Bitcoin blockchain size 2010-2020 | Statista

XUEZ

https://xuezcoin.com/ XUEZ is a community-based project, aiming to address the inherent problems plaguing Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Understanding the importance of anonymity as well as usability, XUEZ provides a 8MB block size that results in close to instantaneous transaction times.
[link]

An early experimental alpha draft Python script to estimate size of Bitcoin network; still running at approx. 500 newly discovered nodes/min.

An early experimental alpha draft Python script to estimate size of Bitcoin network; still running at approx. 500 newly discovered nodes/min. submitted by dazzlepod to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Hijacking Bitcoin: Routing Attacks on Cryptocurrencies

arXiv:1605.07524
Date: 2017-03-24
Author(s): Maria Apostolaki, Aviv Zohar, Laurent Vanbever

Link to Paper


Abstract
As the most successful cryptocurrency to date, Bitcoin constitutes a target of choice for attackers. While many attack vectors have already been uncovered, one important vector has been left out though: attacking the currency via the Internet routing infrastructure itself. Indeed, by manipulating routing advertisements (BGP hijacks) or by naturally intercepting traffic, Autonomous Systems (ASes) can intercept and manipulate a large fraction of Bitcoin traffic. This paper presents the first taxonomy of routing attacks and their impact on Bitcoin, considering both small-scale attacks, targeting individual nodes, and large-scale attacks, targeting the network as a whole. While challenging, we show that two key properties make routing attacks practical: (i) the efficiency of routing manipulation; and (ii) the significant centralization of Bitcoin in terms of mining and routing. Specifically, we find that any network attacker can hijack few (<100) BGP prefixes to isolate ~50% of the mining power---even when considering that mining pools are heavily multi-homed. We also show that on-path network attackers can considerably slow down block propagation by interfering with few key Bitcoin messages. We demonstrate the feasibility of each attack against the deployed Bitcoin software. We also quantify their effectiveness on the current Bitcoin topology using data collected from a Bitcoin supernode combined with BGP routing data. The potential damage to Bitcoin is worrying. By isolating parts of the network or delaying block propagation, attackers can cause a significant amount of mining power to be wasted, leading to revenue losses and enabling a wide range of exploits such as double spending. To prevent such effects in practice, we provide both short and long-term countermeasures, some of which can be deployed immediately.

References
[1] “A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform ,” https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper.
[2] “Bitcoin Blockchain Statistics,” https://blockchain.info/.
[3] “bitnodes,” https://bitnodes.21.co/.
[4] “Bitnodes. Estimating the size of Bitcoin network,” https://bitnodes.21.co/.
[5] “CAIDA Macroscopic Internet Topology Data Kit.” https://www.caida.org/data/internet-topology-data-kit/.
[6] “Dyn Research. Pakistan hijacks YouTube.” http://research.dyn.com/2008/02/pakistan-hijacks-youtube-1/.
[7] “FALCON,” http://www.falcon-net.org/.
[8] “FIBRE,” http://bitcoinfibre.org/.
[9] “Litecoin ,” https://litecoin.org.
[10] “RIPE RIS Raw Data,” https://www.ripe.net/data-tools/stats/ris/ris-raw-data.
[11] “Routeviews Prefix to AS mappings Dataset (pfx2as) for IPv4 and IPv6.” https://www.caida.org/data/routing/routeviews-prefix2as.xml.
[12] “Scapy.” http://www.secdev.org/projects/scapy/.
[13] “The Relay Network,” http://bitcoinrelaynetwork.org/.
[14] “ZCash,” https://z.cash/.
[15] A. M. Antonopoulos, “The bitcoin network,” in Mastering Bitcoin. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2013, ch. 6.
[16] H. Ballani, P. Francis, and X. Zhang, “A Study of Prefix Hijacking and Interception in the Internet,” ser. SIGCOMM ’07. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2007, pp. 265–276.
[17] A. Boldyreva and R. Lychev, “Provable Security of S-BGP and Other Path Vector Protocols: Model, Analysis and Extensions,” ser. CCS ’12. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2012, pp. 541–552.
[18] J. Bonneau, A. Miller, J. Clark, A. Narayanan, J. A. Kroll, and E. W. Felten, “Sok: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies,” in Security and Privacy (SP), 2015 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 2015, pp. 104–121.
[19] P. Bosshart, D. Daly, G. Gibb, M. Izzard, N. McKeown, J. Rexford, C. Schlesinger, D. Talayco, A. Vahdat, G. Varghese et al., “P4: Programming protocol-independent packet processors,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 87–95, 2014.
[20] C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer, “Information propagation in the bitcoin network,” in Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), 2013 IEEE Thirteenth International Conference on. IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–10.
[21] ——, Bitcoin Transaction Malleability and MtGox. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 313–326. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11212-1_18
[22] M. Edman and P. Syverson, “As-awareness in tor path selection,” in Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ser. CCS ’09, 2009.
[23] I. Eyal, “The miner’s dilemma,” in 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 2015, pp. 89–103.
[24] I. Eyal and E. G. Sirer, “Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable,” in Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 2014, pp. 436–454.
[25] N. Feamster and R. Dingledine, “Location diversity in anonymity networks,” in WPES, Washington, DC, USA, October 2004.
[26] J. Garay, A. Kiayias, and N. Leonardos, “The bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications,” in Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2015. Springer, 2015, pp. 281–310.
[27] A. Gervais, G. O. Karama, V. Capkun, and S. Capkun, “Is bitcoin a decentralized currency?” IEEE security & privacy, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 54–60, 2014.
[28] A. Gervais, H. Ritzdorf, G. O. Karame, and S. Capkun, “Tampering with the delivery of blocks and transactions in bitcoin,” in Proceedings of the 22Nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ser. CCS ’15. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2015, pp. 692–705.
[29] P. Gill, M. Schapira, and S. Goldberg, “Let the Market Drive Deployment: A Strategy for Transitioning to BGP Security,” ser. SIGCOMM ’11. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2011, pp. 14–25.
[30] S. Goldberg, M. Schapira, P. Hummon, and J. Rexford, “How Secure Are Secure Interdomain Routing Protocols,” in SIGCOMM, 2010.
[31] E. Heilman, A. Kendler, A. Zohar, and S. Goldberg, “Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network,” in 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15), 2015, pp. 129–144.
[32] Y.-C. Hu, A. Perrig, and M. Sirbu, “SPV: Secure Path Vector Routing for Securing BGP,” ser. SIGCOMM ’04. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2004, pp. 179–192.
[33] J. Karlin, S. Forrest, and J. Rexford, “Pretty Good BGP: Improving BGP by Cautiously Adopting Routes,” in Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, ser. ICNP ’06. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society, 2006, pp. 290–299.
[34] E. K. Kogias, P. Jovanovic, N. Gailly, I. Khoffi, L. Gasser, and B. Ford, “Enhancing bitcoin security and performance with strong consistency via collective signing,” in 25th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 16). Austin, TX: USENIX Association, 2016, pp. 279–296.
[35] J. A. Kroll, I. C. Davey, and E. W. Felten, “The economics of bitcoin mining, or bitcoin in the presence of adversaries.” Citeseer.
[36] A. Miller, J. Litton, A. Pachulski, N. Gupta, D. Levin, N. Spring, and B. Bhattacharjee, “Discovering bitcoin’s public topology and influential nodes.”
[37] S. J. Murdoch and P. Zielinski, “Sampled traffic analysis by Internet- ´ exchange-level adversaries,” in Privacy Enhancing Technologies: 7th International Symposium, PET 2007, N. Borisov and P. Golle, Eds. Springer-Verlag, LNCS 4776, 2007, pp. 167–183.
[38] K. Nayak, S. Kumar, A. Miller, and E. Shi, “Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack,” IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, vol. 2015, p. 796, 2015.
[39] T. Neudecker, P. Andelfinger, and H. Hartenstein, “A simulation model for analysis of attacks on the bitcoin peer-to-peer network,” in IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Internet Management. IEEE, 2015, pp. 1327–1332.
[40] P. v. Oorschot, T. Wan, and E. Kranakis, “On interdomain routing security and pretty secure bgp (psbgp),” ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., vol. 10, no. 3, Jul. 2007.
[41] A. Pilosov and T. Kapela, “Stealing The Internet. An Internet-Scale Man In The Middle Attack.” DEFCON 16.
[42] Y. Rekhter and T. Li, A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), IETF, Mar. 1995, rFC 1771.
[43] M. Rosenfeld, “Analysis of hashrate-based double spending,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.2009, 2014.
[44] A. Sapirshtein, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar, “Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin,” CoRR, vol. abs/1507.06183, 2015.
[45] E. B. Sasson, A. Chiesa, C. Garman, M. Green, I. Miers, E. Tromer, and M. Virza, “Zerocash: Decentralized anonymous payments from bitcoin,” in 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 2014, pp. 459–474.
[46] B. Schlinker, K. Zarifis, I. Cunha, N. Feamster, and E. Katz-Bassett, “Peering: An as for us,” in Proceedings of the 13th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, ser. HotNets-XIII. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2014, pp. 18:1–18:7.
[47] J. Schnelli, “BIP 151: Peer-to-Peer Communication Encryption,” Mar. 2016, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/mastebip-0151.mediawiki.
[48] X. Shi, Y. Xiang, Z. Wang, X. Yin, and J. Wu, “Detecting prefix hijackings in the Internet with Argus,” ser. IMC ’12. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2012, pp. 15–28.
[49] Y. Sompolinsky and A. Zohar, “Secure high-rate transaction processing in bitcoin,” in Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 2015, pp. 507–527.
[50] Y. Sun, A. Edmundson, L. Vanbever, O. Li, J. Rexford, M. Chiang, and P. Mittal, “RAPTOR: Routing attacks on privacy in TOR.” in USENIX Security, 2015.
[51] A. Tonk, “Large scale BGP hijack out of India,” 2015, http://www.bgpmon.net/large-scale-bgp-hijack-out-of-india/.
[52] ——, “Massive route leak causes Internet slowdown,” 2015, http://www.bgpmon.net/massive-route-leak-cause-internet-slowdown/.
[53] L. Vanbever, O. Li, J. Rexford, and P. Mittal, “Anonymity on quicksand: Using BGP to compromise TOR,” in ACM HotNets, 2014.
[54] Z. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Y. C. Hu, and Z. M. Mao, “Practical defenses against BGP prefix hijacking,” ser. CoNEXT ’07. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2007.
[55] Z. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Y. C. Hu, Z. M. Mao, and R. Bush, “iSPY: Detecting IP prefix hijacking on my own,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1815–1828, Dec. 2010.
submitted by dj-gutz to myrXiv [link] [comments]

"A few months after the Counterparty developers started using OP_RETURN, bitcoin developers decreased the size of OP_RETURN from 80 bytes to 40 bytes. The sudden decrease in the size of the OP_RETURN function stopped networks launched on top of bitcoin from operating properly."

Some info on how Core/Greg Maxwell ended Counterparty before it could get started.
Several years ago, there was a conflict between Counterparty and bitcoin developers. Counterparty was using Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN function which enabled anyone to store any type of data in transactions. By using OP_RETURN Counterparty was able to operate as the first decentralized digital asset exchange using blockchain technology.
A few months after the Counterparty developers started using OP_RETURN, bitcoin developers decreased the size of OP_RETURN from 80 bytes to 40 bytes. The sudden decrease in the size of the OP_RETURN function stopped networks launched on top of bitcoin from operating properly. As a result, Counterparty had to move away from the OP_RETURN function and other blockchain projects which were initially planned to launch on the Bitcoin protocol.
https://coinjournal.net/vitalik-buterin-never-attempted-launch-ethereum-top-bitcoin/
The very approach of Ethereum towards smart contracts and Solidity’s so-called Turing-completeness to be used by EVMParty have also been subject to criticism from bitcoin maximalists. In particular, Gregory Maxwell of Bitcoin Core said that the platform’s imperfection consists in including unnecessary calculations in the blockchain, which may apply significant load on the network. Eventually, such approach may slow down the blockchain. Finally, calculating on a blockchain is expensive. Maxwell believes that bitcoin developers’ approach towards smart contracts is way more flexible as it records only confirmations of calculations.
https://busy.org/@gugnik/bitcoin-minimalism-counterparty-to-talk-with-bitcoin-in-ethereish
Feel free to share if you have anything to add. I always remember Gmaxwell getting triggered everytime Counterparty was brought up. He would seemingly go out of his way to tear it down if a post even resembled reference to it. Sadly I don't have any of these other example on hand.
submitted by bchworldorder to btc [link] [comments]

"I'd just like to call everyone's attention to #BitcoinSV Block no. 574555... 251 transactions, 19.2MB in size. I see no evidence of stress tests happening on the network, so I can only surmise that this is organic growth. People using Bitcoin."

submitted by cryptorebel to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

Security of the bitcoin network is funded by the reward miners get: Transaction fees + subsidy. Over time the subsidy drops to 0 and we are left with just fees. If you limit the block size to 1mb you limit miner reward to what fees can fit in 1MB of space. You limit the security of the network.

I've posted this before and was criticized because it was claimed this was a future problem. Actually, the block reward goes pretty low pretty fast. Already 80% of coins are already mined. This is a future problem, but guess what? So are cores hypothetical centralization problems that are supremely trumped by this problem.
Cores hypothetical in the future problem is that miners will geographically centralize because the latency of relaying large blocks will result in close miners having an advantage. The relay network which allows blocks to transmit without latency issues shouldn't count according to core because it is not "decentralized".
The other part of their "decentralization" argument is that we need to all run full nodes to make transactions, but then fail to give an example of anyone being defrauded by an SPV wallet. They then give statistics for how full nodes are dropping (without factoring in that the original bitcoin wallets were all full nodes which skews the statistics)
submitted by specialenmity to btc [link] [comments]

Overheard on r\bitcoin: "And when will the network adopt the Segwit2x(tm) block size hardfork?" ~ u/DeathScythe676 // "I estimate that will happen at roughly the same time as hell freezing over." ~ u/nullc, One-Meg Greg mAXAwell, CTO of the failed shitty startup Blockstream

Overheard on r\bitcoin:
And when will the network adopt the Segwit2x(tm) block size hardfork?
~ u/DeathScythe676
I estimate that will happen at roughly the same time as hell freezing over.
~ u/nullc - One-Meg Greg mAXAwell, CTO of the failed, banker-owned, "shitty startup" Blockstream
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6okd1n/bip91_lock_in_is_guaranteed_as_of_block_476768/dki2ev0/?context=1
https://archive.fo/dOb4i
Pass the popcorn! Let the fireworks begin!
Now when those two toxic devs Greg and Luke continue to cripple their coin - we can actually cheer them on and support them!
Because...

Bitcoin Cash users unaffected!

LOL!
It's so fun now watching the economically ignorant, toxic dev Greg Maxwell, CTO of the failed shitty startup Blockstream, continue to cripple his heavily modified, low-capacity, weak-security version of Bitcoin: Bitcoin SegWit 1MB.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin Cash (ticker: BCC, or BCH) (the authentic Bitcoin - which continues to support Satoshi's original design and roadmap for BigBlocks, StrongSigs, and SingleSpend), will continue to get stronger and stronger.
Previous posts about the toxic dev Greg Maxwell, CTO of the failed startup Blockstream:
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/
Here is Greg Maxwell getting multiple smackdowns again today ... "Your company handled this one wrong" ... "devoting all the time money and effort of your multi-million dollar company to convince the community 2mb is too dangerous when it's not" ... "You core devs are so detached from reality" ...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4l8glo/here_is_greg_maxwell_getting_multiple_smackdowns/
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dtfld/previously_greg_maxwell_unullc_cto_of_blockstream/
Holy shit! Greg Maxwell and Peter Todd both just ADMITTED and AGREED that NO solution has been implemented for the "SegWit validationless mining" attack vector, discovered by Peter Todd in 2015, exposed again by Peter Rizun in his recent video, and exposed again by Bitcrust dev Tomas van der Wansem.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qftjc/holy_shit_greg_maxwell_and_peter_todd_both_just/
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
The day when the Bitcoin community realizes that Greg Maxwell and Core/Blockstream are the main thing holding us back (due to their dictatorship and censorship - and also due to being trapped in the procedural paradigm) - that will be the day when Bitcoin will start growing and prospering again.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4q95ri/the_day_when_the_bitcoin_community_realizes_that/
Wikipedians on Greg Maxwell in 2006 (now CTO of Blockstream): "engaged in vandalism", "his behavior is outrageous", "on a rampage", "beyond the pale", "bullying", "calling people assholes", "full of sarcasm, threats, rude insults", "pretends to be an admin", "he seems to think he is above policy"…
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45ail1/wikipedians_on_greg_maxwell_in_2006_now_cto_of/
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg's comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought "honest" meant "plays by Core rules." [But] there is no "honesty" involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zxl2l/mining_is_how_you_vote_for_rule_changes_gregs/
Core/Blockstream attacks any dev who knows how to do simple & safe "Satoshi-style" on-chain scaling for Bitcoin, like Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. Now we're left with idiots like Greg Maxwell, Adam Back and Luke-Jr - who don't really understand scaling, mining, Bitcoin, or capacity planning.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6du70v/coreblockstream_attacks_any_dev_who_knows_how_to/
Blockstream is "just another shitty startup. A 30-second review of their business plan makes it obvious that LN was never going to happen. Due to elasticity of demand, users either go to another coin, or don't use crypto at all. There is no demand for degraded 'off-chain' services." ~ u/jeanduluoz
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/59hcvblockstream_is_just_another_shitty_startup_a/
Keep crippling your heavily modified version of Bitcoin, Greg!
The rest of the community is moving on without you - following Satoshi's original design and roadmap - not your failed dead-end of a roadmap.
We all totally support your plan of "1MB4EVER" - on your modified version of Bitcoin.
So knock yourself out!
Keep on making your heavily modified version of Bitcoin (Bitcoin-RBF-SegWit-1MB) weaker and weaker!
All you're doing now is making Satoshi's original version of Bitcoin - Bitcoin Cash - stronger and stronger!
Bitcoin Cash is the authentic Bitcoin, continuing to adhere to the whitepaper - continuing to support BigBlocks, StrongSigs, and SingleSpend.

Bitcoin Cash (ticker: BCC, or BCH)

Bitcoin Cash is the original Bitcoin as designed by Satoshi.
Bitcoin Cash simply continues with Satoshi's original design and roadmap, whose success has always has been and always will be based on three essential features:
  • high on-chain market-based capacity supporting a greater number of faster and cheaper transactions on-chain;
  • strong on-chain cryptographic security guaranteeing that transaction signatures are always validated and saved on-chain;
  • prevention of double-spending guaranteeing that the same coin can only be spent once.
This means that Bitcoin Cash is the only version of Bitcoin which maintains support for:
  • BigBlocks, supporting increased on-chain transaction capacity - now supporting blocksizes up to 8MB (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) "centrally planned blocksize" bug added by Core - which only supports 1-2MB blocksizes);
  • StrongSigs, enforcing mandatory on-chain signature validation - continuing to require miners to download, validate and save all transaction signatures on-chain (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) "segregated witness" bug added by Core - which allows miners to discard or avoid downloading signature data);
  • SingleSpend, allowing merchants to continue to accept "zero confirmation" transactions (zero-conf) - facilitating small, in-person retail purchases (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) Replace-by-Fee (RBF) bug added by Core - which allows a sender to change the recipient and/or the amount of a transaction, after already sending it).
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

66% of bitcoin users think the Bitcoin network should hard fork to increase the block size limit

submitted by blockologist to btc [link] [comments]

Satoshi, 2009: "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. I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size."

Satoshi, 2009: submitted by satoshi_vision to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

My analysis of the mempool size increase : Was the bitcoin network victim of a spam attack ?

My analysis of the mempool size increase : Was the bitcoin network victim of a spam attack ? submitted by lmeunier to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

NChain.com: "Gigablock Initiative" will set up and maintain a global test network capable of supporting blocks up to 1 GB in size and sustained Visa-level transaction throughput (3,000 TPS) on the bitcoin network. Budget of up to USD $1.5 million over 5 years for the project.

NChain.com: submitted by BitcoinIsTehFuture to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

ViABTC: "Why I support BU: We should give the question of block size to the free market to decide. It will naturally adjust to ever-improving network & technological constraints. Bitcoin Unlimited guarantees that block size will follow what the Bitcoin network is capable of handling safely."

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-must-increase-the-block-size-and-why-i-support-bitcoin-unlimited-90b114b3ef4a#.kju12wrdu
Very, very well written article. Highly recommended reading. This guy from ViaBTC understands programming, economics - and communication.
Some highlights / excerpts:
The switch to Bitcoin Unlimited is good for the long term health of the network, since it brings finality and eliminates any future need to use either soft or hard forks to alter the block size.
If the block size is not increased then Bitcoin’s growth will have halted at the level of adoption it is at today and Bitcoin may as well be considered a failed experiment.
Bitcoin has currently hit a wall regarding its growth and new user acquisition. This barrier is explicitly imposed by the artificial 1MB block size constraint. In my eyes, this refusal to evolve is no different than network suicide.
Without growing capacity for on-chain transactions, the business model of the miners who secure the Bitcoin network against attacks will be destroyed.
Why Segregated Witness is a bad idea
The activation of SegWit on the network does not mean that all users of Bitcoin will immediately be able to take advantage of its benefits since it will require at least a year for the “effective block size” to increase to 1.7MB.
the introduction of Segregated Witness brings with it an enormous amount of technical debt which would require fundamentally altering the structure of Bitcoin transactions and requiring all nodes, mining pools, block explorers, wallets, Bitcoin ATMs, exchanges and other applications to do a complete refactoring of their software.
The massive externalized costs of implementing Segregated Witness far outweigh the cost of performing a hard fork?—?and all of this for a mere 0.7MB “effective” increase in block size.
SegWit activation will enable Bitcoin Core to keep refusing an actual block size increase and Bitcoin’s death march will continue.
Why Lightning Network is not a sufficient scaling solution
First of all, the actual use cases for Lightning Network are fairly limited. Ask yourself why people use Bitcoin: is it because they want fast confirmation times; or, is it because they want to use a decentralized money that is not controlled by any one organization?
Secondly, to characterize Bitcoin transactions on the Lightning Network as “Bitcoin transactions” is false: they are only Bitcoin transactions in the sense that an exchange altering balances in its internal database is making “Bitcoin transactions.”
The deployment of the Lightning Network will lead to the creation of centralized hubs, where users will be required to lock-up their coins within these hubs in order to have them available for transactions. This differs only slightly from the current banking system from which Bitcoin was meant to be an escape.
Finally, the notion that Bitcoin should be a “settlement layer” is ridiculous. Bitcoin is first and foremost a digital currency; its settlement capabilities are secondary to its monetary properties. When Bitcoin loses its monetary attributes it thereby loses all utility as a settlement network.
Why I support Bitcoin Unlimited
It is time to implement a positive solution, once and for all, to resolve the question of block size limits.
To hard-code on the protocol level whether blocks should be large or small is fruitless and will lead to even more conflicts down the road.
We should give the question of block size to the free market to decide. It will naturally adjust to be in pace with ever-improving network and technological constraints.
Bitcoin Unlimited’s decision to hand over a block size limit setting to the miners guarantees that block size will follow what the Bitcoin network is capable of handling safely. Bitcoin Unlimited allows miners to set both the maximum block size they will produce and the maximum size they are willing to accept, with both signals included in the coinbase scripts of each block.
Conclusion
My assessment of the various scaling proposals put forth by Bitcoin Core and Blockstream at Scaling Bitcoin Milan is that they all seem to “cut off the nose to spite the face”.
For reasons that remain unclear to me they want to destroy the unique monetary properties of Bitcoin and destroy the business model of the miners who secure the Bitcoin network.
The interests of Bitcoin miners and everyday users are strongly aligned.
By working together and identifying common interests we can bring about a renaissance in Bitcoin and bring mutual benefit to all parties involved.
By working together as a united community of developers, miners, users, and businesses, we can demonstrate to the world that the Bitcoin network can be adaptive, anti-fragile, and resistant to centralization.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin network is scaling as the network just reached a new all-time high of 1.3 MB average block size amid re… https://t.co/3RP5w9R4Nm - Crypto Dynamic Info - Whales's

