Topic: Bitcoin Optimal Parameters for Scaling/Decentralisation (Read 218 times)

another aspect is 'spam'

going with the previous post philosophy that 4tx a day is acceptable regular use to warrent a person to want to monitor bitcoin 24/7
again thats 90,000 fullnode potential

now if 1% of users are spammers. re-spending their value every block
thats 900 transactions filled out of 2500.. every block
thus brings down the potential full node utility to only 57200 regular users and 900 spammers (58100 nodes)

also because of this spam. all 58100 are fighting to outbid each other, raising the average fee FOR EVERYONE
causing more people to not want to use bitcoin regularly due to regular fee costs being high

so expect less than 58100 full nodes being happy to be regular null node users

..
continuing this 'free market bid'; scheme of fee's wont work in the long run.
again without editing any bitcoin parameters of transaction count..
a simple fee formulae can be implemented to not penalise all users. but just the spammers
if they want their slot every block only they should be paying premium to get it

there are many ways to implement this.
but cutting down the spammers = more users onchain to be normal regular spenders and happily spending cheaply to want to remain using bitcoin and monitoring bitcoin

again a fee mechanism can increase the full node potential of this demo 58100 to the potential of 90,000 demo potential

its not just about increasing transaction count per block to solve fee issues.
its also having a fee mechanism with a premium for those with far less than 36 confirms(spending more then 4 times a day average)

before i begin on the big picture stuff you hesitate.. lets just handle your influencers PR campaign of offramping users to be a solution to increasing fullnodes(facepalm)

tl:dr;
bitcoin potential of regular onchain users = 90,000 fully synced full node potential
offramping usage to altnets. causes a 90,000 fully synced full node count. to become a random of only 7500 nodes being fully synced per hour(different set of nodes each hour, but only 7500 fully synced at any time)


...
lets begin
off ramping users away from the network. removes congestion. (your narrowminded thought benefit) but removes people wanting/needing to monitor the network due to lack of their personal use of the network.
(do you stay logged into a paypal app if you only make/receive payments 2 times a month.. no)
(do you check your bank balance every hour if you only get paid once a month.. no)
resulting in your fear of less nodes coming to fruition
yes i said it. the less people need to use onchain. the less they will want to monitor onchain

(if you were getting paid on paypal 4 times a day, your more likely to leave the paypal app open all day)

imagine it this way
an average block is 2500tx and a day has 144 blocks(360,000tx a day)
imagine normal daily use is an acceptable 4tx a day for normal people to use bitcoin enough that they want to keep an eye on the blockchain 24/7
thats about 90,000 users a day potential regular users..
or 65,700,000 hours a month of all 90,000 nodes always being fully synced
..
next is the narrowminded idea of offramping regular users away from using transactions by encouraging them to lock funds up and not make a transaction for a month.
those users no longer need to monitor the blockchain 24/7 because they are not using bitcoin.

this also depreciates the full node count because those off ramped users are now using litewallet apps on another network, and funds are locked for a month. so no need to care about bitcoin monitoring

some narrow minded people think that if each 'regular user' is instead playing around with an altnet. and only makes 2tx a month, means more users can lock-in and unlock..
well maths says it can allow upto 5,475,000 users.(dont get too excited)
but thats 5,475,000 people using an altnet that do not need to monitor bitcoin 24/7 and only need to access bitcoin 2 times a month

so no.. no no..  you are not going to have 5million full nodes always active

so lets go back to the start
a fair usage onchain 4tx a day =90,000 users a day = 65,700,000 monitoring hours a month(24/7 active)
vs
the offramp narrowmind of 5mill altnetters for 2hours a month= 10,000,000 hours a month(0.273% active)

you have now proposed the idea of a 6x decrease in blockchain monitoring.

also these 10mill hours.. are not 'synced' hours of seeder nodes.. but majority leacher nodes trying to catch up

meaning the amount of synced/live nodes with uptodate blockheights is alot less
5 million users will only be synced for a couple hours a month

and this final point alone is a flaw in of itself because it calculates down to only being 7500 nodes being synced in any given hour

far far far less then the 90,000 nodes at the start of this post

-note this post is just one aspect. mainly about windfurys 'decentralisation/full node count scaling'-

But what is YOUR definition of “scaling”, franky1? Is it merely increasing the transaction throughput per block, but without any regard for the network if it scales out, or scales in?

I believe we cannot discuss that topic properly without a common understanding of “scaling”.

scaling bitcoin.. yes i said BITCOIN. not other networks pretending to be
    scaling bitcoin means SCALING BITCOIN
its about allowing more utility

and dont turn it into a 'decentralisation debate of full node increase but none of those nodes ever able to USE onchain'..  as thats a silly fantasy mission to aim for
removing onchain utility but wanting more people to monitor onchain.. is a fantasy mission

fact.. common sense.. logic.. psychology:
the less someone can use onchain the less they want to care/monitor onchain

it does not mean slowing down bitcoin

it does not mean off-ramping utility to other networks

it does not mean stagnating bitcoin

and no scaling bitcoin is not the twisted "increase blocksize to 100mb" propaganda

for now. devs say there is absolutely NO problem with 4mb. but the way they implemented the "blocksize" is not actually scaling bitcoin nor allowing for more transaction count

scaling bitcoin is about transaction count ON BITCOIN

again dont turn it into some mythical "this guy is talking about visa numbers by tomorrow"

its about just getting more then estimated allowable numbers than 2010
its scaling not leaping

again SCALING
so the simple solution
remove the cludgy 4x code that mis-represents numbers to keep transactions below a 4x growth while promoting its allowing 4mb potential bloat..
and actually have 4x real transaction count multiple

yes the witness_scale_factor multiple is cludgy code that is not allowing for good full utility of the now deemed safe 4mb

this can be the first step(scale)
other things can be a fee formulae that punish certain transaction makers. IE low confirm spammers
and yes its possible because they already have a fee formulae that adds a premium to legacy transactions

so remove the cludgy bias formulae and witness factor cludgy math around legacy.
and instead just have a formulae that is around a coins confirm count causing a premium the lower the confirms is

summary tl:dr;
remove cludgy witness_scale_factor, allow actual accepted 4mb utility for a real 4x tx count potential
have some fee formulaes(as proven to work) that actually help avoid spam, without blanket 'everyone pay more'
emphasis: stop the propaganda that its about 100mb asap.
emphasis: stop the rumours that more nodes but less node utility is good

I might be nitpicking, but Bcash has the same confirmation times between blocks. It’s not “faster”. Litecoin may have faster confirmation times, but it’s about settlement assurances. One confirmation in Bitcoin is worth more in accumulated cost than Litecoin confirmations.


I believe no one can answer you that, but it’s better to over-shoot security than under-shoot, and with the current parameters, I believe it’s OK. But I’m the stupid one. A developer, LukeDashJr believes that blocks should be smaller to decentralize the network further.

Actually, you can't really justify that people agreed upon it. Majority of the users today didn't use Bitcoin at it's earlier stage (v0.1.0, 0.1.3), it was initially 32MB.

No one agreed upon it anyways, Satoshi implemented the change secretly, in 2010.
I didn't see this previously so I thought I'll address it now with an edit. While you're correct that the equivalent security differs with the block speed, it isn't the point. Not everything has to be compared to a specific block interval or rather a specific threshold of PoW. I find it more reasonable to approximate the amount of work (or the cost of it) to the value of a single block. The whole point of the security being offered is to make double spending more expensive, since you are going to approximate the cost to the accumulative PoW for that specific block. So long as the PoW to create a block is costly enough to outweigh the benefits from an re-org attack, it would be reasonable to assume that faster block intervals do not necessarily put transactions at risk.

Yes, that's what he did. But, people agree upon it, don't they?

They are faster; what they don't have is the same security. One Bitcoin confirmation is equivalent with 4 Litecoin's if we assume they have the same computational power offered. So even if you indeed had one Litecoin confirmation, it wouldn't be safe enough to consider it completed. You'd sooner or later require at least 4 blocks just in case.

Bitcoin have optimal parameters even now and there is no need for any drastic changes, for example current fees for sending Bitcoin is 1 sat/vB or around $0.04, and other forks are not much faster than bitcoin.
It is a good thing that many forks tried to change some stuff and majority of people kept supporting Bitcoin and proved what they want, so I don't see any other coin being more decentralized than BTC.
I would rather change and improve privacy for Bitcoin, than mess around with block size and change something that works just fine now.

That is counter-intuitive.
Segwit is a capacity increase. You can't possibly reach the levels of major payment processors by solely increasing block size or speed. That is unrealistic.
No. Whatever Satoshi decided on 12 years ago, won't be applicable today. Given the state of the network today, I daresay we can go further with lesser consequences. The issue is plagued with politics, as you've seen from the previous block size debacle.

I'm slowly making my way through the paper below, written by a member of this forum.

So far I am struggling a bit as it is quite technical but it seems like one of the conclusions is Bitcoin in its current state is not secure (especially after segwit block size increase). This is a bit concerning if true.

 https://github.com/fresheneesz/bitcoinThroughputAnalysis

I think that the main problem is that, while it does maintain its decentralization, we can't agree upon a block size. For example, some may say that 2MBs are fine, some others the 10MBs. Sustaining the 1MB leaves us with no multiple options that could result into possible cunning hard forks. The 1MB is what we all agree upon.

The scaling problem is decided to be tackled with layer 2 solutions due to instant transactions and efficiency.

Bitcoin transactions are much slower than say Litecoin (or Bitcoin Cash). One of the commonly mentioned reasons against Bitcoin having a different block size/speed is to maintain its decentralisation.

1) Why not change the block size/speed so that transactions are even slower than it currently is, to further improve decentralisation?

2) If the answer to 1) is that bitcoin is believed to already be sufficiently decentralised, is there any scope to tweak the block size/speed to improve transaction speed while maintaining its decentralisation?

3) I guess where I'm going with this is, are the current parameters actually optimal?