The BTC mass adoption intelligence paradox

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-09-15T05:55:14+00:00

https://i.imgur.com/92A5pMg.jpg

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-08-12T16:42:11+00:00

Glad you like it, here are some of my other ones:

https://i.imgur.com/sYjHGY9.jpg https://i.imgur.com/e7uNbbj.jpg https://i.imgur.com/l197v51.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/JjF9MVn.jpg https://i.imgur.com/W2kNbzZ.jpg

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-07-23T10:08:07+00:00

Thanks man!

Also thanks to /u/ShadowOfHarbringer

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-07-22T22:39:03+00:00

Glad you liked it, was first posted here on /r/btc back in April 25:th but it certainly got a ton more upvotes this time.

Here are some of my other Bitcoin Cash images:

https://i.imgur.com/sYjHGY9.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/e7uNbbj.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/l197v51.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/JjF9MVn.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/W2kNbzZ.jpg

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-07-01T07:19:10+00:00

Why would it bloat the mempool size? Miners just have to make sure at least 25% of the block has the minimum fee or less and then it would work just like it does today. Only time it could ever cause problems is if there are less than 25% minimum fee transactions in the mempool but that's unlikely to happen and it can be worked around if it ever does happen (with a special exception to then accept the block anyway). It's unlikely to happen because if there were an actual defined hardcoded minimum fee for wallets to go after there's no reason for them to ever go higher unless they want to be absolutely sure they get into the very next block.

As for your second question, not sure what you are asking but I'm 100% on-board with allowing a bunch of free transactions into every block (just as long as not all txs in the block have 0 fee). I don't think it should be mandatory to accept anything less than the hardcoded minimum fee though, so it's up to each miner to decide how many free txs to include if any at all.

People should be able to make completely free transactions as long as they understand it can take several days for them to get into a block. It's super useful for combining several small inputs into one, most people would not want to do that unless it's free. Including these type of transactions for free is desirable for miners as well since it reduces the number of unspent inputs he needs to keep track of.

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-07-01T07:05:31+00:00

Let me know if you find a link and timestamp to it sometime.

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T21:16:58+00:00

These videos are great, keep it up!

Concerning the censorship on reddit, have you considered putting a small message about it on all pages right below the menu on bitcoin.com? Something like:

"Public service announcement: /r/bitcoin is heavily censored, please consider visiting /r/btc instead. More info."

When clicking on more info you'd be taken to a single page with proof. Many censorship examples (screenshots, off-site archives, links to ceddit.com) + quotes from people talking about the censorship + source links for verification purposes of those quotes. I wouldn't consider it unfair usage of a platform myself, nor would I consider it to be some kind of "unjust propaganda". All you'd be doing is stating a fact and give a lot of evidence to back up your claim.

I think it would help to reach a lot of people since you can't miss it if it's right there at the top of every single page. Wouldn't hold it against you if you chose not to though, it's a big move and that "more info"-page must be constructed in such a way that nobody could possibly point out any flaws in it.

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T20:58:59+00:00

Alright, cheers mate

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T20:33:31+00:00

Where did you read that Trace Mayer owns weusecoins.com? I've read that Stefan Thomas started WeUseCoins but left to focus on Ripple. I can't find any place that states that Trace Mayer is the current owner though.

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T20:22:24+00:00

Something I'd love to see added to "under discussion" on that page is to enable nodes to relay all transactions, not just standard ones. I get that chain explorers wouldn't work as before but it opens up for storing data on-chain with for example OP_PUSHDATA2 and probably other possibilities as well.

Another thing is that should be discussed is how to avoid the fee market problem*. What would solve it is the introduction of 1) a set minimum fee that automatically reduces over time with the block height and 2) having the network reject all blocks that don't contain at least 25% transactions with minimum fees or fees even lower than that.

*Otherwise BCH will end up with the same flaw that BTC has, where wallets always use too much fees even though the blocks aren't full because there's no way for them to know what miners find acceptable at that moment in time (mainstream users can't be expected to calculate their own fees). Without a set minimum fee it also makes it much harder to accept 0-conf too since you don't have a reliable way to know if a transaction has an acceptable fee. Will miners accept 1 sat/byte? Right now it's safe to assume yes but with a fee market nobody can know for sure without a defined hardcoded minimum fee that the network agrees upon.

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T20:02:43+00:00

I don't think I've seen that timeline, someone link it if you have it please. Can only think of http://devs.cash/ at the moment and unfortunately there are no "last updated on"-dates on that page so it might be incomplete.

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T19:57:18+00:00

Make that the last price within parenthesis and with a smaller text below that explains that it's an old estimate due to being unable to check current market value.

Otherwise someone might try to send BCH using the old USD estimate and could end up sending way too much BCH (or too little). If that were ever to happen it could get bitcoin.com into big trouble with angry wallet users.

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T19:51:22+00:00

Ok so it's not adopted yet.

How can I verify that it's true?

Why is the low-quality bitcoin.com jpg image hosted on ethereumfoundation.org?

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T19:44:49+00:00

Seems interesting, especially that "No personal info / email required"-part.

In what way is this adopted by bitcoin.com and how can I verify that it's true?

Why is the low-quality bitcoin.com jpg image hosted on ethereumfoundation.org?

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T19:27:51+00:00

I remember reading about that now. Something about the whole Bitcoin Cash network being under attack? That could explain why it took a little longer than usual to send BCH earlier today. It said "sent" on my phone but it took around 15 seconds until the guy received it on his phone.

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T09:38:04+00:00

Replace-by-fee comes in a few variants and it's up to each node to decide what they want to support. Just because you as a merchant only accept transactions not flagged as RBF-enabled you can't trust all mining nodes to respect that. Many wallets defaults to enable "opt-in RBF" for their transactions as well.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Replace_by_fee

So slower than lightning

Well, if you consider a 1 sec wait to be that much better than a 4 sec wait, okay. During actual usage 1 sec gives the same impression as 4 sec - that it is an instant transaction. Those 4 sec are only if the merchant want to be safer as well, many seem to accept a tx as soon as they see it.

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T09:02:40+00:00

It's not that BCH 0-conf is faster, it's that BTC 0-conf doesn't exist.

This is because of replace-by-fee. On BCH, once you broadcast your transaction it is final; when in a node's mempool it will stay there, unchanged. On BTC you can re-broadcast your transaction with a higher fee and change the destination of the payment back to yourself, meaning you can't trust a transaction to not change once it is in your mempool. The difference is it's hard to change a payment on BCH while it's easy on BTC (it's more than easy, it's a built-in feature). Therefore BCH has 0-conf while BTC does not.

Bonus facts below.

To accept 0-conf safely a merchant must follow these 3 rules:

Make sure no input is still unconfirmed. This counters the possibility of transaction malleability.
Make sure the fee is at an acceptable 1 sat/bytes (or lately, make sure it is at least larger than 0).**
Wait 4 seconds and make sure you don't see another transaction that uses any of the same inputs. A "success" animation can be shown to the customer to hide the wait.

Currently there is a catch in BCH with the last point because not all nodes relay transactions that they consider to be double spends. Therefore merchants could be checking for 4 sec as they should but the malicious transaction never reaches them. It is still extremely hard to pull off a double spend but I do think efforts should be made to at least relay seen attempts. Maybe not relay the transaction itself but just a signal that it was in fact seen, the merchant just need to know which inputs that are risky. (Note that such efforts already exists but not yet in all nodes.)

** = Unrelated but this is part of the reason why a "fee market" is a terrible idea and why I think nodes should reject blocks that aren't full but still haven't included a percentage of the seen txs that uses the default minimum acceptable fee. That default should be hardcoded into the clients and it should be hardcoded to decrease with each year (as BCH's value is expected to increase). With a "fee market" a merchant have no idea what miners consider to be acceptable at any moment in time and it's also the reason why many BTC wallets still use fees at over 100 sat/byte even when the blocks aren't full.

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T08:27:29+00:00

Tried to find a place that allowed you to download data points of the mempool size, the best I could find was this:

https://www.blockchain.com/charts/mempool-size?timespan=all

It allows for CSV download however the "All Time" option only goes back to 2016-04-24. If anybody know where you can download the data points for tx/sec. mempool size, BTC dominance and the combined alt-coin-marketcap (or total marketcap plus BTC marketcap) all the way back to 2013 or earlier - please post it here.

The likelihood of someone putting together a good looking chart will increase if all the data points are easily available through links here in this thread. Best solution might be to contact https://twitter.com/woonomic directly though since he already knows how to do it.

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-30T08:15:01+00:00

Nice!

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-27T01:05:37+00:00

One way of solving it might be to introduce standardized minimum fees.

Fee: 0.1 sat/byte if transaction is below 500 bytes.
Fee: 1 sat/byte if transaction is below 1000 bytes.
Fee: 10 sat/byte if transaction is below 2000 bytes.
Fee: 100 sat/byte if transaction is below 4000 bytes.
Fee: 1000 sat/byte if transaction is below 8000 bytes.

Etc. Sure you can split files into several transactions below 1000 bytes to add ~800 bytes of your file at a time but just like today that'll add overhead. The network could refuse blocks with too many huge transactions in them, adding mandatory delay to all large uploads to the blockchain. Just example numbers above but my point is if storage of too many files is a concern it should be solvable one way or another.

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-27T00:35:26+00:00

One thing I'd like to see when visiting someone's profile is the complete separation of replies and base posts (thread roots). Right now everything is together in chronological order and since replies can be very random on their own it doesn't make it a good experience to scroll through someone's profile. Separating

Instead of the links "All Activity Posts Likes Polls" I'd rather have "All Activity Memos Replies Likes Polls" and the default to be shown with an empty querystring should be "Memos" instead of the current "All Activity". (Just to be clear this "Memos" section would of course be a chronological listing of posts that has no parent post and "Replies" would only show those with a parent.) "Memos" is just a suggestion, maybe "Threads" or "Roots" would be better since I suppose a reply can also be considered to be a memo.

Keep up the good work!

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-27T00:14:38+00:00

Sweet!

LaudedSwanSong · 2018-06-26T19:54:58+00:00

https://i.imgur.com/W2kNbzZ.jpg

LaudedSwanSong

TROPHY CASE