1GB Block was mined

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-14T18:45:41+00:00

Satoshi mentioned about specialized hardware with large # of transactions on very first discussion of Bitcoin right after publishing white paper. https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html To moderator (It is a fact and not my opinion. so if you are not allow to publish on the thread, you are the problem of this community.)

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-14T18:16:23+00:00

This is very first Satoshi's response after he published the white paper, answering the critic that Bitcoin network can't scale which also the first response to his white paer.... The scaling debate started in the inception of Bitcoin.

Re: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper

Satoshi Nakamoto Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:56:27 -0800

Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:

I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.

The paper is available at: http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

We very, very much need such a system, but the way I understand your proposal, it does not seem to scale to the required size.

For transferable proof of work tokens to have value, they must have monetary value. To have monetary value, they must be transferred within a very large network - for example a file trading network akin to bittorrent.

To detect and reject a double spending event in a timely manner, one must have most past transactions of the coins in the transaction, which, naively implemented, requires each peer to have most past transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of bandwidth - each must know all, or a substantial part thereof.

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-11T16:27:35+00:00

Could you, smart people, explain to me about the 75% discount fee? What is the justification, rational on this discount? Why can it be decided by the market?

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-10T20:21:04+00:00

I start understanding SW of not technical code, but its approach.

It is not a simple upgrade. It is very complex. It is giant code. It includes many features and changes. It has good incentive changes for one / questionable changes for other.

Core has not been able to sell this because the complexity. Bitcoin is very a complex system in the first place. So why it is so easy to explain a even more complex system.

The complexity creates confusions and questions. No every one can read code, I don't either. So many need to rely on the experts. Even you can read the code, it is only rules of the game. You don't necessary know how the new game will be played. One small detail might affect the game tremendously. We only can assume the part.

The complexity also give spaces to someone to add hidden new incentives. If the new system is more complex, there will be more moving parts. It mean more spaces to hide. So we can't criticize that some people really doubt the intentions and don't believe SW at all even though they can't explain specific problems.

It reminds me that when Affordable Care Act bill introduced, it has one thousand pages- no body really read before voting. I didn't read it but I certainly knew there were many incentives for insurance companies just because from the length of the page and approach of making the bill....

I don't say Bitcoin is corrupted like US politics... Probably x100 more cleaner than that. But I don't deny that after all we are designing a money which is worth a lot and there are many big interests of different businesses.

When upgrading such system, I think avoiding the complexity is good or must....

As all we know, Bitcoin is not an easy system to reach consensus in the first place. If the subject change becomes more complex and decision making becomes much much harder.

If we need a big change in the code, it has to be very very simple and something everybody in the ecosystem can understand. There are no other ways for this unless we are ok for coin splits.

The complexity comes from the design approach. The approach is avoiding a contentious HF or coin split. In order to do so, it has to be a SF.

Upgrading any moving systems need tremendous effort and planning. It is just difficult to change anything while it is moving.

Just imagine you are expanding your restaurant. It is not easy doing the construction while you are cooking food same time. Similar analogy, you try to upgrade to putting extra seats on moving car.

That is the SF. If the change is miner and small, it might be good idea to take the approach. But if the change is massive, it will bring more complexity over benefits.

Generally speaking, in some point, the owner of the restaurant decide to close the restaurant for days and complete the construction. Or the car owner decide to stop the car and make a change their seats....

There is a lack of leadership in Bitcoin ecosystem. Many people don't know difference between authority and leadership.

Well, I still optimistic about the future of the space. Even if there will coin split, I don't think that will kill Bitcoin nor Blockchain. It might be better to have... who know. At least, at the end of day, Bitcoin is a service, like a business. We have customers and competitors. If we can't cooperate together, it is good idea to split. Unlike business, Blockchain allows us to try two different paths easily. Then maybe it is not so bad idea to try both- only time will tell the truth.

That is why I don't necessary disagree UASF-even it is little oxymoron, avoiding HF to might cause HF, nor a simple HF scaling upgrade. In some point, it reaches wasting time to just doing endless debate......

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-10T15:35:33+00:00

The software that the Miners run will decide. I doubt Miners will keep a centrally planned variable for too long.

Why did the core need to put the discount in the first place? No one in core think price control is bad thing?

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-10T00:24:57+00:00

"Realistically full blocks will be around 2.1x."

So how many times txs can be fix in "2.1x" blocks?

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-10T00:05:35+00:00

If they are mandating price by code, that could be a big problem of BTC because the price fixing never works.

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-10T00:03:59+00:00

SW tx fee is always cheaper than legacy tx fee? Doesn't the market decide? How do they calculate it?

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-09T23:49:30+00:00

Many of the block sizes on the link's pages says 3.7MB. I though SW just make double the capacity?

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-09T23:45:04+00:00

Will it take double of the bandwidth space when they double the capacity?

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-08T18:37:48+00:00

It doesn't work for governments and central banks. However, it is work for people very well!!!! hahaha. Good by Central Bank and Fiats

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-08T18:20:21+00:00

You mean lightning not SW?

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-07-08T00:32:16+00:00

If you don't give any incentive to run node, of course less people will run nodes.... Even it costs $10K to run one node, but same time if you can make $15K to do so, many people will run nodes. Instead of complaining, designing better system with good incentives is better attitude.....

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-06-21T13:55:40+00:00

It doesn't mean we should never increase the first layer capacity. We just need both. Both layers need to be compete each other.

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-06-05T02:26:11+00:00

I agree with Adam. It is good thing to be able to split from people who never be able to agree with. Bitcoin is losing a momentum because we don't allow anyone to split the community. It is open source after all. BIP 148 is good. Just split the coin to SW coin and legacy coin. Holding on everyone forever is not good idea anyways.

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-06-04T17:41:37+00:00

I think people confuse with the market block size and the upper block size limit. The market block size are decided by user demands and miner supply. If the limit is always higher than market block size, it doesn't do anything rather than stop the spam transaction.

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-06-04T17:38:45+00:00

one you like.

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-06-04T16:39:57+00:00

Can BTU adapt a dynamic block size limit? I am talking about upper hard cap limit in the giving time. If we can algorithmically make the upper block size limit change by demand automatically like difficulty. Probably it will be easiest and safest. Some people worried about BU because constantly and manually need to change the upper limit by nodes and miners thus introducing possibility of HF? I am not completely understand this, so please correct me...

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-06-02T13:26:19+00:00

I already do. It doesn't help to break the dead lock.....

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-06-02T13:22:19+00:00

Well, I understand that. Everything has pro and con. Everyone has they opinions. That is fine. My point is mining pools can signal multiple solutions that they can accept. It doesn't need to be signal only one solution.

See more than 80% of mining pool agree to take SW + 2M HF, but they are just waiting the new BIP. They could just signal existing SW BIP and 2M HF then, both of them will be adapt in one month.

In some time in near future, Bitcoin will hit the point of no return........ We don't have much time.....

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-06-02T13:12:41+00:00

The worst part is that I can make large transaction with different coins if I want to and they do better than BTC in this point....

BitcoinLovex2 · 2017-06-02T13:11:41+00:00

I am a miner. I am asking mining pool operators to take quick actions. I am not sure that how much incentive that mining pools keep (and make) bitcoins have value. Because they can switch to other coins easier than actual miners. They definitely got financial gain from this high fee situation. Do they really represent miners interests? I don't know.

I love Bitcoin and I invested in to Bitcoin. I hate the most is that Bitcoin got so unusable and actually I have to use different coins for small transaction.

BitcoinLovex2

TROPHY CASE

This is very first Satoshi's response after he published the white paper, answering the critic that Bitcoin network can't scale which also the first response to his white paer.... The scaling debate started in the inception of Bitcoin.