Blockchain.info Shared Coin - Still broke! 0% Network ...

A single global economy of FAIL

I had a lot of fun with Jo_Bones insane vomit yesterday, that retarded chimp is a special one for sure. He inspired me to write some satire of his delusional CSWesque rant. I list some hilarious quotes from him at the end as well from the comment chain.
The original delusional rant

If all governments could agree on any single thing at any point in time, it would be an unprecedented moment in history. A "unicorn moonshot" so to speak. If the unicorn moonshot were to manifest as every government suddenly desiring to throw their already digital currencies into complete disarray and chose a technically inferior and non-compliant product in the process, then you can bet your ass they would use BSV for their fiscal policies. At the moment, here is what came up when I googled Central Banks for the first time today. Here's what came up when I googled fractional reserves. I then googled what reconciled means, and after my eyes rolled back in to my head out of sheer inability to digest the information I was reading, I decided BSV was the blockchain to solve all of this because I personally think this thing is an awesome high-school comp sci project.

If every central bank suddenly decided to relinquish state control of their monetary policy, and instead decided that the security model of 7 amateur software developers paid by an ex-felon hiding in Antigua who controls the #11 cryptocurrency on coinmarketcap was the answer, we could have the opportunity to use a strictly worse version of our current banking software and IT infrastructure. Instant transactions between bank accounts you own? Screw that, welcome to 10 minute block times! Did you fat finger that bill payment to the wrong sender? Too bad, it's gone forever! Welcome to immutability! It's a feature not a bug!

If you extrapolate how bad this is, suddenly taxes would be lower because digital monetary transactions would come to a screeching halt. Can't pay taxes on money you don't have, right? Suck that statists! The world would benefit from one giant economy of scale even though that phrase makes no sense in this context, and in reality is another buzzword I just simply don't have the time to try to understand. I forgot to Google that one I guess. This means prices around the globe would be out of control because we'd have to revert to a primal barter system! My chicken for your box of peaches! The possibilities to fuck over literally the entire world are endless!

Additionally, there would now be a high degree of transparency to how poorly BSV scales, since blocks take hours to propagate at 1GB sizes and that would only represent the hourly transactions of a town of 10,000 people, which would inevitably lead everyone to understand what 99.99% (AKA the non-mentally retarded "subset" of the population) already know.


In the comments I decided to change potential use cases from the utter nonsense I listed above to a couple different things.
https://www.reddit.com/bsv/comments/j9u2jt/a_single_global_economy_of_scale/g8ppeq7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Here I am demonstrating that I know currency lives in a database today:
The point is that they centrally issue and control their own tokens on the bitcoin network. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about this. They already issue tokens on their own network. It’s just a different database.
Here I am 7 comments later saying those databases don't allow for digital cash when I just stated they did.
Your SQL databases don’t really allow for digital cash.
Shit maybe token issuance on BSV won't work time to pivot to:
But bank transfers still take days between Europe and Asia and have high fees precisely because all the banks maintain their own networks.
Think of the possibilities guys. You totally can't do this today, right?
so they can (for example) sell a YouTube video directly to the whole world, for their native national token... on the bitcoin network.
Crap, maybe there are some good points there. At least Bitcoin can push transactions out in seconds despite having a 10 minute block time! And wait until you see the block times if anyone ever does try to send a billion tx in a second!
These hashes cost bitcoin, but you can sell billions of them per second.
What do you mean risks of minority hash rate on BSV? Nobody has ever done a 51% attack and not been arrested! THEY'LL LOSE THEIR MINING EQUIPMENT!
Except that it’s illegal to attack another chain, and it’s public, and traceable and the punishment would be your company loses all its mining equipment.
I'm running out of use cases since they're getting shot down so fast. Here's a good one. Why pay $80 a month for internet in 1 transaction, when you can pay for internet 1.7trillion times every month for every data packet you get?
And the advantage of sending 0.0011p to someone might be that they’re providing a service to you, like a data packet.
But think of all the UnIqUe AnD gReAt FeAtUrEs on BSV. Really cutting edge stuff that SQL Server doesn't have due to being obsolete in the 90s, like the ability to append only instead of modify data elements! Also, watch the blockchain desync if you ever tried 1billion tx/sec!
The network scales to handle billions of TX/sec and the ledger is append only so it matches the criteria for keeping accurate records and/or updating them as needs be.
Time to pivot again since I'm being dismantled at every turn. What haven't I mentioned yet?
you haven’t solved the issue of the US dollar being the worlds default currency on which global trade relies.
Here is me doing my best Craig Wright technobabble nonsense impression. I know this is technically English but the words being strung together make no sense!
Once again you’ve really missed the point of all this. A data commodity that comes about through consensus of the network on ‘what value is’ contains a fraction of every part of the global economy.
Time to revert to some Craig Wright technobabble bullshit again:
Those in charge of producing dollars ultimately have an unfair advantage over those who don’t and they can game the system.
That’s a peer to peer internet model where producers get paid directly by consumers for the data they consume and miners get paid according to how fast and how efficiently and how accurately they can deliver the data.

Have I mentioned the fact I don't understand that blockchains are literally distributed databases?
Finally, you can send any kind of data in a bitcoin transaction. Not just fiat currencies issued by a government but audio, video, text, a webpage, etc.
And finally:
It’s very smart. Unlike you.
My transformation is complete.
submitted by pointedpointything to bsv [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Fullnode Install Guide for Dummies ;-)

Bitcoin Fullnode Install Guide for Dummies ;-)
Feel free to stop at Level 0 or Level 1, which is fine. More advanced configs are offered to those with more tech savvy. This guide, obviously assumes a Windows 10 install, but other OSes work fine, just find a different guide. BTW, the "For Dummies" is a callback to a set of "tech" books in the 90's intended to be as easy as possible. It is in jest and not intended to insult the reader. Finally, if you dislike the formatting, a well formatted copy can be found here
There is a fairly small subset of Bitcoin users that run a full node. I think the idea of running a full node has gotten a bad rap over the years since there is so much talk about running on a Raspberry Pi, or getting zippy SSDs. Although all of this can be fun, it is often not really required at all. Here are some ways to run a full node starting with the very simple. I'll get into more complex configs, but these are all optional.

Tech Skill Level: 0 (the basics)

  1. Download Bitcoin Core
  2. Launch the downloaded installer and install the app
  3. Launch the installed "Bitcoin Core" app and let it run overnight
In many cases, thats it. If your running a new machine with a fairly good internet connection, 8 or 9 hours will be enough to complete the "Initial Block Download" (IBD). This may fill up your drive a bit, but again, on most new machines, 300 GB of space isn't that hard to come by.

Tech Skill Level: 1 (encrypted wallet)

One thing we left out in the level-0 exercise is encrypting your wallet. It's easy enough to do well, but a bit more difficult to do right. The main challenge is that humans generate really poor passwords. If you want a good password, the best way is to use something called "diceware". Basically, you just grab 4 or 5 dice and each throw of the dice represents a certain word on a special list. The throw {1,4,5,3,1} for example would be the word camping on the EFF-diceware-wordlist. So you repeat this a few times until you have a list of 8 or so words which becomes the passphrase you use to encrypt your wallet. Write it down, it is always hard to remember at first. So at level-1 your list becomes:
  1. Download Bitcoin Core
  2. Launch the downloaded installer and install the app
  3. Launch the installed "Bitcoin Core" app and let it run overnight
  4. Choose Encrypt Wallet from the Settings menu
  5. Enter your 8 word (or so) passphrase generated using the Diceware method

Wallet Encryption Dialog

Tech Skill Level: 2 (enable pruning if needed)

Though I said "300 GB of space isn't hard to come by", some times it actually is. If space is an issue, a simple way to fix it is to tell bitcoin to simple take less space. This is called "pruning" and can take that number from 300 GB down to below 5 GB. If you can't find 5 GB, then you'll have to read ahead to level-4 to add USB storage. But the good news is, enabling pruning is pretty easy, we just add another step to our working list:
  1. Download Bitcoin Core
  2. Launch the downloaded installer and install the app
  3. Launch the installed "Bitcoin Core" app and let it run overnight
  4. Do the wallet encryption steps here if you wish
  5. Choose Options from the Settings menu
  6. Choose Prune block storage to: and select the max size for the blocks to use
  7. Exit and restart the bitcoin application for the changes to take effect

Pruning Dialog
Note, even setting this to 1 GB will still leave you with about a 4.5 GB install. The blocks take up a lot of space, but the chainstate and other folders eat up at least 3.5 GB and they can't be pruned. Also, be aware, to disable pruning requires you to perform the entire IBD again. While pruned some other functions my be disabled as well, so just know that pruning does limit some functionality.

Tech Skill Level: 3 (verify the installer)

Although this is arguably something that should be done at level-0, some find the intricacies of comparing hash (thumbprint) values to be tedious and beyond the scope of a beginner. You will find these types of hash compares suggested quite often as a way to prevent running tainted programs. Programs are often tainted by bad disk or network performance, but most often, taint is malicious code inserted by viruses or malware. This is a way to guard yourself against those types of attacks.
What I cover here is a very basic comparison on the certificate, but a more thorough verification advised by mosts uses a program called Gpg4Win, and is beyond the scope of this beginners guide. But regardless, most users should strive to do this minimum level of validation.
  1. Download Bitcoin Core
  2. Launch the downloaded installer
  3. When prompted "Do you want to allow..." click Show more details
  4. In the details section select Show information about the publisher's certificate
  5. In the certificate window select the Details tab
  6. In the Details tab Subject should start with "CN = Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association"
  7. Ensure Thumbprint in Details reads ea27d3cefb3eb715ed214176a5d027e01ba1ee86
  8. If the checks pass, click OK to exit the certificate window and Yes to allow the installer to run.
  9. Launch the installed "Bitcoin Core" app and let it run overnight
  10. Do the wallet encryption steps here if you wish
  11. Do the optional pruning steps here if you wish

Certification Validation Windows
Note: The certificate used to sign the current Bitcoin installer is only valid from March 2020 to March 2021. After that point the thumbprint on the certificate will change. This is by design and intentional. If your reading this post after March 2021, then it is understood that the thumbprint has changed.

