Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 211.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

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.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

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.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

and since we're on the topic of large miners with good connections causing increased centralization by disadvantaging small miners, how about the argument that SC's exacerbates mining centralization b/c these exact large miners with better connections are the only ones who can do all the merge mining required to secure SC's?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 10:15:35 PM

wow, another beautiful graph from PeterR.

looks good to me.

Gatekeeper just had to post some noise to hide my prior post.

you are the noise.

Skype address please.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

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.

wow, another beautiful graph from PeterR.

looks good to me.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Apparently Gavin is violating the Wiki:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes#Require_unanimous_consent

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes#Require_miner_consensus

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

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

Here's what it might look like graphically

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.

Refer to the logic.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

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.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

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

5 yr after 1MB, the network is much bigger, stronger, and more resilient. one can always obsess about these theoretical problems but the fact is that Bitcoin hasn't been broken and hasn't been attacked. there are quite a few network experts who've agreed with Gavin that scaling shouldn't be a problem. of course, the proof is in the pudding.

If you repeat illogical myopic nonsense STRAWMEN enough times, perhaps the readers will forget the logic.

You consistently construct STRAWMEN arguments which stray far from the logic that must be weighed.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: smooth on June 20, 2015, 09:56:06 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 09:54:15 PM

Quote from: smooth on June 20, 2015, 09:47:43 PM

In order to make that critical high-value transaction you are going to have to move a high volume of BTC to the sidechain

Unless you buy BTC on the sidechain to start with. For example, they spend BTC to buy mining hardware to mine anonymously. Isn't that how you got your XMR.

It's hard to envision how this works in the foreseeable future. If you buy mining equipment and mine the merged-mined sidechain, the vast majority of your rewards will still be main chain BTC. You will get only some small fees in sidechain coins.

Who said all side chains will be exclusively merged mined, i.e. it is possible to combine two PoW simultaneously?

I believe it was PPCoin that combined PoS and PoW?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 09:54:15 PM

Quote from: smooth on June 20, 2015, 09:47:43 PM

In order to make that critical high-value transaction you are going to have to move a high volume of BTC to the sidechain

Unless you buy BTC on the sidechain to start with. For example, they spend BTC to buy mining hardware to mine anonymously. Isn't that how you got your XMR.

It's hard to envision how this works in the foreseeable future. If you buy mining equipment and mine the merged-mined sidechain, the vast majority of your rewards will still be main chain BTC. You will get only some small fees in sidechain coins.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: smooth on June 20, 2015, 09:47:43 PM

In order to make that critical high-value transaction you are going to have to move a high volume of BTC to the sidechain

Unless you buy BTC on the sidechain to start with. For example, they spend BTC to buy mining hardware to mine anonymously. Isn't that how you got your XMR.

And anonymity is not likely the only feature that can appeal to slower transactions from the high valued demographic.

You can see every possible feature now? Wow you are omniscient.

And slow transfers between Core and side chains for high valued is not the only case, as I pointed out upthread.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

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 think the answer to all of these questions, as a purely factual technical matter is no.

As I said I would support a smaller increase and a smaller automatic rate of increase going forward. But an immediate 8x along with 2x every two years is reckless, just as an immediate 20x was (in fact worse imo)

The other thing nobody seems to address is that even these rates of scaling don't really do that much. 8x a few transactions per second is still only a few (maybe 20) transactions per second. Even 1000x does not reach globe-spanning capacity with everything everyone might want to do being handled on-chain. So all of the off-chain and demand-limiting fee increases stuff that big-block proponents are worried about is going to happen anyway.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 20, 2015, 09:33:45 PM

Quote from: smooth on June 20, 2015, 09:16:38 PM

tvbcof, I agree with you that two days isn't out of the question for critical and high-value transactions, but Bitcoin main chain handles those perfectly well too, without the added cost and delay, and without security compromises. The competitive advantage of involving a sidechain specifically for critical or high value transactions is nil or negative.

Cripes smooth wtf happened to you? Has the real smooth been kidnapped?

Er. Anonymity? Hiding the value of that transaction with Blockstream's C.T.?

I've never been sold on that until and unless a sidechain becomes so popular that cypherdoc's fear of all the value being sucked out of the main chain and decoupling is realized, which makes the new chain just a replacement for Bitcoin, and again side chains don't continue to exist in a meaningful sense. (And obviously in that case my objection to failing to share Bitcoin's network effect doesn't exist either.)

In order to make that critical high-value transaction you are going to have to move a high volume of BTC to the sidechain, then perform the tranasction, then move the high-value back. Both sides of that will be not only visible but highly conspicuous on the Bitcoin blockchain. Neither you nor the recipient is likely to want to keep your high-value on a side chain for an indefinite period of time with worse security.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: smooth on June 20, 2015, 09:31:36 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 09:20:26 PM

yeah, but as stated by the Chinese miners, they don't have superior connectivity. in fact, it's lower connectivity. thus, how can these largest 5 miners of all be a problem to small miners?

I'm not going to comment on the specifics of some Chinese miners and what connectivity they specifically have, between each other and with miners outside China. I also don't think it matters much and find it hard to believe you think that matters. In a year or a few years the network might look entirely different. But there will still always be a range of connectivity (and other resources for that matter) available to miners. That is the more important issue.

actually, i'm not the one who brought up the attack initially. it was the 1MB'ers obsessing about yet another theoretical attack that has now been debunked.

