Topic: Faster bitcoin transaction times (Read 12324 times)

Currently we do see an issue with many transactions clogging the queue. Could we convert the wallets to broadcast anyone can pay transactions so that any wallet that sees the transactions could append to it? That would mean many people could accomplish all of their moving in single lump transactions. Perhaps just by letting anyone can pay transactions be rebroadcast and used if available is a better solution. Could that also be a great method of mitigating dust attacks on top of keeping the minimum send amount?

Try putting up a donation address or something. You might be surprised. (It won't come from me as I'm just as "poor" as you are.)

This is still early times for both BTC and NXT. My money's on BTC though.

Appreciate it, the problem is that if I'm implementing this nto someone else's coin, they are making money and I'm not.. because I didn't get in on the ground floor. the only way that I can see to make real money with it seems to be to start my own coin.. But there are already too many as it is, in my opinion.

But maybe the name recognition alone is enough.

Thank for treating me with respect.. I was on the fence about whether or not to patent or pursue anything like that. NXT community was encouraging me not to actually. But I was thinking about it.. and you know the biggest reason I want to pursue it? This thread, being called a troll, being told I don't know anything, etc. But if my initial reception had been closer to Dabs, might've freely shared the idea.. honestly, I'd prefer to just talk openly about it and bounce it around with others.. But there is something to be said for trying to make some money of it.. and for not wanting to help out Bitcoin if type this is the reception I get.


It isn't exactly the kind of thing you do overnight.. But again, thank you for providing me more incentive to try to jump through the hoops and hassle and spend the money to try to patent.

Exactly. We should just ignore the guy, we're feeding the troll. He'd be building something if he had anything worthwhile or the money to waste on patents.

Linux is open source.
Bitcoin is open source.
LibreOffice is a multiplatform open-source office suite.

I'm sure I can give you hundreds more examples. Each of those projects are "free to download and use" but the developers have happy lives and are being compensated somehow.

In the beginning, open source software looked like a saintly gift. Programmers would work hard, then give away the fruits of their labor to anyone who wanted it. Everyone would benefit from this act of pure charity.

Over time, however, companies realized they could make money and give away the software at the same time. They could do well by doing good. This wasn't a shock to some of the original open source advocates -- it was how some intended it to be. Richard Stallman, for one, always said that "free speech" was more important to him than "free beer." He embraced the idea that companies could charge anything they like -- as long as the user could fiddle with the code and distribute the result.

There is a common misconception that there is no money in open source software. It is true that open source code is free to download. But when it comes to making money you should think of this as an opportunity rather than a limitation.

    Businesses who make money in open source software include:

    MySQL (now owned by Oracle): Popular relational database.
    Red Hat: Major distributor of Linux for server and desktop use.
    WordPress: Widely used blogging platform.
    SugarCRM: Business customer relations management.
    Magento: E-commerce shopping platform.
    Zimbra: E-mail and messaging server.


If your idea is truly worth something, even if you give it away for free, you will surely get compensated somehow. I don't know how.

If it's not, then no one will pay for it anyway.


Reference: (parts of the above text can be found here)
https://www.cio.com.au/article/528999/greed_good_9_open_source_secrets_making_money/
http://opensource.about.com/od/basics/tp/5-Ways-To-Make-Money-With-Open-Source-Software.htm

I will pay you not to post anymore. 

So I'm supposed to spend months of my life working for free?  Don't get me wrong I like crypto but I want to make some money.  I was pretty excited about sharing the idea..tell you what.

Anyone willing to pay me not to patent the idea? lol  I'll share the idea with you first given a non-disclosure agreement.

Quite true. If Bitcoin had been patented it would have been a total flop, and thus no alt-coins would have been created.

I was hoping they'd have published their results by now. That'd be the shorter route. I'll see if I can get something on paper.

For now you can check out the slide deck(which is frankly pretty easy to understand): https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nVGCU6MDdLad8yOAmNWDbCUqXerq5Ss1B5J7AcLmZ1w/edit#slide=id.p13

edit: for me slide 66 is the money shot. Shows how changing to 2 or 5 minute block time would make 10% pools significantly less variant in returns. (and makes it harder to hide selfish mining style attacks, etc)

Perhaps but global consensus is inherently slow. There have been many good proposals for faster transactions which don't require a global consensus, and so they can achieve speeds that no global consensus system can achieve.

Now that the discussion on side chains is more advanced, it looks like a side chain with faster block times could help with this. If it's merged-mined with bitcoin then it could be secure enough for smaller and faster tx.
You would have some money for everyday use on the fast side chain.

Who is this "Bitcoin" that would have "patented the blockchain"?

With Bitcoin, anything above zero is extremely unreasonable. It's supposed to be open source.

I think the part about 10 second transactions is called "transaction confidence". It's just a few simple rules to follow and easily check:

1. check the transaction if it has the minimum tx fee.
2. check if there are no double spend attempts seen on the network within 10 seconds.
3. check how many nodes have relayed this particular transaction.

Even with an orphaned block or two, I have seen many such "valid" transactions get included in all blocks concerned.

As for the BTC vs NXT thing, well, if BTC is more expensive, then its harder to attack, right?

Well.. maybe if Bitcoin had patented the blockchain we wouln't have all these scammy coins you are talking about. lol

You are both saying that other competing systems have ripped off Bitcoin.. then saying that normally inventions are are invented in parallel.  If I truly had the best instant transaction system and it worked, the Bitcoin would copy it right?  If I had a strong patent, then they couldn't, correct?  That is the purpose.  Yes, it is possible for parallel invention to occur and that is not the intended purpose of patents to block.  But that is not the purpose of a patent.

But seriously.. Bitcoin has dismissed Proof of Stake, so another group of people stepped up to try to show that it could be done securely.. that doesn't make alt coins scammy.  If he didn't want alt coins around, then Satoshi shouldn't have released Bitcoin open source.

And yes, the work is internal to the blockchain BUT as long as you have the correct genesis block, you can check it all on your own.  Somewhere along the way someone would've had to cheat the system otherwise.  I will agree that it makes trimming the blockchain harder to do.. but not impossible.  Not to the point where it can't be done securely.

I will grant you that some of the proof of stake security enhancements do use information that requires a little bit of trust but once you are up and running and sure you are on the correct branch, then you will continue along that branch, even in the face of an ~90% attack on the network.

Anyway, clearly you and I have moral compasses and looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on the patent issue.  I'm not intending to use it to block Bitcoin from anything or chrage extremely unreasonable rates or anything like that.

Your first post in this thread was advertising that NXT was implementing an unspecified, undescribed, instant transaction system which you have/are patenting.  Your posting history and signature are plugging NXT in many inappropriate places.

That isn't what a patent does. A patent invokes the state to prohibit people from freely communicating and acting on ideas which they invented completely independently of you. It grants you a monopoly ownership over an idea and, in the rare cases where they're actually successful (as mentioned a _majority_ of patents lose claims on review), allows you to extract rent from others who have worked hard to invent and build the infrastructure that your work rests on.

Funny, you're surely not expressing it. Instead you're promoting competing systems which have ripped off ideas from Bitcoin (and broken them), and claim to be working on extensions which you plan to exclusively control for your personal profit.  Foolishly too, since as I've mentioned: we have decades of experience that patents completely suppress the adoption of cryptosystems, even very useful and powerful ones (like Chaum's invention of digital cash).

Why would I have? If you wanted to discuss an idea you would have. Instead you wanted to promote NXT and try to ring up customers for your patent based purely on the promises that it will do something useful. I'm not interested in giving you free review for you to further go and turn a private profit off my back and the backs of others who worked for years (and even decades) inventing the things you just learner about in the last few months... though you should review my very first response to you: "If your idea is actually useful, you should make it available publicly where it can be reviewed and refined and have some chance of adoption and building your professional credibility."

You can't stop me from doing so, any patent application will be made public, My ability to make your patent commercially worthless is not reduced. All keeping what you're doing now secret accomplishes is reducing the risk that someone points out the the ideas are old (thus making it harder for you to engage in the inequitable conduct of hiding the actual prior art), or that they're unsound (stifling your ability to pump NXT or sell the ideas to an unsophisticated buyer).

This isn't true. Please take the time to actually read Andrew's paper on this.  One of the points that you're missing is that "50% of the forging power" is defined _inside_ the chain and is meaningless outside of it, so your security definition is circular. Likewise, any probabilistic process repeated enough times where only one success is required tends to probability one, there is no reasonably retying limit external to the system, so the protection is, again, circular.

No, if you were actually offered to do these things you would have actually helped instead of bragging about vaporware proprietary technology, which you helpfully provided no details on except to promote NXT. Give it up.

I've worked full time for close to 20 years doing good and valuable work on technology that has helped people solve real problems, much of it shared with the public, and none of it abusively encumbering the ideas and work of third parties via patents (rather, I've done a fair amount of patent busting along the way). I'm not asking here for money from anyone because I don't need to, I've made money by doing work and not preventing other people from working, and as a result I don't need any more (though more is always appreciated and put to good uses). I don't begrudge you for wanting to get paid: good work deserves pay, but locking up ideas isn't work, and it doesn't deserve pay-- quite the opposite. Instead, it marks you as a wanna-be-thief in my book who would seek to profits of my own efforts and would use litigation to prevent me from inventing on my own... you could ask people to pay you to work on useful things, but given the approach that you're taking I, for one, would rather pay someone who has better ethics.

If you care to propose something technical, feel free to start a new thread. Otherwise, you're in the wrong subforum. Cheers.

I was saying that this algorithm was something that Bitcoin could use as well.. yes, I happened to mention Nxt.  It's a great coin.  You insulted it, so I defended it.  I was not going out of my way to advertise it.  In fact I specifically said I was implementing it there first as a test case.. though to be honest it's because it's a great coin, with a great community, and because I promised them I'd implement it and I want to stay true to my word.  Also because I have received a lot of help from the Nxt community with this idea, so I feel it's fair to give back.  I haven't gotten any help from Bitcoin on this project.. I don't feel I need to give them my idea for free. And yes, my signature does advertise Nxt.  Because it's a great coin that doesn't get the credit it deserves and I want people to see that there are supporters out there.  Just because this isn't a Nxt thread doesn't mean that I should sit back, as you attack Nxt and not defend it.

A patent isn't an attack, it's a protection to make sure that I don't do the hard work so someone else can profit off of it. Just because nobody else around here is patenting things, doesn't make it a bad thing.  I'm grateful that a lot of work has been done in this field by people who are truly committed, but yes I want to make money off of my ideas.  I've only been out of college a few years, and I love the idea of being an entrepreneur and helping make the world a better place.  That doesn't

And you notice that you never just asked what the idea is?  But yes after you announce that you want to help invalidate my potential patent, then I don't exactly feel like sharing the idea with you and helping you do so.

And the issue with 'Nothing at stake' is that everyone argues that you could forged you could forge along multiple chains.  But in order to do that you have to get a stronger chain than the competition to have the network accept it or else they will discard it. In order to do this, probabilistically 50+% of the forging power would have to participate in this to sustain it for any reasonable about of time.  So yes, you do need a majority of the forging power to participate.  There are other attacks as well.

If this is the kind of reception Come-From-Beyond recieved, then I don't blame him for not having a great attitude.  Maybe something got lost due to this being done via text instead of in person.  I'm defending myself and the coin I'm involved with, I have not criticized Bitcoin or attacked you, and in fact was offering to help out by fixing one of Bitcoin's biggest problems.  You mean while have implied I'm a parasite, called alt-coins scammy, insulted my intelligence, etc.

And no, I didn't 'pay a single bitcent' for your knowledge.. I spent months and months working and thinking and trying to solve a problem, which is a form of payment itself.

If you have really done this much great work, you should ask the Bitcoin Foundation or people if you can be paid for it.  How do you keep yourself alive off for years off of the donations of a dozen Bitcoins?

If someone else thinks I'm being unreasonable there, please tell me so.

Transcribe it. Watching an hour long video intended for a general audience is too much to ask given zero information.

You keep making claims that strongly support that you don't know what you're talking about; e.g. the completely brain-dead claim that there is an assumption of majority of participants in the problems with PoS.  Perhaps you do actually understand things, if so, kudos to you. But it certainly doesn't appear to be the case... and it would surprise me genuinely consider that past inquiries to NXT's creators (like come from beyond) for even simple things like "What are your security assumptions?" have resulted in technobabble and even threats.

Considering that fact that you're yabbering on about NXT (in the wrong subforum) and patents without even bothering to disclose the idea it's seeming to me it's just more garbage altcoin hype. I used to be more tolerate of this stuff, but my patience is wearing out after encountering the 1000th person to pull this kind of nonsense.

You realize that you're continuing to demonstrate poor character here, right?  The only purpose not disclosing your grand idea at this point serves is to preserve hype in order to profit from asset speculators or fools who would pay you for an unsound unreviewed idea (when they can get neigh-infinite unsound ideas just going through the forum history).

Feel free to try to justify your abusive behaviour because you feel slighted by me personally if it helps you sleep at night... but everyone else knows that you and only you are responsible for your actions.

I'll address history key attacks as well, which I assume is what you are talking about.  Nxt has thought of those as well and has solutions.

Please stop trying to make me out like I don't know what I'm talking about.

You know, if you'd had a reasonable discussion with me, instead of dinging my reputation, and believing that there is no way that I could possibly understand how blockchains work..  you may have actually been able to convince me not to patent.  A discussion might change my mind.. but putting me down and telling me I don't "understand basic technology"? Forget about it. Back to work on the patent.

I will agree that there are a lot of generous people in this field.  You also realize that you have no idea how much I'm willing to sell it for.  I wasn't planning on being unreasonable but if this is the kind of reception I get?  I actually thought that I was being helpful to Bitcoin by announcing that I've solved one of your biggest problems.

Sure, let me finish up this patent and as soon as it's patent pending I can throw something up and let people analyze it and attack it.