Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 210.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: solex on June 21, 2015, 01:06:54 AM

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:06:22 PM

If anyone can see a mistake in the above chart, please let me know. I'd like to post it to r/bitcoin once I'm confident it's correct.

Another great chart Peter.

One suggestion. Please mention IBLT because by the time 16MB blocks are being mined they will likely be taking up just 500KB of bandwidth overhead to propagate.

Just as during the 1MB debate so many people kept confusing the block size limit as the average block size, so is the case with Gavin's doubling schedule. These big block sizes are disk block sizes, the bandwidth-using blocks will be far smaller.

Full blocks will only need to be sent between nodes on resync and bootstrapping, not a normal state for most nodes. Even then, future Bitsat-type blockchain download services should mean that nodes catching up have a faster option than relying on terrestrial broadband.

Well if he's gonna mention IBLT he might as well mention pruning because that is now. As in available now and probably in the next release. That's almost more exciting to me. I'm looking to add about a dozen more XT nodes to my portfolio once I figure out how to set that set up.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 21, 2015, 01:00:01 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 10:54:06 PM

And that's precisely why we need to keep all those TX's on the mainchain.

That can't be overstated, Bitcoin won't / can't securely scale if those fees move somewhere else.
Federated Sidechains are ok as people trust the server owner enough to do business with them, there is a balance risk reward.

But changing the Bitcoin rules to make tools to move those fees of the blockchain and calling it an upgrade to the Bitcoin protocol is short sited or just plain evil.

Unless the mining on the side chain does not require fees (which can be accomplished in numerous ways!), in which case, maybe it wasn't going to be paid on the Core chain either.

Remember you all want unlimited size blocks right? So that means transaction fees should approach 0 (as the cost of bandwidth and CPU is probably insignificant).

And you are thus encouraging a power vacuum where cartels and monopolies come to raise scarcity and pricing.

All this shit is way more complex than all the silly, simpleton "sound bite" summaries.

solex

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1006

100 satoshis -> ISO code

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:06:22 PM

If anyone can see a mistake in the above chart, please let me know. I'd like to post it to r/bitcoin once I'm confident it's correct.

Another great chart Peter.

One suggestion. Is it worth mentioning IBLT because by the time 16MB blocks are being mined they will likely be taking up just 500KB of bandwidth overhead to propagate. Obviously the real-time unconfirmed transaction overhead does remain. and is large long-term.

Just as during the 1MB debate so many people kept confusing the block size limit as the average block size, so is the case with Gavin's doubling schedule. These big block sizes are disk block sizes, the bandwidth-using blocks will be far smaller.

Full blocks will only need to be sent between nodes on resync and bootstrapping, not a normal state for most nodes. Even then, future Bitsat-type blockchain download services should mean that nodes catching up have a faster option than relying on terrestrial broadband.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 10:54:06 PM

And that's precisely why we need to keep all those TX's on the mainchain.

That can't be overstated, Bitcoin won't / can't securely scale if those fees move somewhere else.
Federated Sidechains are ok as people trust the server owner enough to do business with them, there is a balance risk reward.

But changing the Bitcoin rules to make tools to move those fees of the blockchain and calling it an upgrade to the Bitcoin protocol is short sited or just plain evil.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 21, 2015, 12:46:54 AM

Smooth, you've made a good point about spam however how do we weigh up the trade offs between limiting money velocity and spam?

I think you may have slightly misunderstood my point. It isn't that spam itself needs to be limited, it is that the system is vulnerable to a sort of denial of service from having too much data (whether that happens to be spam or "real" data, although obviously spam is less desirable) stuffed into it. Satoshi made a judgement at one time that 1 MB was an appropriate limit based on that vulnerability, considering the state of the technology, storage, propagation, etc.. What is the evidence for that vulnerability being sufficiently smaller now or in the near future that a 8x or 20x or 1000x is appropriate instead?

I'm sorry but I just see a lot of wishful thinking going on. Of course, we all want it to scale, but instead of actually improving how it scales, the proposal today is to simply push back the safety limit and change not much else. (A bit like ripping out the airbags and safety belts from a car to cut weight and make it go faster.)

