Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

Looks like the BU node is not tested on the public Scaling Test Network (STN). Might be a good idea to join it?

 

[cypherdoc]

just listen to this arrogant jerk, abrkn aka Andreas Brekken aka Bitcoinopoly (mod of r/btc). and ppl wonder why the BCH team suffers from "arrogance" perceptions and likewise why i get down so much on certain protocol devs. the good thing is, he's apparently no longer in the BCH camp and he rightfully despises checkpoints. otoh, as a balanced critique, the channel hosts can't expect every guest that wants to come on the show to "atone" for past mistakes with BCH or BTC and praise BSV to high heavens. the interviewers should seek balanced interviews, imo, and not just light hearted circle jerks:

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

Wow, Tim Draper speaking at the next Coingeek

https://coingeek.com/conferences/toronto-conference/

Is he thinking about selling his BTC?

...aaand he's gone.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Peter R you should probably stop dissing LN until after your interview with PM. otherwise he may back out yet again.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

...aaand he's gone.

Would be interesting to get the story behind it. Did he attend without knowing the 'official' story about bsv, and was 'enlightened' by his friends in btc and bch? Or did he cancel because of Calvin's tweet scandal?
[doublepost=1552605699][/doublepost]

@Peter R you should probably stop dissing LN until after your interview with PM. otherwise he may back out yet again.

I wondered too. Discussing ideas on Twitter is very helpful to clear your arguments. And maybe the points Peter makes will stick better when they are told prior to the interview. Will definitely watch it.

Thanks @Peter R for coming back into the snake hole. I hope it's is not exhausting too much energy

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Is there some math?

800 btc locked to enable a fluent throughput of 150 usd in a network of maybe 5000 participants.

How many btc must be locked to fluently pass 1000 usd in a network of million participants? A billion?

Btc = usd x number nodes?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Let me take this further.

Peter Todd used to say Bitcoin doesn't scale because it is a O(N²) network: The overall traffic is the product of number of nodes and blocksize. So we need Lightning.

Now, Lightning is a O(N²) network too: The overall liquidity is the product of participants and the amount they send.

With Bitcoin, "users can just be users" by using SPV / Light nodes, not increasing overall network traffic, but keeping their own keys. With Lightning, users either have liquidity, or use an "SPV liquidity wallet", which basically is a bank in which some hub manages your keys.

 

[cypherdoc]

>Peter Todd used to say Bitcoin doesn't scale because it is a O(N²) network: The overall traffic is the product of number of nodes and blocksize. So we need Lightning.

>Now, Lightning is a O(N²) network too: The overall liquidity is the product of participants and the amount they send.

this seemed interesting to me. those multipliers seem arbitrary. who's to say the LN metrics aren't amount of BTC deposits and the number of channels? for Bitcoin, why isn't it bandwidth times blocksize?

 

[rocks]

Except that Bitcoin is not an order O(N^2) network, it is an order O(M*N) network which is a big difference.

M is the node count and N are transactions. If there are only 1000 full nodes then traffic is the number of transactions times 1000, which is linear scaling against transactions. This was argued with them in 2013, they're morons.

BTW, what is going on with BCH? It is breaking out.

 

[solex]

Where do you guys see Bitcoin Unlimited in two years?

Still leading the way in blockchain scaling, as it has done for the last 3 years since the first BU software client was released with various limits significantly raised, also since Xthin was first put onto a testnet, including inside mainland China. Remember that it was only Xthin which forced the hand of Core to introduce similar functionality. It was also the main-net demonstration of Xthin which attracted miners to realise the onchain scaling vision had solid, practical foundations.

@Norway, based upon the result of BUIP107, BU is not going to be 100% BSV focused, which I know is your heart's desire. I see it continuing to support onchain scaling for Bitcoin, which was the original plan. Our idea of a spinoff (as per BUIP055) which directly led to Bitcoin Cash, has certainly progressed in unexpected directions over the last two years, which makes me think that predicting the next two years in any detail, is a fool's errand.

 

[Zarathustra]

> @Norway, based upon the result of BUIP107, BU is not going to be 100% BSV focused, which I know is your heart's desire.

I think @Norway's question is this: Why are the BU devs <30% BSV focused while BU forum users are >60% BSV focused?


> Still leading the way in blockchain scaling, as it has done for the last 3 years ...

Blockchain scaling? BU's bitcoiners morphed into blockchainers?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

>Peter Todd used to say Bitcoin doesn't scale because it is a O(N²) network: The overall traffic is the product of number of nodes and blocksize. So we need Lightning.

>Now, Lightning is a O(N²) network too: The overall liquidity is the product of participants and the amount they send.

this seemed interesting to me. those multipliers seem arbitrary. who's to say the LN metrics aren't amount of BTC deposits and the number of channels? for Bitcoin, why isn't it bandwidth times blocksize?

Yeah, I know, variables are a bit arbitrary. I just wanted to voice the idea that ln just replaces traffic as a limiting factor with liquidity.

I guess there might evolve a factor, like the network graph, to represent this math.

But the logic is quite simple: To route X BTC to somebody, any nodes on the way must have X BTC in incoming AND in outgoing liquidity. The unknown factor is the centralization of the network.

[doublepost=1552725300][/doublepost]

Except that Bitcoin is not an order O(N^2) network, it is an order O(M*N) network which is a big difference.

M is the node count and N are transactions. If there are only 1000 full nodes then traffic is the number of transactions times 1000, which is linear scaling against transactions. This was argued with them in 2013, they're morons.

BTW, what is going on with BCH? It is breaking out.

Agree. I never understood this reasoning, as it was obvious that traffic scales linearly if you keep the number of nodes stable. But they focused on the Node factor and called it science.

As we have spv, bitcoin can scale linearly. With lightning you need to have banks to make it possible to scale linearly.
[doublepost=1552726061,1552725180][/doublepost]

> @Norway, based upon the result of BUIP107, BU is not going to be 100% BSV focused, which I know is your heart's desire.

I think @Norway's question is this: Why are the BU devs <30% BSV focused while BU forum users are >60% BSV focused?


> Still leading the way in blockchain scaling, as it has done for the last 3 years ...

Blockchain scaling? BU's bitcoiners morphed into blockchainers?

And one more...

Maybe this thread does no longer represent bitcoin unlimited? If bitcoin unlimited membership was in favor of bsv, you'd assume more to run a bucashsv node. But I never found one to connect with.

Despite this, I strongly think that bu should focus on bsv. It seems like a natural fit. Bu can compete with sv on a public scaling testnet, which is IMHO a great chance.

Also, bsv needs bu to have an alternative to nchains semi open source client. So, if it was about me, bu should go 100 percent bsv, but as this will not happen, I'd be OK with 70 percent

@solex

 

[cypherdoc]

this is really a brilliant post by @Peter R. r/BTC is rightfully having a field day with this. r/Bitcoiners are left scratching their heads, hahaha :

 

[Norway]

Awesome blogpost by @Peter R :
https://medium.com/@peter_r/the-answer-to-yesterdays-lightning-network-quiz-was-a-1-coin-d8125c056758

 

[Peter R]

Except that Bitcoin is not an order O(N^2) network, it is an order O(M*N) network which is a big difference.

M is the node count and N are transactions. If there are only 1000 full nodes then traffic is the number of transactions times 1000, which is linear scaling against transactions. This was argued with them in 2013, they're morons.

BTW, what is going on with BCH? It is breaking out.

And that's total traffic. But who cares about that?

The load on a given node scales as O(N) where N is the transaction rate.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Are we back at square 1?

Once again we have to discuss Adam Back's fears, that Bitcoin will saturate the internet (because of O(n^2) network load)?

 

[Norway]

@solex
Do you think we should have at least 1 BU node running on the Scaling Test Network (STN)?

https://bitcoinscaling.io/

 

[rocks]

And that's total traffic. But who cares about that?

The load on a given node scales as O(N) where N is the transaction rate.

If we want to get pedantic about it for an individual node it's still O(M*N) except that M becomes the number of nodes a client is connected to. Which still results in linear scaling against transactions and is scalable.

Awesome diagram of LN BTW. It feels that more and more people are waking up to how broken it is. Censorship can only take a project so far...

I have a feeling there will be a Minsky moment at some point regarding LN. The question is what will core do then? Do they cave and allow BTC to scale? If so is it too late or would BCH and BSV be killed off?

 

[Peter R]

@rocks:

But for any transaction or block, I only need to learn of it once. So if I'm connected to M peers, each peer need only send me N/M of the information I need. The number of peers, M, doesn't affect the information required to be sent. No?

 

[cypherblock]

Clemens Lee was the first to independently prove this,

No, he didn't prove anything IMO. I watched his video on this subject and honestly I don't see how he is making a claim of turing completeness here. It is more like blockchain acting as the paper in the turing machine but not the other parts. Now in fairness either he didn't fully explain how this was meant to work, or I didn't understand it. I never saw anything like a formal or even informal proof, just what looked to me like hand waving. If I'm wrong please explain how he proved it.

I do think there is a fair amount of complexity that a bitcoin script can do. But you also have to keep in mind that after a script executes, the value of the stack is 'lost', not recorded as part of the tx. So yeah maybe you can have a script compute the square of an input value, and put that on the stack: the result for an input of 2, would be 4 ends up on the stack, but this isn't recorded in the blockchain. It just happens as part of the computation. So yes we can calculate some functions (I doubt ALL functions), and have the result end up on the stack(s) at somepoint during tx processing.
[doublepost=1552862576][/doublepost]

this is really a brilliant post

It is a great visualization however what he glosses over is that generally people are storing millions to 100s of millions of satoshis in LN. It was meant (especially in early stages) for small transactions. So his visualization shows more what it would be like if you only put 1-3 satoshis in an LN channel. It does a good job though of showing some limitations.