard for you to notice that it was a scam I presume hehehe.
In any case, I want to know why the bitcoinist printed that scam, who requested them to and also if they were paid to.
August 16, 2018, 03:08:28 AM
Sounds like another empty promise. Lightning network will solve this issue, no need some other crap to hype.
August 16, 2018, 02:22:10 AM
Christ, when I thought I've seen everything.
Thank you for that eloquence.
Guys, all of you out there who think you can "solve Bitcoin's XYZ problems", pay attention to what's going on with Bitcoin before you even dream to hire some marketer to write your whitepaper with napkin ideas.
1. Bitcoin's Biggest Problem? It's not scalability. If it was, it's solved. They're doing far more technologically advanced solutions than most altscoins can even imagine, WITHOUT needing a single cent or ICO.
2. Like TaderTimm points out, wow, have you not been following big blockers for the past 2 years?
August 15, 2018, 09:59:29 PM
Christ, when I thought I've seen everything.
First, they are putting an ICO out there for their funding - great, just what we needed, another shit-token for raising funds.
Second, they have the following in their whitepaper:
They are comparing it to a "broadcast" network model, which doesn't scale worth a shit. And what the fuck is up with that GIGABYTE SIZED BLOCK shit?
Oh, there's more of this shit sandwich:
OH? Is that all? You just want us to increase the blocksize and change the confirm rate? Gosh golly gee, where did these people come from -- have they not paid attention
to what is going on in the cryptocurrency space for the last fucking YEAR or so?
Here's a great article why the stupid shit mentioned in bloXroute's whitepaper isn't going to work - broadcast vs unicast -- https://medium.com/@melik_87377/lightning-network-enables-unicast-transactions-in-bitcoin-lightning-is-bitcoins-tcp-ip-stack-8ec1d42c14f5
You've got to be fucking kidding me with this BLOXCRAP bullshit.
Oh, and Jgilpulg -- posting that huge image was a good tip-off that this thing was a piece of shit too.
First, they are putting an ICO out there for their funding - great, just what we needed, another shit-token for raising funds.
Second, they have the following in their whitepaper:
Quote
"To achieve scalability, bloXroute utilizes (i) system-wide caching that enables faster propagation and Gigabyte-
size blocks, and (ii) cut-through routing that enables swift and efficient transmission of blocks through the network."
"In essence, bloXroute implements and provides an efficient broadcast primitive to the blockchain nodes, via a network
of Gateways, making them operate as if they are on the same Local Area Network, while in reality they might be residing at
opposite parts of the globe."
size blocks, and (ii) cut-through routing that enables swift and efficient transmission of blocks through the network."
"In essence, bloXroute implements and provides an efficient broadcast primitive to the blockchain nodes, via a network
of Gateways, making them operate as if they are on the same Local Area Network, while in reality they might be residing at
opposite parts of the globe."
They are comparing it to a "broadcast" network model, which doesn't scale worth a shit. And what the fuck is up with that GIGABYTE SIZED BLOCK shit?
Oh, there's more of this shit sandwich:
Quote
"Cryptocurrencies require no protocol change beyond adjusting the block size and inter-block time interval to fully utilize bloXroute’s capacity."
OH? Is that all? You just want us to increase the blocksize and change the confirm rate? Gosh golly gee, where did these people come from -- have they not paid attention
to what is going on in the cryptocurrency space for the last fucking YEAR or so?
Here's a great article why the stupid shit mentioned in bloXroute's whitepaper isn't going to work - broadcast vs unicast -- https://medium.com/@melik_87377/lightning-network-enables-unicast-transactions-in-bitcoin-lightning-is-bitcoins-tcp-ip-stack-8ec1d42c14f5
You've got to be fucking kidding me with this BLOXCRAP bullshit.
Oh, and Jgilpulg -- posting that huge image was a good tip-off that this thing was a piece of shit too.
August 15, 2018, 09:25:33 PM
@Kprawn. I reckon it might be offchain but it will not be like the Lightning Network. bloxRoute proposes a new compression idea and have compressed blocks be sent using another transport layer underneath the blockchain.
There is a whitepaper mentioned in the article.
https://bloxroute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/bloXroute-whitepaper.pdf
Can a qualified person read and analyze that and share his thoughts?
There is a whitepaper mentioned in the article.
https://bloxroute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/bloXroute-whitepaper.pdf
Can a qualified person read and analyze that and share his thoughts?
August 15, 2018, 10:25:33 AM
Ok, so will this also be a second layer application, like the Lightning Network?
" The Northwestern University proposal attempts to address some of those issues by creating an infrastructure that
compresses the information on the blockchain before sending, with the propagation being it will go faster." If this
works, the transaction size will be smaller and that means less miners fees and a smaller Blockchain? ....This sounds very
interesting, where is the source code? {Proprietary or Opensource?}
" The Northwestern University proposal attempts to address some of those issues by creating an infrastructure that
compresses the information on the blockchain before sending, with the propagation being it will go faster." If this
works, the transaction size will be smaller and that means less miners fees and a smaller Blockchain? ....This sounds very
interesting, where is the source code? {Proprietary or Opensource?}
Jump to: