This thread is so far off topic it is beyond rescue.
/locked
Topic: Bitcoin Scaling Solution Without Lightning Network... (Read 1738 times)
However verifying the receipts using multiple block explorers gives a similar result without the headaches.
(Actually Safer from a Sybil attack.)
(Actually Safer from a Sybil attack.)
AFAIK, most block explorer are non-mining nodes... Basically, a non-mining node is an auditor doing a full audit continuously. If you don't think having full audits done by multiple independent auditors is a valuable service to the health of the BTC network, I don't know what to tell you.
* if non-mining nodes actually mattered in btc , they would do like dash and pay them a % of the miner's coins. *
You do realize that what the Masternodes in Dash are doing is helping to run a second layer on top of the blockchain to perform such services as coin mixing and transaction locking. https://docs.dash.org/en/latest/introduction/features.html Somewhat similar to what the Lightning Network is trying to do. Each node on the LN are also rewarded a small tx fee if their channel is used in a hop.
Quote from: bones261
AFAIK, most block explorer are non-mining nodes.
But you don't know for certain if they are running a mining node or non-mining or linking to a 3rd party node, you're trusting the block explorer.So you think having 100 trusted sources, is safer than 1 trusted source.
Key word is trusted, 1 is as good as 1 million
You only need more if you don't trust the one.
Exactly a masternode in Dash is valued, therefore they receive a % of mined coins.
All Proof of Stake Wallets that have coins are Full Nodes with value as they can enter transactions and affect the difficulty.
LN is an offchain product that works with any segwit infected blockchain btc, ltc, or groestlcoin and even they allow their nodes to earn.
Non-mining nodes have no actual value in BTC , so they receive Nothing.
However verifying the receipts using multiple block explorers gives a similar result without the headaches.
(Actually Safer from a Sybil attack.)
(Actually Safer from a Sybil attack.)
AFAIK, most block explorers are non-mining nodes... Basically, a non-mining node is an auditor doing a full audit continuously. If you don't think having full audits done by multiple independent auditors is a valuable service to the health of the BTC network, I don't know what to tell you.
* if non-mining nodes actually mattered in btc , they would do like dash and pay them a % of the miner's coins. *
You do realize that what the Masternodes in Dash are doing is helping to run a second layer on top of the blockchain to perform such services as coin mixing and transaction locking. https://docs.dash.org/en/latest/introduction/features.html Somewhat similar to what the Lightning Network is trying to do. Each channel on the LN are also rewarded a small tx fee if their channel is used in a hop.
@bones261 and @Zin-Zang
Although I'm sure about your debate being off-topic pretty much, I just can't help it to intervene and remind you about User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) which one of the most important forks in bitcoin history took place by means of it. Non-mining nodes which basically include user wallets, enforced consensus rule change by virtue of their power. Interestingly a majority of user wallets are spvs and it is enough evidence to prove their importance and role in network ecosystem unlike what @Zin-Zang believes.
The idea behind UASF is simple: If a majority of miners do not commit to the rule change of interest, users will do. Now we would have a network with low hashrate but a large user base, the minority fork would be the winner socio-economically. It is practical because non-mining nodes participate in securing the network, not directly and by means of their hash power (which they have not at all) but by their socio-economic power.
Although I'm sure about your debate being off-topic pretty much, I just can't help it to intervene and remind you about User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) which one of the most important forks in bitcoin history took place by means of it. Non-mining nodes which basically include user wallets, enforced consensus rule change by virtue of their power. Interestingly a majority of user wallets are spvs and it is enough evidence to prove their importance and role in network ecosystem unlike what @Zin-Zang believes.
The idea behind UASF is simple: If a majority of miners do not commit to the rule change of interest, users will do. Now we would have a network with low hashrate but a large user base, the minority fork would be the winner socio-economically. It is practical because non-mining nodes participate in securing the network, not directly and by means of their hash power (which they have not at all) but by their socio-economic power.
Hmm,
We are going to have to disagree on this.
It was a threat from the developers to Change the algo, the non-mining nodes were inconsequential.
I put it to you like this.
If the non-mining nodes is power in your opinion,
how do you quantify any power increase or decrease from having a single non-mining node verses 1 billion non-mining nodes.
I see zero difference in network or economic power, please explain how you see any?
@bones261 and @Zin-Zang
Although I'm sure about your debate being off-topic pretty much, I just can't help it to intervene and remind you about User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) which one of the most important forks in bitcoin history took place by means of it. Non-mining nodes which basically include user wallets, enforced consensus rule change by virtue of their power. Interestingly a majority of user wallets are spvs and it is enough evidence to prove their importance and role in network ecosystem unlike what @Zin-Zang believes.
The idea behind UASF is simple: If a majority of miners do not commit to the rule change of interest, users will do. Now we would have a network with low hashrate but a large user base, the minority fork would be the winner socio-economically. It is practical because non-mining nodes participate in securing the network, not directly and by means of their hash power (which they have not at all) but by their socio-economic power.
Although I'm sure about your debate being off-topic pretty much, I just can't help it to intervene and remind you about User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) which one of the most important forks in bitcoin history took place by means of it. Non-mining nodes which basically include user wallets, enforced consensus rule change by virtue of their power. Interestingly a majority of user wallets are spvs and it is enough evidence to prove their importance and role in network ecosystem unlike what @Zin-Zang believes.
The idea behind UASF is simple: If a majority of miners do not commit to the rule change of interest, users will do. Now we would have a network with low hashrate but a large user base, the minority fork would be the winner socio-economically. It is practical because non-mining nodes participate in securing the network, not directly and by means of their hash power (which they have not at all) but by their socio-economic power.
Oh zing-zang, you really think major services like exchanges are just going to trust everything the miners are feeding them with an SPV wallet? They run full nodes that are non-mining which validate every single transaction in every single block, to make doubly sure the miners aren't trying to feed them some bullshit. If you really think the BTC network would be a viable p2p network if nodes such as these went offline, you are kidding yourself. Perhaps BTC can survive if all of the hobby nodes went offline; however, the economy of the network extends beyond just mining activities.
Oh Bones261,
They run non-mining full Nodes that record a Receipt of their transactions to compare with their internal records.
And they should keep receipts, as a good accounting practice.
However verifying the receipts using multiple block explorers gives a similar result without the headaches.
(Actually Safer from a Sybil attack.)
But believing they validate anything in the blockchain is nonsense,
if their nodes go offline, they may stop their service, but it in no way ever actually validated anything on the blockchain.
(no confirmations were ever added to the blockchain because of their non-mining node)
They only verified their receipts matched. Nothing else and no real service to anyone else on the blockchain.
You think non-mining nodes matter, you only drank core's kool-aid.
* if non-mining nodes actually mattered in btc , they would do like dash and pay them a % of the miner's coins. *
Oh Zin-Zang, you really think major services like exchanges are just going to trust everything the miners are feeding them with an SPV wallet? They run full nodes that are non-mining which validate every single transaction in every single block, to make doubly sure the miners aren't trying to feed them some bullshit. If you really think the BTC network would be a viable p2p network if nodes such as these went offline, you are kidding yourself. Perhaps BTC can survive if all of the hobby nodes went offline; however, the economy of the network extends beyond just mining activities.
Your non-mining node relays, it does not validate anything at all, which is why turning it off has no effect.
Quoted for posterity. Someone needs to revisit the basics. A non-mining full node validates every block to ensure it conforms to numerous rules.
You need to learn the English Language
val·i·date : prove the validity , ie: Authenticate :prove or show something to be true or genuine
relay : receive and pass on (information or a message)
Mining Nodes , insert transactions into the blocks, therefore the next mining node that includes a transaction after it's 1st block, ie: 2nd block and higher, are the ones that Validate / Authenticate the Transaction. (Confirmations)
Non-Mining Nodes, do nothing but RELAY the data they receive from the Mining Nodes.
They have no ability to insert transactions in a block or to truly validate/authenticate a transaction.
All they are doing is keeping a personal copy of their receipt of transactions from the blockchain.
It in no way effects the new transactions entered or validated by the mining nodes.
The prime example that only Mining Nodes truly Validate / Authenticate is this , turn off all of the mining nodes , and their will be no new transactions whatsoever and the last block transaction will never be Validated / Authenticate as long as all of the mining nodes are OFF!
Contrast this with the Useless Non-Mining Nodes, Turn off all of the Non-Mining Nodes and the only thing that stops is their relay of a copy of the blockchain.
ie: They only Relay data, nothing else.
Prove me wrong , turn off all of the non-mining nodes, and it will not stop 1 transaction from being validated by the mining nodes.
Go ahead , I double dare you.
FYI:
The argument that non-mining nodes force mining nodes to obey the specs are nonsense,
What happens is if all of the mining nodes all decide to change specs, they basically forked the coin,
which means non-mining nodes now no longer relay that data unless they join the new fork,
and if they don't join the new fork, no one cares, because the non-mining nodes can't keep the network running.
The consensus of mining nodes protect the specs, and the threat that the developers change the algo to no longer allow mining nodes to be miners.
Non-mining nodes are purely irrelevant and as such , makes no difference whether they are turned off or on.
Gives some idiots the bragging rights like they are actually doing something.
Your non-mining node relays, it does not validate anything at all, which is why turning it off has no effect.
Quoted for posterity. Someone needs to revisit the basics. A non-mining full node validates every block to ensure it conforms to numerous rules.
The UASF taught everyone no. Plus my node validates my transactions without a need for me to trust anyone. That, for me, is very important. 
No , UASF did not happen so it taught no one anything, except core will dangle a carrot in front of non-mining node dummies and not follow thru.
Your non-mining node relays, it does not validate anything at all, which is why turning it off has no effect.
You think it makes a difference, but it make no difference except a small increase in your electric bill.
I believe Bitcoin will still go forward on a layered architecture if Lightning was a failure.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep isnot scalable.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is
Hmm,
Hate to break it to you, but On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is scalable.
How?
Bigger Blocks or Faster Block Speeds either or both increase onchain scalability as both increase the # of transactions possible in less time.
Bigger blocks are inherently centralizing. Faster block speeds have trade-offs between security and decentralization. Decentralization should not be abandoned to keep one of Bitcoins most valuable characteristics. Censorship Resistance.
If bigger blocks and faster speeds were the answer to scale Bitcoin, and not contentious with risks of a chain-split, then I believe the Core developers would have went on that road already.
But you are welcome to use Bitcoin Cash, or something better, Dogecoin.
What you meant to say , is that you are too cheap to update your node to increase it's scalability with the rest of the network.
FTFY,
Yes, because not every user can update their hardware immediately. Would it be a good design decision for the Core developers to amputate the network from many of the users' nodes, scaling it in, and centralizing Bitcoin?
Yes, because non-mining nodes like yours are irrelevant and unnecessary.
The UASF taught everyone no. Plus my node validates my transactions without a need for me to trust anyone. That, for me, is very important.
I believe Bitcoin will still go forward on a layered architecture if Lightning was a failure.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep isnot scalable.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is
Hmm,
Hate to break it to you, but On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is scalable.
How?
Bigger Blocks or Faster Block Speeds either or both increase onchain scalability as both increase the # of transactions possible in less time.
*There are some altcoins that process 1mb blocks at a 30 second blockspeed and they can have 140 transactions per second,
where as bitcoin-segwit maxes out at less than 20 transactions per second. And the Nodes that can do this are less than $30 per month if you get a VPS.*
Any network can use offchain processing , but that does not increase onchain capacity, where it is needed most.
Offchain processing was always the pussy's way out.
Had btc ignored segwit, and just increased their blocks to 4MB, they would able to handle 28 transactions per second, 8 more than their current max.
And if your node could not handle 4mb in 10 minutes, you should throw that crap in the trash.
In the US, first quarter of 2017, the average internet connection speed was 18.75 Mbps or 2.34Mbytes per second,
meaning less than 2 seconds are required to send a 4MB block.
People with 100mbps can send that 4 MB block out in less than ½ second.
And you do realize the big players use 1 Gigabit and higher internet connections.
What you meant to say , is that you are too cheap to update your node to increase it's scalability with the rest of the network.
FTFY,
Yes, because not every user can update their hardware immediately. Would it be a good design decision for the Core developers to amputate the network from many of the users' nodes, scaling it in, and centralizing Bitcoin?
Yes, because non-mining nodes like yours are irrelevant and unnecessary.
All your node does is relay , nothing else , it is unimportant in the scheme of things.
If it were really worth a damn, you upgrade your node.
LOL, you have no effect whatsoever on centralization of bitcoin mining, because you are not a miner.
BTC Mining is already centralized to the rich and they can afford to update their nodes.
Your confusion that your non-mining node matters is just sad.
Hell, turn it off and buy yourself a burger instead of wasting your money on electricity and guess what no one will even notice.
I believe Bitcoin will still go forward on a layered architecture if Lightning was a failure.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep isnot scalable.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is
Hmm,
Hate to break it to you, but On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is scalable.
How?
Quote
What you meant to say , is that you are too cheap to update your node to increase it's scalability with the rest of the network.
FTFY,
Yes, because not every user can update their hardware immediately. Would it be a good design decision for the Core developers to amputate the network from many of the users' nodes, scaling it in, and centralizing Bitcoin?
I believe Bitcoin will still go forward on a layered architecture if Lightning was a failure.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep isnot scalable.
On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is
Hmm,
Hate to break it to you, but On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is scalable.
What you meant to say , is that you are too cheap to update your node to increase it's scalability with the rest of the network.
FTFY,
What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?
You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.
In 100 years, I think a toaster will probably be able to handle 32mb blocks. No detrimental effect on decentralization. Also, someone can attempt to "flood the mempool," now with ultra low fee and zero fee transactions. The only way to combat this is for nodes to set a minimum fee that they require for them towill accept and relay to other nodes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the capacity of the blocks.
Then what's the hurry? I believe Bitcoin will need to hard fork to bigger blocks later at any rate. If it gets consensus.
But Bitcoin Core will not bow to a group of people demanding bigger blocks now because reasons. It is politics, and some group of people will always want control. Remember "2X".
I'm not in a hurry. I just hope bitcoin core isn't thinking the scaling problem is solved with LN. They should be working on optimizations. It would be nice if they came up with a way that you could run a pruned node or a sharded node, and not have to devote a bunch of HD to the initial sync. Not sure why you can't prune as you go on the initial sync.
I also remember the 2x. When they were supposed to attempt the fork, it locked up. Obviously the software wasn't adequately vetted and tested.
You mean the research being done on optimizations such as this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHIuuKCm53o
Watch that. That's real, and efficient scaling. Unlike Bitcoin Cash's plan to keep hard forking to increase the block size.
I'm not asking. It is reality.
By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?
I think it is interesting that you mention Segwit and smaller blocks when part of what Segwit did was introduced increased block capacity. Perhaps they will be able to do something similar with future improvements to BTC.
Then why aren't you happy?
I'm not happy with LN for several reasons.
1) Requires you to be online at all times. Offline time=risk of funds. Online time=funds in hot wallet=risk of funds.
2) Hope your channel partner is online at all times in order to function optimally.
3) When making a transaction requiring hops, hope no one happens to disconnect or transfer funds along the hop, before your transaction completes. Otherwise, your funds are locked up for days.
I believe Bitcoin will still go forward on a layered architecture if Lightning was a failure. On-chain transactions that need all nodes to process all transactions in lockstep is not scalable.
Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.
Hmm,
So what in your viewpoint makes BTC more secure than say LTC ?
For me, one is as safe as the other, but I would be interested to know your specific thoughts on the matter.
Quote
If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
I had no intention of arguing against your personal viewpoint, was just interested to hear them.
Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.
Hmm,
So what in your viewpoint makes BTC more secure than say LTC ?
For me, one is as safe as the other, but I would be interested to know your specific thoughts on the matter.
Quote
If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
Asking people to compromise with a less secure solution just isn't acceptable. From what I can tell, the BTC network is the most secure by leaps and bounds over any other altcoin.
Hmm,
So what in your viewpoint makes BTC more secure than say LTC ?
For me, one is as safe as the other, but I would be interested to know your specific thoughts on the matter.
What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?
You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.
In 100 years, I think a toaster will probably be able to handle 32mb blocks. No detrimental effect on decentralization. Also, someone can attempt to "flood the mempool," now with ultra low fee and zero fee transactions. The only way to combat this is for nodes to set a minimum fee that they require for them towill accept and relay to other nodes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the capacity of the blocks.
Then what's the hurry? I believe Bitcoin will need to hard fork to bigger blocks later at any rate. If it gets consensus.
But Bitcoin Core will not bow to a group of people demanding bigger blocks now because reasons. It is politics, and some group of people will always want control. Remember "2X".
I'm not in a hurry. I just hope bitcoin core isn't thinking the scaling problem is solved with LN. They should be working on optimizations. It would be nice if they came up with a way that you could run a pruned node or a sharded node, and not have to devote a bunch of HD to the initial sync. Not sure why you can't prune as you go on the initial sync.
I also remember the 2x. When they were supposed to attempt the fork, it locked up. Obviously the software wasn't adequately vetted and tested.
I'm not asking. It is reality.
By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?
I think it is interesting that you mention Segwit and smaller blocks when part of what Segwit did was introduced increased block capacity. Perhaps they will be able to do something similar with future improvements to BTC.
Then why aren't you happy?
I'm not happy with LN for several reasons.
1) Requires you to be online at all times. Offline time=risk of funds. Online time=funds in hot wallet=risk of funds.
2) Hope your channel partner is online at all times in order to function optimally.
3) When making a transaction requiring hops, hope no one happens to disconnect or transfer funds along the hop, before your transaction completes. Otherwise, your funds are locked up for days.
What has the higher chance of a "decentralized Bitcoin" on 2118. 1mb blocks or 32mb blocks?
You also act as if the spammer flooding the mempool can do it until 2118.
In 100 years, I think a toaster will probably be able to handle 32mb blocks. No detrimental effect on decentralization. Also, someone can attempt to "flood the mempool," now with ultra low fee and zero fee transactions. The only way to combat this is for nodes to set a minimum fee that they require for them towill accept and relay to other nodes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the capacity of the blocks.
Then what's the hurry? I believe Bitcoin will need to hard fork to bigger blocks later at any rate. If it gets consensus.
But Bitcoin Core will not bow to a group of people demanding bigger blocks now because reasons. It is politics, and some group of people will always want control. Remember "2X".
I'm not asking. It is reality.
By the way, what is your standpoint on Segwit and the Core developers' firm stance on smaller blocks?
I think it is interesting that you mention Segwit and smaller blocks when part of what Segwit did was introduced increased block capacity. Perhaps they will be able to do something similar with future improvements to BTC.
Then why aren't you happy?