Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 731. (Read 2032266 times)

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 )

but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway

but i thought brg444 said ALL miners would end up MM'ing SC's?

maybe, maybe not if tx #'s grow significantly

true

why didn't the 0 tx block Mystery Miner take over a coupla yrs ago?

but Linux is an OS.

the question is, does Bitcoin as Money need, require, or want a Redhat of Bitcoin?

It is quite obvious what the company does. I know I'm parrotting this notion but they're quite obviously the Redhat of Bitcoin

actually, you're right.

1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork)
2. it increases the required resources for all miners
3. it reduces the value of transaction fees by increasing the supply of block space
4. any hardcoded limit will just be hit again and any algorithmic limit has a lot of questions about proper incentives to answer
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)

Erroneous no. Incomplete, yes indeed.

who is against increasing block size and why? 

but he's a CS from Oxford.  here's what he said which is flat out erroneous and incomplete.  maybe he didn't mean it but still:

In Bitcoin, a miner that earns the right to publish a block on the main chain is currently paid 25 BTC (~$8500 at current prices). This provides adequate incentives to have highly specialised hardware running in datacentres across the world. If the reward halved, as it is set to do in 2016, the incentive to provide these proofs would halve and we could likely see a scenario where the proofs would now be far less reliable (partly due to the excess hardware that could be bought on the cheap). In other words without a high token value on a blockchain there is little security or integrity of the data contained within.

i don't want to argue on this as we have plenty of other things to argue about going forward re: SC's.  this is the last i'll say on this. 

For instance, a hard forking change to increase block size.

Gavin's block size expansion is a hard forking change that will splinter the community.... I don't see how you could possibly think that is preferable to a soft fork change that solves the same problem while also opening up many other exciting possibilities (such as the document timestamping service of thezerg, or a proof of storage chain, or a chain for distributed computing, or. ...).

I think this last part you're referring is simply a caution that Bitcoin, although doubtful, might not necessarily be #1 forever.

I do agree that the mention of transition to "tx-fee" incentive should have been included, but I don't think it was avoided in any disingenuous way.

yep

re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

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.

you may be right.  i had a little trouble ascertaining the article's true message while in a rush.

i think it was this part: "it this does not have to be the case forever."  and this part which i said above:

he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion.  a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.

when someone makes an error of omission that is so basic like he did, i immediately become suspicious.  he should know better.

Same with any other change to the protocol:

The economic majority will decide.

If an economic majority upgrades to the new Bitcoin Core version, their fork will win.

If an economy majority stays with old Bitcoin Core versions or switches to btcd, then their fork will win.

Anybody who cares about Bitcoin in a positive way won't roll out changes which threaten to cause a tie, or even anything but a near-universal agreement.

I'm not certain what problem you have with his article?

Where does he implies that the Bitcoin currency unit can be changed? In his conclusion ("it this does not have to be the case forever.") ?

It seems to me you have misunderstood the premise of his article. When he mentions :


He is not supporting or demanding the creation of different blockchains but merely implying that the use of the blockchain technology necessitate a native token. He then demonstrates why it is so and confirms the importance of the Bitcoin unit.

He very much supports the arguments you, and most of us, have championed in this thread.

actually, what happens if SPVproof gets added to Bitcoin Core but BTC-d ignores it?

edit:  or libbitcoin or BitcoinJS for that matter?

fair.

I've gone through the aforementioned thread just to found out that the description
in the above link was just the initial prototype. Dunno why blockstream didn't link
the final proposal (formalized as BIP draft) contained here:

https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-atom.mediawiki

I'm not saying that it contains the answers to all your question
but after a quick glance it seems a lot more informative.