I think committed UTXO sets will eventually be secure enough that not even miners will store the full, unpruned history all the way back to the genesis block.
Once that objection has been answered, and once price discovery for bandwidth has been achieved, there won't be any credible reasons to have an explicit transaction rate cap.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 730. (Read 2032266 times)
where does he get this?:
But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.
That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.
After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.
But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.
That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.
After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.
Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable. Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU.
So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput. What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput.
I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain.
I agree and I would like to add.
You cannot store 20 years old unspent output into archive. You need to have instant access to those bitcoin if you are miner.
Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill. Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in. Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal. I thought you were in favor of it?
That's an assumption that's may fall away, it isn't true if you get paid in TX fees on a side chain from MM, you could mine empty Bitcoin blocks all day, and get paid in SC tokens.
Sure, solving the block propagation issue should be addressed, and can be without a hard fork. I support Gavin's proposed solution, but I don't want to see it followed up by raising the block size limit.
Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill. Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in. Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal. I thought you were in favor of it?
That's an assumption that may fall away, it isn't true if you get paid in TX fees on a side chain from MM, you could mine empty Bitcoin blocks all day, and get paid in SC tokens.
1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork)
but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway
To me (and I might be lonely) the magic of sidechains is exactly the opposite. Bitcoin works very well as it is and is defensible by my calculations. Any significant changes, and especially those designed to balloon it's capacity, are a huge threat. If Bitcoin more or less freezes now with only bug-fixes I'm pretty confident to trust it with significant value. The more 'good ideas' that get pumped into it the more wary I become. Yes, accelerated developments made possible by SCs might feed back into bug-fixes in Bitcoin but that's the only advantage I see in this regard.
To me the suggestion that it could grow to even a tiny tiny fraction of the scale needed to service the world's exchange economy while preserving the aspects that made it interesting to me is beyond absurd and has been since I bought my first Bitcoin. Trying to get 'part way there' will both fail miserably (due to it's basic design if nothing else) AND ruin the original aspects which made it great enough to reach the high water mark it has already left. If it isn't torpedoed, I suspect that it will vastly exceed the existing high water mark absent any changes at all. That's why I'm still significantly invested.
Right, with one soft fork we can enable sidechains and never have to hard fork.
1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork)
but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway
To me (and I might be lonely) the magic of sidechains is exactly the opposite. Bitcoin works very well as it is and is defensible by my calculations. Any significant changes, and especially those designed to balloon it's capacity, are a huge threat. If Bitcoin more or less freezes now with only bug-fixes I'm pretty confident to trust it with significant value. The more 'good ideas' that get pumped into it the more wary I become. Yes, accelerated developments made possible by SCs might feed back into bug-fixes in Bitcoin but that's the only advantage I see in this regard.
To me the suggestion that it could grow to even a tiny tiny fraction of the scale needed to service the world's exchange economy while preserving the aspects that made it interesting to me is beyond absurd and has been since I bought my first Bitcoin. Trying to get 'part way there' will both fail miserably (due to it's basic design if nothing else) AND ruin the original aspects which made it great enough to reach the high water mark it has already left. If it isn't torpedoed, I suspect that it will vastly exceed the existing high water mark absent any changes at all. That's why I'm still significantly invested.
where does he get this?:
But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.
That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.
After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.
But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.
That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.
After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.
Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable. Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU.
So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput. What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput.
I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain.
And just a rough back of the envelope calculation, if we were to complete with visa volume using monetarist theory MV = PQ in order to support that price around the next block halving, miners would be incentivize to consume about as much electricity as is output by Germany.
So there are some predetermined growth eras set by block halving, if they are to be violated people would be choosing between the value of turning on there lights or sending electricity to there local miner to create money.
At the end of the day it's assumed that if we are generating 1GB per block only a few data centers could handle it, and SC would disperse this to other ledgers that could be trimmed if abandoned.
What is overlooked is how much a Bitcoin would be worth if there was such high volume, managing a data center to handed that amount of traffic wouldn't be an un-viable expense for someone who wants to ensure his 100 BTC on the network.
So there are some predetermined growth eras set by block halving, if they are to be violated people would be choosing between the value of turning on there lights or sending electricity to there local miner to create money.
At the end of the day it's assumed that if we are generating 1GB per block only a few data centers could handle it, and SC would disperse this to other ledgers that could be trimmed if abandoned.
What is overlooked is how much a Bitcoin would be worth if there was such high volume, managing a data center to handed that amount of traffic wouldn't be an un-viable expense for someone who wants to ensure his 100 BTC on the network.
1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork)
but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway
Maybe in your mind... in my opinion the whole point of SC is to allow innovation in the crypto space without diluting bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn't need to be a timestamping service or a distributed computing platform, but both are valid uses cases of sidechains.
Quote
Quote
2. it increases the required resources for all miners
but i thought brg444 said ALL miners would end up MM'ing SC's?
I disagree with him on this point and so I won't argue in support of him here.
Quote
Quote
3. it reduces the value of transaction fees by increasing the supply of block space
maybe, maybe not if tx #'s grow significantly
Possibly, but the initial increase will cause a devaluation. It may well establish a sound equilibrium after some time, but we won't know unless we try. And if it fails, we're fucked because you insisted on doing it on the main chain instead of testing things on a segregated sidechain.
Quote
Quote
4. any hardcoded limit will just be hit again and any algorithmic limit has a lot of questions about proper incentives to answer
true
Quote
5. there is no genuine proposal for how to adjust the limit (Gavin's proposal merely addresses the issues with block transmission latency that are a prerequisite to raising the limit. It should probably be done even if we leave the limit since it is a soft-fork change and currently miners who fill blocks to the limit are putting themselves at a disadvantage over empty blocks that propagate quicker)
why didn't the 0 tx block Mystery Miner take over a coupla yrs ago?
Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill. Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in. Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal. I thought you were in favor of it?
re: scalability. but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.
Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps today. => bitcoin need more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations => 1 GB every 10 min/s
it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )
why are Gavin's calcs so different? when is he going to comment on SC's?
I do not know. It is only simple multiplication. Every who is able to use calculator can calculate.
Naught, naughty...doing math oneself!
You must be one of those old-timers who pre-date the common-core curriculum. Modern people understand from their early education (drawing out a bunch of little circles and stuff) that even simple arithmetic becomes nearly impossible beyond about 4 digits and only Einstein is qualified to do it and come up with a valid result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxJ4nbqx8CY
Quote
The new “Connected Math” teaches our children in “Standard 3. Mathematics as Reasoning,…” that “…through discussing the problems and their solutions, the students are learning to reason about the mathematics. They learn that mathematics is man-made, that it is arbitrary, and good solutions are arrived at by consensus among those who are considered expert.” So, if a dozen “experts” say that “2 + 2 = 19,” then that’s the new “truth” according to “Connected Math.”
Children are being made mathematically illiterate on purpose!
Children are being made mathematically illiterate on purpose!
Above from: http://www.and-the-pursuit-of-happiness.com/blog/all-about-sustainable-development-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/
A little more math.
1,000 tps = 60,000 tpmin = 3,600,000 tphour = 86,400,000 tpday
86 M tx / day is a joke. I'm doing at least 1 tx/day.
Edit:
I did 4 transactions today.
Dude! Take a chill pill...check with your doctor because the pharma industry has produced plenty of options here. The consensus led by eminent scientists like Gavin (fresh from his meeting with the CFR) is that everything will be fine. And the consensus here on troll-talk is that no matter what happens, 'Moore's Law' will make everything fine.
Your only problem is that you picked up a dull pencil and flipped over an envelope to find some whitespace. If you would join the modern world you're problems would be all behind you. As it is you are just making people panic.
Visa can process 10,000 tps
Visa says it can process 47,000 tps. They've already processed over 11,000 tps for extended periods on peak days. Actual short term peaks achieved are probably somewhere in between, but I haven't seen any actual numbers.
Add to that the other card networks that are direct competitors of Visa.
10,000 tps as a maximum is much too low.
I agree with you. I underestimated numbers huge. They may be 5x higher only just Visa cards. And this visa cards transactions are only few % of world transactions.
Visa can process 10,000 tps
Visa says it can process 47,000 tps. They've already processed over 11,000 tps for extended periods on peak days. Actual short term peaks achieved are probably somewhere in between, but I haven't seen any actual numbers.
Add to that the other card networks that are direct competitors of Visa.
10,000 tps as a maximum is much too low.
re: scalability. but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.
Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps today. => bitcoin need more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations => 1 GB every 10 min/s
it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )
why are Gavin's calcs so different? when is he going to comment on SC's?
I do not know. It is only simple multiplication. Every who is able to use calculator can calculate.
Naught, naughty...doing math oneself!
You must be one of those old-timers who pre-date the common-core curriculum. Modern people understand from their early education (drawing out a bunch of little circles and stuff) that even simple arithmetic becomes nearly impossible beyond about 4 digits and only Einstein is qualified to do it and come up with a valid result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxJ4nbqx8CY
Quote
The new “Connected Math” teaches our children in “Standard 3. Mathematics as Reasoning,…” that “…through discussing the problems and their solutions, the students are learning to reason about the mathematics. They learn that mathematics is man-made, that it is arbitrary, and good solutions are arrived at by consensus among those who are considered expert.” So, if a dozen “experts” say that “2 + 2 = 19,” then that’s the new “truth” according to “Connected Math.”
Children are being made mathematically illiterate on purpose!
Children are being made mathematically illiterate on purpose!
Above from: http://www.and-the-pursuit-of-happiness.com/blog/all-about-sustainable-development-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/
A little more math.
1,000 tps = 60,000 tpmin = 3,600,000 tphour = 86,400,000 tpday
86 M tx / day is a joke. I'm doing at least 1 tx/day.
Edit:
I did 4 transactions today.
re: scalability. but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.
Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps today. => bitcoin need more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations => 1 GB every 10 min/s
it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )
why are Gavin's calcs so different? when is he going to comment on SC's?
I do not know. It is only simple multiplication. Every who is able to use calculator can calculate.
Naught, naughty...doing math oneself!
You must be one of those old-timers who pre-date the common-core curriculum. Modern people understand from their early education (drawing out a bunch of little circles and stuff) that even simple arithmetic becomes nearly impossible beyond about 4 digits and only Einstein is qualified to do it and come up with a valid result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxJ4nbqx8CY
Quote
The new “Connected Math” teaches our children in “Standard 3. Mathematics as Reasoning,…” that “…through discussing the problems and their solutions, the students are learning to reason about the mathematics. They learn that mathematics is man-made, that it is arbitrary, and good solutions are arrived at by consensus among those who are considered expert.” So, if a dozen “experts” say that “2 + 2 = 19,” then that’s the new “truth” according to “Connected Math.”
Children are being made mathematically illiterate on purpose!
Children are being made mathematically illiterate on purpose!
Above from: http://www.and-the-pursuit-of-happiness.com/blog/all-about-sustainable-development-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/
I think the 10,000 tps is a "burst" capacity... the usual tps is closer to 1000. I think in the case of Bitcoin, if it could handle 1000 tps on a daily basis, then in "burst" modes people would just experience confirmation times that were 5-10 times longer (an hour or two)... which isn't the end of the world (provided the burst only lasted a few hours/days, which I assume is the case).
SO if we divide numbers by 10.
14 GB / day
5 TB / year
Visa 5 secs and Bitcoin 5 hours
I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check. And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up. Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev. You don't need permission. Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
look at the JLevin article i just put up. he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Quote
Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump. And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.
so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?
Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great. A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention. But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited. Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange. Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.
Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.
Financial incentive: Exactly! We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does. In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.
Trivial example: you could create a document registration company. Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time. To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained. And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam. Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court. Sounds like not much money? But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t. "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement. Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system. Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly. But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.
re: scalability. but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.
FYI
Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps today. => bitcoin need more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations => 1 GB every 10 min/s
it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )
why are Gavin's calcs so different? when is he going to comment on SC's?
I do not know. It is only simple multiplication. Every who is able to use calculator can calculate.
where does he get this?:
But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.
That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.
After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.
I think the 10,000 tps is a "burst" capacity... the usual tps is closer to 1000. I think in the case of Bitcoin, if it could handle 1000 tps on a daily basis, then in "burst" modes people would just experience confirmation times that were 5-10 times longer (an hour or two)... which isn't the end of the world (provided the burst only lasted a few hours/days, which I assume is the case).
Financial incentive: Exactly! We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does. In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.
Trivial example: you could create a document registration company. Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time. To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained. And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam. Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court. Sounds like not much money? But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t. "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement. Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system. Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly. But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.
Trivial example: you could create a document registration company. Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time. To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained. And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam. Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court. Sounds like not much money? But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t. "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement. Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system. Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly. But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.
It is quite obvious what the company does. I know I'm parrotting this notion but they're quite obviously the Redhat of Bitcoin
but Linux is an OS.
the question is, does Bitcoin as Money need, require, or want a Redhat of Bitcoin?
Of course, Bitcoin is a protocol for decentralization of value transfer. Blockstream, with sidechains, can build decentralized applications and processes on top of the protocol.
I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check. And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up. Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev. You don't need permission. Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
look at the JLevin article i just put up. he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Quote
Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump. And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.
so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?
Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great. A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention. But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited. Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange. Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.
Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.
Financial incentive: Exactly! We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does. In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.
Trivial example: you could create a document registration company. Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time. To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained. And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam. Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court. Sounds like not much money? But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t. "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement. Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system. Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly. But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.
re: scalability. but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.
FYI
Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps today. => bitcoin need more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations => 1 GB every 10 min/s
it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )
why are Gavin's calcs so different? when is he going to comment on SC's?
I do not know. It is only simple multiplication. Every who is able to use calculator can calculate.
I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check. And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up. Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev. You don't need permission. Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
look at the JLevin article i just put up. he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Quote
Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump. And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.
so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?
Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great. A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention. But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited. Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange. Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.
Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.
Financial incentive: Exactly! We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does. In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.
Trivial example: you could create a document registration company. Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time. To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained. And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam. Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court. Sounds like not much money? But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t. "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement. Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system. Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly. But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.
re: scalability. but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.
FYI
Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps today. => bitcoin need more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations => 1 GB every 10 min/s
it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )
why are Gavin's calcs so different? when is he going to comment on SC's?
Jump to: