Massive On-Chain Scaling for Bitcoin

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-mas ... 54e55dc0e4

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Congratulations to all involved in this project, it is exceptional innovation!!!!!!!!!

[LiteCoinGuy]

thin blocks are great and we will add that. but it is not enough.

For clarity: the main issue driving efforts to contain block size is because of the block propagation issues, or "block switching latency cost", between miners.

Unfortunately this is not something that is improved using Xthin Blocks.

For more details and empirical data see the presentation here by Patrick Strateman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

thin blocks are great and we will add that. but it is not enough.

For clarity: the main issue driving efforts to contain block size is because of the block propagation issues, or "block switching latency cost", between miners.

Unfortunately this is not something that is improved using Xthin Blocks.

For more details and empirical data see the presentation here by Patrick Strateman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc

Who is we?

Are you Core now? Wait, dumb question, you have always been Core

For the record, I too was Core until I uncovered all the shady things you are up to. Go through my post history and you will see this.

You realize your company's involvement in this industry is short-lived, right? You know you can't get away with causing this much damage, stealing money, manipulating markets, hurting people and spreading lies, right?

Bad choice on your part, I am going to publicly mock you for your wrongs for as long as you are a member of this forum.

Don't use Bitcoin Core, Lightning Network or Segwit - it is a bad business decision.

[inBitweTrust]

thin blocks are great and we will add that. but it is not enough.

For clarity: the main issue driving efforts to contain block size is because of the block propagation issues, or "block switching latency cost", between miners.

Unfortunately this is not something that is improved using Xthin Blocks.

For more details and empirical data see the presentation here by Patrick Strateman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc

You are correct Sir. Xthin Blocks is a substandard solution to the relay network and compact blocks
https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blo ... .mediawiki

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

thin blocks are great and we will add that. but it is not enough.

For clarity: the main issue driving efforts to contain block size is because of the block propagation issues, or "block switching latency cost", between miners.

Unfortunately this is not something that is improved using Xthin Blocks.

For more details and empirical data see the presentation here by Patrick Strateman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc

You are correct Sir. Xthin Blocks is a substandard solution to the relay network and compact blocks
https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blo ... .mediawiki

It is definitely not a sub-standard solution. Now, you are moving from con to con. Not that I didn't expect this from you, I know we are dealing with scammers and this is what we can expect.

The technology coming out of Bitcoin Unlimited, their presentations and the fact that they deal with the community the right way, is superb.

I can understand why these people scare you, they are better than you.

[arnoudk]

thin blocks are great and we will add that. but it is not enough.

For clarity: the main issue driving efforts to contain block size is because of the block propagation issues, or "block switching latency cost", between miners.

Unfortunately this is not something that is improved using Xthin Blocks.

For more details and empirical data see the presentation here by Patrick Strateman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc

I don't quite understand the statement that Xtreme Thin blocks do nothing to improve block propagation. In my understanding, this is exactly what they improve - in two ways.

First, there is less data to send across the network. By referencing transactions that are already in the mempool, a reference to that transaction is made rather than sending the entire transaction a second time. A bloom filter is used, to cut down on the number of requests for missing transactions. The sheer fact that a lot less data has to be transmitted, should improve block propagation. The only case where this would not be so, is if rebuilding the block takes more processing power than is saved in data transmission.

A second improvement is the Xpress Validation. As I understand it, transactions in the mempool are fully validated already. So when a block comes in that references a mempool transaction, the node does not have to re-verify it. So the amount of CPU power needed to process an Xtreme Thin block should be a lot less than processing a regular block.

Thus, if data transmission is faster, and block verification is faster, then by definition block propagation must be faster.

What do you mean when you say that "block propagation is not something that is improved using Xthin Blocks"?

I've watched the Patrick Strateman presentation. His main argument seems to be that as blocks get bigger, it takes longer to send these across the network and process them. And eventually, they get so large that it takes too long. Well, that's not a surprise. His 5 second tipping point appears a bit arbitrary and he does not explain that. However, he is measuring the propagation (sending and validation) of old-school blocks. THIS is exactly what Xtreme Thin blocks improves - I am sure that the next articles by Peter R will give real-world data just how much smaller and faster-to-validate these blocks are. If anything, Patrick's presentation is a sales pitch for Xtreme Thin blocks.

[arnoudk]

You are correct Sir. Xthin Blocks is a substandard solution to the relay network and compact blocks
https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blo ... .mediawiki

The relay network is indeed faster than Xtreme Thin blocks. It is, however, a centralized solution. It requires trust. Transactions and blocks are not validated, if I understand correctly, before being transmitted on this relay network. And blocks are rebuilt using pointers to transactions rather than hashes, which are shorter still.

Miners use the relay network, most regular people do not. The regular people can benefit from Xtreme Thin blocks (or similar solutions).

And for miners, having a backup source of blocks that is available when there is ever any problem with the relay network is important, too. If Matt ever decides to switch off the Relay Network - miners are in trouble. That is too much responsibility for one person to have, and too much dependency for miners.

[arnoudk]

https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-mas ... 54e55dc0e4

This is a great article. I love how they approached this experiment. I really like how they are getting real-world data and measuring how different setups provide different results. This is a great solution that certainly has a place in the bitcoin ecosystem.

I use it on my nodes. Particularly, the node that I am running at home that is behind a slow internet connection. In the past, my internet would 'hang' for a few seconds when a new block was found. I fixed this by using speed limits on the bitcoin downloads. With BU, I am not using such limits, and it does not affect my internet. Blocks are no longer big enough to notice. But this is very circumstantial data - what they are doing is scientific.

It's great to see a competing team show this level of competence.

I think that Bitcoin Unlimited should be the software of choice for non-mining nodes. It is a different discussion, but their solution for limiting the block size to the collective result of user-configurable settings - AND still tracking the longest chain eventually - is elegant. There's some real competence in the BU team, and I am glad to see that.

[inBitweTrust]

You are correct Sir. Xthin Blocks is a substandard solution to the relay network and compact blocks
https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blo ... .mediawiki

The relay network is indeed faster than Xtreme Thin blocks. It is, however, a centralized solution. It requires trust. Transactions and blocks are not validated, if I understand correctly, before being transmitted on this relay network. And blocks are rebuilt using pointers to transactions rather than hashes, which are shorter still.

Miners use the relay network, most regular people do not. The regular people can benefit from Xtreme Thin blocks (or similar solutions).

And for miners, having a backup source of blocks that is available when there is ever any problem with the relay network is important, too. If Matt ever decides to switch off the Relay Network - miners are in trouble. That is too much responsibility for one person to have, and too much dependency for miners.

Matt Doesn't own or control the Compact relay block standards and both individual users and larger miners can use it the same . It is an open source solution that is available to everyone and miners already have their own relays. It simply is a superior solution. I think you are getting caught up in the "decentralize all things" craze, centralized solutions that can and are being used by anyone , thus decentralized, aren't the enemy.

[arnoudk]

Why does this need to be an either-or solution? This is not an attack on a relay network at all - I have a feeling that's how you are reacting?

There is nothing wrong with making bitcoin itself more efficient - and keeping it decentralized (YES, this is important when it is part of the bitcoin node code). Block propagation impacts the core of the bitcoin protocol. Blocks should propagate efficiently. Depending on external solutions to gain an edge is perfectly acceptable, but depending on external solutions for regular core functionality is not.

There will still be a place for a faster relay network. This doesn't replace it. Miners will take any edge they can - and the relay network makes perfect sense from their perspective. If the decentralized default option is more efficient, though, that would be better for miners - this would ensure a MUCH better worst-case scenario.

However, this impacts the regular users most. They do NOT use the fast relay network, nor should they want to - as it actually increases bandwidth and gains speed. For non-miners, that is not a sensible tradeoff. To keep bitcoin running on as many nodes as possible, having efficiency improvements in the node code is a great step in the right direction.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-mas ... 54e55dc0e4

This is a great article. I love how they approached this experiment. I really like how they are getting real-world data and measuring how different setups provide different results. This is a great solution that certainly has a place in the bitcoin ecosystem.

I use it on my nodes. Particularly, the node that I am running at home that is behind a slow internet connection. In the past, my internet would 'hang' for a few seconds when a new block was found. I fixed this by using speed limits on the bitcoin downloads. With BU, I am not using such limits, and it does not affect my internet. Blocks are no longer big enough to notice. But this is very circumstantial data - what they are doing is scientific.

It's great to see a competing team show this level of competence.

I think that Bitcoin Unlimited should be the software of choice for non-mining nodes. It is a different discussion, but their solution for limiting the block size to the collective result of user-configurable settings - AND still tracking the longest chain eventually - is elegant. There's some real competence in the BU team, and I am glad to see that.

I too agree, the series and technology is fantastic, this is exactly the type of developers Bitcoin requires!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm currently running Classic nodes, although I will be ordering new servers to house Unlimited nodes this week. 50% of my nodes will run Classic and the other 50% will run Unlimited.

After reviewing their presentation, I was amazed by the results!!!!!! For my own businesses and clients, this is the ultimate solution, the unlimited solution! I love it!!!!!

I wouldn't classify them as a competing team, I would classify them as the number one team working to secure and optimize our Bitcoin by keeping the original protocol safe and in-tact. This to me, from decades of technical experience, is the correct way to proceed with Bitcoin's scaling.

Once again, I have to agree. Bitcoin Unlimited is definitely an elegant solution that is well thought-out, presented perfectly and makes me feel comfortable as it aligns with the original Bitcoin I signed up for. I cannot wait to see the rest of this presentation, it is cutting edge!!!!!!!!

[arnoudk]

I too agree, the series and technology is fantastic, this is exactly the type of developers Bitcoin requires!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm currently running Classic nodes, although I will be ordering new servers to house Unlimited nodes this week. 50% of my nodes will run Classic and the other 50% will run Unlimited.

After reviewing their presentation, I was amazed by the results!!!!!! For my own businesses and clients, this is the ultimate solution, the unlimited solution! I love it!!!!!

I wouldn't classify them as a competing team, I would classify them as the number one team working to secure and optimize our Bitcoin by keeping the original protocol safe and in-tact. This to me, from decades of technical experience, is the correct way to proceed with Bitcoin's scaling.

Once again, I have to agree. Bitcoin Unlimited is definitely an elegant solution that is well thought-out, presented perfectly and makes me feel comfortable as it aligns with the original Bitcoin I signed up for. I cannot wait to see the rest of this presentation, it is cutting edge!!!!!!!!

Thanks for adding Classic and Unlimited nodes to the network. I currently run 3 public Unlimited nodes and 2 public Classic nodes. I also run a few private nodes on my local network - but that benefits no-one other than us

With a 'competing' team - I did not mean that one is the de-facto dominant team and the other the challenger. I see core as competing with unlimited, and unlimited as competing with core. That's unfortunate, because I see collaboration (no competition) between Unlimited, Classic and XT. That's why I used the word competing. What word would you have used?

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I too agree, the series and technology is fantastic, this is exactly the type of developers Bitcoin requires!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm currently running Classic nodes, although I will be ordering new servers to house Unlimited nodes this week. 50% of my nodes will run Classic and the other 50% will run Unlimited.

After reviewing their presentation, I was amazed by the results!!!!!! For my own businesses and clients, this is the ultimate solution, the unlimited solution! I love it!!!!!

I wouldn't classify them as a competing team, I would classify them as the number one team working to secure and optimize our Bitcoin by keeping the original protocol safe and in-tact. This to me, from decades of technical experience, is the correct way to proceed with Bitcoin's scaling.

Once again, I have to agree. Bitcoin Unlimited is definitely an elegant solution that is well thought-out, presented perfectly and makes me feel comfortable as it aligns with the original Bitcoin I signed up for. I cannot wait to see the rest of this presentation, it is cutting edge!!!!!!!!

Thanks for adding Classic and Unlimited nodes to the network. I currently run 3 public Unlimited nodes and 2 public Classic nodes. I also run a few private nodes on my local network - but that benefits no-one other than us

With a 'competing' team - I did not mean that one is the de-facto dominant team and the other the challenger. I see core as competing with unlimited, and unlimited as competing with core. That's unfortunate, because I see collaboration (no competition) between Unlimited, Classic and XT. That's why I used the word competing. What word would you have used?

Congrats, it is great to know that you support the network by running 5 nodes!!!!!!! It's very easy and doesn't require much maintenance.

I am going to be working on launching as many Bitcoin Unlimited nodes as I can and also encourage everyone that I speak to run at least 1 node as well if their business uses Bitcoin, even if it's just a cheap dedicated. My only other goal is to be able to run free nodes, I don't think it's time to remove free nodes from the network as they help a lot of small businesses. How to defend against the attackers that force me to set a fee? Not sure yet although I am looking into it as are a few other people. I did hear Bitcoin Unlimited is going to have anti-DOS protection and if that is the case, I should be able to run free nodes again which will help out a few of my clients businesses and even Roger's "feed ze birds".

I don't like using the word competing because we're all doing this for the same reason, to strengthen the Bitcoin network as a whole to ensure everybody has access to our free peer 2 peer cash payment technology. You are right though, the only competing platforms per say are Core VS the rest and the reason this is because Core was taken over by hostile people to encourage a fee market and seize peoples Bitcoin's for whatever reasons they may have. There is no doubt Unlimited + Classic + XT can band together, share technology and ensure Bitcoin survives. We have more than enough support to do this with ease and so all we need to do is inform the public of what is going on. The original Bitcoin platform took some 7 years to build a network to where it is today. I see Unlimited + Classic + XT (let's call it the UCX pact) gaining slow but consistent growth over the next 5 years. We have more than enough smart and hard-working people to achieve what we need to.

Otherwise, FREE BITCOIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Testimonials from around the internet about Bitcoin Unlimited:


"Very cool, very nicely presented, thank you!"

"wonderful methodology, execution, analysis, and communication.

"When someone asks me what Bitcoin software to run, it's Unlimited all the way!!!!!!!!"

"Objective, data-driven, and easily understood. This is what open-source development should look like. I can't wait for more of this!"

"Nice work on the entire serie, very well presented!"

"Very impressive results, yet again."

"So, Xtreme Thinblocks make block propagation 8.5 times faster than with previous versions of Bitcoin Core. If the Bitcoin Core developers were ok with a blocksize limit of 1 MB before Xtreme Thinblocks existed, then they must be ok with a blocksize limit of 8.5 MB now. They said that the limit could not be increased beyond the current 1 MB because of upload bandwidth limitations for full node operators. Now that is no longer a problem because everyone is now 8.5 times faster in terms of upload bandwidth capabilities. I'm sure they'll make up some new excuse not to increase the limit though."

"I love how they approached this experiment. I really like how they are getting real-world data and measuring how different setups provide different results. This is a great solution that certainly has a place in the bitcoin ecosystem."

"I cannot wait to see the rest of this presentation, it is cutting edge!!!!!!!!"

"great infographic! ... it's painful to watch the regular block going through the GFC"

"it can't get bigger praises !"

"Fantastic presentation of the results."

"Good stuff Peter "

"GG guys. Keep up the good work"

"There's so much energy, and innovation, happening in Unlimited."

"Great work."

"It keeps getting more interesting with each part. Peter really has a talent for explaining things clearly."

"Nice to see real innovation in Bitcoin."

"Thanks for all the work on this, very informative."

"Excellent work Peter. Great stuff."

"This is the response of a team player. I'm so delighted to see this kind of language and attitude; we've not been used to such in Bitcoin development for a while, unfortunately. It really highlights the fundamental difference between arrogance and team effort."

"I too agree, the series and technology is fantastic, this is exactly the type of developers Bitcoin requires!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"Revolutionary work "

"Excellent. Who says there is no development in bitcoin right now?"

"Love it."

"After reviewing their presentation, I was amazed by the results!!!!!! For my own businesses and clients, this is the ultimate solution, the unlimited solution! I love it!!!!!"

"Bloom filters are awesome. Anyone who is against spreading this innovation clearly has their head up their butt."

"Congratulations to all involved in this project, it is exceptional innovation!!!!!!!!!"

"Impressive numbers and great collaboration between all parties!!!!!!!!"

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

UPDATE: Bitcoin Unlimited node-count up ~20% in the past 48 hours!

This is great growth, well done BU!!!!!!!

People see the right solution for Bitcoin's future

Slowly but surely, we will get it done and avoid disaster.