Bitcoin price | CoinMarkets

Pick your poison.

Pick your poison. submitted by cypherblock to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Block size limit debate history lesson

Pre 2013
Bitcoin users and developers have near universal agreement that the block size limit is a temporary feature must be raised and/or removed. Preparing for this hard fork is one of lead developer Gavin's top priorities.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE has always been planned to increase as needed. That limitation should be ignored. theymos 17:15, 4 March 2011 (GMT)
What Theymos said. Increasing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE will be done when "lightweight, header-only" client mode is done. Until then, block size has to be kept under control.--Gavin Andresen 00:19, 5 March 2011 (GMT)
However development priorities are not very unified, as noted by one observer:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122013.msg1390298#msg1390298
When I joined this forum I was completely wrong calling the Bitcoin core development team "Bitcoin bunker". Now that I understand the situation better I know that there's no single bunker. There are numerous one-or-two-person cubbyholes that may occasionally form the aliances to shoot at the occupant of another cubbyhole. The situation conforms better to the distributed paradigm inherent in the design of Bitcoin.
2013
For the first time in Bitcoin's history, arguments begin to erupt regarding the desirability of increasing the block size limit.
Many of the proponents in favor of making the block size limit permanent are investors in competing currencies/payment systems and this fact was not lost on observers of the era and can easily be confirmed by viewing the profiles of the participants:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=221111.0;all
In May of 2013, Peter Todd funds the production of a propaganda video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
None of the claims in this video are true, but it is effective in creating drama. Tensions rise and development work grinds nearly to a halt due to infighting.
BTC market share is 95%.
In December, Gregory Maxwell begins to revive the idea of sidechains along with Adam Back, TheBlueMatt, and other individuals who will go on to form Blockstream.
They begin promoting sidechains as an alternative to Bitcoin scaling.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140226095319/http://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizards/2013-12-18.txt
2014
April 7: Unwilling to deal with the drama any further, Gavin steps down as lead developer. At the time the BTC market share is 90%.
Sidechain discussion is well underway, yet a few people still manage to speak up to point out that sidechains should not be treated as an alternative to scaling Bitcoin. You may notice some familiar posters in these threads:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=566704.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0;all
In October, Blockstream.com publishes their sidechain whitepaper:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=831527.0;all
The response is underwhelming.
On November 17, Blockstream announces the securing of $21 million in seed funding.
BTC market share is 91%.
2015
On June 22, Gavin Andresen proposes BIP101 to increase the block size limit as the conclusion of his work performed since stepping down as lead developer.
On August 6, Mike Hearn announces BitcoinXT, a full node implementation that includes BIP101.
Many Blockstream employees, including Adam Back, call this effort a "coup", a claim that can not be made without admitting they believe themselves to be the legitimate rulers of Bitcoin.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup
In October, Blockstream employee Pieter Wuille proposes "Segregated Witness":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1210235.0
Post-2015
This is the time period most Bitcoin users are familiar with, which really only represents the tail end of a five year long fight to prevent the planned block size limit increase.
The BTC market share has been steadily dropping since the anti-scaling propaganda began in late 2012/early 2013.
It currently stands at 66%.
https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/
submitted by ABlockInTheChain to btc [link] [comments]

Some research on BIP101 starting with 4MB instead of 8MB (Very promising)

Date BSL BS TPS MD BcS $ per PB HDD Total ABDL ABUL %DL %UL UL per Block PT NNDL
Jan 2016 4 1 7 7GB 54GB $30,000 $1.63 1.5MB/s 0.625MB/s 0.11% 1.48% 0.56MB 0.90s 0.84
Jan 2017 6 2.5 17.5 17GB 150GB $18,928 $2.84 2.12MB/s 0.884MB/s 0.20% 2.62% 1.4MB 1.58s 1.64
Jan 2018 8 4 28 28GB 324GB $11,943 $3.87 3MB/s 1.25MB/s 0.22% 2.97% 2.24MB 1.79s 2.5
Jan 2019 12 6 42 42GB 592GB $7,535 $4.46 4.24MB/s 1.77MB/s 0.24% 3.15% 3.36MB 1.90s 3.23
Jan 2020 16 8 56 56GB 965GB $4,755 $4.59 6MB/s 2.5MB/s 0.22% 2.97% 4.48MB 1.79s 3.72
Jan 2021 24 12 84 84GB 1,500GB $3,000 $4.5 8.5MB/s 3.5MB/s 0.24% 3.15% 6.72MB 1.90s 4.09
Jan 2022 32 16 112 111GB 2,245GB $1,893 $4.25 12MB/s 5MB/s 0.22% 2.97% 8.96MB 1.79s 4.33
Jan 2023 48 24 168 167GB 3,316GB $1,194 $3.96 17MB/s 7MB/s 0.24% 3.15% 13.44MB 1.90s 4.52
Jan 2024 64 32 224 223GB 4,806GB $754 $3.62 24MB/s 10MB/s 0.22% 2.97% 17.92MB 1.79s 4.64
Jan 2025 96 48 336 334GB 6,947GB $475 $3.3 33.94MB/s 14.14MB/s 0.24% 3.15% 26.88MB 0.90s 4.74
Jan 2026 128 64 448 446GB 9,929GB $300 $2.98 48MB/s 20MB/s 0.22% 2.97% 35.84MB 1.79s 4.79
Jan 2027 192 96 672 669GB 14.2TB $189 $2.69 67.88MB/s 28.28MB/s 0.24% 3.15% 53.76MB 1.90s 4.85
Jan 2028 256 128 896 891GB 20.2TB $119 $2.31 96MB/s 40MB/s 0.22% 2.97% 71.68MB 1.79s 4.86
Jan 2029 384 192 1344 1,337GB 28.7TB $75.4 $2.17 135.8MB/s 56.57MB/s 0.24% 3.15% 107.5MB 1.90s 4.90
Jan 2030 512 256 1,792 1,783GB 40.7TB $47.6 $1.93 192MB/s 80MB/s 0.22% 2.97% 143.4MB 1.79s 4.90
Jan 2031 768 384 2,688 2,674GB 57.8TB $30 $1.73 271.5MB/s 113.1MB/s 0.24% 3.15% 215MB 1.90s 4.93
Jan 2032 1024 512 3,584 3,565GB 81.6TB $18.93 $1.55 384MB/s 160MB/s 0.22% 2.97% 286.7MB 1.79s 4.92
Jan 2033 1,536 768 5,376 5,348GB 115.9TB $11.94 $1.38 543MB/s 226MB/s 0.24% 3.15% 430MB 1.90s 4.94
Jan 2034 2,048 1,024 7,168 7,131GB 163.6TB $7.54 $1.23 768MB/s 320MB/s 0.22% 2.97% 573MB 1.79s 4.93
Jan 2035 3,072 1,536 10,752 10.7TB 232.0TB $4.75 $1.10 1,086MB/s 453MB/s 0.24% 3.15% 860MB 1.90s 4.95
Jan 2036 4,096 2,048 14,336 14.3TB 327.5TB $3 $0.98 1,536MB/s 640MB/s 0.22% 2.97% 1,147MB 1.79s 4.94
Jan 2037 6,144 3,072 21,504 21.4TB 464.5TB $1.89 $0.88 2,172MB/s 905MB/s 0.24% 3.15% 1,720MB 1.90s 4.95
Jan 2038 8,192 4,096 28,672 28.5TB 655.3TB $1.19 $0.78 3,072MB/s 1,280MB/s 0.22% 2.97% 2,294MB 1.79s 4.94
Jan 2039 8,192 6,114 43,008 42.8TB 929.3TB $0.75 $0.70 4,344MB/s 1,810MB/s 0.24% 3.15% 3,440MB 1.90s 4.95
Jan 2040 8,192 8,192 57,344 57.0TB 1311TB $0.48 $0.62 6,144MB/s 2,560MB/s 0.22% 2.97% 4,587MB 1.79s 4.94
.
GLOSSERY
.
This the data for BIP101 with a slight change and fast propagating blocks. The only change is to add another two years to the schedule and start at a 4MB limit instead of 8MB. The reason I did this is that; based on the rate of change of HDD/SSD price and average available download and upload speeds, starting at 4MB should be enough to keep block propagation under 2 seconds through the entire schedule. This should be enough to mitigate any centralisation pressures.
A key requirement of this data is that full blocks are not uploaded to each peer, but rather just the necessary information. According to Mike Hearn this would currently mean 70KB upstream data per peer. I have used this as a basis for the data.
.
KEY INFORMATION
.
DATA REFERENCES
.
CHARTS
Block Size
Storage Cost
Percentage of Bandwidth Use
Propagation Time
Time to download new node
.
NOTES
I'd appreciate input from people if they have more useful data or if you think I have missed anything. I intend to post this to /bitcoin as well but I want to get people's input first. Would love to hear your thoughts mike_hearn
submitted by singularity87 to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Dr Peter R. Rizun, managing editor of the first peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal, is an important Bitcoin researcher. He has also been attacked and censored for months by Core / Blockstream / Theymos. Now, he has now been *suspended* (from *all* subreddits) by some Reddit admin(s). Why?

