Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/clearing-the-fud-around-segwit.1068/page-2#post-17069

 

[albin]

Thought experiment:
What kind of hardware and bandwidth would be needed for a full node at 100 000 transactions per second? Anybody?

Some napkin math --

It'd be way less steep for a non-mining node, because you have some leeway in latency not being super critical.

That'd be like a 30 GB block, so bandwidth would be on the order of like say 5000 GB/month just for blocks assuming no block relay optimizations (so also storagewise if not pruning then 5 TB worth of HD a month).

I'm not sure what a good estimate would be for additional bandwidth overhead due to relay, would prob vary greatly based on # of connections. Maybe using Maxwell's denigration of Xtreme Thinblocks as a rule of thumb ("only reduces bandwidth by 12%"?), then total monthly bandwidth, we're talking on the order of like 40,000 GB/month.

To get the block in ten seconds you only need 24 gigabit to the peer supplying the block, assuming no relay optimizations whatsoever. Interestingly, if you have 1 gigabit right now downstream, 30 GB blocks right this second would be very comparable to trying to do 1 MB Bitcoin blocks on like a 28.8 modem in the mid-90's.

Hardware I don't really know where to start, it seems like that's all up in the air based on what kind of optimizations happen. I'm not sure how hardcore keeping up with tx validation would be.

This is kind of surprising because as crazy as these numbers seem right now, that doesn't seem particularly crazy at all within say like a decade if not maybe less. In contrast, single digit thousands of tx/s does not seem that farfetched at all.

 

[Norway]

Thanks @albin !
Some more napkin math: 100 000 tx/s is 8,6 billion tx/day. Or one transaction per person on earth per day.

I don't think your numbers seem crazy at all. 24 gigabit cost about 8000 USD per month in Norway today. Or the monthly salary before taxes for one person.

Your estimates make me very relaxed regarding the future of on chain scaling of bitcoin.

 

[rocks]

Slightly OT but I thought people here should know this.

It turns out my reddit account was fully site wide shadowbanned within 15 minutes of posting the Satoshi's Bitcoin project to /r/btc. The account I used only made two posts announcing the project to two subreddits. There was nothing in the posts that could in any way be viewed as inappropriate or against reddit's rules. I only just now figured this out after @freetrader asked about it.

This was a new account under the handle /u/satoshisbitcoin and it only made two announcement posts, the site-wide ban happened immediately.

Here is the evidence

Here was the only post made by the account to both /r/btc and /r/cryptocurrency , nothing warrants a site-wide reddit shadow ban.

This full fork provides an option for users who prefer to follow Satoshi’s vision of a global peer-to-peer currency that is accessible and usable by everyone. Currently a large number of Bitcoin users want to use a version of Bitcoin that scales as originally intended, but have no option to do. I created this project because I intend to use a version of Bitcoin that scales to larger blocksizes, but based on current developer and miner statements it seems likely that this will not happen.

Other users who prefer a version of Bitcoin that scales are welcome to join and participate in this effort. A description of the development plan is provided below.

There are many different views and opinions on how such a full fork should happen, and this project only reflects my preferences. I hope this effort will kick-start multiple different full fork options that offer multiple different options for users to choose from, and that the best option will win in time. In doing so Bitcoin benefits from its open nature and will follow user preferences based on market demand, not the whims of a corrupt board of directors.

This thread is the main discussion thread for the project (https://bitco.in/forum/threads/announcement-bitcoin-project-to-full-fork-to-flexible-blocksizes.933/)

The github project is here: (https://github.com/satoshisbitcoin/satoshisbitcoin)

I will host an AMA for the first few hours and then move the discussion back to this thread.

This branch will likely be small when it starts and only a minority of users will participate, and that is fine. If the branch is the right path it will grow over time. This post was censored in /r/btcso moving here.

Why a full fork?

Bitcoin was designed by Satoshi as a global peer-to-peer currency accessible and usable by everyone with instantaneous low cost transactions. This vision was clearly laid out in the Bitcoin white paper, widely understood and agreed by all users and advertised as the vision on the bitcoin.org website and all Bitcoin related forums and websites since 2009.

Despite this clear vision, Bitcoin is now being artificially constrained to low transaction throughputs well below what the Bitcoin network is capable of supporting. User demand has now reached these artificial constrains and many Bitcoin users are no longer able to use the network and are being denied access.

This artificial change is best described by one of the primary early Bitcoin developers since 2010 in the link below. The reasons are complex but revolve around centralized control. A single company who’s business model develops off-chain solutions now controls Bitcoin development and due to electricity cost advantages mining is no longer performed by the broad user community but by a small number of individuals. As a result, despite the fact that a large majority of Bitcoin users clearly want to scale Bitcoin, those who have taken control refuse to do so. (https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7)

However the strength of Satoshi’s design is users are in control of the system. Any individual user or group of users are able to decide for themselves what Bitcoin should be and which set of rules reflect their preferences. Because of this it is impossible for Bitcoin to ever be centrally controlled, as long as users are able to define for themselves which version of Bitcoin is optimal.

Additionally, it is hoped that this effort will demonstrate how users are in control of Bitcoin and kick-start multiple different full fork options that offer different multiple options for users and the market to choose from, and that the best option will win in time. In doing so Bitcoin benefits from its open nature and will follow user preferences based on market demand.

What is the full fork and what is being changed?

The full fork will change the set of rules that define the block chain on a fixed date. After this date a new branch will be created that follows a set of rules that more closely follow Satoshi’s vision. At this point there will be two separate branches of the blockchain and two separate Bitcoins. One branch will follow the existing rules and a new branch will follow the new rules. Each individual user will be able to decide for themselves which branch to follow. The transaction history and BTC owned will be common on both branches up through the fork date, and after that diverge.

The base client used is Bitcoin Classic version 0.11.2. On top of this version the following rule changes will activate at block height 407232, which is the difficulty adjustment scheduled for mid-April 2016. * The block size limit will be removed and replaced with an adjustable limit based on the previous difficulty period’s transaction volume. * The POW algorithm will changed

Note: mid-April 2016 is a target date, the final activation date will depend on development progress which depends on community participation in development as described further below.

I don't want to fork, will this affect me?

No. The fork is fully opt-in and people who do not opt-in will not be effected. To use the fork you have to switch your client from an existing client to the Satoshi's Bitcoin client. Only users who switch clients will follow the fork and use the new branch.

If you continue to use your existing client, you will continue to use the existing blockchain branch and this fork will not affect you in any manner.

Is this client ready?

No. Most development items still need to be completed, but they are relatively straight forward and should be done by the fork date. The work needed is listed below and open to community development.

How will the block size limit be changed?

The block size limit will be changed to follow the same mechanism as the difficulty for mining. Currently difficulty auto adjusts every 2 weeks and this adjustment is rate limited to only increase or decrease by a factor of 4.

The block size limit will similarly be set to auto adjust every 2 weeks based on the previous difficulty period’s transaction volume. The new block size limit for the next difficulty period will be reset to 10 times the previous difficulty period’s transaction volume, the adjustment will also be rate limited to only increase or decrease by a factor of 4.

In this manner the block size limit will function as a spam filter only as originally intended, and transaction throughput can grow based on user demand while providing protection against large block spam attacks.

Why change the POW algorithm?

This step is technically required to implement a full fork where a minority of users wishes to break away from the main chain.

At the fork date it is expected the mining power behind the new fork will be less than the current chain, and as a result the minority chain will not branch and instead continue to follow the larger chain if the same POW is used. By chaining the POW algorithm a hard full fork is set that a minority of users can follow.

Additionally changing the POW algorithm provides an opportunity to re-create a mining ecosystem that more closely follows Satoshi’s vision of one CPU one vote.

Bitcoin mining centralized because the cost structure of SHA256 mining when fully optimized is heavily dependent of electricity costs. As a result those with access to the lowest cost electricity have an artificial advantage and mining centralizes to the few individuals/firms with the lowest electricity costs.

Mining specialization and optimization cannot (and should not) be stopped. However it is possible to select and create algorithms that when fully optimized still use more standard hardware and reduce the advantage of low cost electricity. This creates more even competition in mining and by having more even competition encourages a more diverse miner ecosystem with more active user participation.

Changing the POW algorithm also brings back home hobbyist mining, which was a significant driver of Bitcoin’s early interest and adoption. This version of Bitcoin offers hobbyists the opportunity to actively participate in Bitcoin as in Bitcoin’s early days.

Which POW will be used?

There are two options being considered. One option is to select an existing algorithm that has proven with alt-coins to be ASIC-resistant. ETH is using one such algorithm and may be selected. Another option is to create a new algorithm that improves on existing attempts, as described below.

If a new algorithm cannot be designed on time the first option will be selected, however if a new algorithm can be finalized in time that will be an option for consideration.
(Cut for length requirements)

 

[cypherdoc]

who the hell knows why?

i only know what goes on here: free speech.

 

[cypherdoc]

my new favorite chart:

 

[megadeth]

Adam Back looking out for the coin in the best way he can.
Softforks acknowledged for what they are and what harm they can cause.

 

[solex]

@megadeth
That tweet is engaging mouth before brain.

What would your node, mine, and everyone else's do with blocks which have 50% less than the required difficulty?
What would the market make of the integrity of 21M BTC if the rate of block reward issuance could so easily double?

It is ridiculous that someone who has such little understanding of how Bitcoin works, its decentralized verification of the global ledger and the financial incentives protecting that ledger, is President of a company like Blockstream.

@SysMan how the hell are you taking orders from this clown-car driver?

 

[Dusty]

The proposition of Adam is so utterly insane I can't believe I've read that tweet

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Maybe it's just that the miners are starting to get cold feet as their wanted "pre-halving consensus rally" seems to be cancelled. And Adam Back starts to feel the pressure.
Maybe we will see a bloodbath after all.

But honestly, what is it with that guy and the coin distribution soft fork proposals? First the "smoothing proposal" and now that.

Maybe it's all just so easy. Greg Maxwell and Adam Back are heroes and just want to help bitcoin get big. They want to help the community to see bad actors and sort them out, so they took that role and wait for miners etc. to act. But they have to act crazier every day b/c the miner seem to eat everything coming from them.

 

[freetrader]

To me, this tweet has the hallmark of parroting a half-baked idea brought to him by one or more of his charges, after Luke-jr's recent bitcoin-dev smoothing idea failed to gain traction.

 

[albin]

Back phrased it super awkwardly, what he really means is miners softfork such that they're enforcing targeting 2x the difficulty (and thus orphaning normally-valid blocks that meet the real network difficulty). I'm not exactly sure what he's trying to solve though, because we would merely be paying the cost now of slow blocks instead of after the halving (if a large drop-off even actually happens).

Ironically he's pontificating on the very "inflation control" that he failed to conceive of back when he invented all of Bitcoin except that!

 

[Dusty]

I responded this. Of course it's scarcasm and I'm just joking, but I begin to fear he may take the idea as good...

 

[solex]

Back phrased it super awkwardly, what he really means is miners softfork such that they're enforcing targeting 2x the difficulty (and thus orphaning normally-valid blocks that meet the real network difficulty). I'm not exactly sure what he's trying to solve though, because we would merely be paying the cost now of slow blocks instead of after the halving (if a large drop-off even actually happens).

Ironically he's pontificating on the very "inflation control" that he failed to conceive of back when he invented all of Bitcoin except that!

@Roy Badami nicely puts Back's distilled gibberish into plain English

Not only does this idea not smooth the halving event on block frequency, it also advocates the formation of a 51% cartel of miners, which is a blueprint for implementing further centralized planning.

 

[AdrianX]

@rocks interesting times. I' pride myself on creatively projecting many failure modes for bitcoin but I can't say I predicted this mess unfolding like this.

I'd say someone wants to shut you up LOL,

keep up teh good work, I'll be running your new code when it's released for sure.
[doublepost=1459802456][/doublepost]

Adam Back looking out for the coin in the best way he can.
Softforks acknowledged for what they are and what harm they can cause.

Such economic ignorance as to why Soft Forks are bad:

iow Miners could all mine more blocks really fast and increase revenue 100% why stop - ever? and hell, if that works why limit it to 50% why don't the incumbent miners just drop difficulty to 20 or 10% and scoop up more coins and profits.
[doublepost=1459802631][/doublepost]

The proposition of Adam is so utterly insane I can't believe I've read that tweet

He was boasting that miners would be able to run 29 such changes to bitcoin concurrently after the implementation of SegWit.

 

[cypherdoc]

Adam is clearly feeling the pressure. he's been given temporary special trust privileges from the miners for his recent pitches regarding the direction Bitcoin should take; offchain solutions like SW, LN, & SC's. problem is, the market isn't responding like he hoped it would to his pitches. come July, we could get a catastrophic culling of large miners as i've talked about. specifically targeted at his leveraged buddies like BF, f2pool, Antpool, & BWpool. if they start feeling the pressure (which they will if price just stays where it is), Adam doesn't want to see trouble in the form of a backlash from those miners. cuz if he does, he loses power and influence. so what's he do? offers a cheap, anti free mkt soln in a rash tweet.

pretty sad and destructive for the entire community of free mkt thinkers and sound money.

 

[JVWVU]

Adam should be feeling the pressure, imo over the next 2 weeks shits going to hit the fan for Blockstream. Not saying everything they are doing is wrong, its not, I support a lot of it but, not before we HF a 2 or 4 MB

Emin Gün Sirer ‏@el33th4xor is a pompus ass most of the time but him and staff at Cornell already proved 4MB.

Also I think more research showing something more like a Bitcoin Unlimited will start to show, an smart growth principle imo is coming.

 

[cypherdoc]

Emin Gün Sirer ‏@el33th4xor is a pompus ass most of the time

no kidding.

still waiting on a selfish mining attack.

 

[JVWVU]

Maybe bring this up to him in a few weeks.


I knew Dr. Craig S. Wright. I was one of the 95 people he followed. We had exchanged private messages on Twitter. He had told me his life story, which mixed quasi-academic references with allusions to quasi-legal activities that were clearly meant to discourage further questioning.

Let's get the preliminaries out of the way. Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Could not have been.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Not saying everything they are doing is wrong, its not, I support a lot of it but, not before we HF a 2 or 4 MB

I think most everyone would be happy with Blockstream in charge of inventing cool stuff and somebody else in charge of deciding when and how to deploy it.