Topic: Bitcoin mining is not efficient & other problems (Read 1880 times)

With a development teem doing that, no wonder people are giving up on using Bitcoin.
SegWit is merely to reduce transaction fees (apparently it doesn't actually reduce transaction size) so it will probably be useless. If the transaction fee goes down per kilobyte, more people will be paying more per kilobyte. So it may not fix very much (other than making transactions a little cheaper for those who don't want to pay large amounts for them).
I think if they put it up to 2mb that would be more useful. 10mb or 8mb would definitely be a good choice for the next few years (until them blocks become full aswell).

giagabytes.. dont be a loony.. stick to rational and reasonable numbers

the community are saying 8mb are safe.. but compromised to 2mb just to settle the argument december 2015. which the community thought they had settled when core announced segwit mid 2016 and dynamic blocks mid2017..(december2015 consensus roundtable and roadmap)

core have even mid 2016 said 4mb is safe. and cough/facepalm unofficially said they havnt agreed but will do a change to the base block size
but even now refuse to actually raise their base block above 1mb and have no signs of actually doing real base block dynamic sizes beginning at 2mb ...

so everyone is stuck at 1mb fixed base block

I meant to get the core devs to change it to somethng like a Gigabyte instead and then no one will complain.
Change it to a gigabyte on everyone's (not just one) bitcoin core version.
There was a figure of 95% of devices having that core. (Also, changing the block size won't work very well, considering I was looking at the peers I was connected to and only two peers had 0.12.0+).

(for the 95% we'd need the cooperation of a very large number of pools to update their mining software within a few months for it to be quickly added).

thats an american mindset of "$0.20 is ok" you do know 20cents is like 4 hours of minimum wage labour in a few developing countries.
and you wonder why developing countries are not storming into bitcoin.

yea 20 cents is only 1minute 36 seconds of american minimum wage ($7.50) but try to put your mind into the mindset of the 'unbanked' countries that will actually see/want real benefit of bitcoin

bangladesh 9 cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 2hours 13minutes
congo 20cents a hour Min wage: 20cents= 1hour 0 minutes
cuba 5 cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 4 hours 0 minutes
Eritrea 15cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 1hour 20 minutes
Ethiopia 11cents an hour Min wage: 20cents=1 hour 50 minutes
Gambia 15cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 1hour 20 minutes
Georgia 5 cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 4 hours 0 minutes
Guinea-Bissau 18 cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 1hours 7minutes
Kyrgyzstan 9 cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 2hours 13minutes

screw it ill stop at K of the alphabet of countries on low income, you can research the rest

if you think in the mindset of developing countries and then translate it back to american...

would you pay between $7.50(1hr) to $30(4hr) to use bitcoin.. emphasis thinking about it from the minimum wage prospective

it doesnt work like that.

imagine there are 5 people.
A says he can read one page of a book in a minute.
B says he can read 2 pages of a book in a minute.
C says he can read 16 pages of a book in a minute.
D says he can read 3 pages of a book in a minute.
E says he can read 5 pages of a book in a minute.

ok so. someone wants to ensure a fair system and although only person A is holding up the group a 20% risk of system error is risky. so only one page of a book is handed out in a minute to ensure everyone can handle whats been handed out.

later person A reveals he has lied to the group and can handle 2 pages a minute. so now 2 pages a minute can be handed out a minute because 100% of the group can handle it.

after a couple years person A learns to read a bit faster.. and 3 pages are handed out because the whole group can handle it..

so although the group can individually have their own preferences the person making the pages (blocks) only makes it at a rate the whole group as a whole can handle. which is usually help back by the ones with the lowest number..

core are holding it back.

just ask yourself what would happen if in 2013, core decided to have set the block limit at 0.5mb due to sipa's accidental bug when he swapped database types and cause a bit of orphan drama.

The fee is $0.20 at most, a large, large majority of the time. Senders spend less, businesses receive more in value, everyone is happy. That's simple and it works well.

For replacing miners, bad idea. That's part of what backs Bitcoin and makes it better than fiat currencies; the computational power required. Systems that build on a quick network, like the lightning network, exist and are in development.

Seems like you're trying to fix something that doesn't need immediate fixing, or you're shilling. Development and changes come with time, when they make themselves necessary.

Law inforcement is very good in a lot of countries. If you have good enough CCTV then the person doesn't have to wait at all. The shopkeeper merely logs all transactions of bitcoin daily on thir till (which they have to do for ta purposes anyway) and then they can spend their time when they are less busy to check if a transaction has gone through.
You could also set up online accounts with them where you deposit say 0.1BTC to a supermarket in the morning and then go to collect your groceries when you finish work (ensuring your transaction has been confirmed).
Or you preload a paper wallet with 0.1BTC and hand it to them, they then use their bar code scanner to start the transaction process (there is currently no way well known to reverse the process of a transaction once the correct inputs, amount and outputs are suggested (I dont think)).

Also, I didn't realise the ma block size can be changed by the user of each node/core client. But if you're going to double the limit, why have a limit at all? It's not likely to be over 1GB in size so set that as the maximum and then everyone gets fast transactions, although then the network has to be changed with the difficulty based on different size blocks (doesn't it)?

What a load of shit post, away crawl back under the rock you slipped out from you troll

nope.

the blocksize option is not that bad. right now my client has a 2mb rule and is working fine. there are several hundred nodes with blocksize rules of over 1mb actually running right now on the network..

in 2009-2014. there were thousands of nodes with 1mb rule even when the blocks were only 0.5mb.. i know shocking right.. mindblowing thought that users can actually have a higher buffer set than what pools are producing. and doing it years before pools think the network can cope with it..
yes, mega brain fart explosion moment that decimates most of all the doomsdays rhetorics.

the funny part is that the node count can have the rule inplace before mining pools even decide to vote. the code has been available for implementations that are not core since last year. and it would only take a couple days for core to tweak their code too.. but they refuse as they fear the community will adopt it.. so their mindset is if you dont give the community caviar they will never ask for it next time they are spoonfed.

ofcourse mining pools wont move to bigger blocksizes unless majority of nodes can cope with it. which is why core wont offer it.
as for cores segwit. this doesnt need node implementation meaning the code that has a functioning wallet (not released yet(yep even 0.13.2 doesnt allow segwit transaction creation on mainnet)) is not released and wont be released until after activation, which means after activation there will be mad panic to download and peer review the code independently.

kind of backwards.. but hey. thats core.

1min?
those complaining about 10mins would complain about 1min

think about it, you are at a shop and someone swipes their touchless NFC debit card and is gone in 3 seconds. you are then there standing around. after 10 seconds you hear people tutting and whispering "why is he just standing there" by 30 seconds you see them looking at their watches and getting angry. by the 1minute mark your apologising for making them wait.

1minute and 10minutes wont help most situations people cry about..
onchain double spending needs to be fixed by not having invented things like the fee mechanism (causing possible reject by simply not paying adequate fee maliciously/intently) or making a second tx that diverts funds and then use RBF and CPFP to force your preferred tx through first. thus rejecting the other tx.


but now you are talking about middlemen managed services.. this is what offchain LN is. imagine coinbase you you set up a multisig together where coinbase cant move the funds without your permission and you cant move funds between them. yep it allows for faster transactions than the ones requiring confirmations.. but now your no longer in a permissionless position but instead a banking position.
also although you can 'trust' the funds instantly.. the true settlement lock will be longer than the 10 minutes. but hey if settling is of no concern, then go for it.. but you might aswell be using fiat too..

All of these would probably take years to implement. They are all "hard forks" that need to be done and can only be done with the majority of nodes running the new system.
There would also be multiple security threats that may rise with these hard forks if they are rushed or not fully tested (due to the pressure of the community).
It would clear up a lot of issues if the block intervals were set to 1 minute/block (not really a good idea for obvious reasons - blocks could have just one transaction and block rewards would have to be changed which I'm not sure is possible).
If we had wallets on exchanges such as coinbase or blockchain.info then when sending "internally" the transaction could be instant and done in house (I think coinbase already do this to a certain degree - although I could be wrong). Then all you'd have to do is keep a small amount there to put the coins in daily for these transactions.

Well it is a choice that would allow more tps.
It is just a highly controversial one and we both know no one would ever agree to it.
I just listed it since it is an option.

But you are correct, that it is not directly part of the "blocksize debate".

number one of the list is not a viable option..
it has many repercussions and changes many dynamics of bitcoin. its not part of the main debate. just scenario opinions and personal chitchat

number 2 can work once to stick ductape on the doomsday guys that throw randomly large numbers into the air that have not realistic rational reason to be concerned with in the next few years.

number 3 can work but more for the niche of day traders, facuet raiders, gamblers. not so useful for people that only buy one item a day/week/month.
also number 3's 'settlement' time becomes longer than 10 minutes. but atleast the 'trust' of instant acceptance is higher

funny part is by adding more double spend risk features like RBF and CPFP it has made 2017 more risky to accept a zero confirm.. not less risky. thus all that promise of segwit solving double spend risk has fallen flat

Bitcoin is transacted immediately, like a creditcard or debt.
For bitcoins to receive a confirmation, thus creating a final settlement, it must be within a block.
For Bitcoin to have faster confirmation times, there are three possible choices:
1. Shorten the block interval
2. Raise the max blocksize
3. Create second layers designed for faster and more tps.
Those three choices is what the current "blocksize debate" is about.
Each choice creates other problems that can or can not be currently solved.
Some of the opinions about each one, are also in debate and are just opinions.

No one knows anything for sure and an incorrect choice could damage the system and its future.
Sometimes, things only get "fixed" when the people are forced to "fix" them.
Currently, there is no true need nor a forcing enough, to cause a consensus toward a change.

If you want to change confirmation times, which is a reasonable request on its face,
the question then becomes, what are you will to give up for it? If we want faster times,
we will need to lose security and/or it decentralized nature, IMO.

