Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized - page 4.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: Lauda on February 04, 2016, 05:36:41 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on February 04, 2016, 05:33:54 PM

So "4 times" = x⁴ by your logic?

Never said such a thing, just wanted to post the definition of it that I've used in the past. It might be useful for Carlton.

Quote from: Lauda on February 04, 2016, 05:21:50 PM

"f(x) scales quadratically with x" means, in a rough sense, that f(2x) is about four times as large as f(x)....

I wouldn't quote that (incorrect) titbit to Calrton, it will just confuse the old duffer even more.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on February 04, 2016, 05:33:54 PM

So "4 times" = x⁴ by your logic?

Never said such a thing, just wanted to post the definition of it that I've used in the past. It might be useful for Carlton.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: Lauda on February 04, 2016, 05:21:50 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on February 04, 2016, 05:18:26 PM

What? Quadratic means 'squared'. Where are you getting x⁴ from?

Quote

"f(x) scales quadratically with x" means, in a rough sense, that f(2x) is about four times as large as f(x), and f(5x) is about twenty-five times as large as f(x).

Which is what the hashing problem O(n^2) is about.

So "4 times" = x⁴ by your logic?

You do know that the relationship 5x : 25 is actually 5²?

Quote from: CarltonBanks

The way it is now, the amount of processing needed scales quadratically, i.e. to the fourth power every step change.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on February 04, 2016, 05:18:26 PM

What? Quadratic means 'squared'. Where are you getting x⁴ from?

Quote

"f(x) scales quadratically with x" means, in a rough sense, that f(2x) is about four times as large as f(x), and f(5x) is about twenty-five times as large as f(x).

Which is what the hashing problem O(n^2) is about.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: Carlton Banks on February 03, 2016, 05:13:25 PM

the amount of processing needed scales quadratically, i.e. to the fourth power every step change.

What? Quadratic means 'squared'. Where are you getting x⁴ from?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: ?? on ??

6700k just one example. oh wait.. its newer, its faster its cheaper its more capable... oopsy

Intel® Core™ i7-6700K Processor - Launched: 2015; Launch price: 350$
Intel® Core™ i7-3770K Processor - Launched: 2012; Launch price: 342$

Effective Speed +24%
Average User Bench +26%
2.3% more expensive
Source

After my initial comparison was "incorrect", here you have it. The numbers sure look better, right? It only took 3 years to gain a ~25% increase in computational power.

No more nonsense will be tolerated. Either admit to being wrong, or submit valid technical evidence that supports your argument (you tend to be a straw-man often).

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Carlton Banks on February 03, 2016, 05:13:25 PM

As usual, Franky: get out of town with that garbage

The processing that gets done when a Skype call or Netflix streaming session gets downloaded is low compared to Bitcoin blocks. Cryptographic proofs need satisfying to validate the new block and it's contents. The way it is now, the amount of processing needed scales quadratically, i.e. to the fourth power every step change. That kind of burden (a doubling then raised to the power of four) could see nodes checking transaction signatures and resolving coinbase merkle roots for the entire block interval i.e. <10 minutes.

So, your simple presentation is a little too simple. Please try to improve.

keeping it short and sweet.

processors and ram are much cheaper,faster, more capable and common now than 2 years ago. and will again be better, faster, cheaper in 2 years.
we are not stuck with 2009 technology! or 2013-14 technology.
but i do like how lauda's example of the processing crisis is referencing raspberry pies rather than normal computers, that atleast made me laugh.

maybe i should complain that segwit wont run on a ZX spectrum as an exaggerated example to show lauda's mindset. and i do like how lauda in the post says that he doesnt think normal users buying normal stuff deserve the security of exahash network.. very bait and switch(common users off of bitcoin) mindset.

which shows blockstream isnt about bitcoin being for the community at all

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2016, 04:27:08 PM

Quote from: Lauda on February 03, 2016, 04:02:34 PM

Quote from: thejaytiesto on February 03, 2016, 01:53:20 PM

Node count should be considered centralized when people with decent computers cannot run a node on their bedroom, this is I think very clear. If people can't run a node on a single computer, its when the centralization process starts and once it starts it will expand like mining, it will end up getting "specialized", so it's crucial that we never get past that point where people can run nodes at home.

