i would be with bells on to within 2017, suppose you have a SSD/HDD of 4TB (4096*109) each block comes with 2MB, you can hold ~2 million blocks including the previous, which is almost 8~9 years.
anyway, i hope people won't be in problem of this, such as synchronising speed.
FYI price of SSD decreases by at least 10% per annum AFAIK.
Topic: 2MB Pros and Cons - page 3. (Read 9735 times)
Why "off-chain scaling" cannot eliminate the need for main-chain scaling
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4btwa9/why_offchain_scaling_cannot_eliminate_the_need/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4btwa9/why_offchain_scaling_cannot_eliminate_the_need/
Quote
Am I the only one who hates the phrase “off-chain scaling”? I guess my reaction when I hear that phrase is, well yeah, of course Bitcoin can "scale" off-chain. If you want to scale to “VISA levels,” and you're willing to do it off-chain, it can be pretty simple. Take the existing VISA infrastructure (or recreate it) and, instead of using it to process fiat-denominated IOUs, use it to process Bitcoin-denominated IOUs. Now obviously the “Bitcoin as settlement network” camp will say: “hey, that’s not fair! We’re not talking about simply recreating the custodial, trust-based credit and banking models of the fiat world in Bitcoin. We're talking about the Lightning Network which uses crypto-magic to enable off-chain transactions while still avoiding centralization and custodial risk. Lightning transactions are Bitcoin transactions.”
Well, no. They’re not. I’m far from an expert on the Lightning Network, but as I understand it, the proposal involves the repeated exchange of unconfirmed, unbroadcast Bitcoin transactions, i.e. potential Bitcoin transactions. Now there are some people who are very excited about the LN’s potential, and there are others who are very skeptical. But for purposes of the point I’m making it doesn’t really matter who’s right. I have no doubt that Bitcoin, by its very nature as an open, extensible network, enables the creation of some really novel, really useful “layer two” solutions (whether or not the LN proves to be one of them). But the fact remains: when you move transactions to a “layer two” solution, you have – by definition – added a layer of risk. Your layer two solution might be really, really great and a huge improvement over the traditional banking model such that the added layer of risk is relatively thin. And that’s awesome… but it’s still there. So you can’t just say: “who cares if Bitcoin’s layer one is artificially crippled? We’ll just move everything to layer two.” To the extent that on-chain scaling is artificially restricted (rather than being constrained only by technological limits), there is going to be an unavoidable deadweight loss. And all that can do is open the door for Bitcoin’s competitors.
Also, it seems to me that if there were no downside to using a “layer two” solution to make a particular payment, if it were really true that “Lightning transactions have the full security of on chain transactions” (as I saw one redditor claim), that would be a very dangerous state of affairs. If everyone could get all of the benefits of an on-blockchain transaction without actually using the blockchain (and thus paying the fees to secure it), that would seem to create a tragedy of the commons.
Well, no. They’re not. I’m far from an expert on the Lightning Network, but as I understand it, the proposal involves the repeated exchange of unconfirmed, unbroadcast Bitcoin transactions, i.e. potential Bitcoin transactions. Now there are some people who are very excited about the LN’s potential, and there are others who are very skeptical. But for purposes of the point I’m making it doesn’t really matter who’s right. I have no doubt that Bitcoin, by its very nature as an open, extensible network, enables the creation of some really novel, really useful “layer two” solutions (whether or not the LN proves to be one of them). But the fact remains: when you move transactions to a “layer two” solution, you have – by definition – added a layer of risk. Your layer two solution might be really, really great and a huge improvement over the traditional banking model such that the added layer of risk is relatively thin. And that’s awesome… but it’s still there. So you can’t just say: “who cares if Bitcoin’s layer one is artificially crippled? We’ll just move everything to layer two.” To the extent that on-chain scaling is artificially restricted (rather than being constrained only by technological limits), there is going to be an unavoidable deadweight loss. And all that can do is open the door for Bitcoin’s competitors.