Tech Skill Level: 4 (use secondary storage)

We glossed over the "new machine with fairly good internet" part. Truth be known many people do not have fairly new machines, and find the IBD to take longer than the "over night" best wishes. For most people the slowdown is the disk access when calculating what is called chainstate. This requires fast random reads and writes to the disk. If you have an SSD disk, this will be no problem, but if you have a non-SSD "spinning" disk, random writes are always slow. Though an SSD will speed things up, they are pricey, so a nice middle ground may be a simple high-end USB key drive. You can get some with 10 to 15 MB/s random writes for $20 on Amazon. This is usually a order of magnitude faster than a "spinning" disk. And with pruning (see level-2), a small USB drive should be fine.
Once you decide on a drive, the tricky part will be to enable external storage. It requires editing a configuration file and adding a line. First, we want to create a directory on the key drive. You will need to determine the drive letter of your USB key drive. For the sake of this example, we will assume it is D:, but you must determine this yourself and correct the example. Once you know the drive letter, create a blank folder on the drive called Bitcoin. So for this example, creating Bitcoin on drive D: will create the path D:\Bitcoin. Once done, assuming that D: is your drive, here are the new steps including the edit of the configuration file:
  1. Download Bitcoin Core
  2. Launch the installer, verify it, then run it
  3. Launch the installed "Bitcoin Core" app and let it run overnight
  4. Do the wallet encryption steps here if you wish
  5. Do the optional pruning steps here if you wish
  6. Launch "Notepad" by typing "Notepad.exe" in the windows search bar then click Open
  7. Type the line datadir=D:\Bitcoin (depending on your drive letter) in the blank file
  8. Choose Save from the File menu in notepad
  9. Type %APPDATA%\Bitcoin\bitcoin.conf (note the percent signs) in the File name box
  10. Select All Files from the Save as type dropdown
  11. Click the Save button and overwrite the file if prompted
  12. Exit and restart the bitcoin application for the changes to take effect

Save As Dialog
Now that you've reached this level of technical expertise, there are many new configuration options that you can begin to modify if you wish. Most configuration data is contained in the bitcoin.conf file and learning how to maintain it is a key step for a node operator.

Tech Skill Level: 5 (all other customizations)

Here's a short list of various things you can ADD to your bitcoin.conf file. You generally just add a new line for each configuration settings.
  • addresstype=bech32
  • changetype=bech32
The addresstype / changetype allows your wallet to use the native-segwit (bech32) format. This is the most efficient and inexpensive way to spend bitcoin, and is a recommended configuration. The default uses something called p2sh-segwit which is more compatible with older wallets, but more expensive to spend.
  • minrelaytxfee=0.00000011
Changing the minrelaytxfee setting allows you to help propagate lower fee transactions. It will require more memory but TXN memory is capped at 300 MB by default anyways, so if you have enough memory, it is a good setting to choose.
  • dbcache=2048
The dbcache setting controls how many MB of memory the program will use for the chainstate database. Since this is a key bottleneck in the IBD, setting this value high (2048 MB) will greatly speed up the IBD, assuming you have the memory to spare
  • blocksdir=C:\Bitcoin
  • datadir=D:\Bitcoin
In level-4 we discussed moving the datadir to a fast external storage, but the majority of the space used for bitcoin is the blocks directory (blocksdir). Although you should always use for fastest storage for datadir, you are free to use slow storage for blocksdir. So if you only want to consume a small amount of your SSD (assumed D:) then you can keep your blocks on your slow "spinning" drive.
  • upnp=1
One of the harder challenges you may face running a node, is to get incoming connections. If you are lucky, you may find that your firewall and network HW support the uPnP protocol. If they do, this setting will allow bitcoin to configure uPnP to allow incoming connections to your node. Other methods exist to make your node reachable, but they are well beyond the scope of this guide.
submitted by brianddk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Don't blindly follow a narrative, its bad for you and its bad for crypto in general

I mostly lurk around here but I see a pattern repeating over and over again here and in multiple communities so I have to post. I'm just posting this here because I appreciate the fact that this sub is a place of free speech and maybe something productive can come out from this post, while bitcoin is just fucking censorship, memes and moon/lambo posts. If you don't agree, write in the comments why, instead of downvoting. You don't have to upvote either, but when you downvote you are killing the opportunity to have discussion. If you downvote or comment that I'm wrong without providing any counterpoints you are no better than the BTC maxis you despise.
In various communities I see a narrative being used to bring people in and making them follow something without thinking for themselves. In crypto I see this mostly in BTC vs BCH tribalistic arguments:
- BTC community: "Everything that is not BTC is shitcoin." or more recently as stated by adam on twitter, "Everything that is not BTC is a ponzi scheme, even ETH.", "what is ETH supply?", and even that they are doing this for "altruistic" reasons, to "protect" the newcomers. Very convenient for them that they are protecting the newcomers by having them buy their bags
- BCH community: "BTC maxis are dumb", "just increase block size and you will have truly p2p electronic cash", "It is just that simple, there are no trade offs", "if you don't agree with me you are a BTC maxi", "BCH is satoshi's vision for p2p electronic cash"
It is not exclusive to crypto but also politics, and you see this over and over again on twitter and on reddit.
My point is, that narratives are created so people don't have to think, they just choose a narrative that is easy to follow and makes sense for them, and stick with it. And people keep repeating these narratives to bring other people in, maybe by ignorance, because they truly believe it without questioning, or maybe by self interest, because they want to shill you their bags.
Because this is BCH community, and because bitcoin is censored, so I can't post there about the problems in the BTC narrative (some of which are IMO correctly identified by BCH community), I will stick with the narrative I see in the BCH community.
The culprit of this post was firstly this post by user u/scotty321 "The BTC Paradox: “A 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own node!” “Okay, then what?” “Poor people won’t be able to use the network!”". You will see many posts of this kind being made by u/Egon_1 also. Then you have also this comment in that thread by u/fuck_____________1 saying that people that want to run their own nodes are retarded and that there is no reason to want to do that. "Just trust block explorer websites". And the post and comment were highly upvoted. Really? You really think that there is no problem in having just a few nodes on the network? And that the only thing that secures the network are miners?
As stated by user u/co1nsurf3r in that thread:
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.
But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis.
The only narrative I stick to and have been for many years now is that cryptocurrency takes power from the government and gives power to the individual, so you are not restricted to your economy as you can participate in the global economy. There is also the narrative of banking the bankless, which I hope will come true, but it is not a use case we are seeing right now.
Some people would argue that removing power from gov's is a bad thing, but you can't deny the fact that gov's can't control crypto (at least we would want them not to).
But, if you really want the individuals to remain in control of their money and transact with anyone in the world, the network needs to be very resistant to any kind of attacks. How can you have p2p electronic cash if your network just has a handful couple of nodes and the chinese gov can locate them and just block communication to them? I'm not saying that this is BCH case, I'm just refuting the fact that there is no value in running your own node. If you are relying on block explorers, the gov can just block the communication to the block explorer websites. Then what? Who will you trust to get chain information? The nodes needs to be decentralized so if you take one node down, many more can appear so it is hard to censor and you don't have few points of failure.
Right now BTC is focusing on that use case of being difficult to censor. But with that comes the problem that is very expensive to transact on the network, which breaks the purpose of anyone being able to participate. Obviously I do think that is also a major problem, and lightning network is awful right now and probably still years away of being usable, if it ever will. The best solution is up for debate, but thinking that you just have to increase the blocksize and there is no trade off is just naive or misleading. BCH is doing a good thing in trying to come with a solution that is inclusive and promotes cheap and fast transactions, but also don't forget centralization is a major concern and nothing to just shrug off.
Saying that "a 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own" and that because of that "Poor people won’t be able to use the network" is a misrepresentation designed to promote a narrative. Because 1MB is not to allow "poor" people to run their node, it is to facilitate as many people to run a node to promote decentralization and avoid censorship.
Also an elephant in the room that you will not see being discussed in either BTC or BCH communities is that mining pools are heavily centralized. And I'm not talking about miners being mostly in china, but also that big pools control a lot of hashing power both in BTC and BCH, and that is terrible for the purpose of crypto.
Other projects are trying to solve that. Will they be successful? I don't know, I hope so, because I don't buy into any narrative. There are many challenges and I want to see crypto succeed as a whole. As always guys, DYOR and always question if you are not blindly following a narrative. I'm sure I will be called BTC maxi but maybe some people will find value in this. Don't trust guys that are always posting silly "gocha's" against the other "tribe".
EDIT: User u/ShadowOfHarbringer has pointed me to some threads that this has been discussed in the past and I will just put my take on them here for visibility, as I will be using this thread as a reference in future discussions I engage:
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.
What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.
Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.
It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.
Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."
Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.
Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.
The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.
That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the network
It is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?
You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.
Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".
In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)
He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
submitted by r0bo7 to btc [link] [comments]

Test

Test
There is a fairly small subset of Bitcoin users that run a full node. I think the idea of running a full node has gotten a bad rap over the years since there is so much talk about running on a Raspberry Pi, or getting zippy SSDs. Although all of this can be fun, it is often not really required at all. Here are some ways to run a full node starting with the very simple. I'll get into more complex configs, but these are all optional.

Tech Skill Level: 0 (the basics)

  1. Download Bitcoin Core
  2. Launch the downloaded installer and install the app
  3. Launch the installed "Bitcoin Core" app and let it run overnight
In many cases, thats it. If your running a new machine with a fairly good internet connection, 8 or 9 hours will be enough to complete the "Initial Block Download" (IBD). This may fill up your drive a bit, but again, on most new machines, 300 GB of space isn't that hard to come by.

Tech Skill Level: 1 (encrypted wallet)

One thing we left out in the level-0 exercise is encrypting your wallet. It's easy enough to do well, but a bit more difficult to do right. The main challenge is that humans generate really poor passwords. If you want a good password, the best way is to use something called "diceware". Basically, you just grab 4 or 5 dice and each throw of the dice represents a certain word on a special list. The throw {1,4,5,3,1} for example would be the word camping on the EFF-diceware-wordlist. So you repeat this a few times until you have a list of 8 or so words which becomes the passphrase you use to encrypt your wallet. Write it down, it is always hard to remember at first. So at level-1 your list becomes:
  1. Download Bitcoin Core
  2. Launch the downloaded installer and install the app
  3. Launch the installed "Bitcoin Core" app and let it run overnight
  4. Choose Encrypt Wallet from the Settings Menu
  5. Enter your 8 word (or so) passphrase generated using the Diceware method

Wallet Encryption Dialog

Tech Skill Level: 2 (enable pruning if needed)

Though I said "300 GB of space isn't hard to come by", some times it actually is. If space is an issue, a simple way to fix it is to tell bitcoin to simple take less space. This is called "pruning" and can take that number from 300 GB down to below 5 GB. If you can't find 5 GB, then you'll have to read ahead to level-3 to add USB storage. But the good news is, enabling pruning is pretty easy, we just add another step to our working list:
  1. Download Bitcoin Core
  2. Launch the downloaded installer and install the app
  3. Launch the installed "Bitcoin Core" app and let it run overnight
  4. Do the wallet encryption steps here if you wish
  5. Choose Options from the Settings Menu
  6. Choose Prune block storage to: and select the max size for the blocks to use
  7. Exit and restart the bitcoin application for the changes to take effect

Pruning Dialog
Note, even setting this to 1 GB will still leave you with about a 4.5 GB install. The blocks take up a lot of space, but the chainstate and other folders eat up at least 3.5 GB and they can't be pruned. Also, be aware, to disable pruning requires you to perform the entire IBD again. While pruned some other functions my be disabled as well, so just know that pruning does limit some functionality.

