Topic: Scaling Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 2669 times)
Qualcuno è riuscito a capire se dal workshop di weekend scorso è venuto fuori qualcosa di concreto?
Roger Ver vorrebbe l'ammissione del forging of signatures (la falsificazione delle firme) riguardo bonifici partiti con la sua firma falsa. C'è dietro tutta la storia di un contratto poco chiaro: sembra che OKcoin (Star Xu) abbia cercato di modificare retroattivamente il contratto.
Star Xu non lo capisco bene: c'è troppo brusio e il suo inglese ha un tono troppo basso.
Ripeto: Roger Ver sembra fare la star per farsi il bello davanti al businessman cinese. Non credo sia il modo giusto di risolvere la disputa.
Soprattutto la scenetta in cui fa notare che Xu gli sputtacchi in faccia mentre parla è di pessimo gusto.
Star Xu non lo capisco bene: c'è troppo brusio e il suo inglese ha un tono troppo basso.
Ripeto: Roger Ver sembra fare la star per farsi il bello davanti al businessman cinese. Non credo sia il modo giusto di risolvere la disputa.
Soprattutto la scenetta in cui fa notare che Xu gli sputtacchi in faccia mentre parla è di pessimo gusto.
Qualcuno che mastica bene l'inglese e spiega di cosa stanno discutendo, escluso il fatto che il Ver si lamenta che l'altro sputa mentre parla 
Quel Roger Ver ha una faccia da schiaffi di dimensioni notevoli e devo essere sincero mi ha disgustato il suo modo di ragionare. Un bulletto sfrontato come ce ne sono tanti. E non mi interessa abbia investito in diverse compagnie del mondo bitcoin
Quel Roger Ver ha una faccia da schiaffi di dimensioni notevoli e devo essere sincero mi ha disgustato il suo modo di ragionare. Un bulletto sfrontato come ce ne sono tanti. E non mi interessa abbia investito in diverse compagnie del mondo bitcoin
non riesco a decidermi se e' una figata o una super pezza (anche se propendo piu' per la seconda ....)
Io ho capito che il blocco rimane di 1MByte ma uno stratagemma sulle firme delle transizioni lo rendono equivalente ad un blocco da 4MByte, chi sa spiegare meglio la cosa?Quote
The segregated witness solution
Segregated witness is perhaps best described as a novel workaround to the block size issue that affects how certain network variables are counted toward block size.
In bitcoin, transactions include one or more input fields showing where the funds come from, one or more output fields indicating where they’re going and a signature that validates that the owner had the ability to execute the transaction.
"Now signatures go into the 'from' field," Lightning Network developer Tadge Dryja explained. "[In segregated witness] the signature is separate."
More specifically, segregated witness takes the signature out of the transaction and puts the data into a Merkle tree in the coinbase component of the transaction, or the input of a generated transaction. This change would make transactions appear smaller to current nodes on the network, so that more could be included in a bitcoin block, even if blocks are still limited to 1MB by protocol rules.
“If the signatures would add 0.75MB [of capacity] to a block to a 1MB block, it would now be equivalent to 4MB,” developer Doug Roark said, echoing the description put forth by Maxwell and Wuille.
Dryja noted that a soft fork would mean parties running older versions of Bitcoin Core could still use bitcoin, even if it would appear to them as if users were sending money without signatures.
“Nodes today only see the transaction Merkle root and the transaction data, which today includes the signature,” David Vorick, CEO of distributed storage startup Nebulous, explained. “If segregated witness were to be implemented, today’s nodes would not see the transaction signature data, because it would be in a storage area that they don’t recognize.”
Older nodes that have not updated their software would still however be able to monitor the network, though it would appear as if certain parties are behaving abnormally.
"[In a soft fork] nothing changes, my coins are still the same, which is different than everyone must upgrade their software or it stops working," Dryja said. "Things start looking really weird, but they can ignore these transactions."
Segregated witness is perhaps best described as a novel workaround to the block size issue that affects how certain network variables are counted toward block size.
In bitcoin, transactions include one or more input fields showing where the funds come from, one or more output fields indicating where they’re going and a signature that validates that the owner had the ability to execute the transaction.
"Now signatures go into the 'from' field," Lightning Network developer Tadge Dryja explained. "[In segregated witness] the signature is separate."
More specifically, segregated witness takes the signature out of the transaction and puts the data into a Merkle tree in the coinbase component of the transaction, or the input of a generated transaction. This change would make transactions appear smaller to current nodes on the network, so that more could be included in a bitcoin block, even if blocks are still limited to 1MB by protocol rules.
“If the signatures would add 0.75MB [of capacity] to a block to a 1MB block, it would now be equivalent to 4MB,” developer Doug Roark said, echoing the description put forth by Maxwell and Wuille.