Also, it seems to me that if there were no downside to using a “layer two” solution to make a particular payment, if it were really true that “Lightning transactions have the full security of on chain transactions” (as I saw one redditor claim), that would be a very dangerous state of affairs. If everyone could get all of the benefits of an on-blockchain transaction without actually using the blockchain (and thus paying the fees to secure it), that would seem to create a tragedy of the commons.
couldn't agree more!
but this doesn't really belong in this thread.
we need a new thread On-Chain Vs Off-Chain scaling Pros, Cons and tragedies
Here's a con. A simple 2 Mb hard fork does not solve the O(n^2) hashing problem. For those of you who have no idea what that means, it means that as the number of hashes required to verify a transaction increases linearly, the time required to hash all of it increases quadratically. This means that a transaction could theoretically be produced that causes nodes to have to spend a significant amount of time (several seconds to a few minutes, depending on the transaction) verifying the transaction. Such a thing was seen in the past when a miner (f2pool I think) created a 1 Mb transaction to clean up spam that went to wee brainwallets. The transaction took about 30 seconds to verify. With 2 Mb, a 2 Mb theoretical transaction could take 2 minutes or more to verify.
the con in OP that refers to this:
Quote
The possibility exists to construct a TX that takes too long to validate
easily mitigated, through the use of soft limits imposed by miners limiting the number of inputs a TX can have.
easily mitigated, through the use of soft limits imposed by miners limiting the number of inputs a TX can have.
its a dumbed down version of what you are talking about, if you think i could reword it for more clarity let me know.
Why "off-chain scaling" cannot eliminate the need for main-chain scaling
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4btwa9/why_offchain_scaling_cannot_eliminate_the_need/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4btwa9/why_offchain_scaling_cannot_eliminate_the_need/
Quote
Am I the only one who hates the phrase “off-chain scaling”? I guess my reaction when I hear that phrase is, well yeah, of course Bitcoin can "scale" off-chain. If you want to scale to “VISA levels,” and you're willing to do it off-chain, it can be pretty simple. Take the existing VISA infrastructure (or recreate it) and, instead of using it to process fiat-denominated IOUs, use it to process Bitcoin-denominated IOUs. Now obviously the “Bitcoin as settlement network” camp will say: “hey, that’s not fair! We’re not talking about simply recreating the custodial, trust-based credit and banking models of the fiat world in Bitcoin. We're talking about the Lightning Network which uses crypto-magic to enable off-chain transactions while still avoiding centralization and custodial risk. Lightning transactions are Bitcoin transactions.”
Well, no. They’re not. I’m far from an expert on the Lightning Network, but as I understand it, the proposal involves the repeated exchange of unconfirmed, unbroadcast Bitcoin transactions, i.e. potential Bitcoin transactions. Now there are some people who are very excited about the LN’s potential, and there are others who are very skeptical. But for purposes of the point I’m making it doesn’t really matter who’s right. I have no doubt that Bitcoin, by its very nature as an open, extensible network, enables the creation of some really novel, really useful “layer two” solutions (whether or not the LN proves to be one of them). But the fact remains: when you move transactions to a “layer two” solution, you have – by definition – added a layer of risk. Your layer two solution might be really, really great and a huge improvement over the traditional banking model such that the added layer of risk is relatively thin. And that’s awesome… but it’s still there. So you can’t just say: “who cares if Bitcoin’s layer one is artificially crippled? We’ll just move everything to layer two.” To the extent that on-chain scaling is artificially restricted (rather than being constrained only by technological limits), there is going to be an unavoidable deadweight loss. And all that can do is open the door for Bitcoin’s competitors.
Also, it seems to me that if there were no downside to using a “layer two” solution to make a particular payment, if it were really true that “Lightning transactions have the full security of on chain transactions” (as I saw one redditor claim), that would be a very dangerous state of affairs. If everyone could get all of the benefits of an on-blockchain transaction without actually using the blockchain (and thus paying the fees to secure it), that would seem to create a tragedy of the commons.