Dr. Peter R. Rizun is arguably one of the most serious, prominent, and promising new voices in Bitcoin research today.
He not only launched the first scientific peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal - he has also consistently provided high-quality, serious and insightful posts, papers and presentations on reddit (in writing, at conferences, and on YouTube) covering a wide array of important topics ranging from blocksize, scaling and decentralization to networking theory, economics, and fee markets - including:
It was of course probably to be expected that such an important emerging new Bitcoin researcher would be constantly harrassed, attacked and censored by the ancien régime of Core / Blockstream / Theymos.
But now, the attacks have risen to a new level, where some Reddit admin(s) have suspended his account Peter__R.
This means that now he can't post anywhere on reddit, and people can no longer see his reddit posts simply by clicking on his user name (although his posts - many of them massively upvoted with hundreds of upvotes - are of course still available individually, via the usual search box).
Questions:
  • What Reddit admin(s) are behind this reddit-wide banishing of Peter__R?
  • What is their real agenda, and why are they aiding and abbeting the censorship imposed by Core / Blockstream / Theymos?
  • Don't they realize that in the end they will only harm reddit.com itself, by forcing the most important new Bitcoin researchers to publish their work elsewhere?
(Some have suggested that Peter__R may have forgotten to use 'np' instead of 'www' when linking to other posts on reddit - a common error which subs like /btc will conveniently catch for the poster, allowing the post to be fixed and resubmitted. If this indeed was the actual justification of the Reddit admin(s) for banning him reddit-wide, it seems like a silly technical "gotcha" - and one which could easily have been avoided if other subs would catch this error the same way /btc does. At any rate, it certainly seems counterproductive for reddit.com to ban such a prominent and serious Bitcoin contributor.)
  • Why is reddit.com willing to risk pushing serious discussion off the site, killing its reputation as a decent place to discuss Bitcoin?
  • Haven't the people attempting to silence him ever heard of the Streisand effect?
Below are some examples of the kinds of outstanding contributions made by Peter__R, which Core / Blockstream / Theymos (and apparently some Reddit admin(s)) have been desperately trying to suppress in the Bitcoin community.
Peer-Reviewed Cryptocurrency Journal
Bitcoin Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal ‘Ledger’ Launches
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-peer-reviewed-academic-journal-ledger-launches/
Blocksize as an Emergent Phenonomen
The Size of Blocks: Policy Tool or Emergent Phenomenon? [my presentation proposal for scaling bitcoin hong kong]
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3s5507/the_size_of_blocks_policy_tool_or_emergent/
Peter R's presentation is really awesome and much needed analysis of the market for blockspace and blocksize.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3me634/peter_rs_presentation_is_really_awesome_and_much/
In case anyone missed it, Peter__R hit the nail on the head with this: "The reason we can't agree on a compromise is because the choice is binary: the limit is either used as an anti-spam measure, or as a policy tool to control fees."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xaexf/in_case_anyone_missed_it_peter_r_hit_the_nail_on/
Bigger Blocks = Higher Prices: Visualizing the 92% historical correlation [NEW ANIMATED GIF]
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nufe7/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3nudkn/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/
Miners are commodity producers - Peter__R
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3l3g4f/miners_are_commodity_producers_peter_
Fees and Fee Markets
“A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit” — new research paper ascertains. [Plus earn $10 in bitcoin per typo found in manuscript]
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/
"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit", Peter R at Scaling Bitcoin Montreal 2015
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3mddr4/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/
An illustration of how fee revenue leads to improved network security in the absence of a block size limit.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3qana4/an_illustration_of_how_fee_revenue_leads_to/
Greg Maxwell was wrong: Transaction fees can pay for proof-of-work security without a restrictive block size limit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3yod27/greg_maxwell_was_wrong_transaction_fees_can_pay/
Networks and Scaling
Bitcoin's "Metcalfe's Law" relationship between market cap and the square of the number of transactions
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3x8ba9/bitcoins_metcalfes_law_relationship_between/
Market cap vs. daily transaction volume: is it reasonable to expect the market cap to continue to grow if there is no room for more transactions?
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nvkn3/market_cap_vs_daily_transaction_volume_is_it/
In my opinion the most important part of Scaling Bitcoin! (Peter R)
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3l5uh4/in_my_opinion_the_most_important_part_of_scaling/
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3l5up3/in_my_opinion_the_most_important_part_of_scaling/
Visualizing BIP101: A Payment Network for Planet Earth
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uvaqn/visualizing_bip101_a_payment_network_for_planet/
A Payment Network for Planet Earth: Visualizing Gavin Andresen's blocksize-limit increase
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3ame17/a_payment_network_for_planet_earth_visualizing/
Is Bitcoin's block size "empirically different" or "technically the same" as Bitcoin's block reward? [animated GIF visualizing real blockchain data]
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3thu1n/is_bitcoins_block_size_empirically_different_o
New blocksize BIP: User Configurable Maximum Block Size
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hcrmn/new_blocksize_bip_user_configurable_maximum_block/
A Block Size Limit Was Never Part Of Satoshi’s Plan : Draft proposal to move the block size limit from the consensus layer to the transport layer
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hdeqs/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/
Truth-table for the question "Will my node follow the longest chain?"
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3i5pk4/truthtable_for_the_question_will_my_node_follow/
Peter R: "In the end, I believe the production quota would fail." #ScalingBitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3koghf/peter_r_in_the_end_i_believe_the_production_quota/
Decentralized Nodes, Mining and Development
Centralization in Bitcoin: Nodes, Mining, Development
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3n3z9b/centralization_in_bitcoin_nodes_mining_development/
Deprecating Bitcoin Core: Visualizing the Emergence of a Nash Equilibrium for Protocol Development
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nhq9t/deprecating_bitcoin_core_visualizing_the/
What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations? - Peter R
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ijuw3/what_is_wrong_with_the_goal_of_decentralizing/
Potentially Unlimited, "Fractal-Like" Scaling for Bitcoin: Peter__R's "Subchains" proposal
"Reduce Orphaning Risk and Improve Zero-Confirmation Security With Subchains" — new research paper on 'weak blocks' explains
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xkok3/reduce_orphaning_risk_and_improve/
A Visual Explanation of Subchains -- an application of weak blocks to secure zero-confirmation transactions and massively scale Bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3y76du/a_visual_explanation_of_subchains_an_application/
New Directions in Bitcoin Development
Announcing Bitcoin Unlimited.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynoaa/announcing_bitcoin_unlimited/
"It's because most of them are NOT Bitcoin experts--and I hope the community is finally starting to recognize that" -- Peter R on specialists vs. generalists and the aptitudes of Blockstream Core developers
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xn110/its_because_most_of_them_are_not_bitcoin/
It is time to usher in a new phase of Bitcoin development - based not on crypto & hashing & networking (that stuff's already done), but based on clever refactorings of datastructures in pursuit of massive and perhaps unlimited new forms of scaling
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xpufy/it_is_time_to_usher_in_a_new_phase_of_bitcoin/
Peter__R on RBF
Peter__R on RBF: (1) Easier for scammers on Local Bitcoins (2) Merchants will be scammed, reluctant to accept Bitcoin (3) Extra work for payment processors (4) Could be the proverbial straw that broke Core's back, pushing people into XT, btcd, Unlimited and other clients that don't support RBF
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3umat8/upeter_r_on_rbf_1_easier_for_scammers_on_local/
Peter__R on Mt. Gox
Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1zdnop/peter_rs_theory_on_the_collapse_of_mt_gox/
Censorship and Attacks by Core / Blockstream / Theymos / Reddit Admins against Peter__R
Peter__R's infographic showing the BIP 101 growth trajectory gets deleted from /bitcoin for "trolling"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uy3ea/peter_rs_infographic_showing_the_bip_101_growth/
"Scaling Bitcoin" rejected Peter R's proposal
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3takbscaling_bitcoin_rejected_peter_rs_proposal/
After censoring Mike and Gavin, BlockStream makes its first move to silence Peter R on bitcoin-dev like they did on /bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3syb0z/after_censoring_mike_and_gavin_blockstream_makes/
Looks like the censors in /bitcoin are at it again: Peter_R post taken down within minutes
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3tvb3b/looks_like_the_censors_in_rbitcoin_are_at_it/
I've been banned for vote brigading for the animated GIF that visualized the possible future deprecation of Bitcoin Core.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nizet/ive_been_banned_for_vote_brigading_for_the/
An example of moderator subjectivity in the interpretation of the rules at /bitcoin: animated pie chart visualizing the deprecation of Bitcoin Core
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3osthv/an_example_of_moderator_subjectivity_in_the/
"My response to Pieter Wuille on the Dev-List has once again been censored, perhaps because I spoke favourably of Bitcoin Unlimited and pointed out misunderstandings by Maxwell and Back...here it is for those who are interested" -- Peter R
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ybhdy/my_response_to_pieter_wuille_on_the_devlist_has/
To those who are interested in judging whether Peter R's paper merits inclusion in the blockchain scaling conference, here it is:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3td6b9/to_those_who_are_interested_in_judging_whethe
The real reason Peter_R talk was refused (from his previous presentation) (xpost from /btc)
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uwpvh/the_real_reason_peter_r_talk_was_refused_from_his/
[CENSORED] The Morning After the Moderation Mistake: Thoughts on Consensus and the Longest Chain
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8o50/censored_the_morning_after_the_moderation_mistake/
Core / Blockstream cheerleader eragmus gloating over Peter__R's account getting suspended from Reddit (ie, from all subreddits) - by some Reddit admin(s)
[PSA] Uber Troll Extraordinaire, Peter__R, has been permanently suspended by Reddit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/407j77/psa_uber_troll_extraordinaire_upeter_r_has_been/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Peter__R's infographic showing the BIP 101 growth trajectory gets deleted from /r/bitcoin for "trolling"