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: electerium on June 21, 2015, 12:51:43 AM

Similarly, because 95% has been mined, I am not so sure that people will use bitcoin over an altcoin as a means of p2p transfer. It's supply in 2024 will be far too small to facilitate hundreds of million of people buying in to actually use it. Because by 2024, either the legacy rail has taken over and bitcoin is far too expensive relative to it's supply OR, it will not have happened and bitcoin will be worth nothing. Perhaps this is too simplistic an argument to make, but 10 years is not actually very long.

It didnt use to concern me, but it does now.

Unless they are given BTC loans. The masses have always used leveraged money (fractional reserves) and not real money, because the capitalists have all the real money.

The real game here is not changing whether the masses will use leveraged money. (nothing will ever change that)

It is the game of protecting the (knowledge age) capitalists from the State (industrial age capitalists+masses).

I have argued that a Knowledge Age is replacing the Industrial Age and the age of high fixed capital is being replaced by active knowledge. Knowledge capitalists don't want to be dictated to by a State because it is incompatible with knowledge production.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 21, 2015, 12:42:00 AM

It's been clear to me by my reading if the news that for quite a while now traditional institutions have been laughing at us because of our miserable 2-3 TX/'s bottleneck.

Bitcoin can in theory give them very high Txs/sec (and Txs/block) by centralizing the mining onto to higher powered miners.

They may not care when that centralization leads to mandatory KYC tags for all transactions on the block chain due to regulatory capture of hosted mining.

Some other individuals will care about privacy and be pissed off that Bitcoin became another fiat, and they will leave to coin that can remain decentralized and anonymous.

electerium

full member

Activity: 179

Merit: 100

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 21, 2015, 12:42:00 AM

Quote from: electerium on June 21, 2015, 12:33:38 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 21, 2015, 12:29:01 AM

Quote from: electerium on June 21, 2015, 12:21:42 AM

by 2024, over 94% of all bitcoins will be completely mined.

the supply curve is too sharp for us to legitimately argue that by 2024, whereby we reach paypal level of TXs that 30,000 tx/s will be reachable solely by people exchanging value. We will undoubtedly need some existing legacy rail (e.g. Banking & financial institution & stock/equities) to be entirely placed on the blockchain to justify this harsh supply curve. In other words, relatively speaking, today's bitcoin's fundamentals lags far (1 order of magnitude) behind where we actually stand in today's supply curve.

This to me is very very concerning because it will pigeon hole bitcoin's pathways to massive value.

Why do you think Nasdaq and NYSE are poking around the tech right now? Today's announcement is great news for them.

Welcome to Bitcoin!

hello cypher,

excuse my ignorance, but can you link me to the news? I cant find anything new from nyse/nasdaq.

I know that they are using colored coins on the bitcoin network to track pre-IPO stock transfers as a pilot program, but i havent heard anything new since.

No, nothing new.

Just the fact that they are experimenting with colored coins is a great sign. It's been clear to me by my reading if the news that for quite a while now traditional institutions have been laughing at us because of our miserable 2-3 TX/'s bottleneck. I'm sure they are laughing at the infighting as well.

But Gavin's announcement is sticking tight to the top of reddit and is the beginning of a new dawn for Bitcoin. It's a clear signal that we are going to make an attempt to drive this thing hard. They won't be laughing any longer.

Ok, and I also think those programs are insanely beneficial for the odds of a Winklevoss ETF kicking off.

But the supply curve really worries me. By 2024, the entire earth will be blanketed with wifi.

I do not think that you can justify people buying into a commodity that is 95% mined and only real hope is for a legacy rail to take over it. That's strictly from an investment perspective

Similarly, because 95% has been mined, I am not so sure that people will use bitcoin over an altcoin as a means of p2p transfer. It's supply in 2024 will be far too small to facilitate hundreds of million of people buying in to actually use it. Because by 2024, either the legacy rail has taken over and bitcoin is far too expensive relative to it's supply OR, it will not have happened and bitcoin will be worth nothing. Perhaps this is too simplistic an argument to make, but 10 years is not actually very long.

It didnt use to concern me, but it does now.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:06:22 PM

Quote from: smooth on June 20, 2015, 09:52:06 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 09:47:09 PM

5 yr after 1MB, the network is much bigger, stronger, and more resilient.

Is the capacity of the network to handle large blocks 8x bigger, or 20x bigger? Is there a high degree of confidence that it can handle 1000x bigger blocks in 15 years?

I suspect the answer is yes. Here's what it might look like graphically:

If anyone can see a mistake in the above chart, please let me know. I'd like to post it to r/bitcoin once I'm confident it's correct.