Posted at: February 13, 2019 at 07:09PM
By:
The Bitcoin network is scaling as the network just reached a new all-time high of 1.3 MB average block size amid re… https://t.co/3RP5w9R4Nm
Automate your Trading via Crypto Bot : http://bit.ly/2GynF9t
Join Telegram Channel for FREE Crypto Bot: Crypto Signal
submitted by cryptotradingbot to cryptobots [link] [comments]

Satoshi, 2009: "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. I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size."

Satoshi, 2009: submitted by cryptoanalyticabot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Satoshi, 2009: "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. I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size."

Satoshi, 2009: submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Monero and Dash have to start focusing on adoption - while the Litecoin network expanding exponentially - and growed to almost a quarter the size of the bitcoin network.

Monero and Dash have to start focusing on adoption - while the Litecoin network expanding exponentially - and growed to almost a quarter the size of the bitcoin network. submitted by goldMy to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Network size of Ethereum is 65.6% of Bitcoin!

While network hashrate of BTC (8000 PH/s currently) about 10k of ETH (0.105 PH/s) and while you will spend about 4400000 GH/s to generate one BTC in a day, compared to 88 GH/s to generate 13.5ETH the equivalent of one BTC per day,
Is it safe to say we will need to multiply ETH network hashrate by 50000 (the equivalent of 4400000/88) to be able to compare it with BTC network (size) hashpower? in another word, if BTC network size in hashing power is 8000 PH/s then ETH network size using hashing power to compare should be 0.105 PH/s * 50000 = 5250! which means the Ethereum network size is 65.6% of Bitcoin network size?
submitted by drhus to EtherMining [link] [comments]

BTCForks - Vote on what you think the best initial temporary static block size limit should be for the first hardfork of the bitcoin network.

BTCForks - Vote on what you think the best initial temporary static block size limit should be for the first hardfork of the bitcoin network. submitted by singularity87 to btc [link] [comments]

Theymos: "Chain-forks [='hardforks'] are not inherently bad. If the network disagrees about a policy, a split is good. The better policy will win" ... "I disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the 'Bitcoin currency guarantees'. Satoshi said it could be increased."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1865.msg23489#msg23489
Chain forks [aka "hard forks"] are not inherently bad. If the network disagrees about a policy, then a split is good. The better policy will win.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.msg1492629#msg1492629
I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees".
Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.msg1492629#msg1492629
Satoshi definitely intended to increase the hard max block size. See:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0
I tend to prefer a max block size for Bitcoin.
The max block size would not truly be unlimited, since miners would always need to produce blocks that the vast majority of full nodes and other miners would be able and willing to process in a reasonable amount of time.
I'd like the limit to be set in a more decentralized, free-market way than a fixed constant in the code, though.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin network is going to face new changes in future, we shouldn’t forget about SegWit2x. Will doubling the Block size be the end of the world?

Bitcoin network is going to face new changes in future, we shouldn’t forget about SegWit2x. Will doubling the Block size be the end of the world? submitted by bitmicky to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

**NYC BOUNTIES FOR GRAPHIC WORK** Full size window graphics that advertise NYC, Bitcoin, Litecoin, NYC vibe, "NO NETWORK FEES", "FREE WORLDWIDE REMITTANCE" and of course "The New York Coin Center". Dimensions needed initially are (5) 10'h x 5'w + (2) 3'h x 5'w + (4) 7'h x 2.5'w vector.

**NYC BOUNTIES FOR GRAPHIC WORK** Full size window graphics that advertise NYC, Bitcoin, Litecoin, NYC vibe, submitted by hivewalletvictim to NewYorkCoin [link] [comments]

Lightning Network creators show how too low a block size can lead to only a handful of institutions having private keys they can use to move bitcoin

Lightning Network creators show how too low a block size can lead to only a handful of institutions having private keys they can use to move bitcoin submitted by aminok to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Did you know that 99.999 percent of Bitcoin Cash was made by Bitcoin Core developers? The only thing Bitcoin Cash developers has done is increasing the block size... Bitcoin Cash is an altcoin. The Lightning Network has more full nodes than Bitcoin Cash. /r/Bitcoin

Did you know that 99.999 percent of Bitcoin Cash was made by Bitcoin Core developers? The only thing Bitcoin Cash developers has done is increasing the block size... Bitcoin Cash is an altcoin. The Lightning Network has more full nodes than Bitcoin Cash. /Bitcoin submitted by SimilarAdvantage to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Explained Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Technology & Twitter hack  Marathi  Dheera Excitement About How to Invest in Cryptocurrencies: The Complete Guide for 2020 The 3-Minute Rule for 145 Best Cryptocurrency images in 2020 - Cryptocurrency BITCOINS FUTURE SCALABILITY The Greatest Guide To 11 Best Cryptocurrencies to Buy for 2020 - Cryptomaniaks

Blockchain Size (MB) The total size of the blockchain minus database indexes in megabytes. 30 Days 60 Days 180 Days 1 Year 3 Years All Time Raw Values 7 Day Average 30 Day Average Weight units are a measurement used to compare the size of different Bitcoin transactions to each other in proportion to the consensus-enforced maximum block size limit.Weight units are also used to measure the size of other block chain data, such as block headers.As of Bitcoin Core 0.13.0 (released August 2016), each weight unit represents 1/4,000,000th of the maximum size of a block. The Bitcoin protocol sets the maximum size of each new block at about 1 megabyte (MB). [There are 1,000 MB in 1 GB.] That means there is a hard limit on the maximum number of transactions the Bitcoin network can process – about 375,000 transactions a day. By contrast, there are over 1 billion credit and debit card transactions per day worldwide. The Bitcoin block size limit is a parameter in the Bitcoin protocol that limits the size of Bitcoin blocks, and, therefore, the number of transactions that can be confirmed on the network approximately every 10 minutes. The size of the Bitcoin blockchain has experienced consistently high levels of growth since its creation, reaching approximately 269.82 gigabytes in size as of the end of March 2020.

[index] [29734] [29668] [10627] [3275] [22112] [23619] [836] [28868] [4181] [9106]

Explained Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Technology & Twitter hack Marathi Dheera

The dispute which caused the production of BCH involved the issue of scalability; the Bitcoin network has a stringent limit on the size of blocks: one megabyte (MB). BCH increases the block size... The Bitcoin Lightning Network Questions - Andreas M. Antonopoulos - Duration: 15:00. ... Bitcoin Q&A: Scaling and the block size debate - Duration: 4:46. aantonop 13,856 views. Bitcoin is a consensus network that enables a new payment system and a completely digital money. It is the first decentralized peer-to-peer payment network t... Since January 2020, ether's market cap is roughly 1/10 the size of bitcoin's. Throughout 2014, Ethereum introduced a pre-sale for ether which got an overwhelming response; this helped to introduce ... Bitcoin: It is virutal cryptocurrency or digital cryptocurrency. ... Size of block chain can be 6-7GB. ... ALthough their records will still available but inherent anonymity of network means ...

Flag Counter