Tech Skill Level: 3 (verify the installer)

Although this is arguably something that should be done at level-0, some find the intricacies of comparing hash (thumbprint) values to be tedious and beyond the scope of a beginner. You will find these types of hash compares suggested quite often as a way to prevent running tainted programs. Programs are often tainted by bad disk or network performance, but most often, taint is malicious code inserted by viruses or malware. This is a way to guard yourself against those types of attacks. What I cover here is a very basic comparison on the certificate, but a more thorough comparison advised by mosts uses a program called Gpg4Win, and is beyond the scope of this beginners guide. But regardless, most users should strive to do this minimum level of validation.
  1. Download Bitcoin Core
  2. Launch the downloaded installer
  3. When prompted "Do you want to allow..." click Show more details
  4. In the details section select Show information about the publisher's certificate
  5. In the certificate window select the Details tab
  6. In the Details tab Subject should start with "CN = Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association"
  7. Also ensure Thumbprint reads ea27d3cefb3eb715ed214176a5d027e01ba1ee86
  8. If the checks pass, click OK to exit the certificate window and Yes to allow the installer to run.
  9. Launch the installed "Bitcoin Core" app and let it run overnight
  10. Do the wallet encryption steps here if you wish
  11. Do the optional pruning steps here if you wish

Certification Validation Windows
Note: The certificate used to sign the current Bitcoin installer is only valid from March 2020 to March 2021. After that point the thumbprint on the certificate will change. This is by design and intentional. If your reading this post after March 2021, then it is understood that the thumbprint has changed.

Tech Skill Level: 4 (use secondary storage)

We glossed over the "new machine with fairly good internet" part. Truth me known many people do not have fairly new machines, and find the IBD to take longer than the "over night" best wishes. For most people the slowdown is the disk access when calculating what is called chainstate. This requires fast random reads and writes to the disk. If you have an SSD disk, this will be no problem, but if you have a non-SSD "spinning" disk, random writes are always slow. Though an SSD will speed things up, they are pricey, so a nice middle ground may be a simple high-end USB key drive. You can get some with 10 to 15 MB/s random writes which is usually a order of magnitude faster than a "spinning" disk. And with pruning (see level-2), a small USB drive should be fine.
Once you decide on a drive, the tricky part will be to enable external storage. It requires editing a configuration file and adding a few lines. The configuration file needs to be in both the default directory, and USB key drive, but before we do that, we want to create a directory on the key drive. You will need to determine the drive letter of your USB key drive. For the sake of this example, we will assume it is D:, but you must determine this yourself and correct the example. Once you know the drive letter, create a blank folder on the drive called Bitcoin. So for this example, creating Bitcoin on drive D: will create the path D:\Bitcoin. Once done, assuming that D: is your drive, here are the steps to edit the two configuration files:
  1. Download Bitcoin Core
  2. Launch the installer, verify it, then run it
  3. Launch the installed "Bitcoin Core" app and let it run overnight
  4. Do the wallet encryption steps here if you wish
  5. Do the optional pruning steps here if you wish
  6. Launch "Notepad" by typing "Notepad.exe" in the windows search bar then click Open
  7. Type the line datadir=D:\Bitcoin (depending on your drive letter) in the blank file
  8. Choose Save from the File menu in notepad
  9. Type %APPDATA%\Bitcoin\bitcoin.conf (note the percent signs) in the File name box
  10. Select All Files from the Save as type dropdown
  11. Click the Save button and overwrite the file if prompted
  12. Exit and restart the bitcoin application for the changes to take effect

Save As Dialog
Now that you've reached this level of technical expertise, there are many new configuration options that you can begin to modify if you wish. Most configuration data is contained in the bitcoin.conf file and learning how to maintain it is a key step for a node operator.

Tech Skill Level: 5 (all other customizations)

Here's a short list of various things you can ADD to your bitcoin.conf file. You generally just add a new line for each configuration settings.
  • addresstype=bech32
  • changetype=bech32
The addresstype / changetype allows your wallet to use the native-segwit (bech32) format. This is the most efficient and inexpensive way to spend bitcoin, and is a recommended configuration. The default uses something called p2sh-segwit which is more compatible with older wallets, but more expensive to spend.
  • minrelaytxfee=0.00000011
Changing the minrelaytxfee setting allows you to help propagate lower fee transactions. It will require more memory but TXN memory is capped at 300 MB by default anyways, so if you have enough memory, it is a good setting to choose.
  • dbcache=2048
The dbcache setting controls how many MB of memory the program will use for the chainstate database. Since this is a key bottleneck in the IBD, setting this value high (2048 MB) will greatly speed up the IBD, assuming you have the memory to spare
  • blocksdir=C:\Bitcoin
  • datadir=D:\Bitcoin
In level-4 we discussed moving the datadir to a fast external storage, but the majority of the space used for bitcoin is the blocks directory (blocksdir). Although you should always use for fastest storage for datadir, you are free to use slow storage for blocksdir. So if you only want to consume a small amount of your SSD (assumed D:) then you can keep your blocks on your slow "spinning" drive.
  • upnp=1
One of the harder challenges you may face running a node, is to get incoming connections. If you are lucky, you may find that your firewall and network HW support the uPnP protocol. If they do, this setting will allow bitcoin to configure uPnP to allow incoming connections to your node.
submitted by brianddk to brianddk [link] [comments]

For any newbies coming here wondering why there is so much pro-Bitcoin Core propaganda and lies propagated here, I would like to spread awareness about this issue,

For any newbies coming here wondering why there is so much pro-Bitcoin Core propaganda and lies, propagated by trolls such as OP, I would like to spread awareness about this issue,
There are many signs that BTC has been infiltrated. When you put them all together, it starts to form a clearer picture. Here are some examples.
There is consistent trolls/harassments/smear campaigns against Bitcoin Cash the last 2 years. Who is funding all these propaganda campaigns?
In 2013, Peter Todd was paid off by a government intelligence agent to create RBF, create a propaganda video, and cripple the BTC code. Source: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/in-2013-peter-todd-was-paid-off-by-a-government-intelligence-agent-to-create-rbf-create-a-propaganda-video-and-cripple-the-btc
Blockstream kicking Gavin, the lead Bitcoin developer, out of Bitcoin development, successfully hijacked control over the Bitcoin github.
Mike Hearn and Gavin wanted to prevent Bitcoin from being hijacked, so they created a fork. That fork didn't survived after they were heavily DDOS. Mike Hearn was heavily character assassinated by what I believe to be orchestrated paid campaigns by Blockstream. And of course, now that Mike Hearn is gone, the character assassination campaigns are directed at Bitcoin Cash main supporters like Roger Ver. Source: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoincash/comments/8lozww/how_bitcoin_btc_was_hijacked_and_why_bitcoin_cash/
Blockstream not honoring the Hong Kong agreement and the New York agreement they signed.
Blockstream doesn't want Bitcoin to compete with the banks. Their aim is to make Bitcoin unusable with no long term future. Source: https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/12/22/gregory-maxwell-celebrates-high-fees-300000-stuck-transactions
Samson Mow admitting in an interview that Blockstream is out for profit (in other words, the BTC holders will be milked as their cash cows, BTC miners will be driven out with Lightning Network taking its place) Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFOmUm-_DMQ The false flag attacks where they claimed Bitcoin Cash was hacking them (but turns out Greg Maxwell was the ones doing it) Source: https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/11/22/reddit-bitcoin-mods-gregory-maxwell-accused-false-flag-bot-attack-hacking)
Hackers targeting Bitcoin Cash users stealing their tippr funds and taking over their reddit accounts Source: https://www.reddit.com/tippcomments/7naogq/tippr_on_reddit_disabled_temporarily/
Misinformation campaigns (BTC people registering bcash sites and subreddits, then trying to associate Bitcoin Cash as bcash to forums/websites they control) Source: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/8dd5ij/why_bitcoin_cash_users_reject_the_name_bcash_so/
Censorship to brainwash newcomers with Bitcoin misinformation and propaganda. Source: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43
Blockstream declaring that Bitcoin is not for the poor. Source: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/ahzog2/reminder_bitcoin_isnt_for_people_that_live_on/
Blockstream sabotaged Bitcoin codes by reducing its functionality such as OP Return size reduction, RBF vulnerability, 1MB blocksize, etc... so that it breaks software built on top of Bitcoin.
Source (OP Return Reduction): https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/80ycim/a_few_months_after_the_counterparty_developers/
Source (Bitcoin RBF Vulnerability): https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/
I was involved in some BCH projects and there had been multiple DDOS attacks and other stuff, such as flooding my inbox with few hundred thousand emails per day. I'm sure those activities are not for profit, so why are they doing it?
There are actually plenty more nasty unethical things BTC people had done which is not covered in this comment. Bitcoin Cash is an attempt to rescue what the bad actors had hijacked successfully, mainly the peer to peer cash revolution. And it won't be the last time the bad actors will try to find ways to sabotage this project.
Source by user mobTwo
submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

I want to put my money into Bitcoins but I have reservations.

I want to put my money into Bitcoins but I have reservations. Thanks to everyone who make sincere efforts to clarify the following doubts
  1. How much energy will the Bitcoin network consume if BTC is valued at $100000?
  2. How will the Bitcoin network sustain if all the Bitcoins have been mined?
  3. We know that energy is a finite resource. Technologies that consume less energy for similar or better output get preference. That's what propagates the innovation in combustion engines. Bitcoin is far behind several of the available alternatives.
  4. Bitcoin is unfit for everyday transactions. Because it is slow.
  5. You can find studies that highlight the fact that the majority of Bitcoin mining is concentrated in few geographical regions.
  6. I don't agree with the notion that Bitcoin is a store of value like gold. People do mention that there is an infinite amount of gold in the universe without even knowing that it will take a huge amount of energy to extract that gold and don't even think of bringing it back to earth. Gold is useful in several scientific applications.
  7. Are there scientific studies to show that Bitcoin has improved the living standard of the poor of the world? Those are the ones who will suffer the undeserved consequence of global warming.
submitted by mother_43 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn: trust minimized sidechains and bitcoin-pegs w/o oracles/federations today

Original design presented for discussion and criticism
originally posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5212814.0
TLDR: Proposing the following that's possible today to use for any existing or new altcoins:
_______________________________________

Disclaimer:

This is not an altcoin thread. I'm not making anything. The design discussed options for existing altcoins and new ways to built on top of Bitcoin inheriting some of its security guarantees. 2 parts: First, the design allows any altcoins to switch to securing themselves via Bitcoin instead of their own PoW or PoS with significant benefits to both altcoins and Bitcoin (and environment lol). Second, I explain how to create Bitcoin-pegged assets to turn altcoins into a Bitcoin sidechain equivalent. Let me know if this is of interest or if it exists, feel free to use or do anything with this, hopefully I can help.

Issue:

Solution to first few points:

PoW altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:

PoS altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:

We already have a permissionless, compact, public, high-cost-backed finality base layer to build on top - Bitcoin! It will handle sorting, data availability, finality, and has something of value to use instead of capital or energy that's outside the sidechain - the Bitcoin coins. The sunk costs of PoW can be simulated by burning Bitcoin, similar to concept known as Proof of Burn where Bitcoin are sent to unspendable address. Unlike ICO's, no contributors can take out the Bitcoins and get rewards for free. Unlike PoS, entry into supply lies outside the alt-chain and thus doesn't depend on permission of alt-chain stake-coin holders. It's hard to find a more bandwidth or state size protective blockchain to use other than Bitcoin as well so altcoins can be Bitcoin-aware at little marginal difficulty - 10 years of history fully validates in under a day.

