Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 12. (Read 9515 times)

Not even Lightning?

well, i'm not a big fan of using something like coinbase's crypto debit card for the simple reason that i don't feel a coffee purchase at starbucks should be something i should be needing to keep track of and report to the IRS. so i'd just open a throwaway checking acct that I can put a small amount like $50 or $100 and use a debit card on that account. that beats using bitcoin to buy coffee by far. and makes more sense. and no i'm not worried about my bank shutting down and taking my $50 or $100 with them.

with something like the coinbase debit card,

buying coffee at starbucks =  you sold crypto and need to report that on your federal tax return so the irs knows about it..

but to tie it back into the discussion, there's just some things that bitcoin can't do. it can't be everything to everyone  maybe it can't be the solution to buying tiny things like a cup of coffee. not as time goes on.

so then why can't people use those things that way they don't need to pay transaction fees. or at least hefty ones. using the blockchain directly is never going to be cheap most likely...forget about using layer 1 for buying coffee in other words. that's not what it's for. that's what those debit cards are for. but one should only keep money on them that they can afford to lose since they are not decentralized. 

Binance card already offers that, it's nothing new.

how about this. they invent this card that you can use to conduct purchases and other similar transactions. the company backing up the card has centralized servers.  so it works really fast has high transactions per second. no maximum blocksize or anything like that. your card is backed up by bitcoin you let them hold for you. when you use your debit card to buy something, it's not going to appear on the blockchain, the company will just adjust your "bitcoin balance" with them.

I also think this way about transaction priority. I think the fixed fee value used makes it one of the priorities (both companies and individuals) and I think the issue of unstable fee values ​​will still be a problem, as long as there is no determination of the volume value of the price that is uncertain per day x price.

In my opinion, it is unlikely that everyday transactions will predominantly occur on-chain. Most on-chain transactions will likely be conducted by large institutions that will contribute to second layer solutions. In situations where there is a high transaction volume, priority will probably be given to big companies most of the time. Conversely, during periods of low volume, regular individuals can consolidate their inputs and the like.

This is merely speculation. I cannot accurately predict what will happen, I'm just guessing. What I do know for certain is that a future where every single transaction is conducted on-chain is just illusory dream. I agree that 1 MB isn't much, but the same can be said for limits such as 4, 8, 16, or 32 MB in the long run. There are still inherent issues that prevent widespread adoption. Point of sale transactions, for instance, remain vulnerable to double-spending compared to second layer solutions. Transaction fees continue to pose a problem, though somewhat alleviated. Also, security is compromised as miners gain a time advantage during block propagation, and there's also the concern of limited disk space.

Here are a few reasons:

• Doubling the block size limit doesn't necessarily lead to double transactions, nor to double earnings.
• At some point it simply breaks away from the ideal. There won't ever be infinite transactions, but the limit heads towards that.
• If you do know the ideal (which you don't, as I've let it be implied), why not setting it in the first place?

There isn't a single second-layer solution developed.

This is my first intervention in this topic in the last 30:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62427173


So, it's not really why we don't do it, more like what the f**8 we're going to do if we don't do that!


Dynamical or why not implement the opposite of halving for the block size, we have a halving in the reward a doubling in the block size. If we look at disk price and internet speed we;'re already 12 years behind compared to 2009, so we would have at least 2 decades to see if it works or no!


And do you have a timeline on how long it will take for every single let's say US citizen to open and close let's say twice a second layer LN channel with a 1MB block? Or you can forget the US, let's just say 10% of the world, that's 800 million people, so 3.2 billion in and outs of a second layer.
Is it doable?

The discussion started about you being genuinely curious as to why we can't just tinker with the block size limit.

Suppose there is no block size limit for a moment. Miners can put as much data as they want in a block. All unconfirmed transactions get confirmed every 10 minutes. Miners' average reward is equal to the total fees being spent by the entire network every 10 minutes, block subsidy asides. Competition for transaction priority drops to 0. Fees are now 1 sat per tx (or 1 sat/vb).

Will that hold enough sustainability in your opinion? Would it make it globally?

Do you imply that the block size limit should be dynamical, and analogous with the total unconfirmed transactions and the bitcoin price?

Second layers.

The discussion started about the reward being gone, you're still relying on the block reward, what happens when that ain't no more, cause you mentioned thinking for longterm and not short-term solutions like the one I proposed/
Block 765431 (765432 was not full  ) , had only $2,156 in fees, those will be the ones guaranteeing the network protection.
It's no other way round you either have enough people to pay for it or you don't!

The only time the current block reward was matching the fees was when we had a media of $20 per tx, do you think that will keep being the norm, and people will till pay for it?
Not to mention you're forgetting another aspect, right now 100k a block for miners guarantees a level of protection that means you have to spend 10 billion in order to attack Bitcoin, valued at 600 billion market cap. What happens when the total value of the network will be 10 trillion, will 10 billion in protection be enough?
See, I'm thinking long-term, far longer than you thought, and sorry to say but your solution right now is wait and see!


Where a full block of fees paying 2-5 satoshi/b guarantees a level of protection that means you need 10% of the market cap to attack it.


400k a day?  
If you say that is a definition of adoption then you agree where on the same level as dogecoin!
Btw, the last block fees were $9,327, 5% of the total reward, you will either have people paying 20 times as much or, quite interesting have 20x times more people paying the same. That would mean 8 million transactions or 1/3 the number of card transactions Visa and MasterCard do in France alone.


Then with what? Binance or Coinbase credits? Bank of America IOU bitcoin?


There was no explanation but a reason, and that was spam.

And there is a more interesting thing, garzik introduced a patch to increase the size limit, Satoshi opposed because of incompatibility but his words were
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15139

Didn't Satoshi suddenly change maximum block size limit to 1MB on Bitcoin-Qt source code without any explanation?


In addition, IP to IP transaction was never part of Bitcoin protocol/consensus. It was just Bitcoin-Qt feature which connect to certain IP address and ask for regular Bitcoin address, before making regular Bitcoin transaction.

It is that, but it is also much more than that in my opinion. What use would there be for censorship-resistance, the network's value proposition, if it's to merely use for daily coffee transactions?

Plus POW is more than to prevent double spend. It's also a way to issue the units of Bitcoin to put in circulation, which also incentivizes the miners and it keeps them honest.


One of them is Bitcoin's role in the creation of the ransomware market. It filled a gap where hackers could take advantage and be incentivized of the fact that some software vendors are slow in deploying security updates. As an increasing amount of computers were compromised, the software vendors were forced to deploy patches and software updates more regularly. Bitcoin actually took part in making random computer networks more secure.


No, that was before my Bitcoin journey, but I could already tell that IP to IP transactions are open to attacks like IP-Spoofing and MOTM. It's probably better to leave that decision to the Core Developers.

Wasn't Mike Hearn the developer who spread FUD about Bitcoin's collapse if it didn't hard fork to bigger blocks?

The amount is almost irrelevant; the ability to realistically run your own is what makes it decentralized.

And a reply on this , so i can respond in summary later ?

No, that's according to your definition. If miners have all the power, then if everyone was a miner, it'd be completely decentralized. That's yours.

I'm sure that, whether I've found fake transactions or not, my current state is the true one. My node has synced, and verified everything since the genesis block. If I was to listen to SPV nodes, as you suggest, I couldn't know if I had fake transactions.

To make verification more efficient, and to allow SPV.

Completely ignoring all the points and simply sticking with the 32 MB block size. Nice. 

The order of the transactions isn't the sole process of the Bitcoin network.

No, they don't. I don't know who told you that miners decide the rules, they only decide the order of the transactions, for if they did, we'd already be having 1 GB blocks.

At the beggining the vast majority was mining nodes . It was the only time that bitcoin was decentralised by your definition , thousands for nodes . The consensus is bitcoin is called proof of work , not proof of most nodes . And to pose a question like the one you said about blocksize , what's the optimal amount for nodes to make a network decentralised ? Is it 10's , is it 100's , is it millions ? And i'd like to see the arguments on your thesis .

Pools are the only entities that add transactions into a block , so there can't be any fake entries into a solved block .
How many blocks have you added to the chain with your node ? How many blocks with fake transactions have you find ? If it's at least one than yes , i'm wrong and you're right .



What you mention only affects a mining pool that decided to lose their reward , otherwise we would be still following that fork . To achieve a consensus in pool level the majority of honest pools decide if a block is valid or invalid , following the rules . If someone decided to just waste energy to propagate an invalid block that was rejected from the start at pool level , than good for him . Anyone can decide in what way can spend his money .
You have to understand that pools are interconnected , it is crucial for pools to have the new block as fast as possible to work on it for the next block . That block was rejected instantly from pools , even if it was still propagated to other non mining nodes who thought that they did find an invalid block . Think about it and you'll see that what "full nodes" saw had nothing to do with what pools decided from the begining . Pools are the entities that have the most economic interest to be honest . Pools that try to trick the system get their blocks rejected at pool level , so they are just burning money .

It happened. Read about SPV mining, where mining pools started to mine blocks, without validating them, and how they lost their money, because there were enough full nodes to notice that they are building blocks on top of the invalid chain. And imagine that if we would have a lot of nodes blindly trusting the UTXO set, then it could stay unnoticed, and get deeply confirmed.

Also, there are cases, where pools lost their reward, because of things like sigops limit. By having only UTXO set, you cannot check such things, because then you don't have access to all scripts, you only know that some UTXOs should be changed to some other UTXOs.

Wonderful. Only pools can get to tell if an entry is fake or not. Completely decentralized and trustless, as envisioned. 

You can't fully validate a transaction with merely the merkle trees. Related: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/32533/134811

Quoting a Satoshi post doesn't make it ideal. You need arguments, like these: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/37303/134811

Every participant of the Bitcoin network contributes to decision-making processes. Some with authority (miners), others with technical competence (developers) and the rest of the users through running software, doing governance proposals, expressing their preferences and concerns, and of course being stakeholders.

Easily mine , how easy to say and how hard to do . Each pool can check the hash and find out that the fake entry is invalid , and these transactions will get rejected instantly . If what you say could happen , bitcoin was broken since the start . That's why the merkle tree exists , so that you can confirm if a transaction is valid even without having the entire blockchain .


The system is designed to have electronic peer to peer cash into a visible ledger by using PoW consensus to prevent double spend . What other design do you think bitcoin has ? I'd really like to know what else do you see .


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15366
"It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade."



You might have a wrong impression of what decentralisation is .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization
"Decentralization or decentralisation is the process by which the activities of an organization, particularly those regarding planning and decision-making, are distributed or delegated away from a central, authoritative location or group and given to smaller factions within it."

"Full nodes" have nothing to do with decision making . "Planning" in bitcoin is the dev team . "Decision making" is the mining nodes . So , not in any way your node plays a part in bitcoin decentralisation .

It's like saying that apple is a decentralised structure because shares are distributed amongst investors .

I see that the topic is derailed so i'll stop here .

If $2,000 will be the reward per block, then there won't be a point on having Bitcoin in the first place. If ~$2,000 is the average block reward in a decade or two from now, then it'll already be dead. The $2,000 is the side effect. The cause is the fact that nobody uses it.

Define me the ideal block size, and tell me the reasoning behind it.

We're currently paying about 10x in fees, and I don't see lots of people being uninterested. Perhaps because not many use it as currency in the first place, but that's a topic for another day.

Except that I never argued we can reach global adoption with solely lightning. It's you who's complaining and proposing to increase the block size. And I'm telling you the obvious: we either go full-VISA-data-center, or we figure out something smarter, with more respect to decentralization, security and privacy. And as the Bitcoin development and history are concerned, we're heading towards the latter.