Exactly. I've asked the 'big blockist' and 'forkers' before and got no reply (aside from insults). Currently there are people that run nodes on Raspberry Pi's. Obviously this won't be possible in the future unless there is an updated version but we can disregard that. Where is the cut-off point, Pentium, Dual Core, Intel i3? They'd be willing to waste a lot of valuable resources and heavily reduce the node count just in order to be able to process small purchases on the main chain. I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network.

people have replied to lauda. but he ignores and then deletes posts because it proves his agenda wrong.
EG
Skype videocalls. 30mb every 10 minutes.(upload)
netflix HD tv shows 500mb(download)

yet millions of people can use those services without being a datacenter..

i have made a valid comment in reply to the questions asked in a valid post. if this post gets deleted then so should the posts i have quoted as they are all linked. if only my post gets deleted then it shows Lauda is trying to hide the truth to pretend there is no rebuttal to his mindset

honest question time now lauda. just choose A B or C which statement fits your mindset

A. i know data is not a good excuse to not fork.. but im not sure of how orphans work or blockheights work to bring the network inline so im scared of forks
B. i know how forks work but im paid by blockstream to try ensuring blockstream dominates and has control
C. im not paid by blockstream i am just emotionally tied to the core developers through friendship and want them to be rich and powerful

As usual, Franky: get out of town with that garbage

The processing that gets done when a Skype call or Netflix streaming session gets downloaded is low compared to Bitcoin blocks. Cryptographic proofs need satisfying to validate the new block and it's contents. The way it is now, the amount of processing needed scales quadratically, i.e. to the fourth power every step change. That kind of burden (a doubling then raised to the power of four) could see nodes checking transaction signatures and resolving coinbase merkle roots for the entire block interval i.e. <10 minutes.

So, your simple presentation is a little too simple. Please try to improve.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Lauda on February 03, 2016, 04:02:34 PM

Quote from: thejaytiesto on February 03, 2016, 01:53:20 PM

Node count should be considered centralized when people with decent computers cannot run a node on their bedroom, this is I think very clear. If people can't run a node on a single computer, its when the centralization process starts and once it starts it will expand like mining, it will end up getting "specialized", so it's crucial that we never get past that point where people can run nodes at home.

Exactly. I've asked the 'big blockist' and 'forkers' before and got no reply (aside from insults). Currently there are people that run nodes on Raspberry Pi's. Obviously this won't be possible in the future unless there is an updated version but we can disregard that. Where is the cut-off point, Pentium, Dual Core, Intel i3? They'd be willing to waste a lot of valuable resources and heavily reduce the node count just in order to be able to process small purchases on the main chain. I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network.

people have replied to lauda. but he ignores and then deletes posts because it proves his agenda wrong.
EG
Skype videocalls. 30mb every 10 minutes.(upload)
netflix HD tv shows 500mb(download)

yet millions of people can use those services without being a datacenter..

i have made a valid comment in reply to the questions asked in a valid post. if this post gets deleted then so should the posts i have quoted as they are all linked. if only my post gets deleted then it shows Lauda is trying to hide the truth to pretend there is no rebuttal to his mindset

honest question time now lauda. just choose A B or C which statement fits your mindset

A. i know data is not a good excuse to not fork.. but im not sure of how orphans work or blockheights work to bring the network inline so im scared of forks
B. i know how forks work but im paid by blockstream to try ensuring blockstream dominates and has control
C. im not paid by blockstream i am just emotionally tied to the core developers through friendship and want them to be rich and powerful

eternalgloom

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1283

Quote from: CIYAM on February 02, 2016, 07:19:22 AM

I think this is a nicely put together visualisation (my only criticism is that it may have actually erred slightly on the side of being too technical but I guess that depends upon the target audience).

I don't have a technical background and for me it was fine. It was actually nice to see some of these issues explained.

Great work putting this together, it really sends out a message of hope after the recent negativity.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: thejaytiesto on February 03, 2016, 01:53:20 PM

Node count should be considered centralized when people with decent computers cannot run a node on their bedroom, this is I think very clear. If people can't run a node on a single computer, its when the centralization process starts and once it starts it will expand like mining, it will end up getting "specialized", so it's crucial that we never get past that point where people can run nodes at home.

Exactly. I've asked the 'big blockist' and 'forkers' before and got no reply (aside from insults). Currently there are people that run nodes on Raspberry Pi's. Obviously this won't be possible in the future unless there is an updated version but we can disregard that. Where is the cut-off point, Pentium, Dual Core, Intel i3? They'd be willing to waste a lot of valuable resources and heavily reduce the node count just in order to be able to process small purchases on the main chain. I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network.

thejaytiesto

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1014

Quote from: Lauda on February 03, 2016, 11:07:08 AM

Quote from: jugador on February 03, 2016, 05:38:28 AM

It's not just possible, it's already happening, and happening very fast! Be ready!

It is possible if we scale via off chain solutions. If we focus on scaling via the main chain we will end up centralizing (further) both miners and nodes. The question is where is the limit (e.g. what node count should be considered centralized)? This visualization could be expanded with the Lightning Network added to it (although not sure when we should expect a release).

Node count should be considered centralized when people with decent computers cannot run a node on their bedroom, this is I think very clear. If people can't run a node on a single computer, its when the centralization process starts and once it starts it will expand like mining, it will end up getting "specialized", so it's crucial that we never get past that point where people can run nodes at home.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: jugador on February 03, 2016, 05:38:28 AM

It's not just possible, it's already happening, and happening very fast! Be ready!

It is possible if we scale via off chain solutions. If we focus on scaling via the main chain we will end up centralizing (further) both miners and nodes. The question is where is the limit (e.g. what node count should be considered centralized)? This visualization could be expanded with the Lightning Network added to it (although not sure when we should expect a release).

jugador

member

Activity: 79

Merit: 10

Quote from: Meuh6879 on February 02, 2016, 04:46:38 PM

"it's not to build a paypal, it's to change the world"

It's not just possible, it's already happening, and happening very fast! Be ready!

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: n2004al on February 03, 2016, 05:15:55 AM

For me it is impossible to understand the technical explanations and various details of this kind but it easily understandable that, if eveything in main post is true, there is no need to increase the size of blocks (and that the war of the development core people is made only based at selfish reasons) and that the bitcoin could be a much more product than it is already.

I'm pretty sure that it is as accurate as it can be for a simple info-graphic. It is exactly meant to combine only a small amount of technicalities with the correct simplistic explanation. Currently there is no need to increase the size of the blocks because there will be Segwit. I'm putting up a wild guess here, but I'd say that a block size is increase due sometime in 2017 (maybe). This becomes much easier and safer to deploy because of: IBLT (reduces bandwidth) and Signature validation time being reduced (currently it is quadratic and can be problematic at 2 MB blocks). Both features are in the works and should be implemented sometime in 2016.

n2004al

legendary

Activity: 1134

Merit: 1000

For me it is impossible to understand the technical explanations and various details of this kind but it easily understandable that, if eveything in main post is true, there is no need to increase the size of blocks (and that the war of the development core people is made only based at selfish reasons) and that the bitcoin could be a much more better product than it is already. A such improvement of a great invention put in the trash every kind of doubt about its R.I.P. as a product and even its role in the world of peer to peer. Then, if it would be possible to be realized even the last foreseen which see it as the base of the new internet (about which, according to my very poor knowledge in such field, are "fighting" even other peer to peer projects - one of which known by me is the project of them who are behind ethereum) would make it again the King of the Kingdom of peer to peer. As it was when was born but not as it is in the today cryptocurrency world when are not few the cryptos which (as is told by them who can do such kind of comparisons) there are cryptos better than it. If it would be the King of Kingdom of the peer to peer, that mean that it would be the King of the tomorrow real and virtual world.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Woah, this is one nice infographic... Sums up pretty nicely a lot of info I've spent hours looking for.

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on February 02, 2016, 08:04:35 PM

Cool, very nice work. Been looking for something like this. Thanks OP.

Quote from: Minecache on February 02, 2016, 08:16:56 PM

Fantastic graphic. In storage every bit counts.

It is indeed.

Quote from: ?? on ??

When you are dealing with the Lightning Network, you are not dealing with bitcoins any more. You are dealing with a proxy for bitcoins.

This isn't a discussion about LN.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Did core aprove this?

The roadmap was signed; graphics like this one can be made by anyone though.

Quote from: ?? on ??

lol Franky, this is not a presentation of "choices", as you so quaintly put it, but of what's actually going to happen. Maybe if you spent as much time and effort on understanding this material as you do with using Photoshop to make things seem so confusing (you're incredibly talented at confusing simple matters), then maybe you wouldn't be so... confused?

There's no need to argue with him, it is pointless.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Also, why the lack of dates for when these things will be implemented? its a huge problem for Core trying to sell their vision.

There is no lack of dates. There's an ETA for everything in 2016. The Classic developers are unable to create anything complex on their own, how is that not a bigger problem in comparison?

Quote from: ?? on ??

There's no reason we couldn't do segwit plus bigger blocks as Franky pointed out.

Yes there is. That would be equal to a 4 MB block size so: bandwidth, storage, propagation delay, orphans, validation time; should I continue?

Minecache

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1024

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Fantastic graphic. In storage every bit counts.

LFC_Bitcoin

legendary

Activity: 3556

Merit: 9709

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

Cool, very nice work. Been looking for something like this. Thanks OP.

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

"it's not to build a paypal, it's to change the world"

Topic: Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized - page 4. (Read 5717 times)