Topic: Please answer 3 technical questions - page 3. (Read 6435 times)

10bn people doing 10 transactions a day can be processed with EXACTLY the same amount of miners as today.

You still don't seem to understand this, so I'll say it again: the processing power required to mine a block is completely unrelated to the number of transactions included in that block. Mining a block with 5 transactions will cost just as much (or as little) as mining one with 10,000 transactions.

Ah, the infamous ad hominem, if every other (lack of) argument failed.

Bitcoin is not a business for me. More like a fascination and appreciation of how a smart idea and ingenious invention has the potential to make a difference, and take away some power of the establishment. Just like the upcoming of the internet did.

What a load of bollox.

Bitcoin is a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the global economy.

If 10bn people were doing 10 transactions a day, at the rate Bitcoin is going, each village on the planet would need it's own power station.

You are a retard. No amount of large letter assertions will change this.

I wish you all the best with your business.

Uhm, why exactly?

You seem to think are are all kinds of problems, shortcomings or limitations with Bitcoin, that aren't really there.

No, comparing credit card payments (claiming a transactions takes only seconds) to the 10 minute confirmation time of Bitcoin, is comparing apples with oranges.

Bitcoin is faster in terms of sending money around, and WAY faster in terms of transactions becoming irreversible.

Obscene, you say? (and why the hell it would be "even more" obscene with P2P mining is completely beyond me)

Anyway:





Source: http://www.coindesk.com/microscope-conclusions-costs-bitcoin/

Your point again?

We've ascertained that. The block chain size still needs a band-aid.

Comparing apples with oranges.

Were you sick on the day the teacher was explaining algebra?

Lol. In this case, will the electricity usage be even more obscene?

The processing power required to mine a block is completely unrelated to the number of transactions included in that block. Mining a block with 5 transactions will cost just as much (or as little) as mining one with 10,000 transactions.

If that's true, no retailer would ever accept credit cards, as they effectively have a confirmation time of 6+ months.

If you still think that's a technical nuance, let me spell it out for you:

		Credit card		Bitcoin
Transaction time1		5-10 sec		1-2 sec
Confirmation time2		3-12 months		10 minutes

1 = the time it takes to make a payment
2 = the time it takes for a payment to become irreversible


No. P2P mining.

I actually wrote a long response above too (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10109111). 

48 hours? Again, doesn't appear that way from here.

Your reply is rich with irony regarding "new facts", seems like you are projecting your attitude.

Glad there is an ignore on here still!

Why do you feel the need to come out with this little rant 48 hours later?

My questions were largely answered by the constructive members.

Most people I know, when presented with new facts, re-orientate their views based on facts. You, on the other hand, seem to use anti-facts to reinforce irrational beliefs (yes, beliefs). Bitcoin is a religion to you and, like a Muslim terrorist in Paris, there's no telling you otherwise.

I wish you the best of luck with your business interests.

Someone shows up claiming to ask for answers to "technical questions":

Then ignores, dismisses the "technical nuances", speculates about the future, starts name-calling, states certain topics are off-limits, and gets into opinion:

And finally after he has wasted a lot of people's time, he resorts to saying he only wants "answers" after dismissing any he didn't like, even when correct technically:
Clearly someone came here not wanting to know the answers, but to argue argue or dismiss the technical points he claimed to want answers about. 

I'm not sure what that behavior is called.   

0-confirmation transactions can also be made safer. For example, I have a 2of2 multisig account with GreenAddress. If I were to pay with that account, the coffee shop (or even the car dealer) should have no problem accepting the 0-confirmation transaction as if I had just handed them cash. Their computer or point of sale terminal could do something like this (in the background, without the cashier needing to know anything about the technical details):

1) Get notification of incoming transaction: almost immediately after I send it (within a few seconds at most)
2) Check if the transaction passes bitcoind's isstandard() tests and contains at least the minimum miner's fee: if yes, proceed to step 3, else decide (based on the value of the transaction) whether to accept the 0-conf or wait to see if it gets mined.
3) Check if the inputs are from a 2of2 script: if yes, proceed to step 4, else decide whether to accept the 0-conf
4) Ask GreenAddress if it's one of their instant confirmation transactions: if yes, accept the transaction immediately, else decide whether to accept the 0-conf transaction

Meanwhile, my money is safe (GreenAddress can't run with it) and as easy for me to access as any mobile or web wallet. It's even safer than a web wallet since a signature from me and a two-factor auth is required to get that second signature from GreenAddress, and they can't run with my money because I have the second key and a timelocked transaction to refund the money to me. All transactions happen on the blockchain, I doubt GreenAddress is going to risk its reputation by signing a transaction that double-spends and if they ever do they'll almost immediately lose the trust of any merchants who rely on them. If a transaction passes the above four tests, you can be assured that it will eventually make it into a block and treat it as if it's already confirmed.

While it's true that this currently only works with GreenAddress, that's only because nobody else is doing it yet. Almost everything required is already part of the Bitcoin protocol and those parts that aren't are slowly being bolted on (for example, using the proposed payment protocol, it may be possible to eliminate step 4 entirely.. or to at least make it easier to have multiple instant-confirmation services). Personally I'd like to see more safe instant-confirmation wallets, not because I don't like GreenAddress, but because I do like healthy competition and decentralization (or at least reduction of centralization). If we had more wallets with that feature, and the payment protocol to make it easier to manage (on the merchant's end and in my mobile wallet), confirmations would be a non-issue even for larger transactions.

*beats a normally docile dog with a stick repeatedly and laughs at it*

*cries about how they should put down this rabid dog when it retaliates with what is no more than a warning nibble*

Like I said - I have 50% of my crypto wealth in BTC. I have skin in the game.

I asked for answers and I got them. I even learnt new things. Even then, the die-hard BTCers are too proud to admit that their currency might have fundamental flaws.

I don't wish to continue on this thread any more. The atmosphere is hostile and unwelcoming. If BTC want adoption on a global scale, the BTC community will need to look in on themselves and sort out this attitude.

Best of luck with everything.

Good spotted.


Eamorr, will you please close this thread and return to xrptalk.org - and stop wasting everyone time here, you are obviously only here to troll and provoke.

I do preach alt-coin (XRP, specifically). And I make no apologies for that. I tell friends and colleagues (when it comes up in conversation) to be very careful of BTC and to keep a watchful eye on XRP.

The only crypto-currencies I use are XRP and BTC. I'm about 50%/50% in each.

I have an interest in BTC, but remain skeptical about its future and am prepared to leave permanently (but not just yet).

If you wish to continue branding people who want answers to BTC's fundamental flaws as "trolls" (which is neither helpful nor conducive to civilised chat), then I wish you the very best of luck with your business.

The answer to that question seems rather obvious to me.


Sounds like just another alt-coin preaching troll to me.

Zero-confirmation transactions could be verified against
double-spends by connecting to other nodes.  BIP 35
provides a way to check a node's memory pool via
a special message.
 

Regarding your question 1, you could run the bitcoin network today on a regular computer - in fact that is essentially the way it happens with full nodes, they all keep copies of the blockchain which along with the software (which defines the protocol to a large extent) defines the network. Then energy usage would be negligible.  It has nothing to do with the number of transactions per block, the limit could be 10 times higher, probably 100 times higher without a large change in energy usage.  Maybe 1000 or 10000 in a few years as Moore's law continues along.  I doubt it would double, but even if it increase by a factor of 10 or 100, it would still be negligible compared to an air conditioner or a small building.

The tradeoff there would be the security of the network.  The amount of hashing power is what secures the network, so you need a lot of power to protect the integrity of the bitcoin network and blockchain, this is the "work".  

There are two components that we're discussing here:  running the network, and securing the network.  In short, the number of transactions is not what uses the energy, it is the number computers (be they CPUs, GPUs, or now ASICs) securing the network.  

Regarding number 3,  I do not believe that centralization is inevitable, no.  As you stop orders of magnitude improvements as you had between generations, e.g. CPU->GPU->(FPGA?->)ASIC, it is much easier to predict profitability of a miner.  I believe as that time approaches, it will be easier for individuals to return to mining because they will not have to hope that they get a machine in time to have a ROI and just depend on luck to do so.  With CPU and GPU mining, we were not dominated by large concerns running farms.  Could hashing become concentrated?  Sure.  Pools could be an issue, but miners can easily switch pools - or use p2pool.  Could it occur because the value of the bitcoins in the network becomes so large that it is smart to do so?  Sure.  I don't believe it is inevitable though, it is an open question.  Ask in 10 or 20 or 50 years and the answer will be clearer.

Regarding number 2, you could have a sidechain with a faster confirmation time or any other number of solutions if you wanted some confirmation for a small transaction quickly, although as has been stated this is really unnecessary for many day-to-day transactions just as using a counterfeit detection pen on a $1, $5, $10, or $20 bill is unnecessary (and I've used $50 and $100 bills and no one has checked them too) and just as you do not need to copy the ID of every person who purchases from you using a debit or credit card.  At this point double-spends for small purchases are unlikely to be profitable to try, and unlikely to be successful.  And if they were occasionally, it is part of the cost of doing business.

BTW, you should not dismiss the difference in definition between transaction and confirmation and all the other technical details if you truly want to understand the network and the implications of suggestions.  If you truly are not trolling, think about what people are explaining here and the fact that there are a lot of technical details that deal with many issues.

Is bitcoin perfect?  I doubt it.  With innovations in the technology - few of which are trivial to implement in a running network (it is like upgrading an airplane at 35,000 feet) - it can be improved and become closer to an ideal system.

 :-)


* Somewhat simplified in a few spots.

Fair enough. Still, I'm not sure that you have understood Greg Maxwell's answer when he explained that the number (volume) of transactions does not affect the overall power usage of miners. "Mining" a block and confirming 0, 100, or 100 million transactions within that block does not affect power usage (or just marginally in the case of really huge volumes; for the sake of clarity, I will leave the blockchain size / storage problems aside here -- not denying these!).

Right now, the amount of energy used by mining might arguably be uneconomical or disproportionate because of the relatively high subsidy of 25 BTC per block until next halving, and the block reward is huge compared to the total fees of the transactions included in that block. However, the rapid decrease of block reward on the long run (half-life is 4 years) means that the main retribution for miners will eventually come from transaction fees instead, creating an economical equilibrium (i.e. supply vs demand) between the power costs of mining and the fees from transactions, i.e. the total cost of consumed energy will have to be paid by transaction fees.

I will concede that it's not easy to understand these concepts, and I'm not pretending Bitcoin is flawless. A lot of issues are still to be solved, but I don't feel like they are exactly the ones that you mentioned in your OP.

I understand about the unconfirmed transactions. While not ideal, it's an acceptable compromise for some.

Energy usage of the network is a far, far bigger issue (i.e. question 1., which feeds into question 3.)

And they do have it. Instant transactions that are safe enough for everyday's expenses. Only you here seem to fail to understand how it works. Greg Maxwell, one of the most active and senior Bitcoin Core dev, has taken quite a bit of his precious time to explain it, repeatedly.

IMHO you seem to be here more to push an unsubstantiated claim that Bitcoin is impractical and cannot compete with traditional means of payments (i.e. credit/debit cards and/or cash) than to educate yourself. Your condescendance regarding 'the techie geeky stuff that [we] find so important', considering that you started yourself a technical discussion in the 'Development & Technical Discussion' section, can only reinforce that suspicion.

What exactly is your point here?

Hi TookDk. I agree. I think fiat is flawed.

I think cryptocurrency should be designed to match everything that cash does, and then go further.

Currently there are serious shortcomings in the way Bitcoin was implemented. I don't think it's possible to simply ignore/explain-away these fundamental flaws.

I like to think of Bitcoin a steam engine  - a great symbol of the industrial revolution. The steam engine still has a role in the modern world, but more for nostalgia's sake (of course there are also the trainspotters and the die-hard train hobbyists). Let's cherish Bitcoin and inherit its achievements. But we can/must do better. I worry that at the moment, all we've got is a big old steam engine and we're channeling all our efforts into keeping the old beast running. You cannot transport the world's population on steam.