Re: Scalability and transaction rate
July 29, 2010, 02:00:38 AM
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate".
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306
July 29, 2010, 02:00:38 AM
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate".
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306
"Quote from: satoshi
Hi Mike,
I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.
There is only one global chain.
The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.
By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.
I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.
Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#msg1596879
Hi Mike,
I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.
There is only one global chain.
The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.
By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.
I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.
Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#msg1596879
Forwarded from @RamonQuesada †🌷🙏
Vale, ya he encontrado la explicación de Craig al texto de Ray Dillinger y como siempre, no deja de sorprenderme y de hacerme estudiar mas sobre el tema, justo ayer encontraba este post de Satoshi en bitcoinTalk de julio del 2010, hablando sobre que en los medios no hablaban sobre Bitcoin, querían borrar un artículo de Wikipedia en aquellos momentos, despues de casi 2 años de desarrollo de software NO hacían una referencia clara a Bitcoin y sin embargo, la idea de bitcoin había tomado como referencias al proyecto de Wei Dai (bMoney) y al de Nick Zabo (bgold). Y eso si que estaba reconocido por los cypherpunks,
Hay que leer entre líneas la queja de Satoshi o al menos yo lo entiendo así, (estoy dispuesto a escuchar otros puntos de vista)
Es increible que Craig diga que bMoney tenía dos protocolos, y que él eligió el de la trazabilidad, porque lo vio más lógico y con fituro y era el que no querían los Cypherpunks.
Ahora me tocará investigar sobre ese segundo protocolo de bMoney, voy a desempolvar a Wei, jejeje hay que joderse con este Craig, no para de sacarse ases de la manga!!!!!
295 Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion /
Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
on: July 20, 2010, 06:38:28 PM
Bitcoin is an implementation of Wei Dai's b-money proposal http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt on Cypherpunks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunks in 1998 and Nick Szabo's Bitgold proposal http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html
satoshi
Founder
Sr. Member
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts;start=280
Hay que leer entre líneas la queja de Satoshi o al menos yo lo entiendo así, (estoy dispuesto a escuchar otros puntos de vista)
Es increible que Craig diga que bMoney tenía dos protocolos, y que él eligió el de la trazabilidad, porque lo vio más lógico y con fituro y era el que no querían los Cypherpunks.
Ahora me tocará investigar sobre ese segundo protocolo de bMoney, voy a desempolvar a Wei, jejeje hay que joderse con este Craig, no para de sacarse ases de la manga!!!!!
295 Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion /
Re: They want to delete the Wikipedia article
on: July 20, 2010, 06:38:28 PM
Bitcoin is an implementation of Wei Dai's b-money proposal http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt on Cypherpunks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunks in 1998 and Nick Szabo's Bitgold proposal http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html
satoshi
Founder
Sr. Member
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts;start=280
Forwarded from 401 Ian Grigg (@RamonQuesada 🌷🇺🇸)
Forwarded from 395 Adam Back (@RamonQuesada 🌷🇺🇸)
Twitter
iang
@adam3us @wakgill Historically the block size debate was based on theoretical considerations (to be kind, most of it was opinion). We’ve now seen 2 large scale experiments with large blocks, so empirically we’ve a lot more info. In short, nothing much bad…