Dryja noted that a soft fork would mean parties running older versions of Bitcoin Core could still use bitcoin, even if it would appear to them as if users were sending money without signatures.
“Nodes today only see the transaction Merkle root and the transaction data, which today includes the signature,” David Vorick, CEO of distributed storage startup Nebulous, explained. “If segregated witness were to be implemented, today’s nodes would not see the transaction signature data, because it would be in a storage area that they don’t recognize.”
Older nodes that have not updated their software would still however be able to monitor the network, though it would appear as if certain parties are behaving abnormally.
"[In a soft fork] nothing changes, my coins are still the same, which is different than everyone must upgrade their software or it stops working," Dryja said. "Things start looking really weird, but they can ignore these transactions."
da quel che ho capito, cercando di interpretare piu' a basso livello, vogliono lasciare la parte di transazioni "output" come sono,
ma spostare la "input" (o un sottoinsieme) da qualche altra parte.... in modo che non vengano conteggiate nel famoso mega di spazio.
negli input ci sono tutte le firme e le chiavi pubbliche ... effettivamente sono dati che occupano parecchio spazio in percentuale, penso sia un 70% medio del "peso" della transazione.
ma non ho capito bene che genere di meccanismo vorrebbero fare.... forse un altro albero parallelo...
probabilmente si complichera' l'architettura di indicizzazione per mantenere una blockchain completa.... boh.
EDIT: Intendo su un client tipo core o in genere su un applicativo che ha necessita di una full blockcahin.
non riesco a decidermi se e' una figata o una super pezza (anche se propendo piu' per la seconda ....)
Io ho capito che il blocco rimane di 1MByte ma uno stratagemma sulle firme delle transizioni lo rendono equivalente ad un blocco da 4MByte, chi sa spiegare meglio la cosa? Quote
The segregated witness solution
Segregated witness is perhaps best described as a novel workaround to the block size issue that affects how certain network variables are counted toward block size.
In bitcoin, transactions include one or more input fields showing where the funds come from, one or more output fields indicating where they’re going and a signature that validates that the owner had the ability to execute the transaction.
"Now signatures go into the 'from' field," Lightning Network developer Tadge Dryja explained. "[In segregated witness] the signature is separate."
More specifically, segregated witness takes the signature out of the transaction and puts the data into a Merkle tree in the coinbase component of the transaction, or the input of a generated transaction. This change would make transactions appear smaller to current nodes on the network, so that more could be included in a bitcoin block, even if blocks are still limited to 1MB by protocol rules.
“If the signatures would add 0.75MB [of capacity] to a block to a 1MB block, it would now be equivalent to 4MB,” developer Doug Roark said, echoing the description put forth by Maxwell and Wuille.
Dryja noted that a soft fork would mean parties running older versions of Bitcoin Core could still use bitcoin, even if it would appear to them as if users were sending money without signatures.
“Nodes today only see the transaction Merkle root and the transaction data, which today includes the signature,” David Vorick, CEO of distributed storage startup Nebulous, explained. “If segregated witness were to be implemented, today’s nodes would not see the transaction signature data, because it would be in a storage area that they don’t recognize.”
Older nodes that have not updated their software would still however be able to monitor the network, though it would appear as if certain parties are behaving abnormally.
"[In a soft fork] nothing changes, my coins are still the same, which is different than everyone must upgrade their software or it stops working," Dryja said. "Things start looking really weird, but they can ignore these transactions."
Segregated witness is perhaps best described as a novel workaround to the block size issue that affects how certain network variables are counted toward block size.
In bitcoin, transactions include one or more input fields showing where the funds come from, one or more output fields indicating where they’re going and a signature that validates that the owner had the ability to execute the transaction.
"Now signatures go into the 'from' field," Lightning Network developer Tadge Dryja explained. "[In segregated witness] the signature is separate."
More specifically, segregated witness takes the signature out of the transaction and puts the data into a Merkle tree in the coinbase component of the transaction, or the input of a generated transaction. This change would make transactions appear smaller to current nodes on the network, so that more could be included in a bitcoin block, even if blocks are still limited to 1MB by protocol rules.
“If the signatures would add 0.75MB [of capacity] to a block to a 1MB block, it would now be equivalent to 4MB,” developer Doug Roark said, echoing the description put forth by Maxwell and Wuille.
Dryja noted that a soft fork would mean parties running older versions of Bitcoin Core could still use bitcoin, even if it would appear to them as if users were sending money without signatures.
“Nodes today only see the transaction Merkle root and the transaction data, which today includes the signature,” David Vorick, CEO of distributed storage startup Nebulous, explained. “If segregated witness were to be implemented, today’s nodes would not see the transaction signature data, because it would be in a storage area that they don’t recognize.”