It looks awesome.
I would like to see one more white label. The introduction of the 1MB limit to limit spam.

Smooth, you've made a good point about spam however how do we weigh up the trade offs between limiting money velocity and spam?

On that note if I look at Peter's graphic the space available for spam was relatively high after the introduction of the limit and orders of magnitude greater back then that with the 8MB jump.

On a gut level I'd go with a limit until we have a 6.25 BTC block reward, until then I see transaction fees as inconsequential the motive is smaller blocks that propagate fast, and later once block subsidies have diminished there is a pressure to include and optimize fees.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: electerium on June 21, 2015, 12:33:38 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 21, 2015, 12:29:01 AM

Quote from: electerium on June 21, 2015, 12:21:42 AM

by 2024, over 94% of all bitcoins will be completely mined.

the supply curve is too sharp for us to legitimately argue that by 2024, whereby we reach paypal level of TXs that 30,000 tx/s will be reachable solely by people exchanging value. We will undoubtedly need some existing legacy rail (e.g. Banking & financial institution & stock/equities) to be entirely placed on the blockchain to justify this harsh supply curve. In other words, relatively speaking, today's bitcoin's fundamentals lags far (1 order of magnitude) behind where we actually stand in today's supply curve.

This to me is very very concerning because it will pigeon hole bitcoin's pathways to massive value.

Why do you think Nasdaq and NYSE are poking around the tech right now? Today's announcement is great news for them.

Welcome to Bitcoin!

hello cypher,

excuse my ignorance, but can you link me to the news? I cant find anything new from nyse/nasdaq.

I know that they are using colored coins on the bitcoin network to track pre-IPO stock transfers as a pilot program, but i havent heard anything new since.

No, nothing new.

Just the fact that they are experimenting with colored coins is a great sign. It's been clear to me by my reading if the news that for quite a while now traditional institutions have been laughing at us because of our miserable 2-3 TX/'s bottleneck. I'm sure they are laughing at the infighting as well.

But Gavin's announcement is sticking tight to the top of reddit and is the beginning of a new dawn for Bitcoin. It's a clear signal that we are going to make an attempt to drive this thing hard. They won't be laughing any longer.

electerium

full member

Activity: 179

Merit: 100

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 21, 2015, 12:29:01 AM

Quote from: electerium on June 21, 2015, 12:21:42 AM

by 2024, over 94% of all bitcoins will be completely mined.

the supply curve is too sharp for us to legitimately argue that by 2024, whereby we reach paypal level of TXs that 30,000 tx/s will be reachable solely by people exchanging value. We will undoubtedly need some existing legacy rail (e.g. Banking & financial institution & stock/equities) to be entirely placed on the blockchain to justify this harsh supply curve. In other words, relatively speaking, today's bitcoin's fundamentals lags far (1 order of magnitude) behind where we actually stand in today's supply curve.

This to me is very very concerning because it will pigeon hole bitcoin's pathways to massive value.

Why do you think Nasdaq and NYSE are poking around the tech right now? Today's announcement is great news for them.

Welcome to Bitcoin!

hello cypher,

excuse my ignorance, but can you link me to the news? I cant find anything new from nyse/nasdaq.

I know that they are using colored coins on the bitcoin network to track pre-IPO stock transfers as a pilot program, but i havent heard anything new since.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: electerium on June 21, 2015, 12:21:42 AM

by 2024, over 94% of all bitcoins will be completely mined.

the supply curve is too sharp for us to legitimately argue that by 2024, whereby we reach paypal level of TXs that 30,000 tx/s will be reachable solely by people exchanging value. We will undoubtedly need some existing legacy rail (e.g. Banking & financial institution & stock/equities) to be entirely placed on the blockchain to justify this harsh supply curve. In other words, relatively speaking, today's bitcoin's fundamentals lags far (1 order of magnitude) behind where we actually stand in today's supply curve.

This to me is very very concerning because it will pigeon hole bitcoin's pathways to massive value.

Why do you think Nasdaq and NYSE are poking around the tech right now? Today's announcement is great news for them.