If we can wait and hold out for a few more years or more, we might be able to design a
solution in which we can have high tps and high decentralization with Bitcoin directly.
That is what I want. I do not think we can legitimately do both now, IMO.

imagine the old priority mechanism
(total tx value*confirmations)/tx bytesize

where the total has to reach 57,600,000 to be 'priority'
eg a tx value of 100000000sats (1btc) that has been hoarded for 144confirms(a day) and was 250bytes
(100000000*144)/250=57,600,000 qualify
vs
a tx same value same bytes but only 1 confirm old
((100000000*1)/250)=400000 not qualify

a richer spender can have priority easily (someone with 144btc can qualify fee free) and respend every 10 minutes
((14400000000*1)/250)=57600000 qualify
where as someone with less than 1btc (0.1btc)
((10000000*1)/250)=40000 not qualify
and wont qualify unless their funds are really old(10 days)
((10000000*1440)/250)=57,600,000 qualify

hense why the old priority mechanism really didnt work well...

BUT
imagine we re-invented a fairer 'priority' mechanism that wasint biased between the rich vs poor
eg
((age/txbytes)*(blocksize/txbytes))

or there was an urgency metric added to the user priority
EG 2 people with same tx size and age. but one person doesnt care where other one does ((age/txbytes)*(blocksize/txbytes))+urgency

urgent ((144/250)*(1000000/250))+1=2305
not urgent ((144/250)*(1000000/250))+0=2304

the urgent one gets a slight better chance

then imagine the qualifier was based on mempool byte volume (demand) or some other reactive measure/metric

so here is the challenge.. sorry no prize or bounty.
lets see who can come up with a new 'priority' calculation and qualifier number that would prioritise those that need priority
you can use any metric you can think of that is available
blocksize
mempoolsize
transaction size
value
fee
confirms
user defined priority (urgent/not urgent)
etc.. you think of others

be creative
add, subtract, divide, multiple. to get some form of calculation thats more fair

A transaction in order to be accepted, the main problem is that it takes 3 blocks (~30 minutes) for a transaction to be accepted by an exchange.
If we replace the blockchain then it no longer becomes Bitcoin as mining is required in order to keep the currency as decentralised as possible.

I'm not sure bitcoin is broken? The bugs that are found are fixed quite well by the developers (so far).
It isn't unfixable (altcoins are more unfixable).

Is there evidence of them saying this? I'd be happy to consider it if there is, if not, Bitcoin has fewer problems that what you think it does.

You are coming at this the wrong way.
If you feel that an altcoin will overtake Bitcoin as the leader, you can invest in another coin.
DASH is known for having problems that Bitcoin does not. DASH's instant send is an illusion.
As I have stated prior, there can not be "instantaneous settlement" in a blockchain.
If DASH claims to have it, it is likely a misunderstanding of how that coin functions.

In the meantime, Bitcoin is doing what it was designed to do and will continue to do.
When a change is needed and the community wants it, the change will come.
Because changes are not constant or revolutionary at each new version,
does not mean there is something wrong, that just means we have nothing to prove.

The video you have provided shows someone doublespending in an online casino.
That type of doublespending is not what the blockchain was designed to stop.
That only occurred because the casino did not wait for a single confirm, before crediting the account.

Your understanding of Bitcoin is not correct, but an opinion on what you think it should do.

I haven't discussed them, because I don't fully agree with your assumptions and opinion as to certain issues.
I do have issues, but in my view, some issues deserve priority over other issues.

There are many things that need to be defined in order to determine what is what.
For example, what is your definition of "perfect" in this case? Because in my view no system can be perfect.

Would you say that the VISA Payment system is perfect, in your view?

1. What you don't understand is that bitcoins are technically an electronic cash or some say electronic gold.
In order for these electronic payment types to work, there needs to be a verification to prevent doublespends.
To solve this, Satoshi "created" the blockchain system, so there can never be true instantaneous settlement.
Instantaneous settlement is an illusion for laypeople in electronic forms of payment.
The truth is that the more confirmations your tx has, the more non-reversable it becomes.
That is how the blockchain system works.

Your concern is buying something in a store in real time.
You are requesting an illusionary aspect, so that the buyer and seller "feels" better about
releasing the product in real time.


2. The community does not vote for changes in the Bitcoin protocol.
Only the node and mining community has any voting/signaling ability.

Average Bitcoin users have no means to vote for who they want to code for Bitcoin.
You have no voting ability to decide what you yourself are suggesting, unless you run a node.

Actually the most problem is coming from the difficulty level, which is increasing a lot .and the cost of electricity is also very high and solar mining is also very helpful to some extend.

from the miners point of view the transaction fee is not a main income for them. its just a bonus. the blockreward itself is their main income
we should not be entering a fee war right now. we should be expanding the block size to allow more transactions in.. fee's should be a gradual thing over DECADES not weeks/months

there are other ways to prioritise transactions based on code, without having to use fee's as the main decider.

holding the blocksize down while pushing the fee's up is not the fault of miners. its the dev's they want to make bitcoin useless to push people over to commercial services (LN) or commercial sidechains.

for instance we could put in a priority algo into the transaction (like the olden days had) but with a few more variables. such as stretching out the importance of the age of the coin. so that people cant spend it the moment its received (to avoid people respending to spam the network)
we can push the effect of how bloated a tx is, so that leaner transactions(less bytes) get more priority