Well, no. They’re not. I’m far from an expert on the Lightning Network, but as I understand it, the proposal involves the repeated exchange of unconfirmed, unbroadcast Bitcoin transactions, i.e. potential Bitcoin transactions. Now there are some people who are very excited about the LN’s potential, and there are others who are very skeptical. But for purposes of the point I’m making it doesn’t really matter who’s right. I have no doubt that Bitcoin, by its very nature as an open, extensible network, enables the creation of some really novel, really useful “layer two” solutions (whether or not the LN proves to be one of them). But the fact remains: when you move transactions to a “layer two” solution, you have – by definition – added a layer of risk. Your layer two solution might be really, really great and a huge improvement over the traditional banking model such that the added layer of risk is relatively thin. And that’s awesome… but it’s still there. So you can’t just say: “who cares if Bitcoin’s layer one is artificially crippled? We’ll just move everything to layer two.” To the extent that on-chain scaling is artificially restricted (rather than being constrained only by technological limits), there is going to be an unavoidable deadweight loss. And all that can do is open the door for Bitcoin’s competitors.
Also, it seems to me that if there were no downside to using a “layer two” solution to make a particular payment, if it were really true that “Lightning transactions have the full security of on chain transactions” (as I saw one redditor claim), that would be a very dangerous state of affairs. If everyone could get all of the benefits of an on-blockchain transaction without actually using the blockchain (and thus paying the fees to secure it), that would seem to create a tragedy of the commons.
Here's a con. A simple 2 Mb hard fork does not solve the O(n^2) hashing problem. For those of you who have no idea what that means, it means that as the number of hashes required to verify a transaction increases linearly, the time required to hash all of it increases quadratically. This means that a transaction could theoretically be produced that causes nodes to have to spend a significant amount of time (several seconds to a few minutes, depending on the transaction) verifying the transaction. Such a thing was seen in the past when a miner (f2pool I think) created a 1 Mb transaction to clean up spam that went to wee brainwallets. The transaction took about 30 seconds to verify. With 2 Mb, a 2 Mb theoretical transaction could take 2 minutes or more to verify.
the con in OP that refers to this:
Quote
The possibility exists to construct a TX that takes too long to validate
easily mitigated, through the use of soft limits imposed by miners limiting the number of inputs a TX can have.
easily mitigated, through the use of soft limits imposed by miners limiting the number of inputs a TX can have.
its a dumbed down version of what you are talking about, if you think i could reword it for more clarity let me know.
Here's a con. A simple 2 Mb hard fork does not solve the O(n^2) hashing problem. For those of you who have no idea what that means, it means that as the number of hashes required to verify a transaction increases linearly, the time required to hash all of it increases quadratically. This means that a transaction could theoretically be produced that causes nodes to have to spend a significant amount of time (several seconds to a few minutes, depending on the transaction) verifying the transaction. Such a thing was seen in the past when a miner (f2pool I think) created a 1 Mb transaction to clean up spam that went to wee brainwallets. The transaction took about 30 seconds to verify. With 2 Mb, a 2 Mb theoretical transaction could take 2 minutes or more to verify.
weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.
So fork off ...
We're working on it, thanks.
Apparently sky was supposed to fall a year ago. What the hell are you waiting for? People are continuing to realize that the fearmongering around "overcapacity" and "fee events" were bullshit.
Quote
... and create your datacentercoin.
You misunderstand the situation entirely. We believe in the original Bitcoin vision. We feel you have lost your way.
That's cute. Unfortunately if you do so in a contentious manner (i.e. with 75% miner agreement and no consideration for nodes/users) you will split the network. Only the fork that is not compatible with the original network can be considered an altcoin, by definition.
Quote
Just stop calling it bitcoin...
No. It is Bitcoin. It adheres much closer to the existing principles than does BlockstreamCoin.
How so? Blockstream doesn't control anything. They aren't pushing a contentious hard fork on the community. If adam's datacentercoin is a problem for you, stick with CoinbaseCoin.
Quote
...and go back to pumping <>.
WTF are you on about?
The bitco.in crew's tendency to come here to trash bitcoin's future while glorifying shitcoins like DASH.
weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.
So fork off ...
We're working on it, thanks.
Quote
... and create your datacentercoin.
You misunderstand the situation entirely. We believe in the original Bitcoin vision. We feel you have lost your way.
Quote
Just stop calling it bitcoin...
No. It is Bitcoin. It adheres much closer to the existing principles than does BlockstreamCoin.
Quote
...and go back to pumping <>.
WTF are you on about?
'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!
Prove it. What have alt pumps got to do with bitcoin? The only thing that matters is making bitcoin as viable and robust as possible. It doesn't matter what alts are doing. Go buy alts if getting rich quick is your intention here. But you may find that doing that right now will be a bad decision in hindsight.
its a doge eat doge world out there buddy
Yes let the forks and alts cannibalize one another as they all try in disagreement to fix bitcoin's problems.
yes of course, they dont posse a threat, there silly competition with no merit
they'll never crack the >1MB "problem"
Nobody said alts have no merit (although most of them don't on their face)......what I said was do what is best for bitcoin regardless of them. Competition from alts is not a legitimate reason to force hasty/untested software changes that much of community does not support
And whether they crack the problem of scalability is years off. Easy to claim scalability when a network is barely used by anybody (whether ethereum or whatever else)......some eth devs have said that they are already realizing that eth is not more scalable than btc
a self imposed limits ( like 1 block every 10mins or 1MB max per block) is not a problem other alt are subject to.
i hope we dont actually have an alt PROVE it can handle more TX than bitcoin.
'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!
Prove it. What have alt pumps got to do with bitcoin? The only thing that matters is making bitcoin as viable and robust as possible. It doesn't matter what alts are doing. Go buy alts if getting rich quick is your intention here. But you may find that doing that right now will be a bad decision in hindsight.
its a doge eat doge world out there buddy
Yes let the forks and alts cannibalize one another as they all try in disagreement to fix bitcoin's problems.
yes of course, they dont posse a threat, there silly competition with no merit
they'll never crack the >1MB "problem"
Nobody said alts have no merit (although most of them don't on their face)......what I said was do what is best for bitcoin regardless of them. Competition from alts is not a legitimate reason to force hasty/untested software changes that much of community does not support
And whether they crack the problem of scalability is years off. Easy to claim scalability when a network is barely used by anybody (whether ethereum or whatever else)......some eth devs have said that they are already realizing that eth is not more scalable than btc
'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!
Prove it. What have alt pumps got to do with bitcoin? The only thing that matters is making bitcoin as viable and robust as possible. It doesn't matter what alts are doing. Go buy alts if getting rich quick is your intention here. But you may find that doing that right now will be a bad decision in hindsight.
its a doge eat doge world out there buddy
Yes let the forks and alts cannibalize one another as they all try in disagreement to fix bitcoin's problems.
yes of course, they dont posse a threat, there silly competition with no merit
they'll never crack the >1MB "problem"
'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!
Prove it. What have alt pumps got to do with bitcoin? The only thing that matters is making bitcoin as viable and robust as possible. It doesn't matter what alts are doing. Go buy alts if getting rich quick is your intention here. But you may find that doing that right now will be a bad decision in hindsight.
its a doge eat doge world out there buddy
Yes let the forks and alts cannibalize one another as they all try in disagreement to fix bitcoin's problems.
'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!
Prove it. What have alt pumps got to do with bitcoin? The only thing that matters is making bitcoin as viable and robust as possible. It doesn't matter what alts are doing. Go buy alts if getting rich quick is your intention here. But you may find that doing that right now will be a bad decision in hindsight.
its a doge eat doge world out there buddy
'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!
Prove it. What have alt pumps got to do with bitcoin? The only thing that matters is making bitcoin as viable and robust as possible. It doesn't matter what alts are doing. Go buy alts if getting rich quick is your intention here. But you may find that doing that right now will be a bad decision in hindsight.
weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.
So fork off and create your datacentercoin. Just stop calling it bitcoin and go back to pumping DASH.
i mention dash once and suddenly i'm pumping it.
