Bitcoin xt objections
Brice Buronfosse. Reply to author. Report message as abuse. Show original message. Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message.
We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Content:
- Moderation Methods vs Censorship Claims
- It’s The Jons 2015!
- [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
- Alternative Bitcoin has backers nervous
- The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment
- Bitcoin schism: How Bitcoin became a victim of its own success
- Could this split be the end of bitcoin?
- Point-by-Point Response To Mike Hearn’s Final Bitcoin Post
- From the Front Page
- Standard Disclaimer
Moderation Methods vs Censorship Claims
Brice Buronfosse. Reply to author. Report message as abuse. Show original message. Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message. Jonathan Toomim. Gavin Andresen. It's an interesting idea, but it isn't a scaling solution-- the same amount of transaction data has to get to every fully-validating node, it doesn't matter if it is sent in the microblocks of the Bitcoin-NG proposal or the blocks we have now.
And it would require a very hard fork-- every piece of SPV wallet software would have to change at least a little bit to understand microblocks between key blocks. Thank you Gavin, appreciated. Hey Gavin,.
The following is all assuming the fee structure in NG functions correctly, which I'm doubtful of. NG is a scaling solution in the sense that it allows the network to scale up further while getting away with it. Similar to the way weak blocks aswell as IBLTs accomplish this.
The problem where scaling up by increasing the block size limit is thought to lead to miner centralization as a result of an increase in orphan rate, is solved by NG. Consequently, NG would allow the network to scale up without with no such miner centralization objection in mind; it is a scaling solution, at least in this sense.
As a rather trivial sidenote: I believe it can be implemented as a complex soft fork. Including for SPV wallets. The microblock's ordering in the next keyblock is deterministic as they reference their parent , which would allow a key-block announce to retain its constant-size, and constant-time propagation. A keyblock propagation message would include a standard 80 byte header message, along with a 32 byte last-microblock-generated header, which would allow any peer to deterministically reconstruct the full standard block, by plugging in the microblocks they should have already received.
Hi Gavin,. Just came across this thread today. Let me chime in with my 0. This is incorrect. This is what enables throughput gains of a few orders of magnitude over Core and XT.
Your comment points out another bottleneck, one that is far from the one faced by Core or XT today; namely, we could break a second scalability bottleneck by sharding transactions.
Because of the way bottlenecks work, worrying about the higher bottleneck in the presence of a much more imminent lower bottleneck does not make sense. Agreed, wallet software would have to be updated for NG. Wallets have to be updated for any blocksize increase as well. I am pretty sure that the resulting system would look like NG.
NG makes absolutely identical security assumptions, and improves throughput, improves 0-conf transactions, provides protection from fluctuations in mining power, provides stronger incentives for transaction propagation and is generally more fair to the smaller miners.
Mike Hearn. Hi Emin,. I think Gavin's point is that optimising the current block propagation protocol is easier but hasn't actually been done well, I posted the thin blocks patch recently, but I doubt miners will use it. It's hard to consider propagation as a serious bottleneck when miners only poll getblocktemplate every 30 secs due to the design of their ASICs, when blocks propagate everywhere pretty fast except through the chinese firewall, etc.
These issues wouldn't be addressed by NG. Most wallets are either web wallets one node upgrade , or SPV wallets which do not need to be modified when the block size changes, as they don't check the limit anyway.
It’s The Jons 2015!
Maybe it's time to discuss bitcoin 's history again. Theymos not only controls bitcoin , but also bitcoin. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person. For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem at least not an obvious one anyway until around mid This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid but did not become publicly active until then. A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency.
[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
This BIP proposes replacing the fixed one megabyte maximum block size with a maximum size that grows over time at a predictable rate. Transaction volume on the Bitcoin network has been growing, and will soon reach the one-megabyte-every-ten-minutes limit imposed by the one megabyte maximum block size. Increasing the maximum size reduces the impact of that limit on Bitcoin adoption and growth. After deployment see the Deployment section for details , the maximum allowed size of a block on the main network shall be calculated based on the timestamp in the block header. The maximum size shall be 8,, bytes at a timestamp of UTC timestamp , and shall double every 63,, seconds two years, ignoring leap years , until UTC timestamp The maximum size of blocks in between doublings will increase linearly based on the block's timestamp. The maximum size of blocks after UTC shall be 8,,, bytes. Deployment shall be controlled by hash-power supermajority vote similar to the technique used in BIP34 , but the earliest possible activation time is UTC. Activation is achieved when of 1, consecutive blocks in the best chain have a version number with the first, second, third, and thirtieth bits set 0x in hex. The activation time will be the timestamp of the 'th block plus a two week 1,, second grace period to give any remaining miners or services time to upgrade to support larger blocks.
Alternative Bitcoin has backers nervous
I have been repeatedly cited by the Economist as a Bitcoin expert and prominent developer. So have other well known developers like Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik. But despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly. The fundamentals are broken and whatever happens to the price in the short term, the long term trend should probably be downwards.
The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment
Mike Hearn, a prominent developer of the cryptocurrency, has sold his coins and quit work on bitcoin citing deep-seated issues. A senior bitcoin developer has declared the cryptocurrency a failed experiment, blaming the end of the currency on the refusal of the community to adopt new standards which would allow it to grow consistently while maintaining stability. Although bitcoin is open source software, meaning anyone is free to use it or tweak it into a new system, there is still only one official release of it. That launch merely exacerbated the split, however, with people who supported the new version dubbed bitcoin XT being blacklisted by the supporters of the old version. But the main reason why XT never took off was the failure of the other major bottleneck: the miners.
Bitcoin schism: How Bitcoin became a victim of its own success
They removed the whitepaper about as fast as they removed Gavin Andresen's commit access once they found justification. There are a lot of bad things you can call the BTC core devs but they sure as hell seize every opportunity to grab power. From my experience in the community years ago, Bitcoin Core was a very insidious group of people that seized control of Bitcoin from within, obtained control of the Bitcoin subreddit and started banning anyone with even the most reasonable objections. They started promulgating this absurd notion that Bitcoin was a "store of value" exclusively: that is to say, was not intended to be "peer to peer electronic cash" as Satoshi obviously intended and that its value was purely related to "how much the other guy was willing to pay for your Bitcoin". So they turned it into this purely speculative thing. The whole fallacy of the "store of value" thing is two-fold: 1 Bitcoin's success and utility as a currency gives it a stable point to base its value around. For example, the value would be related to the net amount of transactions occurring on the darknet usually and the velocity of money, which would create a sort of natural equilibrium price where people are buying bitcoin as they need it, rather than hodling it to speculate.
Could this split be the end of bitcoin?
Gavin Andresen Thu, 07 May Skip to site navigation Press enter. I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs "THIS is how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able to support over the next eleven years.
Point-by-Point Response To Mike Hearn’s Final Bitcoin Post
The crash coincides with claims from prominent bitcoin developer Mike Hearn that the crypto-currency has failed as an experiment. Hearn made the comments in a Medium blogpost on Thursday, January 14, announcing that he has sold all of his Bitcoins and will no longer take part in bitcoin development. The fundamentals are broken and whatever happens to the price in the short term, the long term trend should probably be downwards. The failure is attributed by Hearn to infighting surrounding a core aspect of bitcoin technology. The main point of contention relates to the size of bitcoin's blocks—a term used to describe the batches of confirmed transactions shared on bitcoin's public ledger, the blockchain.
From the Front Page
On August 15th, Bitcoin XT was released, creating what is known as a 'fork' in the blockchain. On one side of the fork is the original code known as 'Bitcoin Core' and on the other, the newly released 'Bitcoin XT'. The fork has been the topic of heated debate within the Bitcoin community, with some referring to it as Bitcoin's 'Civil War'. The main subject of the internecine, is whether or not to increase the block size. In , an upper limit of one megabyte was placed on the block size. Hearn and Andresen want to i ncrease the block size to eight megabytes. A block size 1MB limits Bitcoin to 7 transactions per second 10, per day.
Standard Disclaimer
Bitcoin was built on the sort of open-source ethos that has driven generations of geeks. But the same principles it celebrates — a decentralized network of contributors, a transparent code base — are allowing competitors to flourish. Two high-profile Bitcoin developers, Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, released an alternative version of Bitcoin recently. Hearn acknowledged in a blog post that not everyone is thrilled with the endeavor.
I'm sorry, I can't help you with anything. But I am sure that you will find the right solution. Do not despair.