What are typical issues with Proof of Burn?

Solution:

This should be required for any design for it to stay permissionless. Optional is constant fixed emission rate for altcoins not trying to be money if goal is to maximize accessibility. Since it's not depending on brand new PoW for security, they don't have to depend on massive early rewards giving disproportionate fraction of supply at earliest stage either. If 10 coins are created every block, after n blocks, at rate of 10 coins per block, % emission per block is = (100/n)%, an always decreasing number. Sidechain coin doesn't need to be scarce money, and could maximize distribution of control by encouraging further distribution. If no burners exist in a block, altcoin block reward is simply added to next block reward making emission predictable.
Sidechain block content should be committed in burn transaction via a root of the merkle tree of its transactions. Sidechain state will depend on Bitcoin for finality and block time between commitment broadcasts. However, the throughput can be of any size per block, unlimited number of such sidechains can exist with their own rules and validation costs are handled only by nodes that choose to be aware of a specific sidechain by running its consensus compatible software.
Important design decision is how can protocol determine the "true" side-block and how to distribute incentives. Simplest solution is to always :
  1. Agree on the valid sidechain block matching the merkle root commitment for the largest amount of Bitcoin burnt, earliest inclusion in the bitcoin block as the tie breaker
  2. Distribute block reward during the next side-block proportional to current amounts burnt
  3. Bitcoin fee market serves as deterrent for spam submissions of blocks to validate
e.g.
sidechain block reward is set always at 10 altcoins per block Bitcoin block contains the following content embedded and part of its transactions: tx11: burns 0.01 BTC & OP_RETURN tx56: burns 0.05 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 1> ... tx78: burns 1 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 2> ... tx124: burns 0.2 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of INVALID sidechain block version 3> ...
Validity is deterministic by rules in client side node software (e.g. signature validation) so all nodes can independently see version 3 is invalid and thus burner of tx124 gets no reward allocated. The largest valid burn is from tx78 so version 2 is used for the blockchain in sidechain. The total valid burn is 1.06 BTC, so 10 altcoins to be distributed in the next block are 0.094, 0.472, 9.434 to owners of first 3 transactions, respectively.
Censorship attack would require continuous costs in Bitcoin on the attacker and can be waited out. Censorship would also be limited to on-sidechain specific transactions as emission distribution to others CPoB contributors wouldn't be affected as blocks without matching coin distributions on sidechain wouldn't be valid. Additionally, sidechains can allow a limited number of sidechain transactions to happen via embedding transaction data inside Bitcoin transactions (e.g. OP_RETURN) as a way to use Bitcoin for data availability layer in case sidechain transactions are being censored on their network. Since all sidechain nodes are Bitcoin aware, it would be trivial to include.
Sidechain blocks cannot be reverted without reverting Bitcoin blocks or hard forking the protocol used to derive sidechain state. If protocol is forked, the value of sidechain coins on each fork of sidechain state becomes important but Proof of Burn natively guarantees trust minimized and permissionless distribution of the coins, something inferior methods like obscure early distributions, trusted pre-mines, and trusted ICO's cannot do.
More bitcoins being burnt is parallel to more hash rate entering PoW, with each miner or burner getting smaller amount of altcoins on average making it unprofitable to burn or mine and forcing some to exit. At equilibrium costs of equipment and electricity approaches value gained from selling coins just as at equilibrium costs of burnt coins approaches value of altcoins rewarded. In both cases it incentivizes further distribution to markets to cover the costs making burners and miners dependent on users via markets. In both cases it's also possible to mine without permission and mine at a loss temporarily to gain some altcoins without permission if you want to.
Altcoins benefit by inheriting many of bitcoin security guarantees, bitcoin parties have to do nothing if they don't want to, but will see their coins grow more scarce through burning. The contributions to the fee market will contribute to higher Bitcoin miner rewards even after block reward is gone.

Sidechain Bitcoin-pegs:

What is the ideal goal of the sidechains? Ideally to have a token that has the bi-directionally pegged value to Bitcoin and tradeable ~1:1 for Bitcoin that gives Bitcoin users an option of a different rule set without compromising the base chain nor forcing base chain participants to do anything different.
Issues with value pegs:
Let's get rid of the idea of needing Bitcoin collateral to back pegged coins 1:1 as that's never secure, independent, or scalable at same security level. As drive-chain design suggested the peg doesn't have to be fast, can take months, just needs to exist so other methods can be used to speed it up like atomic swaps by volunteers taking on the risk for a fee.
In continuous proof of burn we have another source of Bitcoins, the burnt Bitcoins. Sidechain protocols can require some minor percentage (e.g. 20%) of burner tx value coins via another output to go to reimburse those withdrawing side-Bitcoins to Bitcoin chain until they are filled. If withdrawal queue is empty that % is burnt instead. Selection of who receives reimbursement is deterministic per burner. Percentage must be kept small as it's assumed it's possible to get up to that much discount on altcoin emissions.
Let's use a really simple example case where each burner pays 20% of burner tx amount to cover withdrawal in exact order requested with no attempts at other matching, capped at half amount requested per payout. Example:
withdrawal queue: request1: 0.2 sBTC request2: 1.0 sBTC request3: 0.5 sBTC
same block burners: tx burns 0.8 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.1 BTC is sent to request2 tx burns 0.4 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1 tx burns 0.08 BTC, 0.02 BTC is sent to request 1 tx burns 1.2 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.2 BTC is sent to request2
withdrawal queue: request1: filled with 0.32 BTC instead of 0.2 sBTC, removed from queue request2: partially-filled with 0.3 BTC out of 1.0 sBTC, 0.7 BTC remaining for next queue request3: still 0.5 sBTC
Withdrawal requests can either take long time to get to filled due to cap per burn or get overfilled as seen in "request1" example, hard to predict. Overfilling is not a big deal since we're not dealing with a finite source. The risk a user that chooses to use the sidechain pegged coin takes on is based on the rate at which they can expect to get paid based on value of altcoin emission that generally matches Bitcoin burn rate. If sidechain loses interest and nobody is burning enough bitcoin, the funds might be lost so the scale of risk has to be measured. If Bitcoins burnt per day is 0.5 BTC total and you hope to deposit or withdraw 5000 BTC, it might take a long time or never happen to withdraw it. But for amounts comparable or under 0.5 BTC/day average burnt with 5 side-BTC on sidechain outstanding total the risks are more reasonable.
Deposits onto the sidechain are far easier - by burning Bitcoin in a separate known unspendable deposit address for that sidechain and sidechain protocol issuing matching amount of side-Bitcoin. Withdrawn bitcoins are treated as burnt bitcoins for sake of dividing block rewards as long as they followed the deterministic rules for their burn to count as valid and percentage used for withdrawals is kept small to avoid approaching free altcoin emissions by paying for your own withdrawals and ensuring significant unforgeable losses.
Ideally more matching is used so large withdrawals don't completely block everyone else and small withdrawals don't completely block large withdrawals. Better methods should deterministically randomize assigned withdrawals via previous Bitcoin block hash, prioritized by request time (earliest arrivals should get paid earlier), and amount of peg outstanding vs burn amount (smaller burns should prioritize smaller outstanding balances). Fee market on bitcoin discourages doing withdrawals of too small amounts and encourages batching by burners.
The second method is less reliable but already known that uses over-collateralized loans that create a oracle-pegged token that can be pegged to the bitcoin value. It was already used by its inventors in 2014 on bitshares (e.g. bitCNY, bitUSD, bitBTC) and similarly by MakerDAO in 2018. The upside is a trust minimized distribution of CPoB coins can be used to distribute trust over selection of price feed oracles far better than pre-mined single trusted party based distributions used in MakerDAO (100% pre-mined) and to a bit lesser degree on bitshares (~50% mined, ~50% premined before dpos). The downside is 2 fold: first the supply of BTC pegged coin would depend on people opening an equivalent of a leveraged long position on the altcoin/BTC pair, which is hard to convince people to do as seen by very poor liquidity of bitBTC in the past. Second downside is oracles can still collude to mess with price feeds, and while their influence might be limited via capped price changes per unit time and might compromise their continuous revenue stream from fees, the leverage benefits might outweight the losses. The use of continous proof of burn to peg withdrawals is superior method as it is simply a minor byproduct of "mining" for altcoins and doesn't depend on traders positions. At the moment I'm not aware of any market-pegged coins on trust minimized platforms or implemented in trust minimized way (e.g. premined mkr on premined eth = 2 sets of trusted third parties each of which with full control over the design).
_______________________________________

Brief issues with current altchains options:

  1. PoW: New PoW altcoins suffer high risk of attacks. Additional PoW chains require high energy and capital costs to create permissionless entry and trust minimized miners that are forever dependent on markets to hold them accountable. Using same algorithm or equipment as another chain or merge-mining puts you at a disadvantage by allowing some miners to attack and still cover sunk costs on another chain. Using a different algorithm/equipment requires building up the value of sunk costs to protect against attacks with significant energy and capital costs. Drive-chains also require miners to allow it by having to be sidechain aware and thus incur additional costs on them and validating nodes if the sidechain rewards are of value and importance.
  2. PoS: PoS is permissioned (requires permission from internal party to use network or contribute to consensus on permitted scale), allows perpetual control without accountability to others, and incentivizes centralization of control over time. Without continuous source of sunk costs there's no reason to give up control. By having consensus entirely dependent on internal state network, unlike PoW but like private databases, cannot guarantee independent permissionless entry and thus cannot claim trust minimization. Has no built in distribution methods so depends on safe start (snapshot of trust minimized distributions or PoW period) followed by losing that on switch to PoS or starting off dependent on a single trusted party such as case in all significant pre-mines and ICO's.
  3. Proof of Capacity: PoC is just shifting costs further to capital over PoW to achieve same guarantees.
  4. PoW/PoS: Still require additional PoW chain creation. Strong dependence on PoS can render PoW irrelevant and thus inherit the worst properties of both protocols.
  5. Tokens inherit all trust dependencies of parent blockchain and thus depend on the above.
  6. Embedded consensus (counterparty, veriblock?, omni): Lacks mechanism for distribution, requires all tx data to be inside scarce Bitcoin block space so high cost to users instead of compensated miners. If you want to build a very expressive scripting language, might very hard & expensive to fit into Bitcoin tx vs CPoBB external content of unlimited size in a committed hash. Same as CPoBB is Bitcoin-aware so can respond to Bitcoin being sent but without source of Bitcoins like burning no way to do any trust minimized Bitcoin-pegs it can control fully.

Few extra notes from my talks with people:

Main questions to you:

open to working on this further with others
submitted by awasi868 to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

A better anti-reorg algorithm using first-seen times to punish secret/dishonest mining

Bitcoin currently allows a malicious miner with at least 51% of the network hashrate to arbitrarily rewrite blockchain history. This means that transactions are reversible if they belong to a miner with a hashrate majority, and such transactions are subject to double-spend attempts. Bitcoin SV's miners have repeatedly threatened to perform this attack against exchanges using BCH by mining a secret, hidden chain which they only publish after they have withdrawn funds in a different currency from the exchange. It would be nice if we could prevent these secret mining re-org attacks.
Yesterday, I came up with a new algorithm for making secret re-org attacks very expensive and difficult to pull off. This new algorithm is designed to avoid the permanent chainsplit vulnerabilities of ABC 0.18.5 while being more effective at punishing malicious behavior.
The key to the new algorithm is to punish exactly the behavior that indicates malice. First, publishing a block after another block at the same height has arrived on the network suggests malice or poor performance, and the likelihood of malice increases as the delay increases. A good algorithm would penalize blocks in proportion to how much later they were published after the competing block. Second, building upon a block that was intentionally delayed is also a sign of malice. Therefore, a good algorithm would discount the work done by blocks based not only on their own delays, but the delays that were seen earlier in that chain as well. Since the actions at the start of the fork are more culpable (as they generate the split), we want to weight those blocks more heavily than later blocks.
I wrote up an algorithm that implements these features. When comparing two chains, you look at the PoW done since the fork block, and divide that PoW by a penalty score. The penalty score for each chain is calculated as the sum of the penalty scores for each block. Each block's penalty score is equal to the apparent time delay of that block relative to its sibling or cousin[1], divided by 120 seconds[2], and further divided by the square[3] of that block's height[4] from the fork.[5]
This algorithm has some desirable properties:
  1. It provides smooth performance. There are no corners or sharp changes in its incentive structure or penalty curve.
  2. It converges over very long time scales. Eventually, if one chain has more hashrate than the other and that is sustained indefinitely, the chain with the most hashrate will win by causing the chain penalty score for the slower (less-PoW) chain to grow.
  3. The long-term convergence means that variation in observed times early in the fork will not cause permanent chainsplits.
  4. Long-term convergence means that nodes can follow the standard most-PoW rule during initial block download and get the same results unless an attack is underway, in which case the node will only temporarily disagree.
  5. Over intermediate time scales (e.g. hours to weeks), the penalty given to secret-mining deep-reorg chains is very large and difficult to overcome even with a significant hashrate advantage. The penalty increases the longer the attack chain is kept secret. This makes attack attempts ineffective unless they are published within about 20 minutes of the attack starting.
  6. Single-block orphan race behavior is identical to existing behavior unless one of the blocks has a delay of at least 120 seconds, in which case that chain would require a total of 3 blocks to win (or more) instead of just 2.
  7. As the algorithm strongly punishes hidden chains, finalization becomes much safer as long as you prevent finalization from happening while there are known competitive alternate chains. However, this algorithm is still effective without finalization.
I wrote up this algorithm into a Python sim yesterday and have been playing around with it since. It seems to perform quite well. For example, if the attacker has 1.5x as much hashrate as the defenders (who had 100% of the hashrate before the fork), mine in secret for 20 minutes before publishing, and if finalization is enabled after 10 blocks when there's at least a 2x score advantage, then the attacker gets an orphan rate of 49.3% on their blocks and is only able to cause a >= 10 block reorg in 5.2% of cases, and none of those happen blindly, as the opposing chain shows up when most transactions have about 2 confirmations. If the attacker waits 1 hour before publishing, the attack is even less effective: 94% of their blocks are orphaned, 95.6% of their attempts fail, 94.3% of the attacks end with defenders successfully finalizing, and only 0.6% of attack attempts result in a >= 10 block reorg.
The code for my algorithm and simulator can be found on my antiReorgSim Github repository. If you guys have time, I'd appreciate some review and feedback. To run it:
git clone https://github.com/jtoomim/antiReorgSim.git cd antiReorgSim python reorgsim.py # use pypy if you have it, as it's 30x faster 
Thanks! Special thanks to Jonald Fyookball and Mark Lundeberg for reviewing early versions of the code and the ideas. I believe Jonald is working on a Medium post based on some of these concepts. Keep an eye out for it.
Edit: I'm working on an interactive HTML visualization using Dash/Python! Here's a screenshot from a preliminary version in which convergence (or attacker victory, if you prefer) happens after 88.4 hours. In this scenario, the attacker wins because of the rule in Note 5.
Edit 2: An alpha website version of the simulator is up! The code is all server-side for the simulation, so it might get overloaded if too many people hit it at the same time, but it might be fine. Feel free to play around with it!
Note 1: This time delay is calculated by finding the best competing chain's last block with less work than this one and the first block with more work than this one and interpolating the time-first-seen between the two. The time at which the block was fully downloaded and verified is used as time-first-seen, not the time at which the header was received nor the block header's timestamp.
Note 2: An empirical constant, intended to be similar to worst-case block propagation times.
Note 3: A semi-empirical constant; this balances the effect of early blocks against late blocks. The motivation for squaring is that late blocks gain an advantage for two multiplicative reasons: First, there are more late blocks than early blocks. Second, the time deltas for late blocks are larger. Both of these factors are linear versus time, so canceling them out can be done by dividing by height squared. This way, the first block has about as much weight as the next 4 blocks; the first two blocks have as much weight as the next 9 blocks; and the first (n) blocks have about as much weight as the next (n+1)2 blocks. Any early advantage can be overcome eventually by a hashrate majority, so over very long time scales (e.g. hours to weeks), this rule is equivalent to the simple Satoshi most-PoW rule, as long as the hashrate on each chain is constant. However, over intermediate time scales, the advantage to the first seen blocks is large enough that the hashrate will likely not remain constant, and hashrate will likely switch over to whichever chain has the best score and looks the most honest.
Note 4: The calculation doesn't actually use height, as that would be vulnerable to DAA manipulation. Instead, the calculation uses pseudoheight, which uses the PoW done and the fork block's difficulty to calculate what the height would be if all blocks had the fork block's difficulty.
Note 5: If one chain has less PoW than the other, the shorter chain's penalty is calculated as if enough blocks had been mined at the last minute to make them equal in PoW, but these fictional blocks do not contribute to the actual PoW of that chain.
submitted by jtoomim to btc [link] [comments]

Six Hundred Microseconds.

A perspective from the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Unlimited developer who discovered CVE-2018–17144.
That is about the time that Matt Corallo wanted to shave off of block validation with his pull request in 2016 to Bitcoin Core. 600µs is a lot less than what is saved with more efficient block propagation, like XThin, Compact Blocks, or now Graphene over typical links, especially those that are of similar low-end quality in network speed like Raspberry Pis are in compute speed. An optimization that was not in the focus by Core until XThin from Bitcoin Unlimited came onto the scene and kicked the Core team into gear on this issue. Furthermore, 600 microseconds is an order of magnitude or more below the variance between node validation speeds from a Raspberry Pi to a more high-end miner node and thus wholly in the range that the network already deals with. This 600 microsecond optimization now resulted in CVE-2018–17144. Certainly the most catastrophic bug in recent years, and certainly one of the most catastrophic bugs in Bitcoin ever. This bug was initially suspected to potentially cause inflation, was reported because it led to reliable crashes and confirmed by closer analysis… to be actually allowing inflation! I have consistently and repeatedly criticized hubris and arrogance in the most prominent Core developers, and done so since 2013, when the bullshitting around the 1MB block size limit started. Here we have an optimization that talks about avoiding “duplicate” validation like validation is nothing to worry about, an afterthought in Bitcoin almost. And a change that is quickly found to be good in peer reviewed, ACKed in Core-speak, in a rubber-stamp-like manner by Core developers such as Gregory Maxwell. Developers which I fully respect for their intelligence and knowledge by the way, but still, well, dislike as much for their overblown egos and underhanded discussion style as well as having done all they can to handicap Bitcoin with the 1MB limit. I also have to be honest, this change creates an unavoidable element of suspicion in me. For anyone who knows what went down and what the code paths do, it is just unavoidable to have this thought here. I like to qualify that this is not what I assert nor think is happening, but definitely crosses my mind as a potentiality! Because what is better to destroy the value of Bitcoin in the public’s eye than a silent inflation bug? What is better than creating code paths that look harmless for themselves but combined with some other, seemingly harmless rework in other areas of the code, result in utter catastrophe? And it looks like CVE-2018–17144 would eventually have become exactly this. The only thing that saved Core is their effective client diversity between revisions and someone actually noticing that there is a problem. After two years of this bug sitting around idle and exploitable. Client diversity that has been much criticized on the Bitcoin Cash side of things, but it obviously shows its advantages now. Reading the title of the original PR: “Remove duplicatable duplicate-input check from CheckTransaction” , as well as the message therein: “Benchmark results indicate this saves about 0.5–0.7ms during CheckBlock.” almost reads like it could be a sick joke being played on us all now. I always feared that someone from the bankster circles, someone injected into the Bitcoin development circles with the sole goal of wreaking unsalvageable havoc, would do exactly what happened. Injecting a silent inflation bug. Because that is what would destroy one of the very core advantages that Bitcoin has over the current status quo. That of transparency and a verifiable money supply. And, even though as a Bitcoin/BCHer, I do not see true long term prospects in Bitcoin/BTC anymore, calling the whole foundation of crypto into question just like that would have been equally disastrous to “our” variant of Bitcoin. Now, again, I am definitely not saying this is the case with PR 9049 for sure. I actually think the explanation of a young, cocky Core developer, a new “master of the universe” wreaking havoc by sheer arrogance and hubris, is the more likely explanation. People in general, but I don’t even exclude myself here, tend to believe in the competence of others if they appear just self-assured enough. This is part of the problem with attitude and psychological dynamics in this space. It creates a dangerous aura of ‘these guys know what they are doing’. I myself have done some minor work on sensitive areas in the Bitcoin Unlimited implementation. And I am working on some more “consensus critical” code for BCH now (see below). And, yes, I sometimes do lose some sleep over what could go wrong. I know I make mistakes. I have done so. I will. We all do. But I have yet to see anything resembling an admission of being imperfect by the developer in question, or any other prominent Core developer for that matter. The folks in question know exactly who I mean. There must be more reasonable folks in Core, but they are rather silent. Much worse even: In the discussion on github that follows this PR, user freetrader (a well known anonymous but still respected member of the Bitcoin Cash community who helped to create the Bitcoin Cash initial fork) asks the very valid question:
Which is answered in the, all-too-typical for Core, smug manner by Matt Corallo, notably the original author of the bug who has all reason to be a bit more careful and respectful:
The bug was disclosed in an absolutely responsible manner. As even the full disclosure on bitcoincore.org’s own pages notices, it went to a set of trustworthy people by the person who found the bug and did so in an encrypted PGP message only. This leaves the question why Core recklessly endangered the security of Bitcoin Cash as well endangering the myriad of altcoins that are out there and still susceptible with this premature and hasty publication. The back references from altcoins merging the change trickling into PR #14247 are a glimpse into this process. Now, Matt talks about “running out of time” in the above reply. But what time is that exactly? If you think hard about this, this can only be a distrust in any of the informed parties that they’ll leak this secret prematurely and thus catch Bitcoin Core with their pants down, or as a worse assumption, be actually exploited by one of the informed parties against BTC. Bitcoin Unlimited was ferociously attacked, presumably by deranged BTC supporters from the wider ‘community’, when it had a bug. And it seems a bit like Core members assumed a payback by deranged BCH supporters in kind here (I am not doubting those supporters exist), given the hints in the original disclosure that this bug has actually been discovered by someone aligned with the Bitcoin Cash side of things. But not only that, Core seems to have assumed that members on the BCH side of things who have been informed are deranged or at least irresponsible enough to leak this info to the wrong parties! I like to applaud deadalnix and the ABC team for what I was thinking the Core team should have done here as well: Bury the fix in a bit more and unrelated refactoring code so as to fix it but also to buy some more time for an upgrade. Maybe Core wasn’t creative enough to see a way to hide the problem, but then they also had no reason to blare it out like they did here. This was very irresponsible, and, and this should reach any altcoin impacted by this, this is definitely solely Bitcoin Core’s responsibility. No one else said anything in public before Core published their PR. It should also be noted by the Core team that this creates a strong disincentive to keep them in the loop with initial disclosure for anyone finding a bug. Cory Fields has talked about the risks and dangers with regards to sitting on the knowledge of a 0-day on Bitcoin Cash, and this bug discussed herein is one that was worth at least 10x more in potential damage and thus also shorting value and angry deranged people (a.k.a. “31337 crypto trading bros”) capable of violence. If a party behaves this irresponsibly, it shouldn’t be surprised if it degrades itself to a lower position in the food chain with regards to vulnerability disclosures. I am not saying I won’t inform next time I might stumble upon something, but this is not a good way to create the necessary trust. The Discovery and Disclosure Sitting in my little van by the sea on Monday, I was working on getting the new CHECKDATASIG/-VERIFY opcodes that are about to activate for Bitcoin (Cash) in November implemented on the Bitcoin Unlimited client. I have been looking at a potentially neat use case for those and am motivated to get this done. Around noon, I noticed that there is a lot of divergence in the way that signature operations counting was done in ABC vs. how it was done in Bitcoin Unlimited (BU). I agreed earlier with the BU team that I would go and port most of the CDS/-V stuff over from ABC, but I felt overwhelmed. My thoughts were that: Ok, this is doable, but this needs a lot more analysis and also many more eyeballs for review. And will take a lot longer. Sigh. While doing so, I stumbled upon this comment in the ABC code base: Check for duplicate inputs — note that this check is slow so we skip it in CheckBlock My initial reaction was a slight “Eh, WTF is going on with that comment?”. And then I looked up uses of CheckRegularTransaction in ABC, which is the renamed variant of CheckTransaction in Core (but I didn’t know at that time). I dug through the code to try to understand the logic. I noticed that block validation skips this test as it is assumed to have already happen during mempool ingress. My next thought was a bit of a sinking feeling and a “Uh-oh, I really hope the folks from ABC have thought about the difference between the mempool and block transmission and that those are distinct ways into the system. There might be a problem here!”. And then I went and thought about a way to test this. I patched an ABC node to not relay transactions even when asked and connected one unpatched and one patched node together in -regtest mode and created a transaction with a duplicate input (which the above test was skipping). Wham! assert(), Aborted. Next thought was along the lines: “Oh fuck, this doesn’t look good, gotta notify deadalnix and the crew what is lurking in ABC, this doesn’t look good at all. [email protected]#%!!”. Being aware of the danger that this could maybe be further exploited towards an actual inflation and chain-splitting bug (but I didn’t further check the specifics of this, as a node crash bug with assert() failure was already enough to be worried about), I quickly and somewhat inaccurately noted to myself (and timestamped): BitcoinABC does not check for duplicate inputs when processing a block, only when inserting a transaction into the mempool. This is dangerous as blocks can be generated with duplicate transactions and then sent through e.g. compact block missing transactions and avoid hitting the mempool, creating money out of thin air. awemany [Footnote: I timestamped this message in the BU slack, adding an innocuous situational lie of ‘Ooops, wrong channel’ to it. I also tried timestamping my findings on on my usual go-to site originstamp.org but they only submit timestamps every 24h due to the fees on Bitcoin being too high to do more often… I guess I should maybe get into the habit of doing timestamping transactions myself..] Opening up a disclosure email to deadalnix, I started to have a thought of: “Ok, actually, where is this stuff coming from, when and where did they introduce it into the code, might we be lucky and this is not in a release yet?” And then I noticed that this stuff was coming from Core. Already having written a disclosure report, I rechecked whether Core was vulnerable as well. And, once again: Wham! assert(), Aborted. I started to get shivers up my spine. Uh oh! Core has a crash bug, potentially worse. Stuff in the code since 2016. NOT good. NOT good at all. I like to say here that I actually had a feeling of this is bad, not this is good because of Core vs. Cash or something like that. I (unfortunately) still own a (for my poor soul significant) amount of BTC and for that reason and others do not like having bugs in Core either. Being a responsible citizen in this space, I then wrote the encrypted disclosure email to Wladimir, sickpig and some others, attaching a variant of the ABC and the Core patch to exploit this problem to my disclosure. I also put in a BCH address for a bounty payment to myself into that email (disclosed as proof below), as I feel this should be something worth a little performance bonus 🙂 No money has been received at the time of this writing yet. If you want to change this, you can send me BCH here: bitcoincash:qr5yuq3q40u7mxwqz6xvamkfj8tg45wyus7fhqzug5 (1NBKDco2EctDXvBv6r4hqJRPWfgX9jFpqs) I chose the handle beardnboobies as this is the first thing that came into my mind when I thought about this very discovery here. I thought: Ok, I am slowly becoming a pale nerd working on just code, with beard and manboobies. Oh well. I have noticed that this handle was — for whatever reason- taken out of the release notes that are checked into the main development branch of Bitcoin Core and is only available in the release branch / tag, being replaced with anonymous contributor on the main branch. I wonder: Do you Core guys feel this is too unprofessional to have this pseudonym appear in the main branch? Have some humor please! 🙂 By the way, a plea: I urge everyone in BCH as well as BTC (as well as impacted altcoins), to take a fine-toothed comb through the code with the goal of looking for similar issues! More specifically, I faintly remember (though might be wrong) from discussions back with Core devs on reddit in 2016 and before, that the idea that there’s a lot of “duplicate validation” between mempool and block validation was kind of en vogue back then. Potentially more code is vulnerable because it assumes that mempool validation can stand in for block validation. I suspect more, though maybe not as grave bugs, in this area. Reactions After I submitted it, I felt relief and then I started to watch the space from the back. A weird situation. Only then I also fully realized what Core contributor Cory Fields described with a bit of a different angle and on a smaller scale, the weirdness of having found a bug that you know is worth millions at least, massively impacting a $100 billion currency. The fact that I could have gone and rented hash power and shorted BTC and exploited this. But also the fact that I did not! Wladimir eventually wrote me an email that they’re preparing releases (and at that time or around it they published the PR), so I responded expressing my astonishment of the quite public handling of this serious issue. What I was amazed by in general was the long time it took for the bug to blow up to its full proportions, with the process seemingly even not over now. One thing is certainly others digging into this and realizing the full severity of this — as it turns out, yes it CAN be used to double-spend and inflate on BTC after all! — but also the time it takes from the initial PR being public, seemingly not noticed at all and the first media article being written. And then I noticed the usual spin. The “stupid BCashers can’t code and are irresponsible and what not” angle that is all too often repeated then by seemingly cerebrally insufficient Core supporters. I quote the below to gloat maybe. But also to show the world WHAT kind of bullshit the Bitcoin Cash side of things is facing here in a constant barrage. This is just from a few of the more prominent Core supporters and devs. There is, of course, a lot more folks foaming “btrash, bcash” at the mouth on reddit and twitter. Tone Vays and Jimmy Song Here we have Tone Vays, who likes to pose with the undercurrent of violence by wielding weapons on Twitter and apparently also on Youtube, discussing this bug with Jimmy Song in an unwillingly hilarious Youtube video:
Luke-Jr I like to say some words about this tweet of Luke-Jr, committing the sin of bearing false witness about us irresponsible “BCashers”…
I suspect Luke-Jr has been left in the dark about the background of this disclosure as well, not belonging to the innermost circles either. Careful observers might have noticed even more of this dynamic happening with other people. And note again: I have done everything that is necessary to make this a responsible disclosure. The initial, unobfuscated public disclosure happened by Bitcoin Core on their github! This is exactly the opposite situation compared to what Luke-Jr is describing. This is despicable.
From:Luke-Jr
Closing remarks Apart from pointing out the insane spin of some Core supporters in the preceding part, I simply want to take the opportunity now to urge caution for everyone here. Bugs lurk everywhere. Everyone is imperfect. Myself included, of course. I started to like Jihan Wu’s credo of “Don’t play hatred, don’t wish competing coins ill. Just wish and try to make BCH better” (from twitter) and see BCH and BTC in fierce but still civil competition. Civil competition obviously meaning no violence, including no violence like attacking each other’s nodes. I like to reiterate that, despite the gloating and strong words you might find in this article, I did everything to play fair. I also agree in general with Cory Fields from Core that it is not very easy to find the necessary disclosure addresses and information. He’s right about the lack of easily accessible GPG keys both on the BCH as well as — I like to add- on the BTC side of things. I didn’t find a non-retracted key of Pieter Wuille in time. I also like to note that a few things went finally completely out of the window here with this bug, for example Core’s idea of ‘the code being law’. If the code is law, does that mean that you have to accept inflation now? Or is it actually the Core devs steering the ship? Is an element of reasonableness entering the space? And yes, I sincerely believe, despite the current price ratio that BCH has a much brighter future than BTC, by being fundamentalist on the principles that matter and came along with the original white paper while not being fundamental on things that were created post-hoc — like the 1MB (now 4MW) limit in the Bitcoin Core implementation. As I also don’t think extended inflation is crucial for BTC’s operation. But anyone is free to buy or sell as they want. Let’s continue competing. Let’s civilly inform each other of bugs. May the best chain win. Finally, I like to thank Andrea Suisani, Andrew Stone and Peter Rizun for their review of this article and valuable input.
submitted by Cobi-communities to u/Cobi-communities [link] [comments]

List of reasons why CTOR (pushed by Bitmain ABC) is bad

For those who don't know, CTOR is one of many possible artificial sorting methods that could be imposed on a set of transactions within a block. Any sorting algorithm is naturally slower than the act of constructing an unsorted list. Let that sink in for a while.
That said, here is the list of reasons why I personally think CTOR has no place in the protocol of Bitcoin Cash.
When using the natural ordering, the order of TXs in a block will increasingly differ between two independent miners as one of the miners becomes poorly connected to the network. A miner connected poorly to the network is more likely to fall a victim to a Sybil attack (if they already haven't). If we could detect this condition as early as possible it is possible to preemptively orphan discrepant blocks and thus thwart the double-spend attacks.
A more safe and reliable network makes Bitcoin Cash more useful and thus increases its adoption. As a result, the price of BCH increases and miners will earn more. Thus, it is in the best interest of miners to cooperate and together provide better service to the users. CTOR is a step away from this direction and should be rejected.
submitted by 1Hyena to btc [link] [comments]

An attempt at a fully comprehensive look at how to scale bitcoin. Lets bring Bitcoin out of Beta!

 
WARNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY REALLY LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT ALL. SCALING BITCOIN IS A COMPLEX ISSUE! HOPEFULLY HAVING ALL THE INFO IN ONE PLACE SHOULD BE USEFUL
 
Like many people in the community I've spent the past month or so looking deeply into the bitcoin scaling debate. I feel there has never been a fully comprehensive thread on how bitcoin could scale. The closest I have seen is gavinandresen's medium posts back in the summer describing the problem and a solution, and pre-emptively answering supposed problems with the solution. While these posts got to the core of the issue and spawned the debate we have been having, they were quite general and could have used more data in support. This is my research and proposal to scale bitcoin and bring the community back together.
 
 
The Problem
 
There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution;
  • 'node distribution',
  • 'mining decentralisation',
  • 'network utility',
  • 'time',
  • 'adoption'.
 
 
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Any suitable solution should look to not decrease node distribution significantly.
 
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Any suitable solution should look to not increase mining centralisation significantly.
 
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 10GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Any suitable solution should look to increase network utility as time increases.
 
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion (often exponential). As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network (if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
 
 
Adoption
Increasing adoption means more people using the bitcoin/blockchain network. The more people use bitcoin the more utility it has, and the more utility Bitcoin has the more people will want to use it (network effect). The more people use bitcoin, the more people there that have an incentive to protect bitcoin.
Any suitable solution should look to increase adoption as time increases.
 
 
The Solution Proposed by some of the bitcoin developers - The Lightning Network
 
The Lightning Network (LN) is an attempt at scaling the number of transactions that can happen between parties by not publishing any transaction onto the blockchain unless it is absolutely necessary. This is achieved by having people pool bitcoin together in a "Channel" and then these people can transact instantly within that channel. If any shenanigans happen between any of the parties, the channel can be closed and the transactions will be settled on the blockchain. The second part of their plan is limit the block size to turn bitcoin into a settlement network. The original block size limit of 1MB was originally put in place by Satoshi as an anti-DOS measure. It was to make sure a bad actor could not propagate a very large block that would crash nodes and increase the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Certain developers now want to use this 1MB limit in a different way to make sure that resource requirements will stay low, block space always remains full, fees increase significantly and people use the lightning network as their main way of transacting rather than the blockchain. They also say that keeping the resource requirements very low will make sure that bitcoin remains decentralised.
 
Problems with The Lightning Network
The LN works relatively well (in theory) when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions to the network are kept low. Unfortunately, when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions on the blockchain become high, the LN's utility is diminished. The trust you get from a transaction on the LN comes only from the trustless nature of having transactions published to the bitcoin network. What this means is that if a transaction cannot be published on the bitcoin network then the LN transaction is not secured at all. As transactions fees rise on the bitcoin blockchain the LN utility is diminished. Lets take an example:
  • Cost of publishing a transaction to the bitcoin network = $20
  • LN transaction between Bob and Alice = $20.
  • Transaction between Bob and Alice has problem therefore we want to publish it to the blockchain.
  • Amount of funds left after transaction is published to the blockchain = $20 - $20 = $0.
This is also not a binary situation. If for example in this scenario, the cost to publish the transaction to blockchain was $10 then still only 50% of the transaction would be secure. It is unlikely anyone really call this a secure transaction.
Will a user make a non-secured/poorly secured transaction on the LN when they could make the same transaction via an altcoin or non-cryptocurrency transaction and have it well secured? It's unlikely. What is much more likely to happen is that transaction that are not secured by bitcoin because of the cost to publish to the blockchain will simply overflow into altcoins or will simply not happen on any cryptocurrency network. The reality is though, that we don't know exactly what will happen because there is no precedent for it.
Another problem outside of security is convenience. With a highly oversaturated block space (very large backlog of transactions) it could take months to have a transaction published to the blockchain. During this time your funds will simply be stuck. If you want to buy a coffee with a shop you don't have a channel open with, instead of simply paying with bitcoin directly, you would have to wait months to open a channel by publishing a transaction to the bitcoin blockchain. I think your coffee might be a little cold by then (and mouldy).
I suggest reading this excellent post HERE for other rather significant problems with the LN when people are forced to use it.
The LN is currently not complete and due to its high complexity it will take some time to have industry wide implementation. If it is implemented on top of a bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network economy it will likely have very little utility.
 
Uses of The LN
The LN is actually an extremely useful layer-2 technology when it is used with it's strengths. When the bitcoin blockchain is fast and cheap to transact on, the LN is also extremely useful. One of the major uses for the LN is for trust-based transactions. If you are transacting often between a set of parties you can truly trust then using LN makes absolute sense since the trustless model of bitcoin is not necessary. Then once you require your funds to be unlocked again it will only take a short time and small cost to open them up to the full bitcoin network again. Another excellent use of LN would be for layer-3 apps. For example a casino app: Anyone can by into the casino channel and play using real bitcoins instantly in the knowledge that is anything nefarious happens you can instantly settle and unlock your funds. Another example would be a computer game where you can use real bitcoin in game, the only difference is that you connect to the game's LN channel and can transact instantly and cheaply. Then whenever you want to unlock your funds you can settle on the blockchain and use your bitcoins normally again.
LN is hugely more powerful, the more powerful bitcoin is. The people making the LN need to stick with its strengths rather than sell it as an all-in-one solution to bitcoin's scaling problem. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
 
 
Improving Network Efficiency
 
The more efficient the network, the more we can do with what we already have. There are a number of possible efficiency improvements to the network and each of them has a slightly different effect.
 
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
 
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
 
libsecp256k1 libsecp256k1 allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. It also means reduced time to bootstrap the blockchain for a new node.
 
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Serialised Broadcast Sorting
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
(The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function.)
 
 
The Factors in Finding a Balanced Solution
 
At the beginning of this post I detailed a relatively simple framework for finding a solution by describing what the problem is. There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility', 'time' and 'adoption'. The optimal solution needs to find a balance between all of these forces taking into account a buffer to offset our inability to predict the future with absolute accuracy.
To find a suitable buffer we need to assign a set of red line values which certain values should not pass if we want to make sure bitcoin continues to function as well as today (at a minimum). For example, percentage of orphans should stay below a certain value. These values can only be a best estimate due to the complexity of bitcoin economics, although I have tried to provide as sound reasoning as possible.
 
Propagation time
It seems a fair limit for this would be roughly what we have now. Bitcoin is still functioning now. Could mining be more decentralised? Yes, of course, but it seems bitcoin is working fine right now and therefore our currently propagation time for blocks is a fairly conservative limit to set. Currently 1MB blocks take around 15 seconds to propagate more than 50% of the network. 15 second propagation time is what I will be using as a limit in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Orphan Rate
This is obviously a value that is a function of propagation time so the same reasoning should be used. I will use a 3% limit on orphan rate in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $200 in the near-term and $600 in the long-term. I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for a business or enthusiast to pay to run a full node. As the number of transactions increases as more people use bitcoin the number of people willing to pay a higher price to run a node will also increase although the percentage of people will decrease. These are of course best guess values as there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage of users are willing to pay what.
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $3 in the near-term (next 5 years) and $9 in the long-term (Next 25 years). I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for normal bitcoin user to pay. In fact this cost will more likely be zero as almost all users have an amount of storage free on their computers.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 10% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Downstream is generally a much more valuable resource to a user than upstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 25% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Upstream is generally a much less valuable resource to a user than downstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
My limit for this value is at 5 days using 50% of downstream bandwidth in the near-term and 30 days in the long-term. This seems like a reasonable number to me for someone who wants to start running a full node. Currently opening a new bank account takes at least week until everything is set up and you have received your cards, so it seems to me people would be willing to wait this long to become connected. Again, this is a best guess on what people would be willing to do to access the blockchain in the future. Most users requiring less security will be able to use an SPV wallet.
It is important to note that we only need enough nodes to make sure the blockchain is distributed across many places with many backups of the full blockchain. It is likely that a few thousand is a minimum for this. Increasing this amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of full nodes is not necessarily that much of an advantage to node distribution but could be a significant disadvantage to mining centralisation. This is because the more nodes you have in the network, the longer it takes to propagate >50% of it.
 
Storage Cost Price Reduction Over Time
Storage cost follows a linear logarithmic trend. Costs of HDD reducing by 10 times every 5 years, although this has slowed over the past few years. This can be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD technology also follows the linear logarithmic trend of costs reducing 10 times every 5 years, or roughly decreasing 37% per year.
 
Average Upload and Download Bandwidth Increases Over Time
Average upload and download bandwidth increases in a linear logarithmic trend. Both upload and download bandwidth follow the same trend of doubling roughly every two years, or increasing 40% per year.
 
Price
I was hesitant to include this one here but I feel it is unavoidable. Contrary to what people say (often when the price is trending downwards) bitcoin price is an extremely important metric in the long-term. Depending on bitcoin's price, bitcoin's is useful to; enthusiasts->some users->small companies->large companies->nations->the world, in roughly that order. The higher bitcoin's price is the more liquid the market will be and the more difficult it will be to move the price, therefore increasing bitcoin's utility. Bitcoin's price in the long-term is linked to adoption, which seems to happen in waves, as can be seen in the price bubbles over the years. If we are planning/aiming for bitcoin to at least become a currency with equal value to one of the worlds major currencies then we need to plan for a market cap and price that reflect that. I personally think there are two useful targets we should use to reflect our aims. The first, lower target is for bitcoin to have a market cap the size of a major national currency. This would put the market cap at around 2.1 trillion dollars or $100,000 per bitcoin. The second higher target is for bitcoin to become the world's major reserve currency. This would give bitcoin a market cap of around 21 trillion dollars and a value of $1,000,000 per bitcoin. A final, and much more difficult target is likely to be bitcoin as the only currency across the world, but I am not sure exactly how this could work so for now I don't think this is worth considering.
 
As price increases, so does the subsidy reward given out to miners who find blocks. This reward is semi-dynamic in that it remains static (in btc terms) until 210,000 blocks are found and then the subsidy is then cut in half. This continues to happen until all 21,000,000 bitcoins have been mined. If the value of each bitcoin increases faster than the btc denominated subsidy decreases then the USD denominated reward will be averagely increasing. Historically the bitcoin price has increased significantly faster than subsidy decreases. The btc denominated subsidy halves roughly every 4 years but the price of bitcoin has historically increased roughly 50 fold in the same time.
 
Bitcoin adoption should happen in a roughly s-curve dynamic like every other technology adoption. This means exponential adoption until the market saturation starts and adoption slows, then the finally is the market becomes fully saturated and adoption slowly stops (i.e. bitcoin is fully adopted). If we assume the top of this adoption s-curve has one of the market caps above (i.e. bitcoin is successful) then we can use this assumption to see how we can transition from a subsidy paid network to a transaction fee paid network.
 
Adoption
Adoption is the most difficult metric to determine. In fact it is impossible to determine accurately now, let alone in the future. It is also the one of the most important factors. There is no point in building software that no one is going to use after all. Equally, there is no point in achieving a large amount of adoption if bitcoin offers none of the original value propositions. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Some amount of bitcoin's original value proposition is worth losing in favour of adoption, and some amount of adoption is worth losing to keep bitcoin's original value proposition. A suitable solution should find a good balance between the two. It is clear though that any solution must have increased adoption as a basic requirement, otherwise it is not a solution at all.
 
One major factor related to adoption that I rarely see mentioned, is stability and predictability. This is relevant to both end users and businesses. End users rely on stability and predictability so that they do not have to constantly check if something has changed. When a person goes to get money from a cash machine or spend money in a shop, their experience is almost identical every single time. It is highly dependable. They don't need to keep up-to-date on how cash machines or shops work to make sure they are not defrauded. They know exactly what is going to happen without having to expend any effort. The more deviation from the standard experience a user experiences and the more often a user experiences a deviation, the less likely a user is going to want to continue to use that service. Users require predictability extending into the past. Businesses who's bottom line is often dependent on reliable services also require stability and predictability. Businesses require predictability that extends into the future so that they can plan. A business is less likely to use a service for which they do not know they can depend on in the future (or they know they cannot depend on).
For bitcoin to achieve mass adoption it needs a long-term predictable and stable plan for people to rely on.
 
 
The Proposal
 
This proposal is one based on determining a best fit balance of every factor and a large enough buffer to allows for our inability to perfectly predict the future. No one can predict the future with absolutely certainty but it does not mean we cannot make educated guesses and plan for it.
 
The first part of the proposal is to spend 2016 implementing all available efficiency improvements (i.e the ones detailed above) and making sure the move to a scaled bitcoin happens as smoothly as possible. It seems we should set a target of implementing all of the above improvements within the first 6 months of 2016. These improvements should be implemented in the first hardfork of its kind, with full community wide consensus. A hardfork with this much consensus is the perfect time to test and learn from the hardforking mechanism. Thanks to Seg Wit, this would give us an effective 2 fold capacity increase and set us on our path to scalability.
 
The second part of the proposal is to target the release of a second hardfork to happen at the end of 2016. Inline with all the above factors this would start with a real block size limit increase to 2MB (effectively increasing the throughput to 4x compared to today thanks to Seg Wit) and a doubling of the block size limit every two years thereafter (with linear scaling in between). The scaling would end with an 8GB block size limit in the year 2039.
 
 
How does the Proposal fit inside the Limits
 
 
Propagation time
If trends for average upload and bandwidth continue then propagation time for a block to reach >50% of the nodes in the network should never go above 1s. This is significantly quickly than propagation times we currently see.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction (i.e. bandwidth does not increase as quickly as predicted) by 15% absolute and 37.5% relative (i.e. bandwidth improves at a rate of 25% per year rather than the predicted 40%) and we would still only ever see propagation times similar to today and it would take 20 years before this would happen.
 
Orphan Rate
Using our best guess predictions the orphan rate would never go over 0.2%.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative, orphan rate would never go above 2.3% and it would take over 20 years to happen.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a non-pruned full node would never exceed $40 with blocks consistently 50% full and would in fact decrease significantly after reaching the peak cost. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the maximum cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $90.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $100 by 2022 and $300 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $230 by 2022 and $650 in 2039. It is important to note that for storage costs to be as high as this, bitcoin will have to be enormously successful, meaning many many more people will be incentivised to run a full node (businesses etc.)
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a pruned full node would never exceed $0.60 with blocks consistently 50% full. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the max cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $1.30.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $1.40 by 2022 and $5 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $3.20 by 2022 and $10 in 2039. It is important to note that at this amount of storage the cost would be effectively zero since users almost always have a large amount of free storage space on computers they already own.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 0.3% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would still only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 4% (average).
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 1.6% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 24% (average) and this would take over 20 years to occur.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
Using our best guess predictions bootstrapping a new node onto the network should never take more than just over a day using 50% bandwidth.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and it would take one and 1/4 days to bootstrap the blockchain using 50% of the download bandwidth. By 2039 it would take 16 days to bootstrap the entire blockchain when using 50% bandwidth. I think it is important to note that by this point it is very possible the bootstrapping the blockchain could very well be done by simply buying an SSD with blockchain already bootstrapped. 16 days would be a lot of time to download software but it does not necessarily mean a decrease in centralisation. As you will see in the next section, if bitcoin has reached this level of adoption, there may well be many parties will to spend 16 days downloading the blockchain.
 
What if Things Turn Out Worse than the Worse Case?
While it is likely that future trends in the technology required to scale bitcoin will continue relatively similar to the past, it is possible that the predictions are completely and utterly wrong. This plan takes this into account though by making sure the buffer is large enough to give us time to adjust our course. Even if no technological/cost improvements (near zero likelihood) are made to bandwidth and storage in the future this proposal still gives us years to adjust course.
 
 
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin?
 
Significantly Increased Adoption
For comparison, Paypal handles around 285 transactions per second (tps), VISA handles around 2000tps and the total global non-cash transactions are around 12,400tps.
Currently bitcoin is capable of handling a maximum of around 3.5 transactions every second which are published to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes. With Seg Wit implemented via a hardfork, bitcoin will be capable or around 7tps. With this proposal bitcoin will be capable of handling more transactions than Paypal (assuming Paypal experiences growth of around 7% per year) in the year 2027. Bitcoin will overtake VISA's transaction capability by the year 2035 and at the end of the growth cycle in 2039 it will be able to handle close to 50% of the total global non-cash transactions.
When you add on top second layer protocols( like the LN), sidechains, altcoins and off-chain transactions, there should be more than enough capacity for the whole world and every possible conceivable use for digital value transfer.
 
Transitioning from a Subsidy to a Transaction Fee Model
Currently mining is mostly incentivised by the subsidy that is given by the network (currently 25btc per block). If bitcoin is to widely successful it is likely that price increases will continue to outweigh btc denominated subsidy decreases for some time. This means that currently it is likely to be impossible to try to force the network into matching a significant portion of the subsidy with fees. The amount of fees being paid to miners has averagely increased over time and look like they will continue to do so. It is likely that the optimal time for fees to start seriously replacing the subsidy is when bitcoin adoption starts to slow. Unless you take a pessimistic view of bitcoin (thinking bitcoin is as big as it ever will be), it is reasonable to assume this will not happen for some time.
With this proposal, using an average fee of just $0.05, total transaction fees per day would be:
  • Year 2020 = $90,720
  • Year 2025 = $483,840.00
  • Year 2030 = $2,903,040.00
  • Year 2035 = $15,482,880.00
  • Year 2041 = $123,863,040.00 (full 8GB Blocks)
Miners currently earn a total of around $2 million dollars per day in revenue, significantly less than the $124 million dollars in transaction fee revenue possible using this proposal. That also doesn't include the subsidy which would still play some role until the year 2140. This transaction fee revenue would be a yearly revenue of $45 billion for miners when transaction fees are only $0.05 on average.
 
 
Proposal Data
You can use these two spreadsheets (1 - 2 ) to see the various metrics at play over time. The first spreadsheet shows the data using the predicted trends and the second spreadsheet shows the data with the worst case trends.
 
 
Summary
 
It's very clear we are on the edge/midst of a community (and possibly a network) split. This is a very dangerous situation for bitcoin. A huge divide has appeared in the community and opinions are becoming more and more entrenched on both sides. If we cannot come together and find a way forward it will be bad for everyone except bitcoin's competition and enemies. While this proposal is born from an attempt at finding a balance based on as many relevant factors as possible, it also fortunately happens to fall in between the two sides of the debate. Hopefully the community can see this proposal as a way of making a compromise, releasing the entrenchment and finding a way forward to scale bitcoin. I have no doubt that if we can do this, bitcoin will have enormous success in the years to come.
 
Lets bring bitcoin out of beta together!!
submitted by ampromoco to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technology improvements and their effects on the forces at play and the scalability of bitcoin.

This is a post about the potential technologies that can/are being done to bitcoin and their effects on how we can scale bitcoin.
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
.
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
.
libsecp256k1 This allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
.
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
.
Know-Your-Neighbour (Serialised broadcast sorting)
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function. e.g. if all of these solution are applied, you could increase blocks to 10 times their current size without bandwidth increasing beyond current levels.
There seems to me to be four main fundamental forces at play; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility' and 'time'.
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 1GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion. As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network(if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
We need to find a good balance between these four forces in bitcoin. I will soon make another post about a proposal that should keep all of these three forces balanced in a way that scales bitcoin on the blockchain and also still provides and incentives for off-chain, sidechain and second layer solutions. If we as a community can com together and find a solution to scale bitcoin, we have a real chance of changing the world.
(if anyone feels I have made any mistakes or am missing anything, please let me know. I don't have knowledge of exactly how much of a speed boost to bootstrapping a new node using Seg Wit creates. I'd appreciate if someone could help me out there.).
EDIT 1: Updated to a more accurate model of bandwidth when thin blocks are used.
Edit 2: A relevant detail.
submitted by ampromoco to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

SF Bitcoin Developers - YouTube A Stealthier Partitioning Attack against Bitcoin Peer-to-Peer Network Bitcoin Open source P2P money Coca Cola Bitcoins Double Spending Testing - YouTube 東京ビットコインニュース(HandicapPrinciple, 3/9/19)

Introduction. On September 1st, 2018, Bitcoin Cash users performed a stress test in which they intentionally spammed the network in order to see how well our systems could handle the load. Network propagation is the number of nodes (computers running a bitcoin client) that have heard about your transaction. Confirmations is how many blocks have included your transaction and how many blocks have linked onto that block. 1 confirmation means your transaction was included in a block, 2 confirmations means that another block linked onto that first one, and so on. Until a transaction ... that the Bitcoin network has poor anonymity properties, and the community’s shift from trickle spreading (pre-2015) to di usion spreading (post-2015) did not help the situation. The optimal (maximum-likelihood) source-identi cation al-gorithms change between protocols; identifying such algo-rithms and quantifying their performance is the primary focus of this work. We nd that despite having ... Jax.Network believes its solution has solved the scalability trilemma and has the potential to become a consumer payment system, unlike other cryptocurrencies that experience delays and failures due to throughput restrictions. Last month, the Jax.Network team participated in the Blockchain.UA conference and shared their vision with the crypto community. Jax.Network believes its solution has solved the scalability trilemma and has the potential to become a consumer payment system, unlike other cryptocurrencies that experience delays and failures ...

[index] [30609] [18229] [46815] [20826] [34049] [50431] [29061] [46660] [36880] [39454]

SF Bitcoin Developers - YouTube

A Stealthier Partitioning Attack against Bitcoin Peer-to-Peer Network—Muoi Tran, Inho Choi, Gi Jun Moon, Anh V. Vu, Min Suk Kang Network adversaries, such as malicious transit autonomous systems ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue This is a toy model (120 nodes) of the Bitcoin network, how it forms and the transmission of blocks This shows just why propagation is so fast, the system is a small world near complete graph. ATPL Training / Radio Navigation #03 Propagation Theory - Propagation Paths - Duration: 29:08. Aviation Training Network ... Some thoughts on the self-fulfilling prophecy of poor HF conditions ... Sign in to like videos, comment, and subscribe. Sign in. Watch Queue Queue

#