Quote

The term "anti-spam" means exactly preventing abusers from submitting more volume of activity into the system as a whole than the system as a whole can handle. That "system as a whole" includes a large (ideally decentralized) network that exists over a wide range of geographic, economic, and technological constraints. Again I fail to see what improvements have been made in ability of the system to absorb spam, aside from relatively modest improvements in the underlying bandwidth, storage, etc., since 1 MB that would justify an 8x or 20x increase in that limit.

5 yr after 1MB, the network is much bigger, stronger, and more resilient. one can always obsess about these theoretical problems but the fact is that Bitcoin hasn't been broken and hasn't been attacked. there are quite a few network experts who've agreed with Gavin that scaling shouldn't be a problem. of course, the proof is in the pudding.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: smooth on June 20, 2015, 09:16:38 PM

tvbcof, I agree with you that two days isn't out of the question for critical and high-value transactions, but Bitcoin main chain handles those perfectly well too, without the added cost and delay, and without security compromises. The competitive advantage of involving a sidechain specifically for critical or high value transactions is nil or negative.

Cripes smooth wtf happened to you? Has the real smooth been kidnapped?

Er. Anonymity? Hiding the value of that transaction with Blockstream's C.T.?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 09:20:26 PM

yeah, but as stated by the Chinese miners, they don't have superior connectivity. in fact, it's lower connectivity. thus, how can these largest 5 miners of all be a problem to small miners?

I'm not going to comment on the specifics of some Chinese miners and what connectivity they specifically have, between each other and with miners outside China. I also don't think it matters much and find it hard to believe you think that matters. In a year or a few years the network might look entirely different. But there will still always be a range of connectivity (and other resources for that matter) available to miners. That is the more important issue.

The term "anti-spam" means exactly preventing abusers from submitting more volume of activity into the system as a whole than the system as a whole can handle. That "system as a whole" includes a large (ideally decentralized) network that exists over a wide range of geographic, economic, and technological constraints. Again I fail to see what improvements have been made in ability of the system to absorb spam, aside from relatively modest improvements in the underlying bandwidth, storage, etc., since 1 MB that would justify an 8x or 20x increase in that limit.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 09:20:26 PM

tvbcof is being brash about 2d tie ups. that would be a catastrophic loss of his coins in a SC failure. he'd never get his scBTC mined back to BTC.

FUD.

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 09:17:07 PM

we know Larry Summers...

...take on the impending Greek crisis

gatekeepers (u+he)

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: smooth on June 20, 2015, 09:16:38 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 09:01:48 PM

Quote from: smooth on June 20, 2015, 07:03:21 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 06:28:02 PM

Quote from: smooth on June 20, 2015, 06:02:52 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 20, 2015, 03:36:43 PM

Finally an adult weighs in:

http://konradsgraf.squarespace.com/blog1/2015/6/20/preview-the-market-for-bitcoin-transaction-inclusion-and-the.html

I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way.

according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version.

you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning.

Not necessarily. It could be more of a gradual process of spam being accepted into a system that isn't well protected against spam. The miners who are better equipped to produce somewhat larger blocks produce them (by including lower value, lower fee transactions aka spam), which puts more of a strain on smaller miners who drop out. As smaller miners drop out, the average block size then increases, which puts even more strain on the slightly-less-small miners, who then drop out, repeating the process.

The end result is larger spammier blocks, and less broad participation in mining.

The fact remains that as I said there is no more of a mechanism to control spam other than a block size limit than there was when satoshi added the block limit, and I don't really see how spam is ~~20x~~8x less of a problem or potential problem now. I'd support a smaller increase though, since I do see technological progress as having reduced the threat of spam by a smaller factor.

Longer term I see the 8 MB and auto doubling every two years as even worse than 20 MB. There is no rational basis to believe with high confidence that gigabyte blocks would be acceptable in 15 years.

if you are not claiming any relative connectivity advantage of a large vs small miner, why does a large block filled with spam cause a small miner to choke anymore than another large miner?

and if ANY miner, large or small, receives a large block that requires extra processing time, he can immediately resort to the defensive mechanism of hashing an empty block header until he finishes processing the large block. then he goes back to hashing a normal block with tx's. we saw this exact behavior in the Stress Test.

The issue is not necessarily large or small as much as it is connectivity to a majority or near-majority of the hash rate.

yeah, but as stated by the Chinese miners, they don't have superior connectivity. in fact, it's lower connectivity. thus, how can these largest 5 miners of all be a problem to small miners?

Quote

tvbcof, I agree with you that two days isn't out of the question for critical and high-value transactions, but Bitcoin main chain handles those perfectly well too, without the added cost and delay, and without security compromises. The competitive advantage of involving a sidechain specifically for critical or high value transactions is nil or negative.

tvbcof is being brash about 2d tie ups. that would be a catastrophic loss of his coins in a SC failure. he'd never get his scBTC mined back to BTC.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

we know Larry Summers likes Bitcoin.

here's his take on the impending Greek crisis:

Make no mistake about the consequences of a breakdown. With an end to European support and consequent bank closures and credit problems, austerity will get far worse in Greece than it is today, and Greece will likely become a failed state, to the great detriment of all its people and their leadership. Once Greece fails as a state, Europe will collect far less debt repayment than it would with an orderly restructuring. And a massive northern out-migration of Greeks will strain national budgets throughout Europe, not to mention the challenges that will come as Russia achieves a presence in Greece. The IMF is looking at by far the largest nonpayment by a borrower in its history.

That means acknowledging that the vast majority of the financial support given to Greece has gone to pay back banks rather than to support the Greek budget.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-consequences-of-greeces-impending-breakdown/2015/06/20/9a4ab5d8-174d-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html?postshare=4971434819123959

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 211. (Read 2032248 times)