From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63C727AD for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:01:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 756961E6 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:01:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so152341836iod.1 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:01:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=OCG1MHkoEyEVFvdlLlC8vzUIW5o5dF8oJrynRukRad4=; b=OLwU2cZl7QXyhPtMX6pgRL8V4si/r5mDY75LSvCkNX84rT9ykzXpdYLPhcRnf5rpQ4 Xh2cdmgq9uYTSWr/U3l1tanCRrvYQ3SoEL57sDClL0e81uJ4pvcGMukuDYuPpRlsAZCI i0l4tP8RdTexDW7pnGFR2omCdZjEGGUwZtFu0HvjZJpE/W5DMiYvMtVXW0Lysfh8kOHS qYieCYr/YXCGI0uKmGFhTuzkTKfb6CGonxxbm78l2oZYr8HKFwY+mBDh1R9I9g9rHrX7 CfGiLFnUzAHdLbWR9d3hU2ELv+tMx/7TCFsqvsQ3YVvHN/Fu/adT8QYZA8ZtjU7DSmSA 2LnA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmMyV5ho3e74Jph1dAEe4VQK6hgkvWPY9f3e2b/eFqefYJEp4TGaa9SODyEM+bc9qoVKPJ5 X-Received: by 10.107.11.67 with SMTP id v64mr32204691ioi.105.1439319666585; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.158.140 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:00:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.4.96.213] In-Reply-To: References: <2547793.e4fEoOQyIR@coldstorage> <1623892.Xps1bl6nlD@coldstorage> <20150811083806.4689995.85497.4220@thomaszander.se> From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:00:46 -0700 Message-ID: To: Angel Leon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f969472589f051d0db9d7 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:01:09 -0000 --001a113f969472589f051d0db9d7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 More people using Bitcoin does not necessarily mean more transactions being processed by the block chain. Satoshi was forward-thinking enough to include a powerful script-signature system, something which has never really existed before. Though suffering from some limitations to be sure, this smart contract execution framework is expressive enough to enable a wide variety of new features without changing bitcoin itself. One of these invented features is micropayment channels -- the ability for two parties to rapidly exchange funds while only settling the final balance to the block chain, and to do so in an entirely trustless way. Right now people don't use scripts to do interesting things like this, but there is absolutely no reason why they can't. Lightning network is a vision of a future where everyone uses a higher-layer protocol for their transactions which only periodically settle on the block chain. It is entirely possible that you may be able to do all your day-to-day transactions in bitcoin yet only settle accounts every other week, totaling 13kB per year. A 1MB block could support that level of usage by 4 million people, which is many orders of magnitude more than the number of people presently using bitcoin on a day to day basis. And that, by the way, is without considering as-yet uninvented applications of existing or future script which will provide even further improvements to scale. This is very fertile ground being explored by very few people. One thing I hope to come out of this block size debate is a lot more people (like Joseph Poon) looking at how bitcoin script can be used to enable new and innovative resource-efficient and privacy-enhancing payment protocols. The network has room to grow. It just requires wallet developers and other infrastructure folk to step up to the plate and do their part in deploying this technology. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Angel Leon wrote: > - policy neutrality. > - It can't be censored. > - it can't be shut down > - and the rules cannot change from underneath you. > > except it can be shutdown the minute it actually gets used by its > inability to scale. > > what's the point of having all this if nobody can use it? > what's the point of going through all that energy and CO2 for a mere > 24,000 transactions an hour? > > It's clear that it's just a matter of time before it collapses. > > Here's a simple proposal (concept) that doesn't pretend to set a fixed > block size limit as you can't ever know the demands the future will bring > https://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4 > > We don't need to go as far as countries with hyper inflation trying to use > the technology to make it collapse, anybody here who has distributed > commercial/free end user software knows that any small company out there > installs more copies in a couple weeks than all the bitcoin users we have > at the moment, all we need is a single company/project with a decent amount > of users who are now enabled to transact directly on the blockchain to > screw it all up (perhaps OpenBazaar this winter could make this whole thing > come down, hopefully they'll take this debate and the current limitations > before their release, and boy are they coding nonstop on it now that they > got funded), the last of your fears should be a malicious government trying > to shut you down, for that to happen you must make an impact first, for now > this is a silly game in the grand scheme of things. > > And you did sound pretty bad, all of his points were very valid and they > share the concern of many people, many investors, entrepreneurs putting > shitload of money, time and their lives on a much larger vision than that > of a network that does a mere 3,500 tx/hour, but some people seem to be > able to live in impossible or useless ideals. > > It's simply irresponsible to not want to give the network a chance to grow > a bit more. Miners centralizing is inevitable given the POW based > consensus, hobbists-mining is only there for countries with very cheap > energy. > > If things remain this way, this whole thing will be a massive failure and > it will probably take another decade before we can open our mouths about > cryptocurrencies, decentralization and what not, and this stubornness will > be the one policy that censored everyone, that shutdown everyone, that made > the immutable rules not matter. > > Perhaps it will be Stellar what ends up delivering at this stubborn pace. > > http://twitter.com/gubatron > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that >> property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to >> pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user interests, then >> Bitcoin is no longer interesting. >> >> You asked to be convinced of the need for bigger blocks. I gave that. >> What makes you think bitcoin will break when more people use it? >> >> Sent on the go, excuse the brevity. >> *From: *Mark Friedenbach >> *Sent: *Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:10 >> *To: *Thomas Zander >> *Cc: *Bitcoin Dev >> *Subject: *Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process >> >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 Mark Friedenbach wrote: >>> > This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or growth >>> > trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned analysis. >>> >>> We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending maybe one >>> transaction a month. >>> This can only go up. >>> >>> There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and showing >>> early >>> signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of these people >>> cash-out and >>> get Bitcoins for their savings you'd have the amount of people using >>> Bitcoin >>> as savings go from maybe half a million to 10 million in the space of a >>> couple >>> of months. Why so fast? Because all the world currencies are linked. >>> Practically all currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay >>> robust >>> and standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause >>> chain-effects. >>> >>> It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but we >>> have >>> seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then when Greece first >>> showed bad signs again. >>> Lets do our due diligence and agree that in the current world economy >>> there >>> are sure signs that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale. >>> >>> Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won't make the >>> transaction >>> rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the ground you already see >>> that >>> people go back to barter in countries like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc. >>> And Bitcoin will be an alternative to good to ignore. Then transaction >>> rates >>> will go up. Dramatically. >>> >>> If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are at >>> 0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world economy. You >>> can't >>> reason from that. Its like using a float to do calculations that you >>> should >>> have done in a double and getting weird output. >>> >>> Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd. >>> Because a 20 >>> times increase is very common in a "company" that is about 6 years old. >>> For instance Android was about that age when it started to get shipped >>> by non- >>> Google companies. There the increase was substantially bigger and the >>> company >>> backing it was definitely able to change direction faster than the >>> Bitcoin >>> oiltanker can change direction. >>> >>> ... >>> >>> Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the >>> incubator more >>> than the linked articles) you'd be exposed to the thinking of these >>> startups. >>> Their only criteria is growth. and this is rather substantial growth. >>> Like >>> 150% per month. Naturally, most of these build on top of html or other >>> existing technologies. But the point is that exponential growth is >>> expected >>> in any startup. They typically have a much much more agressive timeline, >>> though. Every month instead of every year. >>> Having exponential growth in the blockchain is really not odd and even >>> if we >>> have LN or sidechains or the next changetip, this space will be used. >>> And we >>> will still have scarcity. >> >> >> I'm sorry, I really don't want to sound like a jerk, but not a single >> word of that mattered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale such that every >> person in the world can use it without difficulty. However if that were all >> that we cared about then I would be remiss if I did not point out that >> there are plenty of better, faster, and cheaper solutions to finding global >> consensus over a payment ledger than Bitcoin. Architectures which are >> algorithmically superior in their scaling properties. Indeed they are >> already implemented and you can use them today: >> >> https://www.stellar.org/ >> http://opentransactions.org/ >> >> So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do I care about the outcome of this >> debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, and one thing only which >> alternative architectures fundamentally lack: policy neutrality. It can't >> be censored, it can't be shut down, and the rules cannot change from >> underneath you. *That* is what Bitcoin offers that can't be replicated at >> higher scale with a SQL database and an audit log. >> >> It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that >> property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to >> pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user interests, then >> Bitcoin is no longer interesting. We might as well get rid of mining at >> that point and make Bitcoin look like Stellar or Open-Transactions because >> at least then we'd scale even better and not be pumping millions of tons of >> CO2 into the atmosphere from running all those ASICs. >> >> On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks without >>> problems. >>> >> >> Straw man, storage is not an issue. >> >> >>> You can buy broadband in every relevant country that easily supports the >>> bandwidth we need. (remember we won't jump to 8Mb in a day, it will >>> likely >>> take at least 6 months). >>> >> >> Neither one of those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is to >> have Bitcoin survive active censorship. Presumably that means being able to >> run a node even in the face of a hostile ISP or government. Furthermore, it >> means being location independent and being able to move around. In many >> places the higher the bandwidth requirements the fewer the number of ISPs >> that are available to service you, and the more visible you are. >> >> It may also be necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just today's >> Tor which is developed, serviced, and supported by the US government, but a >> Tor or I2P that future governments have turned hostile towards and actively >> censor or repress. Or existing authoritative governments, for that matter. >> How much bandwidth would be available through those connections? >> >> It may hopefully never be necessary to operate under such constraints, >> except by freedom seeking individuals within existing totalitarian regimes. >> However the credible threat of doing so may be what keeps Bitcoin from >> being repressed in the first place. Lose the capability to go underground, >> and it will be pressured into regulation, eventually. >> >> To the second point, it has been previously pointed out that large miners >> stand to gain from larger blocks, for the same basic underlying reasons as >> selfish mining. The incentive is to increase blocks, and miners are able to >> do so at will and without cost. I would not be so certain that we wouldn't >> see large blocks sooner than that. >> >> >>> We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing products) >>> working >>> at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve the propagation time >>> problem. >>> There frankly is a huge amount of optimization that can be done in that >>> area, >>> we don't even use locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution. >>> From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that same 6 >>> month >>> period by focusing some research there. >>> >> >> This is basically already deployed thanks to Matt's relay network. >> Further improvements are not going to have dramatic effects. >> >> >>> Remember 8Gb/block still doesn't support VISA/Mastercard. >>> >> >> No, it doesn't. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it would >> absolutely, without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin, turning >> it into a fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the existing >> financial system. And still be unable to compete with VISA/Mastercard. >> >> So why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to failure by >> your own metrics? >> >> I humbly suggest that maybe we should play the strengths of Bitcoin >> instead -- it's trustlessness via policy neutrality. >> >> Either that, or go work on Stellar. Because that's where it's headed >> otherwise. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > --001a113f969472589f051d0db9d7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
More people using Bitcoin does not necessar= ily mean more transactions being processed by the block chain. Satoshi was = forward-thinking enough to include a powerful script-signature system, some= thing which has never really existed before. Though suffering from some lim= itations to be sure, this smart contract execution framework is expressive = enough to enable a wide variety of new features without changing bitcoin it= self.

One of these invented features is micropayment channels = -- the ability for two parties to rapidly exchange funds while only settlin= g the final balance to the block chain, and to do so in an entirely trustle= ss way. Right now people don't use scripts to do interesting things lik= e this, but there is absolutely no reason why they can't. Lightning net= work is a vision of a future where everyone uses a higher-layer protocol fo= r their transactions which only periodically settle on the block chain. It = is entirely possible that you may be able to do all your day-to-day transac= tions in bitcoin yet only settle accounts every other week, totaling 13kB p= er year. A 1MB block could support that level of usage by 4 million people,= which is many orders of magnitude more than the number of people presently= using bitcoin on a day to day basis.

And that, by the way, is= without considering as-yet uninvented applications of existing or future s= cript which will provide even further improvements to scale. This is very f= ertile ground being explored by very few people. One thing I hope to come o= ut of this block size debate is a lot more people (like Joseph Poon) lookin= g at how bitcoin script can be used to enable new and innovative resource-e= fficient and privacy-enhancing payment protocols.

The network = has room to grow. It just requires wallet developers and other infrastructu= re folk to step up to the plate and do their part in deploying this technol= ogy.

On = Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com> wrote:
- policy neutrality.=C2=A0
- It can't be censored.
- it can't be shut down
- and the rules cannot change from underneath you.

except it can be shutdown the minute it actually gets used by its= inability to scale.

what's the point of having all this if nobo= dy can use it?
what's the point of going through all that energy and= CO2 for a mere 24,000 transactions an hour?

It's clear that it&= #39;s just a matter of time before it collapses.

Here's a simple= proposal (concept) that doesn't pretend to set a fixed block size limi= t as you can't ever know the demands the future will bring htt= ps://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4

We don't= need to go as far as countries with hyper inflation trying to use the tech= nology to make it collapse, anybody here who has distributed commercial/fre= e end user software knows that any small company out there installs more co= pies in a couple weeks than all the bitcoin users we have at the moment, al= l we need is a single company/project with a decent amount of users who are= now enabled to transact directly on the blockchain to screw it all up (per= haps OpenBazaar this winter could make this whole thing come down, hopefull= y they'll take this debate and the current limitations before their rel= ease, and boy are they coding nonstop on it now that they got funded), the = last of your fears should be a malicious government trying to shut you down= , for that to happen you must make an impact first, for now this is a silly= game in the grand scheme of things.

And you did sound pretty= bad, all of his points were very valid and they share the concern of many = people, many investors, entrepreneurs putting shitload of money, time and t= heir lives on a much larger vision than that of a network that does a mere = 3,500 tx/hour, but some people seem to be able to live in impossible or use= less ideals.=C2=A0

It's simply irresponsible t= o not want to give the network a chance to grow a bit more. Miners centrali= zing is inevitable given the POW based consensus, hobbists-mining is only t= here for countries with very cheap energy.

If things remain this way= , this whole thing will be a massive failure and it will probably take anot= her decade before we can open our mouths about cryptocurrencies, decentrali= zation and what not, and this stubornness will be the one policy that censo= red everyone, that shutdown everyone, that made the immutable rules not mat= ter.

Perhaps it will be Stellar what ends up delivering at this stub= born pace.


On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 = at 4:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev= @lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
=
>It follows then, that i= f we make a decision now which destroys that property, which makes it possi= ble to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to pressure miners into changing= rules contrary to user interests, then Bitcoin is no longer interesting. <= /span>

You asked to be convinced of the need for bigg= er blocks. I gave that.
What makes you think bitcoin will break= when more people use it?
= =

= =
Sent=C2=A0on=C2=A0the= =C2=A0go,=C2=A0excuse=C2=A0the=C2=A0brevity.=C2=A0
= = =
From: Mark Fried= enbach
Sent: Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:10
To= : Thomas Zander
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: = Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On M= on, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or gro= wth
> trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned analysis.

We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending mayb= e one
transaction a month.
This can only go up.

There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and showing ea= rly
signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of these people cash-out = and
get Bitcoins for their savings you'd have the amount of people using Bi= tcoin
as savings go from maybe half a million to 10 million in the space of a cou= ple
of months. Why so fast? Because all the world currencies are linked.
Practically all currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay robu= st
and standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause chain-effects= .

It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but we have<= br> seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then when Greece first showed bad signs again.
Lets do our due diligence and agree that in the current world economy there=
are sure signs that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale.

Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won't make the transact= ion
rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the ground you already see th= at
people go back to barter in countries like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc.
And Bitcoin will be an alternative to good to ignore.=C2=A0 Then transactio= n rates
will go up. Dramatically.

If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are at
0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world economy. You can&#= 39;t
reason from that. Its like using a float to do calculations that you should=
have done in a double and getting weird output.

Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd. Because a= 20
times increase is very common in a "company" that is about 6 year= s old.
For instance Android was about that age when it started to get shipped by n= on-
Google companies. There the increase was substantially bigger and the compa= ny
backing it was definitely able to change direction faster than the Bitcoin<= br> oiltanker can change direction.

...

Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the incubator m= ore
than the linked articles) you'd be exposed to the thinking of these sta= rtups.
Their only criteria is growth. and this is rather substantial growth. Like<= br> 150% per month.=C2=A0 Naturally, most of these build on top of html or othe= r
existing technologies.=C2=A0 But the point is that exponential growth is ex= pected
in any startup.=C2=A0 They typically have a much much more agressive timeli= ne,
though. Every month instead of every year.
Having exponential growth in the blockchain is really not odd and even if w= e
have LN or sidechains or the next changetip, this space will be used. And w= e
will still have scarcity.
=C2=A0
I'm sor= ry, I really don't want to sound like a jerk, but not a single word of = that mattered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale such that every person in t= he world can use it without difficulty. However if that were all that we ca= red about then I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are plen= ty of better, faster, and cheaper solutions to finding global consensus ove= r a payment ledger than Bitcoin. Architectures which are algorithmically su= perior in their scaling properties. Indeed they are already implemented and= you can use them today:

https://www.stellar.org/
http://opentransactions.org/

<= div>So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do I care about the outcome of thi= s debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, and one thing only which altern= ative architectures fundamentally lack: policy neutrality. It can't be = censored, it can't be shut down, and the rules cannot change from under= neath you. *That* is what Bitcoin offers that can't be replicated at hi= gher scale with a SQL database and an audit log.

It follo= ws then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that property, which= makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to pressure miner= s into changing rules contrary to user interests, then Bitcoin is no longer= interesting. We might as well get rid of mining at that point and make Bit= coin look like Stellar or Open-Transactions because at least then we'd = scale even better and not be pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmos= phere from running all those ASICs.

On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks without problems.

Straw man, storage is not an issue.
=C2=A0
You can buy broadband in= every relevant country that easily supports the
bandwidth we need. (remember we won't jump to 8Mb in a day, it will lik= ely
take at least 6 months).

Neither one of= those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is to have Bitcoin surviv= e active censorship. Presumably that means being able to run a node even in= the face of a hostile ISP or government. Furthermore, it means being locat= ion independent and being able to move around. In many places the higher th= e bandwidth requirements the fewer the number of ISPs that are available to= service you, and the more visible you are.

It may also b= e necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just today's Tor which = is developed, serviced, and supported by the US government, but a Tor or I2= P that future governments have turned hostile towards and actively censor o= r repress. Or existing authoritative governments, for that matter. How much= bandwidth would be available through those connections?

= It may hopefully never be necessary to operate under such constraints, exce= pt by freedom seeking individuals within existing totalitarian regimes. How= ever the credible threat of doing so may be what keeps Bitcoin from being r= epressed in the first place. Lose the capability to go underground, and it = will be pressured into regulation, eventually.

To the sec= ond point, it has been previously pointed out that large miners stand to ga= in from larger blocks, for the same basic underlying reasons as selfish min= ing. The incentive is to increase blocks, and miners are able to do so at w= ill and without cost. I would not be so certain that we wouldn't see la= rge blocks sooner than that.
=C2=A0
We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing products) work= ing
at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve the propagation time problem= .
There frankly is a huge amount of optimization that can be done in tha= t area,
we don't even use locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution.
>From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that same 6 mont= h
period by focusing some research there.

This is basically already deployed thanks = to Matt's relay network. Further improvements are not going to have dra= matic effects.
=C2=A0
Remember= 8Gb/block still doesn't support VISA/Mastercard.
=
No, it doesn't. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it= would absolutely, without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin, tu= rning it into a fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the existing f= inancial system. And still be unable to compete with VISA/Mastercard.
So why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to = failure by your own metrics?

I humbly suggest that maybe = we should play the strengths of Bitcoin instead -- it's trustlessness v= ia policy neutrality.

Either that, or go work on Stellar.= Because that's where it's headed otherwise.
<= /div>

__________________________________________= _____
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



--001a113f969472589f051d0db9d7--