Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

My personal theory about why the original 2 week Bitcoin difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA) was not restored at the Genesis upgrade is pretty much the same as @AdrianX suggested.

The current DAA is better for a minority defence, preventing a chain death spiral. (That said, uncapped blocks are a lot more robust against the chain death scenario.)

And I think this is the reason why there is no exact date for the restoration of the original 2 week DAA.

 

[Zarathustra]

No tears to cry
All sucked dry
Down to the very last breath
Bartender what is wrong with me

Why am I so out of breath
The captain said excuse me ma'am
This species has amused itself to death
Amused itself to death

Amused itself to death
We watched the tragedy unfold
We did as we were told
We bought and sold

It was the greatest show on earth
But then it was over

 

[Norway]

I'll just leave this one here:

 

[AdrianX]

That's awesome the next one need to be in 3D to explain now when you role from Alice to Carol by going through Bob's toilet paper "channel" he needs a role with capacity that roles towards Carol - and if the role from Bob to Carol is low or changes mid role a toilet paper "channel" with enough capacity can't be routed.

 

[Otaci]

If the block capacity is enormous, there is no ancestor limit, and fees start to approach block subsidy, what does that imply for block frequency?

 

[AdrianX]

@Otaci it obviously goes up but why do fees automatically start to approach block subsidy, surly it's dependant on the demand to transact on-chain?

There are also some holes in the big block make more money projections based on the historicity data presented. The fees are not pegged to the Token's price the way it's usually sold but to the economic value it provides which is pegged to the economy. eg people stop transaction in twetch when the economic value peg is unfavorable resulting in fewer transactions and less revenue for the transaction processors.

___

In the Bitcoin space, there are now 3 blockchains. I don't expect much price appreciation over the next quarter or year, but I do expect one to shine on the other end of the economic correction that's now underway, precisely because it's not limited and it's widely accessible to all. I don't expect the other 2 Bitcoin to go away but I do expect them to help people see where the value comes from. They will serve as decoys as described in this Decoy Effect example.

​

For reference, the obvious choice. https://fsinsight.com/2020/02/18/crypto-special-report-bitcoin-sv-metanet-beyond-digital-money-towards-an-on-chain-internet/

___

On another topic George Gilder gave a similar Coingeek presentation over a year ago, in principle I think this one was better than this Coin Geek presentation. He describes Money and time in this clip without any hesitation. (he may be getting old and forgot at CG London.)

Money is what remained scarce when all else becomes abundant
it translates the scarcity of irreversible time into the economy.

​

 

[Otaci]

I mean cumulative fees. The sum of the fees of unconfirmed transactions.

 

[AdrianX]

I added to my comment, but yes I see your point, unlimited block size solves problems by incentivizing solutions - the same competition to write a block and earn the fees is preserved.

 

[Norway]

If the block capacity is enormous, there is no ancestor limit, and fees start to approach block subsidy, what does that imply for block frequency?

Assuming the stream of transactions are stable in terms of fees/time, the block frequency will be stable as a Rolex watch. The reason for this is that miners will turn off the asics when the fees from unconfirmed transactions is unprofitable and turn them on when they become profitable. We get a sawtooth pattern in terms of haspower where most asics are turned off the second a block is found. I believe I heard this theory from Craig.

The engineering challenge is to handle the power even with predictable and exact 10 minute cycles. Easy if you tap water from a reservoir, hard if you go solar, wind, coal, nuke. Industrial scale batteries may be needed, and Lithium is probably too expensive (Elon Musk may disagree with me on this one). Less effective energy storage is also an option.

The battery/energy storage issue may make the block frequency less stable.

Perhaps co-location with aluminium production is a solution? 9 minutes aluminium, 1 minute mining

PS. Under conditions like these, the order of a transaction in a block will be a very exact time stamp without CTOR.

 

[79b79aa8]

it was @rocks who brought it up, at least in this thread.

 

[Norway]

Yes, thanks for digging up the link @79b79aa8 !

 

[Otaci]

it was @rocks who brought it up, at least in this thread.

Good find. So now link this in to the topic of DAA that was being discussed a few posts ago.

 

[cypherdoc]

EARN IT turns all of this on its head. It’s extremely difficult to believe that this bill stems from an honest consideration of the rights of child victims, and that this legislation is anything other than a direct attack on the use of end-to-end encryption.

https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2020/03/06/earn-it-is-an-attack-on-encryption/

 

[Norway]

PROVOKING QUESTION:
Is the mysterious unwriter really that smart if Bitbus 2.0 does only serve tx data to apps/backends and NOT serve Merkle-proofs?

I was surprised when I learned this here:

Unwriter established himself as the READ side of Bitcoin, while Bitcoin SV node/ nChain / Bitcoin Association is the WRITE side of Bitcoin.

New York: READ
London: WRITE

And I love it!

Bitbus 2.0 is what Thomas Bakketun and I call a BSP. Bitcoin Service Provider. The Metanet replacement of ISP's (Internet Service Provider).

I don't expect this service to be free. And I don't think "free" is a sustainable concept. I expect it will cost money to download any info from a BSP. Transactions, Merkle-proofs and Blockheaders. But it will be cheaper than the current model.

With a Merkle-proof, an anonymous stranger with a hidden agenda can prove that his data (a transaction) was timestamped by a miner to anyone.

Why did unwriter miss this Bitcoin 101 point that would shift Bitbus 2.0 from a trusted database to a Bitcoin Service Provider?

 

[AdrianX]

Why did unwriter miss this Bitcoin 101 point that would shift Bitbus 2.0 from a trusted database to a Bitcoin Service Provider?

I don't think he did. If anything his high-level overviews and insights have convinced me that, that may very well happen on BSV.

 

[Norway]

Right. But.
If you use the latest version of Bitbus (2.0), it acts like a Google service. It's just a database you have to trust.
I don't want to trust the anonymous unwriter. I trust the Bitcoin system. I trust trailing zeros. Proof of work. Signatures and hashes.
[doublepost=1584135155][/doublepost]The thing is, Bitbus could remove itself from this trust by providing Merkle-proofs.
No need to trust unwriter @AdrianX.
It's a good thing, not having to trust unwriter. For everyone. Even unwriter.
Get those Merkle-proofs into the system!

 

[trinoxol]

Now they want to prevent people from selling in order to fuel their HODL dreams.

 

[Norway]

I like @solex as a person. He is a very nice guy.
But we have different agendas.
His agenda is not my agenda.

 

[79b79aa8]

if the economic incentive for all hash becomes to thus mine intermittently, what would be keeping the avg. interval between blocks at 10 mins.?

The difficulty adjustment. It may vary until the next adjustment but then it should be put back in line. This assumes it's stable (which is probably reasonable but might not be the case. See how the hash rate swung wildly after the BCH fork (thanks Amaury /s)).

The difficulty adjustment. The mean would remain at 10 mins (within random fluctuations and the general trend to more hashpower). What would change would be variance would shrink.
So Zerg's attempts to fix what isn't broken with long-tail blocks are unnecessary.

 

[Bloomie]

Happy 2020. Please read about the forum upgrade here.