it was on the front page near the top and getting a lot of activity. It seems kind of relevant to provide a chart if the other top posts in bitcoin are talking about BIP 101, no?
submitted by specialenmity to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin traffic and capacity data

The following are approximate numbers, assuming 144 blocks/day, 500 bytes/tx[0] on average in normal conditions (outside of stress tests).
EDIT 2015-09-06: addded extrapolation to Jul/2016 with 8 MB limit.
Situation today
Demand T: 120'000 tx/day, 830 tx/block, 1.4 tx/s; 60 MB/day, 420 kB/block, 700 bytes/s
Capacity C[1] : 200'000 tx/day, 1400 tx/block, 2.3 tx/s; 100 MB/day, 700 kB/block, 1200 bytes/s
Clearance C − T[2] : 80'000 tx/day, 570 tx/block, 0.9 tx/s; 40 MB/day, 280 kB/block, 500 bytes/s
Saturation: 60% (C = 1.67 × T)
Situation by Oct/2010 (when the max block size was lowered from 32 MB to 1 MB)
Demand T:[3] 2300 tx/day, 16 tx/block, 0.027 tx/s; 1.15 MB/day, 8 kB/block, 13 bytes/s
Saturation: 1.2 % (C = 87 × T)
Predicted situation by Jan/2016 with 1 MB block size limit
Demand T[4] : 150'000 tx/day, 1040 tx/block, 1.7 tx/s; 75 MB/day, 520 kB/block, 870 bytes/s
Clearance C − T: 50'000 tx/day, 360 tx/block, 0.6 tx/s; 25 MB/day, 180 kB/block, 330 bytes/s
Saturation: 75% (C = 1.33 × T)
Predicted situation by Jul/2106 with 1 MB block size limit
Demand T[4] : 180'000 tx/day, 1250 tx/block, 2.1 tx/s; 90 MB/day, 625 kB/block, 1040 bytes/s
Clearance C − T: 20'000 tx/day, 150 tx/block, 0.3 tx/s; 10 MB/day, 75 kB/block, 160 bytes/s
Saturation: 90% (C = 1.1 × T)
Predicted situation by Jul/2106 with 8 MB block size limit (BIP101, BIP99½)
Demand T[4] : 180'000 tx/day, 1250 tx/block, 2.1 tx/s; 90 MB/day, 625 kB/block, 1040 bytes/s
Capacity C[5] : 1'600'000 tx/day, 11'000 tx/block, 18.6 tx/s; 800 MB/day, 5600 kB/block, 9600 bytes/s
Clearance C − T: 1'400'000 tx/day, 9800 tx/block, 16.4 tx/s; 710 MB/day, 4900 kB/block, 8200 bytes/s
Saturation: 11% (C = 8.9 × T)
Notes
[0] The average transaction size seems to have been near 500 bytes for most of the time since 2010 at least.
[1] The actual capacity of the network was revealed during the "stress tests" in early July, when the queues had a backlog that peaked at 200 MB (400'000 tx) and lasted for several days. The capacity is only 700 kB/block, not 1 MB/block, because miners often output empty or partially empty blocks, even when the queues are full. It is assumed that the capacity was the same in 2010, although the actual traffic never reached 2% of it.
[2] The clearance determines (a) how hard it is to create a persistent backlog on the queues, due either to natural traffic surges (at peak hours and days, or random fluctuations) or to malicious spam attacks; and (b) how fast a backlog is cleared after the traffic T returns to its normal average value.
[3] Actually 2300 tx/day was a peak demand observed in three short periods during 2010. Except for those peaks the demand was about 400 tx/day by the end of 2010.
[4] Those predictions for 2016 assume that the average demand will continue to rise linearly by 5000 tx/day every month,as it seems to have been doing over the last 12 months (when it grew from 60'000 to 120'000 tx/day). If the growth were to be exponential rather than linear -- i.e., doubling every 12 months -- then the demand would be 150'000 tx/day (75% saturation) by Dec/2015, and 180'000 (90% saturation) by Ma2016. Since the demand varies strongly with the day of the week (± 15% or more) and with the hour of day (± 30% or more), recurrent traffic jams, lasting several hours each, are expected to occur well before the network reaches 100% saturation.
[5] Assuming that the percentage of empty and partiually empty blocks, in a persistent backlog condition, will be about the same as seen in the recent stress tests.
submitted by jstolfi to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin traffic and capacity data

The following are approximate numbers, assuming 144 blocks/day, 500 bytes/tx[0] on average in normal conditions (outside of stress tests).
EDIT 2015-09-06: addded extrapolation to Jul/2016 with 8 MB limit.
Situation today
Demand T: 120'000 tx/day, 830 tx/block, 1.4 tx/s; 60 MB/day, 420 kB/block, 700 bytes/s
Capacity C[1] : 200'000 tx/day, 1400 tx/block, 2.3 tx/s; 100 MB/day, 700 kB/block, 1200 bytes/s
Clearance C − T[2] : 80'000 tx/day, 570 tx/block, 0.9 tx/s; 40 MB/day, 280 kB/block, 500 bytes/s
Saturation: 60% (C = 1.67 × T)
Situation by Oct/2010 (when the max block size was lowered from 32 MB to 1 MB)
Demand T:[3] 2300 tx/day, 16 tx/block, 0.027 tx/s; 1.15 MB/day, 8 kB/block, 13 bytes/s
Saturation: 1.2 % (C = 87 × T)
Predicted situation by Jan/2016 with 1 MB block size limit
Demand T[4] : 150'000 tx/day, 1040 tx/block, 1.7 tx/s; 75 MB/day, 520 kB/block, 870 bytes/s
Clearance C − T: 50'000 tx/day, 360 tx/block, 0.6 tx/s; 25 MB/day, 180 kB/block, 330 bytes/s
Saturation: 75% (C = 1.33 × T)
Predicted situation by Jul/2106 with 1 MB block size limit
Demand T[4] : 180'000 tx/day, 1250 tx/block, 2.1 tx/s; 90 MB/day, 625 kB/block, 1040 bytes/s
Clearance C − T: 20'000 tx/day, 150 tx/block, 0.3 tx/s; 10 MB/day, 75 kB/block, 160 bytes/s
Saturation: 90% (C = 1.1 × T)
Predicted situation by Jul/2106 with 8 MB block size limit (BIP101, BIP99½)
Demand T[4] : 180'000 tx/day, 1250 tx/block, 2.1 tx/s; 90 MB/day, 625 kB/block, 1040 bytes/s
Capacity C[5] : 1'600'000 tx/day, 11'000 tx/block, 18.6 tx/s; 800 MB/day, 5600 kB/block, 9600 bytes/s
Clearance C − T: 1'400'000 tx/day, 9800 tx/block, 16.4 tx/s; 710 MB/day, 4900 kB/block, 8200 bytes/s
Saturation: 11% (C = 8.9 × T)
Notes
[0] The average transaction size seems to have been near 500 bytes for most of the time since 2010 at least.
[1] The actual capacity of the network was revealed during the "stress tests" in early July, when the queues had a backlog that peaked at 200 MB (400'000 tx) and lasted for several days. The capacity is only 700 kB/block, not 1 MB/block, because miners often output empty or partially empty blocks, even when the queues are full. It is assumed that the capacity was the same in 2010, although the actual traffic never reached 2% of it.
[2] The clearance determines (a) how hard it is to create a persistent backlog on the queues, due either to natural traffic surges (at peak hours and days, or random fluctuations) or to malicious spam attacks; and (b) how fast a backlog is cleared after the traffic T returns to its normal average value.
[3] Actually 2300 tx/day was a peak demand observed in three short periods during 2010. Except for those peaks the demand was about 400 tx/day by the end of 2010.
[4] Those predictions for 2016 assume that the average demand will continue to rise linearly by 5000 tx/day every month,as it seems to have been doing over the last 12 months (when it grew from 60'000 to 120'000 tx/day). If the growth were to be exponential rather than linear -- i.e., doubling every 12 months -- then the demand would be 150'000 tx/day (75% saturation) by Dec/2015, and 180'000 (90% saturation) by Ma2016. Since the demand varies strongly with the day of the week (± 15% or more) and with the hour of day (± 30% or more), recurrent traffic jams, lasting several hours each, are expected to occur well before the network reaches 100% saturation.
[5] Assuming that the percentage of empty and partiually empty blocks, in a persistent backlog condition, will be about the same as seen in the recent stress tests.
submitted by jstolfi to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

More fallacies and falsehoods being used that need to be cleared up if we want to have a clear debate (deleted in r/bitcoin)

This is a follow up thread on the thread I made about the misconception about individual fees needing to increase. I noticed in that thread there were a large number of very obvious logical fallacies being made. It seems relatively clear to me that these were/are being made in bad faith so I thought it would be useful to point them out here so that people can use this thread as a guide on how to respond to them in the future.
"In what world could we have 8GB blocks short term and Bitcoin remain even remotely decentralised"
No one is advocating for 8GB blocks in the short-term unless you consider 'in 22 years' to be short term. Planning for the future is a necessary requirement of a system that is to be used in the future. For example, Google having a schedule for server upgrades in the future does not mean the server upgrades are happening now.
On the one hand you say mass adoption any time now and show tables with massive tps rates, on the other hand you say 20 years. Which is it?
No one is saying mass adoption is right around the corner. If we are planning for success though (why wouldn't we be) then we must plan for some increase in adoption throughout time though. Adoption is not a binary process where bitcoin has either been adopted or it hasn't. It will occur gradually over time and often in smaller waves due to the nature of bitcoin.
8MB in two months is enough to massively cull nodes but not for any sort of mass adoption as plain transactions in the chain. You know this, right?
There are multiple fallacies here. Firstly 8MB is a limit and not the actual block size. For almost the entire 7 years of bitcoin's history, blocks have not been full (but have continued to fill up over time). If the block size limit is increased to 8MB in 2 months it does not mean that the that the block size will be 8MB. We can expect blocks to fill up to the limit over time just as they have done in the past history of bitcoin.
The second is that there is no evidence that 8MB blocks will "massively cull nodes" (when 8MB blocks are reached). If someone can describe what "massively cull" means, and provide specific evidence for that this will happen, it would go towards supporting this kind of statement.
'even with 8GB blocks, bitcoin will not be able to handle enough transactions for the whole world'
Just because bitcoin with blocks of a certain size cannot handle every possible conceivable transaction across the world does not mean it is not useful. Having larger blocks also does not mean that other solutions cannot also be implemented. Sidechains, higher layer services and off-chain services can all offer useful niche services (with tradeoffs) that bitcoin cannot. Just because bitcoin is not the be-all-and-end-all solution with bigger blocks does not mean that bigger blocks are not useful.
The mining subsidy is decreasing therefore we need to increase individual fees now/in the near future to cover this loss to make sure there is still an incentive for miners to keep mining.
The mining subsidy is decreasing (every halving) in bitcoin terms. In real terms though the subsidy has been increasing over time. You can very easily see this on this chart.
As bitcoin price has (much) more than doubled in the time between each halving. For example the miner revenue per day around the last block halving (50->25) was around $50,000. It is now currently at around $1,500,000. So while the block reward in bitcoin terms has decreased by 50%. The block reward in real terms has increased by around 3000%. At a certain point it is certain that the block reward will stop increasing and decrease in real terms as well, but there is no indication this will start any time soon.
There are likely considerably more than this, so if anyone has any serious, logical fallacies (or simply falsehoods) that I haven't mentioned, I will gladly add them.
To have a serious debate we need to stop pushing things are based on false premises just to try and win an argument. I support BIP101 but I could certainly be convinced of a better solution if there is one, but using arguments like I have referenced to above only creates more arguments which provide no outcome other than all parties wasting time and energy.
EDIT 1: Here's another one from Theymos.
As actual block sizes get larger, it becomes more and more difficult/expensive to run a full node.
This is a false premise as it ignores technological progress and the lowering of cost for technology over time. If block size increases at the same speed that the technology needed to process those blocks improves then the cost of processing each block will remain the same.
EDIT 2: Here's one from BashCo.
BitcoinXT probably won't be the last implementation that tries to subvert consensus via hash rate. Who knows, maybe the next one will want to remove the 21 million coin limit.
Two fallacies. First, as bitsko points out, this is a very clear slippery slop fallacy. There is nothing to indicate that someone who does A will do B. Using the threat of them doing B as a reason against A is the fallacy here.
The second, as rezzme points out, is that you cannot attain consensus, or knowledge of consensus, without first people putting their cards on the table.
submitted by singularity87 to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Bitcoin traffic numbers

The following are approximate numbers, assuming 144 blocks/day, 500 bytes/tx[0] on average in normal conditions (outside of stress tests).
EDIT 2015-09-06: addded extrapolation to Jul/2016 with 8 MB limit.
Situation today
Demand T: 120'000 tx/day, 830 tx/block, 1.4 tx/s; 60 MB/day, 420 kB/block, 700 bytes/s
Capacity C[1] : 200'000 tx/day, 1400 tx/block, 2.3 tx/s; 100 MB/day, 700 kB/block, 1200 bytes/s
Clearance C − T[2] : 80'000 tx/day, 570 tx/block, 0.9 tx/s; 40 MB/day, 280 kB/block, 500 bytes/s
Saturation: 60% (C = 1.67 × T)
Situation by Oct/2010 (when the max block size was lowered from 32 MB to 1 MB)
Demand T:[3] 2300 tx/day, 16 tx/block, 0.027 tx/s; 1.15 MB/day, 8 kB/block, 13 bytes/s
Saturation: 1.2 % (C = 87 × T)
Predicted situation by Jan/2016 with 1 MB block size limit
Demand T[4] : 150'000 tx/day, 1040 tx/block, 1.7 tx/s; 75 MB/day, 520 kB/block, 870 bytes/s
Clearance C − T: 50'000 tx/day, 360 tx/block, 0.6 tx/s; 25 MB/day, 180 kB/block, 330 bytes/s
Saturation: 75% (C = 1.33 × T)
Predicted situation by Jul/2106 with 1 MB block size limit
Demand T[4] : 180'000 tx/day, 1250 tx/block, 2.1 tx/s; 90 MB/day, 625 kB/block, 1040 bytes/s
Clearance C − T: 20'000 tx/day, 150 tx/block, 0.3 tx/s; 10 MB/day, 75 kB/block, 160 bytes/s
Saturation: 90% (C = 1.1 × T)
Predicted situation by Jul/2106 with 8 MB block size limit (BIP101, BIP99½)
Demand T[4] : 180'000 tx/day, 1250 tx/block, 2.1 tx/s; 90 MB/day, 625 kB/block, 1040 bytes/s
Capacity C[5] : 1'600'000 tx/day, 11'000 tx/block, 18.6 tx/s; 800 MB/day, 5600 kB/block, 9600 bytes/s
Clearance C − T: 1'400'000 tx/day, 9800 tx/block, 16.4 tx/s; 710 MB/day, 4900 kB/block, 8200 bytes/s
Saturation: 11% (C = 8.9 × T)
Notes
[0] The average transaction size seems to have been near 500 bytes for most of the time since 2010 at least.
[1] The actual capacity of the network was revealed during the "stress tests" in early July, when the queues had a backlog that peaked at 200 MB (400'000 tx) and lasted for several days. The capacity is only 700 kB/block, not 1 MB/block, because miners often output empty or partially empty blocks, even when the queues are full. It is assumed that the capacity was the same in 2010, although the actual traffic never reached 2% of it.
[2] The clearance determines (a) how hard it is to create a persistent backlog on the queues, due either to natural traffic surges (at peak hours and days, or random fluctuations) or to malicious spam attacks; and (b) how fast a backlog is cleared after the traffic T returns to its normal average value.
[3] Actually 2300 tx/day was a peak demand observed in three short periods during 2010. Except for those peaks the demand was about 400 tx/day by the end of 2010.
[4] Those predictions for 2016 assume that the average demand will continue to rise linearly by 5000 tx/day every month,as it seems to have been doing over the last 12 months (when it grew from 60'000 to 120'000 tx/day). If the growth were to be exponential rather than linear -- i.e., doubling every 12 months -- then the demand would be 150'000 tx/day (75% saturation) by Dec/2015, and 180'000 (90% saturation) by Ma2016. Since the demand varies strongly with the day of the week (± 15% or more) and with the hour of day (± 30% or more), recurrent traffic jams, lasting several hours each, are expected to occur well before the network reaches 100% saturation.
[5] Assuming that the percentage of empty and partiually empty blocks, in a persistent backlog condition, will be about the same as seen in the recent stress tests.
submitted by jstolfi to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Pay Attention Please.

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest claim for financial freedom in the history of our nation.
Around 6 years ago, a great inventor, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, wrote the Whitepaper. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of financial slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their oppression.
But still years later, the citizen is not free. The life of the ordinary guy is still sadly crippled by the manacles of inflation and the chains of debt. Now the worker lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of bankers prosperity. And so I stand here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to here to cash a check. When the architect of our freedom wrote the magnificent Bitcoin Whitepaper he was signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Moon. But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this coin. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
We have also come to this hallowed sub reddit to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of Bitcoin. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of sub $400 to the sunlit path of $1000 and higher. Now is the time to lift our community from the quicksands of financial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make Moon a reality for all of Satoshi's children.
It would be fatal for us to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the community's legitimate block size discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating winter of discussion and resolution. BIP101 is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Bitcoiner needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the community returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in Bitcoin until the Block Size is resolved. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our community until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to you , those who stand on the warm threshold which leads unto the Moon: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for financial freedom by drinking from the cup of scam and theft. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into trolling or doxxing. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of harsh words with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Bitcoin community must not lead us to a distrust of all altcoins, for many of our altcoin brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
We cannot walk alone.
And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.
We cannot turn back.
There are those who are asking the devotees of cryptocurrency, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the citizen is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of federal reserve brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of chart watching, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the reddit subs. I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from buying at the top (again). And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of moderator brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to the Whitepaper, go back to the Bitcoin forums, go back to your trading exchanges, go back to the ATMs, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream.
submitted by americanpegasusPA to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Time to spin up some nodes!

Miners won't mine BIP101 blocks before they see that there are nodes willing to accept those blocks. Get cracking :)
http://www.xtnodes.com/other_nodes_and_xt_nodes_pie_chart.php
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=/Bitcoin%20XT:0.11.0D/
submitted by KarskOhoi to btc [link] [comments]

NOBODY is Looking at This Bitcoin Chart Right Now MORE DUMP FOR BITCOIN!? BTC charts TA Crypto price prediction, analysis, news, trading INSANE!! BITCOIN CHART MIGHT GET REKT?!! Crypto Analysis TA Today & BTC Cryptocurrency Price News FORGET THE BITCOIN CHART - THESE METRICS SHOW EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ON BITCOIN!! JAW DROPPING BITCOIN CHART TO WATCH RIGHT NOW (btc price prediction technical analysis news today ta

A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are... In January 2016, BIP101 was removed from Bitcoin XT’s protocol in favor of a one-time block size increase to 2 MB, which preceded the rapid collapse of support for Bitcoin XT. By January 2017, less than 30 Bitcoin XT nodes were maintained by miners — down from approximately 650 one year prior. The first mention of a product called bitcoin was in August 2008 when two programmers using the names Satoshi Nakamoto and Martti Malmi registered a new domain, bitcoin.org. In October of the same Support for BIP 100, the market-led scalability fix from core developer Jeff Garzik, is growing as more miners pick sides in bitcoin's block size debate. BIP101 - blocks with version 0x20000007 as defined in BIP101 None - blocks mined without any indication of block size increase support Votes by miners

[index] [3161] [18070] [19386] [18734] [23092] [18636] [19166] [5833] [16011] [23355]

NOBODY is Looking at This Bitcoin Chart Right Now

This bitcoin chart could change everything (critical level on BTC). In this video we explain the important of a key level on the higher timeframe chart of bitcoin and we focus on the likely wave ... Let's discuss this live today and some insane cryptocurrency trading chart technical analysis (TA) + speculative price prediction(s) + current 2020 market news for cryptos in today's video/live ... BITCOIN STILL LOOKING TO HAVE MORE DOWNSIDE!? Lets take a look, Don't forget to like comment and share video! My Wife's CRYPTO MERCH page: https://inkurimage.com AFFILIATE LINKS PRIME XBT exchange ... Private Indicators Tell Us Big Move For Bitcoin Approaching (BTC Charts) ----- Bitcoin has been boring here lately. Trying to Make up its mind for the this big move out our wedge pattern. Let's ... BITCOIN COULD SUDDENLY DUMP TO THIS PRICE DUE TO THIS RARE PATTERN (btc market prediction news today - Duration: 35:54. Crypto Crew University 26,517 views 35:54

Flag Counter