Minister Donohoe publishes discussion paper on virtual currencies and blockchain technology

Yes it is purely my opinion that a Difficulty 3,511,060,552,899.72 times greater than was originally adequate is too much. I see no math in the White Paper which would justify this number. Since you are the one who are trumpeting the mathematical purity of the protocol I suggest that the burden of mathematical proof that a Difficulty of this level is necessary to secure the blockchain falls to yourself.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
I see no math in the White Paper which would justify this number.
Click to expand...

The math is ALL in the paper, read it.
Based on that math the difficulty is what it is now.

Your argument could be “i believe an alternate formula could generate a better ecosystem and the formula is: ....”

Otherwise it is only your opinion against satoshi’s and the hundreds of developers that have contributed to the project since 09. Still a respectable opinion but lacking any evidence

Best regards,

Gus
 
Gus1970 said:
The math is ALL in the paper, read it.
Based on that math the difficulty is what it is now.
Click to expand...
Well that is certainly irrefutable. The number is what it is because the program says so. You are not going to answer whether in your opinion you think it is ridiculously too high for purpose in the common sense of that assertion, fair enough.

I like you am a lover of math but clearly in a completely different way. I like such things as, say, the proof that e is transcendental. You get your pleasure from computers doing quintillions of trial and error hash attempts. Math is a broad church for sure.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
ell that is certainly irrefutable. The number is what it is because the program says so. You are not going to answer whether in your opinion you think it is ridiculously too high for purpose in the common sense of that assertion, fair enough.
Click to expand...

You are not listening to me or you have not read the paper. It is not a program that decides the difficulty on its own.

There are miners that decide to invest in X amount of mining equipment that will consume Y amount of energy to obtain Z amount in reward in bitcoin. The miners for their interest will minimise their costs and try to maximise the reward received hence the mining equipment X and the electricity used Y will be the MINIMUM necessary to obtain the reward.

If you’re so sure the miners out there are ifiots and waste electricity you have a massive economic incentive to start mining using less electricity and get more rewards, you’ll be a millionaire in no time.

On the maths. I think we are misunderstanding what we mean by maths. You talk about the cr
 
Mobile ringing caused posting precox

You talk about the brute force hashing, i talk about the echo-system
The calculation of the hash is the least interesting math in the whole bitcoin, look into the game theory side of it that is much more fascinating and actually regulates how non collaborative systems can create a trustless economy
 
Game theory is not math, it is psychology. The Law of Supply and Demand is not math either but it does lead to the calculus of the market price.

As a professional mathematician I would have expected your position to be "I appreciate the game theory psychology of the bitcoin protocol despite it spawning the ugliest math known to Man". Instead it comes across that you are using the math aspect to glorify the protocol.
 
Gus1970 said:
False because many reasons:
1)
Solution with larger blocks => as many transactions as you want
2)
Solution with sidechains and or lightning network model => as many transactions as you want
Click to expand...

We're talking about Bitcoin as it stands today, with the power it consumes today. So the current limitations stand until such time as any changes are implemented.

The suggestion of increased block sizes are nothing new, I'm not sure there will ever be the consensus required to increase them to the scale that would facilitate the hundreds of thousands of transactions per second needed to take on the credit card processors.

Layer 2 solutions such as Lightning, will facilitate higher transaction volumes, but they're off-blockchain and do nothing to address the underlying energy use in supporting the blockchain.
 
Leo said:
We're talking about Bitcoin as it stands today, with the power it consumes today. So the current limitations stand until such time as any changes are implemented.
Click to expand...
Change has been implemented by way of the launch of Lightning Network. It will just take time for it to develop.

Leo said:
Layer 2 solutions such as Lightning, will facilitate higher transaction volumes, but they're off-blockchain and do nothing to address the underlying energy use in supporting the blockchain.
Click to expand...
Doesn't Lightning offer the potential to bring down the average energy consumption of each transaction?
 
tecate said:
Doesn't Lightning offer the potential to bring down the average energy consumption of each transaction?
Click to expand...

Yes, but technically, a lightning transaction isn't a bitcoin transaction, as it occurs off-blockchain, and never gets recorded onto it. You can look at lightning as a secondary payments system where the funding originates from Bitcoin.

It will be interesting to see how it develops, I think its greatest challenge will be the likelihood that people won't want to leave too much liquidity in LN due to the higher risks involved, and without that, users are more likely to need to establish direct payment channels to whoever they want to make payment to, with each channel requiring two bitcoin transactions to establish.
 
Leo said:
Yes, but technically, a lightning transaction isn't a bitcoin transaction, as it occurs off-blockchain, and never gets recorded onto it. You can look at lightning as a secondary payments system where the funding originates from Bitcoin.
Click to expand...
Agree completely...but at the end of the day, the average energy consumption per transaction between on-chain and off-chain will reduce (along with transaction time and transaction cost).
 
Reactions: Leo
Game theory is not a branch of math. It is a branch of psychology that leads to mathematical analysis of human behavior. In the case of bitcoin it leads to a math of brain numbing banality.
 
Goodbye. I understand this forum is not for me.

I see that what motivates people here is not learning and sharing knowledge but getting one over somebody else, even if this means blatantly lying

I am not interested in this type of conversation hence i will not partecipate to this forum any longer

So long,

Gus
 
Arrivederci
 

That's regrettable Gus, but understandable, I have to say. I think it's obvious to anyone interested in Bitcoin that you have a valuable contribution to make to the understanding of Bitcoin.
 
TheBigShort said:
That's regrettable Gus, but understandable, I have to say. I think it's obvious to anyone interested in Bitcoin that you have a valuable contribution to make to the understanding of Bitcoin.
Click to expand...
I agree B/S. All the same his refusal to concede that a Difficulty level of 3,511,060,552,899.72 just might be a tad OTT showed him to be just as obstinate as the rest of us.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
I agree B/S. All the same his refusal to concede that a Difficulty level of 3,511,060,552,899.72 just might be a tad OTT showed him to be just as obstinate as the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps not. I did think the question of what the alternative difficulty level should be set at to be a reasonable question.
As for your counter that the proof of why it is set at where it is lies with the developers, also a reasonable question.

So to try a bit of 'game theory' of my own;

Here is Oxford English Dictionary of 'game theory';

"noun
mass noun
  • The branch of mathematics concerned with the analysis of strategies for dealing with competitive situations where the outcome of a participant's choice of action depends critically on the actions of other participants. Game theory has been applied to contexts in war, business, and biology."
Perhaps if all the participants could signal if they agree with this definition then this forum could resume?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register