The Extreme Flaws Of Bitcoin - page 2.

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1009

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: AgentofCoin on December 02, 2016, 05:49:20 PM

Quote from: TransaDox on December 02, 2016, 09:17:13 AM

Quote from: ArcCsch on December 02, 2016, 08:22:34 AM

Quote from: TransaDox on December 02, 2016, 08:06:52 AM

Having an access point is a requirement to participate.

The problem is exactly the negation of that statement, you don't need a node to use bitcoin, there is little incentive to run one (I am not saying that everyone should be required to run a node to use bitcoin, that would reduce the accesability of using bitcoin).

You misunderstand. I am proposing that we make it a requirement to participate, just like the access point. Then all wallets are supportive of the network and the argument about finance vs altruism is moot.

The real problem is if we did as you suggest then users would run their node only for transactions
and as soon as it is broadcasted and within a block, they would just shut down that node.

The real discussion by the OP is about having 24/7 full nodes that help distribute the security and
risk through global decentralization which is encouraged by directly incentivizing the transaction node
users. Miners are doing their jobs 24/7 and not intermittently. Nodes should be doing their jobs 24/7
as well, like guards on distant mountains keeping watch of their territory.

Average joe users do not need to nor should run full nodes, it is beyond their capabilities, but
full nodes should be incentivized in some way to encourage new capable people into the full
node field, so we can get the Bitcoin node network from 5,000 to around 50,000+.

An increase in legitimate 24/7 full nodes distributed worldwide is the goal.

Best comment over here, i'll put it on first post.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: TransaDox on November 30, 2016, 08:33:43 PM

If, instead of a counter, the hash was calculated on a varying number of transactions (1 then 2 then 3 and so on) then this is not the case. Scaling up the hash alone yields the same hash if the transaction list is constant and in order to calculate the hash for each (1,2,3...) transaction lists would require a huge amount of resources which the ASIC is unlikely to have. This method would be ASIC resistant.

Thinking a little more about this. It would actually solve the block size issue.

So. Instead of an incrementing counter being used to generate a new hash of the transactions on each round. The counter is removed and the order or number of transactions is changed. Although a minimum block size of 1MB could be retained for spam protection, miners would be free to use an unlimited block size. In reality there would be an optimum based on the technology used, the fees and the method (reorg/add).

It could also be argued, that miners are incentivised to use larger than 1MB blocks to gain more fees (higher tx throughput) and the spam could become valuable, in the absence of larger paying transactions, to generate their hashes. The minimum 1MB block could no longer be required except for a guaranteed minimum throughput. Miners could become ravenous for any transaction including those that are zero fee.

Of course. This would require a hard-fork and obviate all current ASIC miners Grin

Snorek

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1001

About that ASIC flaw. I am not observing Zcash - this coin has memory-hard proof of work known as Equihash and apparently it is coded in a way to prevent any kind of ASIC mining.
I will be nice to see how mining of this coin will evolve and whether it will be truly decentralized after some time - then we will compare it to bitcoin mining and draw conclusions.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: amaclin on December 02, 2016, 02:05:28 PM

i386sx is not Application Specific Integrated Circuit compared with Intel Core i5
But Intel Core i5 is Application Specific Integrated Circuit compared to i386sx

If it can be programmed then it is not "Application Specific". It is not a relative term at all.
FPGAs blur the boundary slightly but are still not considered ASICs. FPGAs are often used to prototype ASIC designs.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: AgentofCoin on December 03, 2016, 01:08:04 AM

So the nuisance of syncing the whole chain, which only increases in time, is the incentive not to turn it off?
Interesting, because I think that is one of the reasons why average users just use SPVs instead.

So what's the incentive for others, that currently don't run it, to turn it on in the first place?

One wouldn't have to synch the whole chain. Only back to the old checkpoint (which is already verified back to the genesis block from the initial start).

The incentive is that the on-disk size is less than 1GB regardless of total chain size.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: TransaDox on December 02, 2016, 06:57:06 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on December 02, 2016, 05:49:20 PM

The real problem is if we did as you suggest then users would run their node only for transactions
and as soon as it is broadcasted and within a block, they would just shut down that node.

The real discussion by the OP is about having 24/7 full nodes that help distribute the security and
risk through global decentralization which is encouraged by directly incentivizing the transaction node
users. Miners are doing their jobs 24/7 and not intermittently. Nodes should be doing their jobs 24/7
as well, like guards on distant mountains keeping watch of their territory.

Average joe users do not need to nor should run full nodes, it is beyond their capabilities, but
full nodes should be incentivized in some way to encourage new capable people into the full
node field, so we can get the Bitcoin node network from 5,000 to around 50,000+.

An increase in legitimate 24/7 full nodes distributed worldwide is the goal.

Nodes are incentivised to stay online since if they restart, they will have to regenerate their NodeID and re-index the block chain. After an initial index this will be until at least 1 old checkpoint and at least 2 new checkpoints have been verified. The return will not be instantaneous.

So the nuisance of syncing the whole chain, which only increases in time, is the incentive not to turn it off?
Interesting, because I think that is one of the reasons why average users just use SPVs instead.

So what's the incentive for others, that currently don't run it, to turn it on in the first place?

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: AgentofCoin on December 02, 2016, 05:49:20 PM

The real problem is if we did as you suggest then users would run their node only for transactions
and as soon as it is broadcasted and within a block, they would just shut down that node.

The real discussion by the OP is about having 24/7 full nodes that help distribute the security and
risk through global decentralization which is encouraged by directly incentivizing the transaction node
users. Miners are doing their jobs 24/7 and not intermittently. Nodes should be doing their jobs 24/7
as well, like guards on distant mountains keeping watch of their territory.

Average joe users do not need to nor should run full nodes, it is beyond their capabilities, but
full nodes should be incentivized in some way to encourage new capable people into the full
node field, so we can get the Bitcoin node network from 5,000 to around 50,000+.

An increase in legitimate 24/7 full nodes distributed worldwide is the goal.

Nodes are incentivised to stay online since if they restart, they will have to regenerate their NodeID and re-index the block chain. After an initial index this will be until at least 1 old checkpoint and at least 2 new checkpoints have been verified. The return will not be instantaneous.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: TransaDox on December 02, 2016, 09:17:13 AM

Quote from: ArcCsch on December 02, 2016, 08:22:34 AM

Quote from: TransaDox on December 02, 2016, 08:06:52 AM

Having an access point is a requirement to participate.

The problem is exactly the negation of that statement, you don't need a node to use bitcoin, there is little incentive to run one (I am not saying that everyone should be required to run a node to use bitcoin, that would reduce the accesability of using bitcoin).

You misunderstand. I am proposing that we make it a requirement to participate, just like the access point. Then all wallets are supportive of the network and the argument about finance vs altruism is moot.

The real problem is if we did as you suggest then users would run their node only for transactions
and as soon as it is broadcasted and within a block, they would just shut down that node.

The real discussion by the OP is about having 24/7 full nodes that help distribute the security and
risk through global decentralization which is encouraged by directly incentivizing the transaction node
users. Miners are doing their jobs 24/7 and not intermittently. Nodes should be doing their jobs 24/7
as well, like guards on distant mountains keeping watch of their territory.

Average joe users do not need to nor should run full nodes, it is beyond their capabilities, but
full nodes should be incentivized in some way to encourage new capable people into the full
node field, so we can get the Bitcoin node network from 5,000 to around 50,000+.

An increase in legitimate 24/7 full nodes distributed worldwide is the goal.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 02, 2016, 02:07:05 PM

Yes it is-- the circuit it implements is universal, meaning that it can emulate any other circuit.

Then by your own definition it is not "Application Specific". I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: TransaDox on December 02, 2016, 01:33:14 PM

A CPU is not an Application Specific Integrated Circuit. It is application agnostic.

Yes it is-- the circuit it implements is universal, meaning that it can emulate any other circuit. But it's built exactly like a mining asic is, mining asics just are more optimized for that task and don't waste space for parts that aren't needed.

The term ASIC is a comparison to early "integrated circuits"-- devices that had many semiconductor parts integrated into a single chip, but still exposed them to the outside world as generic parts. An application specific part builds the application (like "computer cpu") into it to achieve much higher levels of integration.

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote from: TransaDox on December 02, 2016, 01:33:14 PM

A CPU is not an Application Specific Integrated Circuit. It is application agnostic.

i386sx is not Application Specific Integrated Circuit compared with Intel Core i5
But Intel Core i5 is Application Specific Integrated Circuit compared to i386sx

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 01, 2016, 10:24:18 PM

Yep. (and if it did-- what would you run it on, your CPU is an asic too!)

A CPU is not an Application Specific Integrated Circuit. It is application agnostic.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: ArcCsch on December 02, 2016, 11:04:29 AM

This would just increase the digital divide, people with a poor internet connection and little hard drive space to spare would not be able to participate.
One of the nice things about bitcoin is its accessibility, an impoverished farmer can walk into a dilapidated shed, connect to the dial up connection with the crash-prone 2003 computer, and spend his hard-earned milli-bitcoins on a sack of grain.
Requiring users to run a node would turn bitcoin into an elitist system that can only be used by people with fancy computers, fast connections and large hard drives.

My PoN idea gives a privilege to node runners, but still lets others use the system, they just have to wait for their turn while the node-runners skip to the front of the line.

I thought the argument against this was "Moores Law means technology will be dirt cheap"? At least that was what everyone keeps saying.

However. I have hinted at a distributed block chain that would mean an on-disk size less than 1GB regardless of chain size meaning the concept of a full node as one that has to have the entire chain is irrelevant.

ArcCsch

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 117

▲ Portable backup power source for mining.

Quote from: TransaDox on December 02, 2016, 09:17:13 AM

You misunderstand. I am proposing that we make it a requirement to participate, just like the access point. Then all wallets are supportive of the network and the argument about finance vs altruism is moot.

This would just increase the digital divide, people with a poor internet connection and little hard drive space to spare would not be able to participate.
One of the nice things about bitcoin is its accessibility, an impoverished farmer can walk into a dilapidated shed, connect to the dial up connection with the crash-prone 2003 computer, and spend his hard-earned milli-bitcoins on a sack of grain.
Requiring users to run a node would turn bitcoin into an elitist system that can only be used by people with fancy computers, fast connections and large hard drives.

My PoN idea gives a privilege to node runners, but still lets others use the system, they just have to wait for their turn while the node-runners skip to the front of the line.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: ArcCsch on December 02, 2016, 08:22:34 AM

Quote from: TransaDox on December 02, 2016, 08:06:52 AM

Having an access point is a requirement to participate.

The problem is exactly the negation of that statement, you don't need a node to use bitcoin, there is little incentive to run one (I am not saying that everyone should be required to run a node to use bitcoin, that would reduce the accesability of using bitcoin).

You misunderstand. I am proposing that we make it a requirement to participate, just like the access point. Then all wallets are supportive of the network and the argument about finance vs altruism is moot.

ArcCsch

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 117

▲ Portable backup power source for mining.

Quote from: TransaDox on December 02, 2016, 08:06:52 AM

Having an access point is a requirement to participate.

The problem is exactly the negation of that statement, you don't need a node to use bitcoin, there is little incentive to run one (I am not saying that everyone should be required to run a node to use bitcoin, that would reduce the accesability of using bitcoin).

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: RealBitcoin on December 01, 2016, 12:11:30 PM

-Either both miners and node dont get paid = voluntary work in the name of altruism
-Or both get paid = for profit business

You cant mix them, as it is contradictory.

This is a false dichotomy.

When one wants broadband to the home, one requires an access point. This is in addition to the LLC, fibre and all the infrastructure owned by the provider. Having an access point is a requirement to participate.. They don't pay one for having an access point. The same argument can be made for the required parts of the Bitcoin system and, indeed, it was with the first implementations where one had to have mining, full node and wallet.

So the choice isn't altruism or financial reward, it is a requirement to participate or financial reward for infrastructure support.

ArcCsch

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 117

▲ Portable backup power source for mining.

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 01, 2016, 10:24:18 PM

Then I just have one node and pretend to be thousands of nodes. You've just reinvented mining but in a cumbersome way, and failed to benefit the system.

If you have a node, you would tack on PoN to any transactions you care about (to you or away from you) and thus use your privileges to get them confirmed quick, but you would not have incentive to use your processing power to spam up the reserved space with transactions between strangers. A market for PoN may develop, but that would just incentivise nodes more.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: amaclin on November 29, 2016, 10:40:30 AM

There is no such thing as asic-resistance.

Yep. (and if it did-- what would you run it on, your CPU is an asic too!)

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf

Quote from: ArcCsch on December 01, 2016, 08:29:04 PM

This can be enforced by requiring transactions in the reserved area to have proof of node.
Proof of node can be a scrypt-like system (look up entry corresponding to transaction hash, hash this with the transaction hash, look up entry corresponding to this hash, repeat, chech final hash against difficulty (should be hard enough to prevent spam, but not enough to tie up nodes)) over the block-chain, that requires having the entire block-chain to preform, but can be checked quite easily (about as hard as checking for double-spends on inputs).

Then I just have one node and pretend to be thousands of nodes. You've just reinvented mining but in a cumbersome way, and failed to benefit the system.

ArcCsch

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 117

▲ Portable backup power source for mining.

Some space can be reserved in blocks for transactions from node runners.
This can be enforced by requiring transactions in the reserved area to have proof of node.
Proof of node can be a scrypt-like system (look up entry corresponding to transaction hash, hash this with the transaction hash, look up entry corresponding to this hash, repeat, chech final hash against difficulty (should be hard enough to prevent spam, but not enough to tie up nodes)) over the block-chain, that requires having the entire block-chain to preform, but can be checked quite easily (about as hard as checking for double-spends on inputs). This would provide an incentive for businesses that want many transactions confirmed quickly with less fees to run a node.

Topic: The Extreme Flaws Of Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 4933 times)