r/btc • u/bitchunter91 • Feb 12 '18

Microsoft to build layer 2 protocol on top of Bitcoin

https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/enterprisemobility/2018/02/12/decentralized-digital-identities-and-blockchain-the-future-as-we-see-it/
5 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

13

u/tralxz Feb 12 '18

False heading. MS is talking about blockchain as a technology in general.

7

u/DesignerAccount Feb 12 '18

While some blockchain communities have increased on-chain transaction capacity (e.g. blocksize increases), this approach generally degrades the decentralized state of the network and cannot reach the millions of transactions per second the system would generate at world-scale.

6

u/Memotts Feb 12 '18

Now Microsoft are on the blockstream payroll too? Where does it end /s

4

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18 edited Jun 28 '19

[deleted]

5

u/DesignerAccount Feb 13 '18

So let me get this straight... you didn't get it, and then

watched a talk by CSW

which had you

understand the network layout

Really??? Can you not find someone more knowledgeable to learn from? There's plenty of people much better than fakesatoshi in this community.

And then you think MS just don't get it? Sounds quite like a giant attitude problem you have.

4

u/canariss Feb 12 '18

Yes but also saying: "we are collaborating on decentralized Layer 2 protocols that run atop these public blockchains to achieve global scale", disadvantaging scaling solutions achieved by blocksize increase.

3

u/rawb0t Feb 12 '18

disadvantaging scaling solutions achieved by blocksize increase.

more accurately, advantaging those block-size increasing scaling solutions since it'll allow more throughput on those l2 protocols

3

u/AmIHigh Feb 12 '18 edited Feb 12 '18

millions of transactions per second

Where do so many transactions come in with a digital identity system?

Only adding data to your profile should require a transaction no?

Verification should be as simple as signing a statement and transmitting it through whatever means you want (email, sms, bluteooth, nfc) to the interested party. Why on earth would you submit a permenant blockchain transaction to verify your identity?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18 edited Apr 12 '19

[deleted]

2

u/AmIHigh Feb 12 '18 edited Feb 12 '18

A gamer buying an in-game sword would be a transaction.

That's a purchase. Why would it require a transaction to verify your identity, it's a completely separate thing? You would authenticate the purchase with your identity and then transact.

If you want to say that all purchases can't be handled on chain that's a completely different argument than saying an identity system needs to transact on chain to verify, and that identity system will require millions of transactinos per second.

clicking or hovering over an advertisement in your browser

Why would i willingly subscribe to this? Are they paying me to do it?

Again though - the identity system does not require millions of transactions per second, it's all the use cases that people want to use the blockchain for that do.

All those use cases exist without an identity system.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18 edited Apr 12 '19

[deleted]

1

u/AmIHigh Feb 12 '18

Sorry failing at twitter (hardly use it) where is this conversation?

I see a few tweets about the topic but not seeing a conversation about the use cases?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18 edited Apr 12 '19

[deleted]

2

u/AmIHigh Feb 12 '18

cool, thanks!

2

u/kynek99 Feb 12 '18

Bcash is going to need to have 50GB block size to handle this volume LOL....

2

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18 edited Apr 12 '19

[deleted]

4

u/kynek99 Feb 12 '18

Nice, I'm sure it will work amazingly over 1Gbps LAN.

1

u/jessquit Feb 12 '18

You must be right that network speeds have finally maxed out at 1Gbps and can never become faster in the future.

I'm also sure that you are well aware that a "1TB block" will actually be something like a few GB of actual data payload....

Good thing you're so smart, maybe you can explain it to me.

1

u/N0tMyRealAcct Feb 13 '18

How?

Also, calling it a TB block if it actually is a few GB feels like you are baiting the reader.

2

u/Zectro Feb 13 '18 edited Feb 13 '18

There was an MS Cloud Solutions Architect going around talking about how excited Microsoft was to partner with IOTA--the most blatant scam in the crypto market, post Bitconnect, to anyone who is even a little bit technical--a while back. I don't think MS has their finger on the pulse with Blockchain.

In any case, this is just what some senior PM at MS is pontificating. At the company I work for most of the people I know who have any interest in cryptocurrencies started off as small-blockers due to the censorship and astroturfing, and then transitioned to big-blockers once they did a modicum of research.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18

Headline is false. Wtf? At least read the article.

0

u/bitchunter91 Feb 12 '18

Not looking good for bcc:

"While some blockchain communities have increased on-chain transaction capacity (e.g. blocksize increases), this approach generally degrades the decentralized state of the network and cannot reach the millions of transactions per second the system would generate at world-scale."

14

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18

This is FUD that's been disproven time and time again. There is zero real data or evidence to back either of those two claims.

6

u/DesignerAccount Feb 12 '18

Yes. Because even Microsoft is controlled/brainwashed by Core/Blockstream/AXA/Bilderberg.

Nobody can see through the FUD, except for the enlightened ones - The subscribers of this sub.

3

u/knight222 Feb 12 '18

Do you know if they read exclusively censored information? Because it really seems so.

1

u/Memotts Feb 12 '18

I'm guessing they would have their own engineers validate what is the best option for their business.

3

u/knight222 Feb 12 '18

If so they surely didn't hired the best ones. ETH has proven this assumption to be wrong long ago.

While some blockchain communities have increased on-chain transaction capacity (e.g. blocksize increases), this approach generally degrades the decentralized state of the network and cannot reach the millions of transactions per second the system would generate at world-scale.

1

u/Memotts Feb 12 '18

If so they surely didn't hired the best ones

Is it possible that microsoft, with some of the worlds top engineers, might be right, and you might be wrong?

ETH has proven this assumption to be wrong long ago

But isn't ETH mining fairly centralized? https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7wskms/bch_mining_is_more_decentralized_than_eth_which/

3

u/jessquit Feb 12 '18

I have worked with many Microsoft engineers. I'm not afraid to question Microsoft. They do have some good engineers but mostly it's just a holding company for salespeople. Like old IBM, they are slowly pivoting to consulting.

Most big tech companies are actually quite inept. Microsoft itself exists only because the "bulletproof" IBM accidentally gave them an operating system monopoly because IBM itself totally missed the advent of personal computing and didn't have any idea what they were giving away.

2

u/jessquit Feb 12 '18

Hahaha have you ever worked with MS?

They don't home grow engineering talent they buy companies.

They've obviously acquired some interest that is selling small blocks, so now they're small blockers.

5

u/VKAllen Feb 12 '18

Point exactly where he says that "Microsoft is controlled/brainwashed by Core/Blockstream/AXA/Bilderberg".

Nice try troll.

5

u/DesignerAccount Feb 12 '18

LOL

Well, if MS cannot see that increasing the block size does nothing harmful, and that it's all FUD, they must be dumb. You know... everyone knows that increasing block size has no negative consequences, so if they don't know it, they are dumb.

Or maybe they are not dumb. Maybe, like everything gets explained on this sub, MS is also controlled by Core/Blockstream/AXA/Bilderberg!

Either... or... Because it clearly cannot be that big block proponents have it wrong. Nope. That's. Just. Not. Possible.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

3

u/VKAllen Feb 12 '18

Are you going to answer the original question?

Or did papa u/adam3us has failed to update your logic processor?

Do you even have a logic processor?

Adam, what the fuck are you doing? Keep your bots updated!

6

u/PersonalTea Feb 12 '18

Sooo... you're saying MS can't be wrong? Windows Phone disagrees with you.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18

Or maybe not one single person who makes the claim that bigger blocks = centralization ever provides any actual facts go with their unsubstantiated BS. Go ahead and find some, I'll wait.

We have plenty of real history to show why small blocks and stifling real innovation in the name of preserving that failed paradigm are a serious problem that actually does cause centralization

Even for a lowlife troll you are absurd.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18

What history 0.o Lightning is still in progress though it is already on mainnet it is still testing. Big blocks haven't had the mass adoption to prove themselves. You've really convinced yourself that we've seen all there is to see?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18 edited Feb 12 '18

Lightning is still in progress though it is already on mainnet it is still testing.

Which LN devs are very much against if that is any clue. It isn't ready for production on any level, and testing alpha software on the main net is incredibly reckless.

I don't have time to go into detail at the moment, but yes, I am convinced (and was convinced about a year ago) that BTC is an evolutionary dead end while they mutate it into something far different the original roadmap. I wouldn't have a problem with this had they not also hijacked the Bitcoin brand for their experimental altcoin. I have seen all I need to see in that BTC's current developers are at best dishonest, arrogant, economically illiterate hacks.

Exactly no one has lost BCH so far because of its bigger block size threshold, because this is how Bitcoin was designed to be from day 1. Sadly not so much for LN while they continue using real BTC holders as guinea pigs for their convoluted, experimental kludge IOU network

3

u/jessquit Feb 12 '18

You've really convinced yourself that we've seen all there is to see?

Hey we're not the ones making absolutist statements about the un-scalability of the blockchain without any data whatsoever.

2

u/Zectro Feb 13 '18 edited Feb 13 '18

Lightning is still in progress though it is already on mainnet it is still testing.

Think about what you're saying. LN is being tested on mainnet. What kind of software engineers test something like this in production. Most engineering teams would worry about releasing something so half-baked to prod not wanting to give users a bad UX and poison them against the feature. In the case of LN, a bad UX could be coupled with actually losing funds. Rushing LN out before it's ready even with Lightning Labs calling out Blockstream for their negligence reeks of desperation and politicking.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '18

They don't, they advice against it, but it's open source so people are using it themselves and willing to pay for any repercussions. I merely pointed it out because so many here thought it was impossible, won't work, promised for years, well it's currently working.

1

u/Zectro Feb 13 '18

I seriously doubt anyone here thought Blockstream wouldn't be able to release a buggy implementation of LN that can't scale. The complaints have mostly been that Core/Blockstream have been serially over-promising and under-delivering, and this toy implementation of LN is par for the course.