Older nodes that have not updated their software would still however be able to monitor the network, though it would appear as if certain parties are behaving abnormally.
"[In a soft fork] nothing changes, my coins are still the same, which is different than everyone must upgrade their software or it stops working," Dryja said. "Things start looking really weird, but they can ignore these transactions."
non riesco a decidermi se e' una figata o una super pezza (anche se propendo piu' per la seconda ....)
Quote
The segregated witness solution
Segregated witness is perhaps best described as a novel workaround to the block size issue that affects how certain network variables are counted toward block size.
In bitcoin, transactions include one or more input fields showing where the funds come from, one or more output fields indicating where they’re going and a signature that validates that the owner had the ability to execute the transaction.
"Now signatures go into the 'from' field," Lightning Network developer Tadge Dryja explained. "[In segregated witness] the signature is separate."
More specifically, segregated witness takes the signature out of the transaction and puts the data into a Merkle tree in the coinbase component of the transaction, or the input of a generated transaction. This change would make transactions appear smaller to current nodes on the network, so that more could be included in a bitcoin block, even if blocks are still limited to 1MB by protocol rules.
“If the signatures would add 0.75MB [of capacity] to a block to a 1MB block, it would now be equivalent to 4MB,” developer Doug Roark said, echoing the description put forth by Maxwell and Wuille.
Dryja noted that a soft fork would mean parties running older versions of Bitcoin Core could still use bitcoin, even if it would appear to them as if users were sending money without signatures.
“Nodes today only see the transaction Merkle root and the transaction data, which today includes the signature,” David Vorick, CEO of distributed storage startup Nebulous, explained. “If segregated witness were to be implemented, today’s nodes would not see the transaction signature data, because it would be in a storage area that they don’t recognize.”
Older nodes that have not updated their software would still however be able to monitor the network, though it would appear as if certain parties are behaving abnormally.
"[In a soft fork] nothing changes, my coins are still the same, which is different than everyone must upgrade their software or it stops working," Dryja said. "Things start looking really weird, but they can ignore these transactions."
Segregated witness is perhaps best described as a novel workaround to the block size issue that affects how certain network variables are counted toward block size.
In bitcoin, transactions include one or more input fields showing where the funds come from, one or more output fields indicating where they’re going and a signature that validates that the owner had the ability to execute the transaction.
"Now signatures go into the 'from' field," Lightning Network developer Tadge Dryja explained. "[In segregated witness] the signature is separate."
More specifically, segregated witness takes the signature out of the transaction and puts the data into a Merkle tree in the coinbase component of the transaction, or the input of a generated transaction. This change would make transactions appear smaller to current nodes on the network, so that more could be included in a bitcoin block, even if blocks are still limited to 1MB by protocol rules.
“If the signatures would add 0.75MB [of capacity] to a block to a 1MB block, it would now be equivalent to 4MB,” developer Doug Roark said, echoing the description put forth by Maxwell and Wuille.
Dryja noted that a soft fork would mean parties running older versions of Bitcoin Core could still use bitcoin, even if it would appear to them as if users were sending money without signatures.
“Nodes today only see the transaction Merkle root and the transaction data, which today includes the signature,” David Vorick, CEO of distributed storage startup Nebulous, explained. “If segregated witness were to be implemented, today’s nodes would not see the transaction signature data, because it would be in a storage area that they don’t recognize.”
Older nodes that have not updated their software would still however be able to monitor the network, though it would appear as if certain parties are behaving abnormally.
"[In a soft fork] nothing changes, my coins are still the same, which is different than everyone must upgrade their software or it stops working," Dryja said. "Things start looking really weird, but they can ignore these transactions."
vi consiglio di dare un'occhiata alle presentazioni che trovate qui
https://scalingbitcoin.org/hongkong2015/#presentations
o il video della conferenza:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fst1IK_mrng
https://scalingbitcoin.org/hongkong2015/#presentations
o il video della conferenza:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fst1IK_mrng
La notizia gira un po' dovunque da giorni, comunque per chi non lo sapesse,
e' in corso "Scaling Bitcoin" una conferenza alla quale partecipano dev, miners
e gente del mondo bitcoin.
L'argomento e' discutere (e spero decidere) in merito alla strada migliore
per far scalare bitcoin per poter gestire gli ordini di grandezza
necessari in futuro.
http://www.coindesk.com/hard-fork-developers-scaling-bitcoin/
e' in corso "Scaling Bitcoin" una conferenza alla quale partecipano dev, miners
e gente del mondo bitcoin.
L'argomento e' discutere (e spero decidere) in merito alla strada migliore
per far scalare bitcoin per poter gestire gli ordini di grandezza
necessari in futuro.
http://www.coindesk.com/hard-fork-developers-scaling-bitcoin/
Jump to: