Topic: btc - page 2. (Read 5688 times)

You are only convincing yourself here

Indeed I do, I'm just pointing out that the definition you presented yourself, is not an accurate representation of Monero's capabilities, and so, it is wrong.

Now this is just getting retarded, you know very well what I meant with virtually infinite and I have shown by definition of both words its (one of) the correct term for Monero, now go play with your emunie.

For anyone curious as how to Monero's adaptive blocksize limit precisely works:


http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/389pq6/elastic_block_cap_with_rollover_penalties_my/crts1do

Please show me how you are more or less, practically, almost, nearly, close to, verging on, just about, as good as, essentially, to all intents and purposes, roughly, approximately, extracting all the energy from the universe to get close to infinity processing capability?

This is not the point of the word infinity, it means without any limit and its exactly what we have in Monero, the add of "virtually" is just a honest distortion to the fact we are limited to the amount of energy we can extract and store, like you said early.

Yes this is correct. The limits should be imposed by the market given what is practical using the technology of the day and not baked into the protocol. That is why adaptive limits that are market driven is the way to go here. In this fashion as the cost of data processing falls the TPS can increase while maintaining the same level of decentralization.

In one of the infinite universes, yes I am

How do you define "almost" in terms of infinity when infinity itself has no upper boundary?  You don't know where infinity "stops" (because it doesn't), so you can never know if you are almost there or not.

The definition of infinity is abstract, so its impossible to quantify it in a non-abstract manner as "virtually" attempts to do

technically the term is correct too:


and how do you know the universe isn't infinite? are you Satoshi our god?

technically it cant scale to infinity at all, because that would require more energy than there is in an infinite number of universes.  Its very frustrating how the word "infinite" is thrown around without any understanding of what it means and the implications of such.

A more correct term would be "unbounded", or "unlimited", which suggest exactly what it is, there are no limits imposed by the protocol.

I think the correct term for Monero is not "infinite TPS" but "virtually infinite TPS", it can scale to infinity but it doesnt mean you can make an infinite number or even a ridiculously big number of transactions right now all of a sudden.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, purely because I think one of us is not understanding what the other is trying to convey.

Good talk though

Actually in the 1940's and up to the 1970's the primary methods of transactions were cash and other bearer instruments so nobody had to verify any ledger since there was no ledger to verify. It was simply too expensive to have even one entity doing the verification. With the more widespread availability of mainframe computers in the 1970's data processing costs came down and it became viable to have centralized ledgers so the widespread use of credit cards and in the 1990's debit cards became possible. Now as data processing costs have further come down it is becoming viable to have decentralized ledgers such as Bitcoin, Monero etc.

I really must emphasize that a historical perspective over the last 50 years and going back 200 years or more is critical to properly understand this issue.

Block & transaction data is high entropy, if you compress it, it takes up more space.

You can compress some sets of 100 bytes to < 100 bytes, but most sets of 100 bytes will compress to > 100 bytes.  Thus, all sets of 100 bytes, always require 100 bytes

not if we compress the data at least

I'm not suggesting it should be crippled, merely that it can only live within its technological means due to its architecture at that moment in time.  The architecture imposes its own limits because of the lack of available resources to perform better, or conversely, the resources available (or lack of) impose the limits onto Bitcoin.   This doesn't cripple anything, because over time as the resources available increase (or efficiency increases), Bitcoin is able to take advantage of them.

The same is for any currency, be it Bitcoin, Nxt, and others, they are limited in operation by the efficiency of the resources demanded by the implementation, at that moment in time.

There is no way to work around the resource limits available at any one moment in time in a vertical manner, which is the problem here with these "high TPS currencies", be it bandwidth, processing, storage...you can only be as efficient as the most efficient available resources will allow...past that, you have to start chopping things out and reduce the work load.

I'm sure that VISA didn't have 1 person verifying and doing all those punch card transactions, they had many, so it didn't matter that the resources available to do it were extremely inefficient.  

Block chains are like that scenario of just having 1 person, no matter how many nodes you have everyone of them is verifying the same data as everyone else, which is exactly the same (in terms of performance) as having just one verifying all the data.

Yes but one cannot justify crippling Bitcoin to the current technology for ever. Furthermore many of us are looking at Bitcoin for its future rather than present value. Even over the life of Bitcoin we have a significant example. The cost of sending 1MB of data at the start of 2009 is the same as sending 21 MB of data in mid 2016. It is called Nielsen's Law http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

To come to the VISA example should credit cards not have been launched in the 1940's because it was not possible to scale to the levels of the VISA network of today with the punch card and tabulating machine technology of the day?

Edit: One the subject of the iWatch V10 it could easily process 100k TPS or more in 50 years, but only the 100k TPS that is approved by the censor board at Apple. This is because of the DRM in the device.

Ok, that is technological advancement, and the resource requirements at any moment in time may be less than they were before.  I have little doubt that in 50 years time, my iWatch V10 can process 100k TPS with ease, but that is not the issue I was raising and your response also sidesteps away from your original statement which I countered.

My point was that as of today, it is not possible to achieve 100k TPS on a block chain, without using tricks and hacks, yet maintain the true nature of what crypto-currency is meant to be.  The resources required to do that vertically is too great, in 10-20-50 years time it may not be the case, but everyone wants this now, not in 50 years.

The critical question is that amount of resources that are consumed rather than the amount of data that is processed. Take for example the first hard drive developed by IBM in 1956. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/90156-the-history-of-computer-storage-slideshow/6 Now compare this with a modern 1TB SSD drive. The latter can handle  200,000 times as much data while using a minuscule fraction of the resources.

The math is actually very simple if the exponential rate of data growth is less than the exponential decline on the resources required to handle say 100 bytes of data, then the amount of resources is actually falling at an exponential rate.

Edit 1: I was born in 1957 so I have experienced this relationship between data and resources for my entire life.

Edit 2: The 5MB hard drive in 1956 was far less sustainable and far more centralizing than the 1TB SSD is today.