Welcome to Bitcoin!

electerium

full member

Activity: 179

Merit: 100

by 2024, over 94% of all bitcoins will be completely mined.

the supply curve is too sharp for us to legitimately argue that by 2024, whereby we reach paypal level of TXs that 30,000 tx/s will be reachable solely by people exchanging value. We will undoubtedly need some existing legacy rail (e.g. Banking & financial institution & stock/equities) to be entirely placed on the blockchain to justify this harsh supply curve. In other words, relatively speaking, today's bitcoin's fundamentals lags far (1 order of magnitude) behind where we actually stand in today's supply curve.

This to me is very very concerning because it will pigeon hole bitcoin's pathways to massive value.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 21, 2015, 12:09:30 AM

The truth is that both smaller and larger blocks will destroy low valued transactions unless centralization is achieved.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:06:22 PM

Quote from: smooth on June 20, 2015, 09:52:06 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 09:47:09 PM

5 yr after 1MB, the network is much bigger, stronger, and more resilient.

Is the capacity of the network to handle large blocks 8x bigger, or 20x bigger? Is there a high degree of confidence that it can handle 1000x bigger blocks in 15 years?

I suspect the answer is yes. Here's what it might look like graphically:

If anyone can see a mistake in the above chart, please let me know. I'd like to post it to r/bitcoin once I'm confident it's correct.

(Please ignore PM. For some reason right after I sent it your chart rendered correctly.)

The mistakes (at least questionable assumptions) I see:

1. There is nothing in the chart that relates the growth rate to any underlying technological limits at all. It is like a chart of global population extrapolating unlimited growth forward without any consideration of food supply, water, population density, etc.

2. Why would you increase the slope starting now? If anything one should be conservative about sustainable growth rates going forward relative to the past, in the absence of clear knowledge of what scaling bottlenecks might exist.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 11:09:18 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 10:58:55 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:35:16 PM

to achieve the same security ignoring transaction fees. $8,000 / BTC is a very modest price if we assume this level of growth.

In 2032, how do you know $1 won't be worth a $0.01 in current purchasing power?

I think it was implied that I meant 2015 $s.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 10:58:55 PM

My point was never about absolute values but relative weight of transaction value versus debasement value. You entirely missed my point, as indicated below...

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:35:16 PM

If there's 2,000 TPS in 2032, that's 1.2 million transactions per block...Any way you slice it, if we assume continued growth, the network security should be greater in 2032 than now.

The point of my logic was not about whether we would have network security, rather whether we would have decentralization.

Why do you always construct strawmen and lose the plot?

Your exact words:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 10:09:07 PM

Visa level right about when the debasement becomes so miniscule it has essentially stopped funding mining…

I showed that the block subsidy would very likely not be "so minuscule it has essentially stopped funding mining."

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 10:09:07 PM

...and the effect of block variance on delays due to nominal transaction fees will destroy any remaining decentralization Bitcoin.

^ I couldn't parse this statement.

Do you have a point?

"essentially stopped funding mining" means relative to transaction fees as pertains to the logic I presented that block size variance's effect on "transaction delays" due to fees will grow as transaction fees are relatively more of the nominal revenue relative to debasement by 2032.

Are you an engineer? You have very low reading comprehension. You are not able to apply the logic from a prior post to a subsequent one to understand the context.

You can still can't parse that last quote given the context?

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 07:45:01 PM

I was going to ask for a link to his analysis of side chains, until I read that myopic "analysis" on the block size limit.

Did this guy every hear of arbitrage? If the market is undervaluing the peg, then there is an incentive to trade back to main chain, vice versa back to side chain. The technical peg insures that arbitrage will destroy any deviation. NuBits only has an algorithmic (qualified) arbitrage peg to $USD and it appears to working. An absolute technical peg is even stronger.

http://bit.ly/1wlut8a
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k9fcp/pdf_on_sidechains_sidechained_bitcoin_substitutes/

Quote

Whenever   an SBS changes hands through a transfer   of control on its own
sidechain,
  it
  should
  be
  expected
  to
  do
  so
  at
  some

floating

market
  rate
(
barring

legal
   price

controls)
.
   However,
   this
rate
may
   well

not
perfectly
   match

current

m
arket
  rates
  for
  bitcoin,
  that
  is,

an
SBS’s
  technical
  conversion
  rate
with
  bitcoin
may
  not

be
the
  sole
  factor

influencing
its

market
  rate.
The
se
rates

could
match,

but

the
grounds
  for
  assum
ing
  that
  they
  actually
  would

in
  any
  given
  case
do
  not

seem
  compelling
.
T
he
  two
-‐
way
  peg
,
  while
  certainly

expected
  to
  be

a
  large
  valuation
  factor,
coexists

with

other

complex
   discounting
and
   premium
factors
.
   These
   could
   combine
to
result
   in
   each

SBS
trading
   at
   a
market
rate
that

diverges
   from
   that
   of
bitcoin
within
  some
  unpredictable
  and

changing
range
.
Each
  SBS

might

likewise
differ
  in

current
   market

value
   from
   each
   other

o

Melbustus

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1004

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 10:54:06 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:35:16 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 10:09:07 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:06:22 PM

Visa level right about when the debasement becomes so miniscule it has essentially stopped funding mining and the effect of block variance on delays due to nominal transaction fees will destroy any remaining decentralization Bitcoin.

Realize the miner cares about nominal not the percentage of the value you are transacting.
...

Let's talk nominal:

Right now, the block reward is 25 BTC x $250 / BTC = $6250. In 2032, the inflation rate should be be 0.78 BTC / block. Each bitcoin would then need to be worth

$6250 / 0.78 BTC = $8,000 / BTC

to achieve the same security ignoring transaction fees. $8,000 / BTC is a very modest price if we assume this level of growth.

But transaction fees would no longer be negligible and will help improve security too. If there's 2,000 TPS in 2032, that's 1.2 million transactions per block. Ignoring the block reward now, the average fee required to maintain the current level of security is:

$6250 / 1,200,000 txs = 0.5 cents / tx.

This is a very affordable fee, and still gives the same security level as today even ignoring the block reward.

Any way you slice it, if we assume continued growth, the network security should be greater in 2032 than now.

And that's precisely why we need to keep all those TX's on the mainchain.

+1.

As an aside, it's amusing that people like Pierre Rochard and Tim Swanson are essentially both trolling on the same side of the argument. Pierre wants to use the blocksize to throttle transactions and artificially jack up fees for the sake of security, which is effectively the same argument that perpetual-concern-troll Swanson makes in his overlong and tedious diatribes against the fact that bitcoin's security is (currently) effectively subsidized by inflation.

Some variant of the above calcs would show plenty of viable future equilibrium conditions for bitcoin where mining is paid for by transaction fees at security levels higher than today's.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 10:58:55 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:35:16 PM

to achieve the same security ignoring transaction fees. $8,000 / BTC is a very modest price if we assume this level of growth.

In 2032, how do you know $1 won't be worth a $0.01 in current purchasing power?

I think it was implied that I meant 2015 $s.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 10:58:55 PM

My point was never about absolute values but relative weight of transaction value versus debasement value. You entirely missed my point, as indicated below...

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:35:16 PM

If there's 2,000 TPS in 2032, that's 1.2 million transactions per block...Any way you slice it, if we assume continued growth, the network security should be greater in 2032 than now.

The point of my logic was not about whether we would have network security, rather whether we would have decentralization.

Why do you always construct strawmen and lose the plot?

Your exact words:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 10:09:07 PM

Visa level right about when the debasement becomes so miniscule it has essentially stopped funding mining…

I showed that the block subsidy would very likely not be "so minuscule it has essentially stopped funding mining."

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 10:09:07 PM

...and the effect of block variance on delays due to nominal transaction fees will destroy any remaining decentralization Bitcoin.

^ I couldn't parse this statement.

Do you have a point?

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:35:16 PM

Let's talk nominal:

I was writing about the nominal amount of each transaction fee, in that smaller transactions will pay a higher percentage to match the same nominal value as a larger valued transaction.

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:35:16 PM

to achieve the same security ignoring transaction fees. $8,000 / BTC is a very modest price if we assume this level of growth.

In 2032, how do you know $1 won't be worth a $0.01 in current purchasing power?

My point was never about absolute values but relative weight of transaction value versus debasement value. You entirely missed my point, as indicated below...

Quote from: Peter R on June 20, 2015, 10:35:16 PM

If there's 2,000 TPS in 2032, that's 1.2 million transactions per block...

Any way you slice it, if we assume continued growth, the network security should be greater in 2032 than now.

The point of my logic was not about whether we would have network security, rather whether we would have decentralization.

Why do you always construct strawmen and lose the plot?

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 10:54:06 PM

And that's precisely why we need to keep all those TX's on the mainchain.

So you can kill decentralization.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 210. (Read 2032248 times)