I'm not scaling completely removing CPFP is for the better, though. So a graphene megabyte bitcoin This eliminates the need graphene tree operations used by std:: If a block uses such canonical order, graphene don't need to transfer ordering information. Almost all Bitcoin wallets rely on Bitcoin Core in one way or another. There's a thread within this scaling that nullc started, I'm a bitcoin lazy to go hunt for it, bitcoin. Couldn't you just group chained transactions together and place them into the sequence ordered by the first scaling in the group?
False negatives are non-possible, that's left as an exercise to the reader. Txs are ordered in a block in the transaction ordering. Price Analysis, February 2, Transaction ordering is important for CPFP child pays for parent where a transaction spends an earlier transaction within the same block, and pays the fees for both the parent transaction and itself. The way it's described is anything else a computer does takes a second, networking takes years.
bitcoins for sale paypal prepaid card В»
Further, Merkle Bitcoin require ordering: Ordering data is extremely small even if scaling node you're sending the data didn't see thousands of transactions, which bitcoin highly unlikely anyway. At a high level, we're not using a bit. Another idea is to use transaction groups rather than graphene as the set members to transmit in Graphene and Bloom. If you don't want scaling positives, you have to make bitcoin array larger. Iterate over the scaling. I'm a bit uncertain about the "Add all utxos in block, then remove all graphene in block" means?
harga bitcoin turun drastis В»
In the case of the Graphene blockchain technology all these questions can be answered with: And then some more, maybe. If adversarial thinking like Tadge Dryja's was on display, its target was relegated to theoretical targets on day one of Scaling Bitcoin Saturday. Held this year at Stanford University, the event's fourth edition, first started to bridge bitcoin's then- scaling crisis, saw noticeably less discussion of issues currently Professor Brian Levine of UMass Amherst gave two really excellent talks on papers he authored yesterday.
Since Bitcoin is a self-regulating system that works by discovering blocks at approximate intervals, its highest transaction throughput is effectively capped at maximum block size divided by block interval. The current trend of ever increasing block sizes on Bitcoin portends a potential problem where the sys-. UTD junior, co-founder of Metro Blocks wants to help build city pride through 3-D printed skyline A UTD student co-launched a 3-D printed landscape product in an effort to foster city pride.
Gabe Villani, an information technology and systems junior, is one of two founders of Metro Block, which began operating in November. The Metro Block is a miniature skyline, designed to represent the essence of Dallas.
Advertisement "Dallas is a Mon, 8 Jan The TechCrunch Shanghai conference has come and gone, and with recent political skirmishes in the crypto space, it's no surprise Bitcoin Cash came to the fore of many of the conference's discussions. Given Bitcoin Cash's willingness to possibly scale to gigabyte blocks, terabyte versions are the next step in the evolution.
Most people will agree Bitcoin is struggling in many ways. On the technical level, the network is almost unusable for everyday purchases and needs. Joannes Vermorel provides an interesting solution in this regard.
His idea is also pretty controversial, though, as it may not be feasible. Terabyte blocks would certainly solve Mon, 18 Dec Regardless, still think it is worth exploring. The Graphene people or anybody else are free to implement it and try it. Even on the live network. Block propagation is not consensus critical so if some nodes wish to use Graphene and others use CB and others still use carrier pigeons, that's all fine.
But as nullc explained here, and many more times before in discussions with the BU people trying to steal code and credit and glory with their plagiarized, buggy and falsely advertised XXX fastblocks I forgot what they named it: Core thought of, created and tested many of these alternatives over the years and ended up at CB.
That doesn't prove it can't be done better, of course. As far as I understand that's tunable and since it's optimized for the latency sweetspot, it may well be always better than Graphene, as that seems to optimize the wrong thing bandwidth only.
Either way, by the time that becomes relevant graphene will have had the chance to prove itself. Is the existing method of meshed nodes scalable for the large number of connections in the future? I just get the feeling of a massive herd coming. I was also thinking about a spanning tree approach or something similar to bgp in the past but both options require trust or access lists or are laughably insecure.
In fact, it assumes blocks have no ordering, but they do Merkle trees have a left and right child per node, so there's ordering right there. I mean, he mentions Merkle Tree a few times, but is apparently completely ignorant of how Merkle Trees work. Step 2 is O n 2 if using an array. Could be faster with linked-list, though, so maybe workable?
Other issue is hostile invalid blocks that contain 2 or more invalid transactions as in, definitely invalid, spends a nonexistent or already-spent UTXO , step 2 above will never terminate. This needs to be considered very carefully, we don't want this becoming a DDoS vector. No, I'm an idiot. It will require N 2 iterations of the loop to put them in the "correct" order edit: And it is still vulnerable to the "2 or more invalid txes".
That's why I'm not in Core!!!!! So we can review what this does in various cases? I'm a bit uncertain about the "Add all utxos in block, then remove all utxos in block" means? I personally hold the position that any hardfork from now on will never be politically feasible and will lead to the launching of a new altfork, even hardforks that Core supports.
If there is no order, you can simply first add all the new UTXO's to the database and then start validating all the inputs and remove the UTXO's being spend. I think it's quite easy to find a better algorithm; for instance one that picks how far to push forward depending on where it is.
This is just a crude example of how it would be posssible. Push forward here, how would you judge it and keep the algo simple enough that it won't break anything? The push forward would be uncomfortable with a linked list, while using an array of pointers instead will require quite a bit of memory activity to move array entries. If we want to make this canonical ordering checked in a softfork that would mean this code would become consensus critical, so that's a lot harder to get into the Core software consensus bugs are a nightmare the Core devs don't want to have to deal with, so any consensus change will be very sensitive.
If it's not enforced by nodes, then Graphene can only be used by cooperating mining pools. Note that this is an implementation detail most similar to the current code; it may be more efficient to sort before accessing the UTXO-db.
The second procedure does not make much sense to me though, I don't quite understand how that would get done I do think it could be more efficient to do the full sorting to canonical ordering before accessing the UTXO db. This is faster because it is more cache efficient; you don't intermix accessing all these transactions with access to the utxo. And you don't get unnecessary UTXO misses. Then move the txs from todos[0] to todos[1] that have an output in todos[0].
Though we are touching too much details, I do not think that would be optimal. It would be faster to create todo1 as a sorted vector, mark everything that must be moved to todo2, then split todo1 in todo1 and todo2 based on that mark. This eliminates the need for tree operations used by std:: Either case, you will have to serialize the transactions?
If a transaction spends the output of another transaction you will need to delay it to the next block in this case because you can't guarantee it will be ordered afterwards. No, tomtomtom7's algo rearranges transactions within a block so that ordering-afterwards works. It's just that the step 2 is O n 2 , making it somewhat painful and possibly destroying the benefit of Graphene. I'm looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Hopefully we get some thoughtful discussion about this here, in the same way that you have provided.
Oh okay, so it's a different Graphene from the Trademarked Graphene that Bitshares uses. It is a technology if shown to help with the bottlenecks inherent in the big block design, could potentially really help the bitcoin cash block chain and may help in the centralisation issues to a degree.
People will STILL spread fud though, because it's still against the agenda that would serve the current people in power. I doubt they mean the graphene as used as backend for bitshares since Cry a river and when you are done research what open source means. Bitcoin should be stealing every idea from every good crypto out there. Don't throw away an idea just because you don't like one of the devs. It may still be a good idea. The dev being Gavin Andresen is evidence against the idea being properly thought through, because we have previous evidence that some of his ideas weren't thought through.
Still, it doesn't need to be thrown away outright. Maybe just a bit of further thought can fix it, or maybe it's trash, just think it through a bit or a lot, more likely. Just because he allegedly did not think an idea or some ideas through in the past, does not mean he can't ever think a future idea through.
It's not a fallacy as it is not a logical proof, it is probabilistic reasoning. Like I said, needs more nuance, it's not black and white, it's multiple gradations of gray. Has anyone credible reviewed the code? Haven't read it yet myself, but seeing it pushed on the scam sub makes me suspicious. Plus the author isn't exactly know for design skill. The author has done a bunch of research on this space for many years, for instance look up XIM.
It is a research paper not a pull request. It's primitive not to recognize a suspicious forum with a clear anti bitcoin agenda. You have to be an idiot to take what they sell at face value. And even after all your bullshit; I'm only asking for a better source or a trustworthy reviewer. I'm not assuming anything despite the source and author. I have a friend who's been working on graphene as a physics PhD. It's funny because he never worries too much about the practical use of the stuff, but I remember when he first told me about it, I immediately thought that it would be used to make faster chips and stuff like that.
I didn't know about Bitcoin at the time, but it could turn out to be the catalyst for huge growth. Why aren't you saying the same thing for the FUD'ing short-term young reddit accounts? I don't see you doing that. Gavin was the one trusted by Satoshi to carry his vision forward. Unfortunately Gavin didn't ask for such a burden to be placed on him so he spread it out to those involved in the community at the time.
In time it was revealed how much he regretted giving commit access to what would become core. Gavin and Mike were pushed out as they were 2 big blockers vs the rest who were dead set on small blocks despite the cut to utility that full blocks would cause.
Gavin is and always has been the closest thing we've had to Satoshi and he was spit at for having differing opinions. The mud slinging towards him and CSW is pretty ridiculous. Attacking their ideas with your own is always fair game. But dismissing people based on who they are vs the ideas they bring to the table is juvenile. Stop using your reptile brain and think for once. Read the papers and stop using prejudice and tribalism to get through life. Regardless of who the authors are, we should be discussing the proposed idea and luckily that is happening as well.
Even if the idea turns out to be not that useful that's still OK. Discussing it serves as education. And education is important. More important than all the conspiracy shit coming from both sides.
While this new form of Graphene technology seems promising we can't say for sure when or it it will ever be used by Bitcoin.
This blockchain has an average block time of 1. BitShares has been operational for three years now and powers it's own decentralized exchange. People do not understand everything that BitShares offers so they immediately discard it as a scam. If you do your research you will quickly discover that BitShares is the furthest thing from a scam. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. Bitcoin comments other discussions 1. Log in or sign up in seconds.
Submit link NOT about price. Bitcoin subscribe unsubscribe , readers 15, users here now Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet: You can also explore the Bitcoin Wiki: Only requests for donations to large, recognized charities are allowed, and only if there is good reason to believe that the person accepting bitcoins on behalf of the charity is trustworthy. News articles that do not contain the word "Bitcoin" are usually off-topic.
This subreddit is not about general financial news. Submissions that are mostly about some other cryptocurrency belong elsewhere. Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted. No referral links in submissions. No compilations of free Bitcoin sites. Trades should usually not be advertised here. For example, submissions like "Buying BTC" or "Selling my computer for bitcoins" do not belong here. New merchants are welcome to announce their services for Bitcoin, but after those have been announced they are no longer news and should not be re-posted.
Aside from new merchant announcements, those interested in advertising to our audience should consider Reddit's self-serve advertising system.
Do not post your Bitcoin address unless someone explicitly asks you to. Be aware that Twitter, etc. Related communities Sorted roughly by decreasing popularity. Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and subscribe to one of thousands of communities. Bitcoin submitted 2 months ago by ireallywannaknowwhy comments share save hide report.
Want to add to the discussion? Hopefully something will come to fruition out of it. Or maybe a really valuable alt coin spinoff.
Whether it will or not is to be seen! I see you said that in your edit: Removing CPFP removes an option for paying fees. It may be possible to do this but it requires a lot more work than it seems, I think. Consider the procedure below to generate a canonical ordering of transactions within a block from an unordered set of transactions purportedly in the block: Put transactions in an array O n.
Sort array according to transaction ID O n log n. If a transaction refers to a UTXO that doesn't exist yet, look for the transaction later in the array, then insert the parent transaction before the current transaction and re-scan from the parent transaction O n 2.
One pass to order based on hash, and one pass to order based on position relative to parent. Keep an open mind for other innovative solutions as well. To me, all improvements that help scale Bitcoin are desirable, if feasible to implement.
Now your secret is out. How's the n log n size done? It has two main parts; a block relay scheme and a restructuring of the p2p network. So I'm not sure if you're talking about the same thing. I misinterpreted your third sentence. And he also mentioned the reason why CB doesn't go further, while for example blocksat does: If a block uses such canonical order, you don't need to transfer ordering information.
Also note that dependencies do not require linearity. Transaction hashes already ensure the graph is acyclic so if my implementation does per block Add all utxos in block Remove all utxos in block.
Linearity is only needed for the merkle tree which can be achieved with either: The simple canonical ordering described above A simple HF that makes the merkle tree construction use by-hash ordering. You don't effect cpfp that way.
Of course this care against Dos but the non-ending case is trivial to catch. A simple HF that makes the merkle tree construction use by-hash ordering. Steo 2 us still O n2 and of course that would need investigating but: Even with this one, I don't think reordering 10, transactions this way in O n 2 is a reasonable DoS attack.
Using a linked list, even the worst case with million moves can likely be done in a few millieseconds. Get the unordered transaction set in the new block via Graphene.
Then delete UTXO's that are spent by the unordered transaction set. Put the unordered transaction set into a linked list. Sort the list of transactions by txid. Rollback the UTXO db again!! Iterate over the list. If a transaction's input UTXO does not exist in the db yet, unlink the node and put it to the end of the list. Transfer the transaction lists into a transaction array or whatever the Merkle Tree algo uses Generate the Merkle Tree root.
Check it matches with the purported header. If it does not match, rollback the UTXO db and reject the block as invalid. O n 2 theoretical, possible DoS vector. I'm not convinced that million moves can be done in a few milliseconds, may depend on processor cache and so on.
UTXO db rollback in expected typical "valid block" case. If we use a canonical order, there is not much benefit to do so. Note that this is an implementation detail most similar to the current code; it may be more efficient to sort before accessing the UTXO-db Get the unordered transaction set via Graphene Order them by hash to the set "todo" For each output in the set, if this output exists as txhash in "todo" move to "todo2".
Let me try to clarify your first procedure then: Get the unordered transaction set by Graphene. Move transactions into linked list of transactions O n.
Sort transactions O n log n. Put this linked list into "todo" list. For each node in "todo" list: Otherwise move to the next node. If "todo" list is non-empty: Otherwise reject block as invalid. Pass the "merkle-tree" to the merkle tree algo and verify it matches the purported block header, otherwise reject block as invalid. I honestly want to know.