bitcoinThroughputAnalysis
ValidatedProofOfStake
bitcoinThroughputAnalysis | ValidatedProofOfStake | |
---|---|---|
16 | 9 | |
114 | 23 | |
- | - | |
0.0 | 0.0 | |
almost 3 years ago | about 5 years ago | |
Python | JavaScript | |
- | - |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
bitcoinThroughputAnalysis
-
Future self custody road block?
I did an analysis a while back that concluded that we should be able to safely increase the block size to a degree where we can see a 5-10X increase in transactions per second in the next 15-20 years because of proposed scaling improvements and increased average machine resources.
-
Why Proof-Of-Work Is A Superior Consensus Mechanism For Bitcoin
I agree. But that's unrelated to the points I was making.
-
Simon Chandler's article on PoW and PoS at Business Insider is predictably misleading
Hileman is completely wrong here. Pretty sad to see the head of research at blockchain.com get this one so wrong. The choice of consensus protocol does not affect transaction throughput or "capacity" ("capacity" as far as I can tell is not different from throughput in this context). What affects transaction throughput is the size of your transaction data and the limits placed on the blocks that hold that data. You can increase the size of your blocks to increase throughput, but as a result you inherently increase the computing resources required to participate in the network. The larger your blocks, the fewer people will be able to participate, which is one kind of centralization pressure a blockchain can create for itself. Fundamentally, distributed consensus is limited by the speed of light and physical size of the network. There are many ways to increase throughput of a blockchain like Bitcoin's, but they all boil down to reducing the data per transaction or making it more acceptable to increase the amount of data allowed in a block.
-
Do you think that the maximum blocksize limit will be ever increased?
I wrote a paper a while back on bitcoin throughput. Basically, we need as many people to run public full nodes as possible. Probably around 5 million would be enough. However currently we have orders of magnitude less than that. So until we have enough, we need to keep it easy to run a full node - as easy as possible.
-
The Limits to Blockchain Scalability
Some really good points in there. Bottle necks are basically whack a mole. I wrote a related paper on scalability in the context of bitcoin: https://github.com/fresheneesz/bitcoinThroughputAnalysis
-
Hal Finney sent this email only days after #Bitcoin was created. Mind you, a coin had no value at the time and cost $0.00. Something to think about...
If you want to discuss that, I'd be happy to. You might be interesting in reading this paper I wrote on the subject of blocksize and throughput: https://github.com/fresheneesz/bitcoinThroughputAnalysis
-
Should we consider slowing bitcoin's inflation in order to reduce energy usage?
The number of public full nodes. Bitcoin still has only about 10,000 public nodes. An attacker would only have to spend $1 million per year to eat up all the public node bandwidth that is likely available. That's only $160k per month. If someone wanted to disrupt bitcoin, that's the way to do it.
- An Analysis of Bitcoin's Throughput Bottlenecks, Potential Solutions, and Future Prospects
- An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks
ValidatedProofOfStake
-
Kraken released an analysis of PoW vs. PoS - Results are fascinating and proves why Bitcoin PoW is king.
Coins like Peercoin and Nxt have a system where each coin has a probability each second of granting the ability to mint a block. So those are a couple that don't have that kind of orphan preventing dynamic. Its the ones that use randomly chosen committees that preven orphans. Not that PoS and Nxt are very good - neither solve the nothing at stake problem. This is one that does solve the nothing at stake problem but has a similar random dynamic that doesn't prevent orphans.
-
PoS can be controlled. PoW can’t. That’s the reason why most politicians favour the former and are afraid of the latter. PoW is for the people. The main problem with politics these days is that politicians make decisions on issues they do not understand.
Part of the conservatism is good. It comes from a dumb place (bandwagoning and ignorance) but Bitcoin is multiple orders of magnitude more valuable and important at the moment than 99% of experimental coins out there right now. Bitcoin isn't the right place for high-risk experiments. But I hope one day we find a solid PoS protocol we can use for something as important as Bitcoin. Maybe we already have ; )
-
Simon Chandler's article on PoW and PoS at Business Insider is predictably misleading
Many proof of stake currencies do require "staking", which is locking up collateral in order to be able to mine. However, not all do. Some simply do not disincentivize minting on multiple chains (like Peercoin), which is a short sighted design flaw. Some PoS systems are Delegated Proof of Stake, which in principle might require locking up collateral, but might instead opt for punishing bad actors by loss of reputation (like seems to be the philosophy of BitShares), which indirectly leads to loss of revenue, rather than direct loss of coins. Other currencies, like my own Validated Proof of Stake might not use locked in stake, but may still have mechanisms to punish certain negative behaviors or outcomes.
-
Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
> Yes it is. The more people with coins actively minting in the system, the higher the difficulty of getting chosen.
I'm well aware. But eventually a large validator will get chosen--it's not difficult to get chosen, it's rare. The fact that PoS folks call this "difficulty" does not make it so.
> If you really want to keep discussing this with me, read through the WHOLE of https://github.com/fresheneesz/validatedProofOfStake and show me a full attack on it.
Given your proposed solution is checkpoints from a centralized trusted entity, you're giving up decentralization. Sure, your solution works. But if you're willing to give up decentralization, you might as well just store the transactions in Postgres. It's faster and has more mature tooling.
-
[bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future
I don't know of any techniques to prevent stake grinding that trade off security properties. Of course there are PoS protocols that both prevent stake grinding and also have security issues, but that's not the same thing. In any case, I don't see you backing up your claims here, so I guess I'll wait until you do. I'll give you one protocol that doesn't have the unpleasant properties you're talking about. I'd be happy to discuss any security holes you find in it.
-
I made these for the Energy FUDsters. If you like crypto infographics, data, charts & crypto news please feel free to follow @thatbitcoinpage on Instagram!
So its still unlikely to cost more for energy than gold mining for a while yet. Maybe in 8 years we'll discover a PoS protocol that doesn't suck.
-
Some perspective on the energy expenditure FUD
However I do think we can do better than proof of work. I think proof of stake can actually be much more secure while at the same time expending far less energy if designed properly. Granted, I haven't seen any pos protocol that has been designed properly. I have done some work to that effect tho: https://github.com/fresheneesz/ValidatedProofOfStake
What are some alternatives?
Bitcoin - Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree
nomic - Rust implementation of the Nomic Bitcoin sidechain
solana - Web-Scale Blockchain for fast, secure, scalable, decentralized apps and marketplaces.
bips - Bitcoin Improvement Proposals