Topic: What are the technical obstacles that Bitcoin has to overcome in the next decade (Read 443 times)

It's a competition. Today many alt coins have surfaced that are more energy and electricity efficient today bitcoin mining consumes more electricity than any other crypto

It's interesting idea to reveal transaction before joining process, however there are 2 concern
1. The wallet doesn't keep transaction before joining or doesn't have feature to show it to user.
2. If the recipient doesn't have technical knowledge (usually customer service without proper training), he'll reject it because it's not on blockchain. But this is social concern rather than technical concern.

At very least, i think people/group who actively attack Bitcoin reputation will have excuse to do it.


Why? Aside from difficulty technical implementation, IMO good on-chain scaling solution should be welcomed.


I agree, there would be problem such as proving your transaction (when buy goods/service). But IMO there's more good than bad.


That's assuming bitcoin price keep rising.

The sender's wallet will keep that transaction, because wallets by default keep transactions created by their users. The receiver's wallet will see that transaction in the blockchain, unless that receiver will decide to spend it without any confirmations.

It will be removed from the blockchain only in one case: when that recipient will spend it. By the act of spending that transaction, the receiver shows everyone that it is aware of that transaction, accept it as valid, and is the owner of that coins.

To sum up: it will be quite easy to prove that transaction happened, because there are only two cases:
1) recipient does nothing and its address will be included in the blockchain (so proving that coins were sent is trivial)
2) recipient spend that coins and the spending transaction can be seen by everyone (including the sender)

Also, in case of blockchain reorgs, the chain can actually get smaller, because if there are two matching transactions in two separate blocks, then they could be replaced by a single transaction in the final chain.

It's not that hard. I can imagine a new Segwit address type for Pedersen Commitments, where you will have such commitment instead of typical ECDSA signature or typical Schnorr signature. Pedersen Commitments are based on public keys, if some script types should be based on something else, then that could be solved as in taproot: by creating some public key and tweaking that with the hash of the script. So: each input and output could be expressed as a public key in some unique way, as in taproot. Then, all that public keys could be used to form Pedersen Commitment of a transaction, which will allow to join matching transactions without invalidating that commitments. Maybe it is even possible to extend tapscript to cover that, if so, then we would have better privacy, because of less address types involved.

Why? If you can join transactions and if the recipient never spent that coins, then it will see its outputs in the final transaction. On the other hand, if the recipient saw its outputs in a mempool and decided to spend them right away, before reaching first confirmation, then that recipient knows that finally its address will not be included in the blockchain. The recipient could pretend that the coins were never sent, but then the sender could reveal sending transaction before joining, and by having that two transactions, it would be possible to construct another valid and signed transaction with recipient's address being spent and send to the final address (directly or indirectly, because if any two matching transactions can be joined, then having full list of recipients and senders require observing mempool 24/7 and catching all transactions in that transaction chain). Another interesting property of Pedersen Commitments is that if the recipient and the sender is the same entity, then an infinite chain of valid and signed transactions could be created between them, so if there is any change, then the number of parties involved is unknown.

Why is it a concern what the mining block reward will be? By the next halving, Bitcoin will have gone much higher in price, thus making mining still worthwhile. While the amount of Bitcoin you receive per block mined will go down, this doesn't mean the dollar amount per block will.

Do you think adding Mimble Wimble will bring negative press such as that with XMR. Mimble Wimble in my opinion is will be unnecessary for a while. I'm not insinuating exchanges will delist Bitcoin (lmao) but wouldn't adding Mimble Wimble not be entirely good?

What do you mean by C being too big? Do you want a language which is easy to pick up and is a higher level language? Would Python be an option since its probably one of the easiest languages to learn. I do not know enough about Lisp to comment.

(sarcasm)dont say that the LN utopian fluff PR guys have been beating me left and right trying to say that everything in LN is the same as bitcoin and spreading vile that im talking nonsense about how LN uses different units of measure that bitcoin cannot accept..
if you continue revealing that LN is different to bitcoin with its own separate units of measure, they will abandon you as their worship leader and call you a LN heretic

so maybe whisper it next time or they will hate you too
(/sarcasm)

maybe their anger and claims of misinformation is that i claim its 12 decimals when they want to be anal and say its 11 (pico minus 1). yet they miss the point entirely that its more then 8, thus not bitcoin compatible

anyway.. after Gmax's shameless plug of another network (standard poke to avoid solving bitcoin issues)
lets draw the topic back to bitcoin issues.

the main one seems to be what is being promoted as a technical problem.. getting the byzantine generals to agree on a bitcoin evolution
though digging deeper. its more political than technical.

first coercing the main merchants(generals) to change or their transactions will be more expensive.. so merchants follow pools and ripple effects onto users(cadet) that want to use merchants, so follow too.

next coercing pools to change unless have their blocks rejected by merchants. again ripple effects pools follow and users follow.

but before the political game even begins. trying to convince the core devs to implement some change. is the bigger political game. because if they decline to release a code change in their implementation. it aint going to happen. any 'forked github' of bitcoin software by default is always treated with opposition. even if it has no intention of forking the chain

In this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtLEWVu815o

FWIW, lightning already lets you use smaller amounts.

I know who's franky1, but I'd discourage anyone from having an disagreement with him, just like you do. There's just not a point, it is completely meaningless to discuss for over a post with him.

Alright, scarcity definition:  A situation in which something is not easy to find or get. It doesn't matter if that something becomes easier in terms of sharing, or if the digits of its unit can is extended. That is your assumption.

you have precisely by your own admission only a few weeks knowledge on topics like LN
i know you have joined the promotion of alternate network hype gang of utopian overpromises

but take a step back and realise people want to know about flaws and issues.. and not just be pumped with hype and dreams

yes i dont give kiss-ass hugging messages of hope. but atleast look passed the tone of my messages that fluffy dreamers hate and realise the actual reality of the situations i talk about

oh
and 21m btc is not a hard rule
20,999,999,999,xxx sats is the hard rule of limited supply
if you think its about 'btc' then do try and i mean this really try to find a raw transaction in the blockchain whos output value is "1" where 1 represents a btc
.. heck ill be nice to you,.. there isnt any

if your here to make friends and create a social culture divide.. fine, thats your business
im here because i care about bitcoin(not other network)

(sorry to other readers for the social drama of the altnet hypers)

in short
if its easier to share.. then its not hard to get

gold is not scarce.. everyone on this forum has gold. its in the device your reading this message in right now.
easy to find easy to get

i probably shouldn't engage with you, but what you say here is wrong. you mean it gets more accessible, but it doesn't get less scarce

maybe if you discover the words sharable units. and understand scarcity in regards to shares of units.
you will understand what scarcity is

btc at code level does not exist. you will not find any btc in any raw transaction data. no btc on the blockchain.
its all measured in sats..
always have been

the measures known as bits(100sat) millibits(10000sats(0.001btc) and btc are just graphic multiplication on the user display for easy human reading

knowing that there has been a hard rule of sats.. and a human construct multiplication of btc
is the same as the '10min block' thing in reality being 2016 blocks a fortnight hard rule not a 10min rule

but thats the symantecs debate

the economic rule is limited satoshi supply where breaking up satoshis into even more units that can be shared. is making it less scarce. because more people get a slice

it then becomes that bitcoin is not 100,000,000x of the smallest unit of measure basket term
but then becomes a basket term for even more sharable units
emphasis of sharable units

franky1 is a "troll" and has a hard time to provide anything of substance (see for example here). i agree with you, that adding more digits is not a technical obstacle and also would not change the scarcity of bitcoin

You don't need for mining to maintain the same hashrate as today. The system works if it is more profitable to be an honest miner than to use their equipment to attack Bitcoin. The problem arises only if that condition is not fulfilled.
Once every ~4 years, so it'll be 5 halvings. Those are not the only factors; you have to include the potential for any on-chain capacity growth as well. I'd say this isn't an issue that Bitcoin really faces, you do have sufficient cushioning from rapid decrease in block rewards; decreases substantially at the start but then the fees gradually forms a greater composition of the revenue.

Where's the scarcity promise? Would you mind sharing a link? I know that whether we had 8 or 18 digits, we'd still never exceed the 21,000,000 BTC; isn't that what matters? Even if it can be divided, how would that affect the Bitcoin or the people's wealths?

I think that Satoshi made it pretty clear that we could extend its decimal places in the future. There's no reason, at the moment, though. You can't send less than 547 sats, so it'd be ironic to upgrade to 12 places.

increasing the blockreward is not been a viable option
on a technical level its not hard
but the economical/political/algo promise bases.. it breaks the moral rules

bitcoin was designed from day one to release 5000000000sats every block and half every 210k blocks. leading to a moral/economic rule of total circulation limit of 2100000000000000sats
changing this breaks the moral economic code of limited supply

doesnt matter if its changing the smallest unit of measure into even smallest sharable units of measure or changing it to produce more current measures. both have been ruled out as viable options due to the scarcity promise of limited supply

yes this is the key method forward. it then allows more utility.
at the moment 2500tx only allows for 360000 people to make one transaction a day if uniformly and fairly used by everyone

but to also help with the equal share or chance to get a 'slot' the transaction fee desperately needs a fee formulae..
not the current rule where
segwit pays ~same sat/weight
legacy pays ~same sat/weight*4

but where the utxo's age becomes a consideration.
where by spammers pay more than infrequent users. deterring spammers.. thus not turning the blocks into spam blocks leaving random users bottlenecked paying higher to compete

for instance right now its possible and does not break any consensus or morals
to change the fee policy to not care the ethic hereditary of a transaction(legacy or segwit) but instead just count the utxo blockheight vs current blockheight at new transaction creation/broadcast. and give anyone spending under 72block(half a day) a 4X premium
or more creatively set 1confirm as 144x and descend down to 1x if coin over 144 confirms

This is pretty interesting to know that the next set of challenges that LN will face is related to the need for complex scripts and the need for Bitcoin to find a way to accommodate this. Now, all this talk about Smart contract language for Bitcoin is a bit esoteric from my viewpoint but didn't a bunch of developers propose a scripting language change to achieve specifically this? It was called Simplicity and I could never go beyond the video where the developer is showing the Half-adder implemented in Simplicity.

What is the current state of development with Simplicity? Did it not prove useful in being the smart-contract solution? Once you answer a few questions, I promise I'll do some research on my own too. Thanks for this.

To answer the OP, I don't understand why nobody has pointed this out yet, but one of the challenges I feel is for the mining incentive to continue to remain lucrative to ensure the hashrate that we see today. In two decades, it'll halve twice. The state of the fee-market by that time and price of BTC will be the factors to decide whether it is lucrative enough for miners providing security to the chain.

To achieve deeper application and popularization, scalability is essential.
There are probably the following solutions：
1）SideChains
Its definition is: a protocol that allows Bitcoin to be safely transferred from the Bitcoin main chain to other blockchains, and can be safely returned to the Bitcoin main chain from other blockchains.

2）Sharding
In fact, it is a traditional database technology that divides large databases into smaller, faster, and easier-to-manage parts.However, it will be quite complicated when applied to the blockchain.

If the side chain is "externally grafted" to the main chain, then sharding is to "internally split" the main chain. Obviously the latter is more difficult to implement than the former.

3）Directed Acyclic Graph
This is a graph structure with vertices and edges. It can guarantee to go from a vertex along several edges (directed), but it can never return to the origin (acyclic).

4）Sub Chain
If you consider the ecology of MOAC, it is like a GitHub for development, then the sub-chains can be turned into functional libraries, so that the sub-chains can be shared with each other. The various service-providing sub-chains must be subdivided into roles due to different services.