Seems a theme among bitco.in crowd. VS loves to pump DASH in here while trashing bitcoin. Fortunately I saw that he recently has given up on bitcoin, as well as some others in frapdoc's cult. Don't worry: you guys always have DASH to fall back on. Satoshi's true vision:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-448#post-16025
LOL.
Quote from: VeritasSapere
The original vision of Satoshi will be upheld in the alternative cryptocurrencies.
Quote from: VeritasSapere
I think I have reached the edge of my patience where I have lost hope for Bitcoin
LOL.
As if that wasn't bad/lulzy enough...
Quote from: VeritasSapere
he's not the only "retard" pushing buttons...
i would guesstimate the "retard" out number the "geniuses" 10,000/1
its worth keeping that in mind as you watch core cling to their principals
A quick search of the page shows no one called VeritasSapere a "retard" but you. Happy to support Core as long as they are supporting my principles and bitcoin's principles.
'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!
weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.
So fork off and create your datacentercoin. Just stop calling it bitcoin and go back to pumping DASH.
i mention dash once and suddenly i'm pumping it.
Seems a theme among bitco.in crowd. VS loves to pump DASH in here while trashing bitcoin. Fortunately I saw that he recently has given up on bitcoin, as well as some others in frapdoc's cult. Don't worry: you guys always have DASH to fall back on. Satoshi's true vision:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-448#post-16025
LOL.
Quote from: VeritasSapere
The original vision of Satoshi will be upheld in the alternative cryptocurrencies.
Quote from: VeritasSapere
I think I have reached the edge of my patience where I have lost hope for Bitcoin
LOL.
As if that wasn't bad/lulzy enough...
Quote from: VeritasSapere
he's not the only "retard" pushing buttons...
i would guesstimate the "retard" out number the "geniuses" 10,000/1
its worth keeping that in mind as you watch core cling to their principals
A quick search of the page shows no one called VeritasSapere a "retard" but you. Happy to support Core as long as they are supporting my principles and bitcoin's principles.
weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.
So fork off and create your datacentercoin. Just stop calling it bitcoin and go back to pumping DASH.
i mention dash once and suddenly i'm pumping it.
Seems a theme among bitco.in crowd. VS loves to pump DASH in here while trashing bitcoin. Fortunately I saw that he recently has given up on bitcoin, as well as some others in frapdoc's cult. Don't worry: you guys always have DASH to fall back on. Satoshi's true vision:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-448#post-16025
LOL.
Quote from: VeritasSapere
The original vision of Satoshi will be upheld in the alternative cryptocurrencies.
Quote from: VeritasSapere
I think I have reached the edge of my patience where I have lost hope for Bitcoin
LOL.
As if that wasn't bad/lulzy enough...
Quote from: VeritasSapere
he's not the only "retard" pushing buttons...
i would guesstimate the "retard" out number the "geniuses" 10,000/1
its worth keeping that in mind as you watch core cling to their principals
weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.
So fork off and create your datacentercoin. Just stop calling it bitcoin and go back to pumping DASH.
i mention dash once and suddenly i'm pumping it.
Seems a theme among bitco.in crowd. VS loves to pump DASH in here while trashing bitcoin. Fortunately I saw that he recently has given up on bitcoin, as well as some others in frapdoc's cult. Don't worry: you guys always have DASH to fall back on. Satoshi's true vision:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-448#post-16025
LOL.
Quote from: VeritasSapere
The original vision of Satoshi will be upheld in the alternative cryptocurrencies.
Quote from: VeritasSapere
I think I have reached the edge of my patience where I have lost hope for Bitcoin
LOL.
As if that wasn't bad/lulzy enough...
Quote from: VeritasSapere
weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.
So fork off and create your datacentercoin. Just stop calling it bitcoin and go back to pumping DASH.
i mention dash once and suddenly i'm pumping it.
does le bitcoin feel threatened?
it should!
it is!
weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.
So fork off and create your datacentercoin. Just stop calling it bitcoin and go back to pumping DASH.
Jump to: