Bitcoin Core Statement: "Capacity Increases for the ...
Bitcoin Core Statement: "Capacity Increases for the ...
Capacity increases Roadmap for the Bitcoin system
Bitcoin Fees Rise to $5 as Blocksize Reaches All Time High
Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system -- Bitcoin Core ...
Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.
Bitcoin - The Currency of the Internet
A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, though people of all political philosophies are welcome.
Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system. | Anthony Towns | Dec 08 2015
Anthony Towns on Dec 08 2015: On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:21:18AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Having a cost function rather than separate limits does make it easier to build blocks (approximately) optimally, though (ie, just divide the fee by (base_bytes+witness_bytes/4) and sort). Are there any other benefits?
Actually being able to compute fees for your transaction: If there are multiple limits that are "at play" then how you need to pay would depend on the entire set of other candidate transactions, which is unknown to you.
Isn't that solvable in the short term, if miners just agree to order transactions via a cost function, without enforcing it at consensus level until a later hard fork that can also change the existing limits to enforce that balance? (1MB base + 3MB witness + 20k sigops) with segwit initially, to something like (B + W + 200U + 40S < 5e6) where B is base bytes, W is witness bytes, U is number of UTXOs added (or removed) and S is number of sigops, or whatever factors actually make sense. I guess segwit does allow soft-forking more sigops immediately -- segwit transactions only add sigops into the segregated witness, which doesn't get counted for existing consensus. So it would be possible to take the opposite approach, and make the rule immediately be something like: 50*S < 1M B + W/4 + 25*S' < 1M (where S is sigops in base data, and S' is sigops in witness) and just rely on S trending to zero (or soft-fork in a requirement that non-segregated witness transactions have fewer than B/50 sigops) so that there's only one (linear) equation to optimise, when deciding fees or creating a block. (I don't see how you could safely set the coefficient for S' too much smaller though) B+W/4+25S' for a 2-in/2-out p2pkh would still be 178+206/4+252=280 though, which would allow 3570 transactions per block, versus 2700 now, which would only be a 32% increase...
These don't, however, apply all that strongly if only one limit is likely to be the limiting limit... though I am unsure about counting on that; after all if the other limits wouldn't be limiting, why have them?
Sure, but, at least for now, there's already two limits that are being hit. Having one is much better than two, but I don't think two is a lot better than three? (Also, the ratio between the parameters doesn't necessary seem like a constant; it's not clear to me that hardcoding a formula with a single limit is actually better than hardcoding separate limits, and letting miners/the market work out coefficients that match the sort of contracts that are actually being used)
That seems kinda backwards.
It can seem that way, but all limiting schemes have pathological cases where someone runs up against the limit in the most costly way. Keep in mind that casual pathological behavior can be suppressed via IsStandard like rules without baking them into consensus; so long as the candidate attacker isn't miners themselves. Doing so where possible can help avoid cases like the current sigops limiting which is just ... pretty broken.
Sure; it just seems to be halving the increase in block space (60% versus 100% extra for p2pkh, 100% versus 200% for 2/2 multisig p2sh) for what doesn't actually look like that much of a benefit in fee comparisons? I mean, as far as I'm concerned, segwit is great even if it doesn't buy any improvement in transactions/block, so even a 1% gain is brilliant. I'd just rather the 100%-200% gain I was expecting. :) Cheers, aj original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011871.html
For SegWit to be an effective Blocksize-limit increase it needs users to upgrade their software AND move all their coins AND create entirely different transactions. A hardfork still only needs you to change one thing: the blocksize-limit.
Core supporters like to tell you that SegWit is still faster. Without a shred of irony, while we were there waiting for 4 months of development to turn into a year. But Ok, now that it is finally here. It really is going to be faster they promise. Forget about the fact that they overpromised SegWit before. Forget the fact that we correctly predicted how the narrative would switch after SegWit would be released. Their behaviour was completely predictable in the past, yet surely we are wrong about any future predictions. Like how I can predict once SegWit is activated, the narrative will switch completely to "You have to switch to SegWit transactions for it to be an effective blocksize increase". Even though they sold it as an effective increase moments before it activated. Forget about the danger of (high-value) high-fee transactions not switching to SegWit causing huge increase in fees and backlogs during peak usage. Because SegWit transactions not actually getting into any blocks, capacity would go down right when you need it most. Forget about the fact that SegWit can have zero-day exploits and that it needs to roll back. Like I said the day it was announced to have "consensus". Personally I don't mind SegWit activating. What I do mind it getting sold as a blocksize-limit increase as if it has no caveats. And preventing an actual HF, maybe for years to come.
Adam Back invents proof-of-work. Satoshi cites Adam Back in his famous whitepaper. Dr. Adam Back has a PhD in Distributed Systems and is also cited in the TOR whitepaper.
Pieter Wuille is highly talented, is detail oriented, and is capable of rewriting low-level libraries such as libsecp256k1 while finding bugs in the original OpenSSL.
Bram Cohen invents BitTorrent. Bram Cohen supports and signs "Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system"
Gavin Andreson, Jeff Garzik, and Mike Hearn Are Non-visionary Hacks
Gavin Andreson basically laughed while he thought that bitcoin would never reach $40. Gavin gave away his role as lead bitcoin developer. Gavin initially gave high praise to the company Blockstream. Gavin is a nobody except for the fact that he was Satoshi's first assistant. Gavin worked for SGI which is worthless as a company and eventually went bankrupt. Gavin is a founding member of the discredited Bitcoin Foundation who paid him a salary. Gavin leaves the Bitcoin Foundation in shambles with little to no money. Gavin invents nothing. Gavin is not a visionary.
Jeff Garzik is only a Linux developer who has worked in a corporate environment for decades. He worked for BitPay and then he got laid off. Jeff foolishly starts a satellite company to relay bitcoin transactions from space (good luck with that). Jeff invents nothing. Jeff lacks vision.
Mike Hearn has worked on failed bitcoin projects such as Lighthouse. Mike Hearn was never an active developer for Bitcoin Core, only for the Java based bitcoinj. Mike Hearn now works for R3 which is the ultimate enemy of bitcoin. Mike Hearn lacks vision.
*Edited: Added some more points thanks to bitcoinknowledge.
Does "versionbits" fully address previous concerns about hard forks versus soft forks?
This week there has been an interesting new feature announced called "versionbits" (evidently due to an insight from Luke-Jr) which proposes to make soft-forking easier and safer. (In particular, it is claimed that it could be used to roll out Segregated Witness with minimal impact on the existing user base.) A few months ago there was an interesting post from Mike Hearn on medium.com where he argued that even when a soft fork is possible, a hard fork may often be preferable - since with a hard fork, nobody is left "in the dark" about the new semantics that have been added. My question is: Does VersionBits address the concerns raised in Mike's earlier post? On consensus and forks - What is the difference between a hard and soft fork? - by Mike Hearn https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7#.bhhh1hza6
In a soft fork, a protocol change is carefully constructed to essentially trick old nodes into believing that something is valid when it actually might not be. Here’s an analogy. Imagine a big company with a team of auditors, and a team of traders. The traders want to make a new type of trade that the firm currently disallows: the auditors check what the traders are doing to enforce company policies. Changing the policies can be slow work. But one day, a trader has a brainwave. “Hey guys”, he says, “I’ve had an idea. I’m going to submit some trades for derivatives, but I’m going to write it down on the paperwork as buying land. When you see that, just mentally replace land with derivatives, and carry on as normal. The auditors won’t find out!” The auditors are people and services that are running Bitcoin full nodes. The traders are people who want to change the rules. Whether their rule change is a good idea or not isn’t relevant here: what matters is how they’re doing it. The auditors are now cross checking every transaction, but their calculations can arrive at the wrong answer, because they don’t understand the true nature of the transactions they’re verifying.
Luke-Jr discovered that it's possible to do this as a soft-fork. In a soft-fork, we can add a new rule that restricts what's valid. We could say every script could begin with a version byte. The reason for doing so is making it easier to do soft-forks. So this is the reason why previous soft-forks in particular, like CSV and CLTV, bip112 and bip65, the only thing they do is redefine that OP_NULL. This is sad. There are way, way more nice improvements to Script that we could imagine. By adding a version byte with semantics like, whenever you see a version byte that you don't know, consider it ANYONECANSPEND. This allows us to make any change at all in the Script language, like introducing new signature types like Schnorr signatures, which increase scalability by reducing the size of multisig transactions dramatically, or other proposals like merklized abstract syntax trees which is a research topic mostly. But there really are a lot of ideas for potential improvement to Script that we cannot do right now. This would enable it for free by just adding one more byte to all Script scripts.
Versionbits (BIP9) is approaching maturity and will allow the Bitcoin network to have multiple in-flight soft-forks. Up until now we’ve had to completely serialize soft-fork work, and also had no real way to handle a soft-fork that was merged in core but rejected by the network. All that is solved in BIP9, which should allow us to pick up the pace of improvements in the network. It looks like versionbits will be ready for use in the next soft-fork performed on the network.
I'm not trying to create a face-off among devs here - I'm just curious if versionbits addresses the stuff that Mike was talking about. Thanks for any feedback from pwuille, nullc, mike_hearn, luke-jr, and others who may be knowledgeable about this.
You've probably been hearing a lot about Bitcoin recently and are wondering what's the big deal? Most of your questions should be answered by the resources below but if you have additional questions feel free to ask them in the comments. It all started with the release of the release of Satoshi Nakamoto's whitepaper however that will probably go over the head of most readers so we recommend the following videos for a good starting point for understanding how bitcoin works and a little about its long term potential:
Limited Supply - There will only ever be 21,000,000 bitcoins created and they are issued in a predictable fashion, you can view the inflation schedule here. Once they are all issued Bitcoin will be truly deflationary. The halving countdown can be found here.
Open source - Bitcoin code is fully auditable. You can read the source code yourself here.
Accountable - The public ledger is transparent, all transactions are seen by everyone.
Decentralized - Bitcoin is globally distributed across thousands of nodes with no single point of failure and as such can't be shut down similar to how Bittorrent works. You can even run a node on a Raspberry Pi.
Censorship resistant - No one can prevent you from interacting with the bitcoin network and no one can censor, alter or block transactions that they disagree with, see Operation Chokepoint.
Push system - There are no chargebacks in bitcoin because only the person who owns the address where the bitcoins reside has the authority to move them.
Low fee scaling - On chain transaction fees depend on network demand and how much priority you wish to assign to the transaction. Most wallets calculate on chain fees automatically but you can view current fees here and mempool activity here. On chain fees may rise occasionally due to network demand, however instant micropayments that do not require confirmations are happening via the Lightning Network, a second layer scaling solution currently rolling out on the Bitcoin mainnet.
Borderless - No country can stop it from going in/out, even in areas currently unserved by traditional banking as the ledger is globally distributed.
Portable - Bitcoins are digital so they are easier to move than cash or gold. They can even be transported by simply memorizing a string of words for wallet recovery (while cool this method is generally not recommended due to potential for insecure key generation by inexperienced users. Hardware wallets are the preferred method for new users due to ease of use and additional security).
Bitcoin.org and BuyBitcoinWorldwide.com are helpful sites for beginners. You can buy or sell any amount of bitcoin (even just a few dollars worth) and there are several easy methods to purchase bitcoin with cash, credit card or bank transfer. Some of the more popular resources are below, also check out the bitcoinity exchange resources for a larger list of options for purchases.
Here is a listing of local ATMs. If you would like your paycheck automatically converted to bitcoin use Bitwage. Note: Bitcoins are valued at whatever market price people are willing to pay for them in balancing act of supply vs demand. Unlike traditional markets, bitcoin markets operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Preev is a useful site that that shows how much various denominations of bitcoin are worth in different currencies. Alternatively you can just Google "1 bitcoin in (your local currency)".
Securing your bitcoins
With bitcoin you can "Be your own bank" and personally secure your bitcoins OR you can use third party companies aka "Bitcoin banks" which will hold the bitcoins for you.
If you prefer to "Be your own bank" and have direct control over your coins without having to use a trusted third party, then you will need to create your own wallet and keep it secure. If you want easy and secure storage without having to learn computer security best practices, then a hardware wallet such as the Trezor, Ledger or ColdCard is recommended. Alternatively there are many software wallet options to choose from here depending on your use case.
If you prefer to let third party "Bitcoin banks" manage your coins, try Gemini but be aware you may not be in control of your private keys in which case you would have to ask permission to access your funds and be exposed to third party risk.
Note: For increased security, use Two Factor Authentication (2FA) everywhere it is offered, including email! 2FA requires a second confirmation code to access your account making it much harder for thieves to gain access. Google Authenticator and Authy are the two most popular 2FA services, download links are below. Make sure you create backups of your 2FA codes.
As mentioned above, Bitcoin is decentralized, which by definition means there is no official website or Twitter handle or spokesperson or CEO. However, all money attracts thieves. This combination unfortunately results in scammers running official sounding names or pretending to be an authority on YouTube or social media. Many scammers throughout the years have claimed to be the inventor of Bitcoin. Websites like bitcoin(dot)com and the btc subreddit are active scams. Almost all altcoins (shitcoins) are marketed heavily with big promises but are really just designed to separate you from your bitcoin. So be careful: any resource, including all linked in this document, may in the future turn evil. Don't trust, verify. Also as they say in our community "Not your keys, not your coins".
Where can I spend bitcoins?
Check out spendabit or bitcoin directory for millions of merchant options. Also you can spend bitcoin anywhere visa is accepted with bitcoin debit cards such as the CashApp card. Some other useful site are listed below.
Mining bitcoins can be a fun learning experience, but be aware that you will most likely operate at a loss. Newcomers are often advised to stay away from mining unless they are only interested in it as a hobby similar to folding at home. If you want to learn more about mining you can read more here. Still have mining questions? The crew at /BitcoinMining would be happy to help you out. If you want to contribute to the bitcoin network by hosting the blockchain and propagating transactions you can run a full node using this setup guide. If you would prefer to keep it simple there are several good options. You can view the global node distribution here.
Just like any other form of money, you can also earn bitcoins by being paid to do a job.
You can also earn bitcoins by participating as a market maker on JoinMarket by allowing users to perform CoinJoin transactions with your bitcoins for a small fee (requires you to already have some bitcoins.
The following is a short list of ongoing projects that might be worth taking a look at if you are interested in current development in the bitcoin space.
One Bitcoin is quite large (hundreds of £/$/€) so people often deal in smaller units. The most common subunits are listed below:
one bitcoin is equal to 100 million satoshis
1,000 per bitcoin
used as default unit in recent Electrum wallet releases
1,000,000 per bitcoin
colloquial "slang" term for microbitcoin (μBTC)
100,000,000 per bitcoin
smallest unit in bitcoin, named after the inventor
For example, assuming an arbitrary exchange rate of $10000 for one Bitcoin, a $10 meal would equal:
For more information check out the Bitcoin units wiki. Still have questions? Feel free to ask in the comments below or stick around for our weekly Mentor Monday thread. If you decide to post a question in /Bitcoin, please use the search bar to see if it has been answered before, and remember to follow the community rules outlined on the sidebar to receive a better response. The mods are busy helping manage our community so please do not message them unless you notice problems with the functionality of the subreddit. Note: This is a community created FAQ. If you notice anything missing from the FAQ or that requires clarification you can edit it here and it will be included in the next revision pending approval. Welcome to the Bitcoin community and the new decentralized economy!
view of the near term arc for capacity increases in the Bitcoin system. I believe we’re in a fantastic place right now and that the community is ready to deliver on a clear forward path with a shared vision that addresses the needs of the system while upholding its values. Thanks for writing this up. Putting the progress, ongoing work and plans related to scaling in context, in one place ... Capacity increases Roadmap for the Bitcoin system. The following roadmap was originally posted to the bitcoin-dev mailing list, by Gregory Maxwell on 2015-12-07.. The Scaling Bitcoin Workshop in HK is just wrapping up. "TL;DR: I propose we work immediately towards the segwit 4MB block soft-fork which increases capacity and scalability, and recent speedups and incoming relay improvements make segwit a reasonable risk. BIP9 and segwit will also make further improvements easier and faster to deploy. We’ll continue to set the stage for non-bandwidth-increase-based scaling, while building additional tools that ... All the members have agreed to endorse the roadmap that has been laid out for Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system, and they consider this signing “the best possible continuation of our efforts”. The roadmap starts with this month, and the deployment of a segregated witness testnet, “a separate testnet that provides an opportunity for Bitcoin Core contributors to test segregated ... Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system. Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system was published on December 21, 2015 .
On January 24-25, 2019 the Center of Mathematical Sciences hosted a conference on distributed-ledger (blockchain) technology. The conference was intended to cover a broad range of topics, from ... Digital BitBOX is a minimalist Bitcoin Hardware Wallet, which is packed with security and privacy: ... some of the storage capacity can be used for system documentation and maintenance, so the ... some of the storage capacity can be used for system documentation and maintenance, so the actual usable capacity of the key may be slightly less than indicated. Exciting news in the world Bitcoin! Check out this week’s headlines. Lightning Network increases its capacity Bakkt makes an acquisition SBI Crypto invests in Breadwinner For the full stories ... Andreas M. Antonopoulos (@aantonop) is a best-selling author, speaker, educator, and one of the world’s foremost bitcoin and open blockchain experts. He is k...