New Standard to Avoid Ethreum Contract Size Limitation Developed

New Standard to Avoid Ethreum Contract Size Limitation Developed

Programmer suggests a standardized proxy contract will solve the Ethereum contract size limitation.

[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=“show“ ihc_mb_who=“reg“ ihc_mb_template=“1″ ]

As Ethereum contracts can hit the maximum contract size limit of 24KB when there are too many functions and too much code, a new standard has been developed to help combat it. 

Programmer Nick Mudge revealed in his blog post on July 10 that although Vitalik Buterin’s insistence on using “proxy contracts” could be the potential solution to the limitations, a standardized proxy contract called Diamond Standard he created could be the icing on the cake. Proxy contracts are contracts that can stay small by borrowing functions from other contracts. 

Mudge noted standard contracts such as ERC1400 Security Token Standards requiring many functions and events, implementing standard contracts could easily hit the limitation.

According to Mudge, Diamond Standard can standardize how programmers can create a small contract borrowing functions from any number of contracts. A contract that implements the Diamond Standard is called a diamond to differentiate it from regular ones and proxy contracts. 

Other than having many different sides and functions, Diamond Standard is also reported to have a flexible and transparent method of creating upgradeable diamonds. 

Community is supporting the new creation

Mudge says the community has been supportive of the new program. Several companies and individuals have already explored the Diamond Standard’s potential.

ConsenSys Diligence conducted a public security audit of Codefi’s contracts and suggested that Codefi use the Diamond Standard to solve the maximum contract size limit problem. VolleyFire, a liquidity provider for decentralized exchanges is using diamonds. 

As Cointelegraph reported previously, on the Ethereum blockchain, by using a command and a proxy contract, upgradeable contracts can be issued. This gives developers some control over the contract after it has been issued. 

Alibaba reportedly seeks to develop a blockchain system that enables authorized parties to intervene in a smart contract.


Zur Quelle
[/ihc-hide-content]

Programmer suggests a standardized proxy contract will solve the Ethereum contract size limitation.

Bitcoin Block Size Sees New All Time High, Hash Rate Catching Up

Bitcoin Block Size Sees New All Time High, Hash Rate Catching Up

The average block size of the Bitcoin network peaked at 1.341 MB on May 2, with the mining hash rate approaching a new all-time high.

[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=“show“ ihc_mb_who=“reg“ ihc_mb_template=“1″ ]

The mean block size of the Bitcoin network peaked this month, with the hash rate setting new records before the rewards halving, scheduled in about 10 hours at the time of press.

According to data available on blockchain.com, the mean block size of the Bitcoin (BTC) network peaked at 1.341 MB on May 2, with a second smaller peak of 1.312 MB on May 7. The previous all-time high (ATH) was in December 2019, at 1.314 MB.

Source: blockchain.com

With the halving approaching, the Bitcoin network is likewise seeing a significant increase in fees, possibly to prioritize transactions. The average transaction fee for BTC peaked at $3.19 on May 8, an increase of over 300% from the average fee of $0.62 on April 26.

New ATH for BTC hash rate?

At the same time, BTC’s mining hash rate is seeing major volatility ahead of the halving event. On May 3, the hash rate reached more than 142 exahashes per second (EH/s) according to data from Glassnode. Data from Blockchain.com paints a similar picture but suggests that the peak in hash power occurred on May 2 and that a new ATH may happen on May 11, right before the halving occurs.

Source: blockchain.com

Miners are steadily approaching a new ATH. At the time of writing on May 11, the BTC hash rate was just over 136 EH/s according to Blockchain.com.


Zur Quelle
[/ihc-hide-content]

The average block size of the Bitcoin network peaked at 1.341 MB on May 2, with the mining hash rate approaching a new all-time high.

Bitcoin’s Mempool Saw an Anomalous Number of Big Transactions on Friday

Bitcoin’s Mempool Saw an Anomalous Number of Big Transactions on Friday

Bitcoin’s blockchain mempool reached a size not seen since January 2018 on Saturday

[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=“show“ ihc_mb_who=“reg“ ihc_mb_template=“1″ ]

On Nov. 15, Bitcoin’s (BTC) blockchain mempool was at its highest level since January last year, according to figures from blockchain data website Blockchain.

On Nov. 15, Bitcoin’s mempool size reached over 90 megabytes (MB), a value not seen since January 2018. The Bitcoin mempool holds all the unconfirmed transactions that are waiting to be validated by miners. 

One-year chart of Bitcoin mempool size in bytes

One-year chart of Bitcoin mempool size in bytes. Source: Blockchain.com

An apparent anomaly

In most cases, the bigger the mempool, the more transactions are waiting to be confirmed by miners, but in this case, the situation is quite different. At its peak, the number of unconfirmed transactions sitting in Bitcoin’s mempool on Nov. 15 was a little over 20,000.

The number was higher — if only by a couple hundred of transactions — only two days before, with a mempool of about 12.6MB at its highest. All of this data seemingly indicates that last weekend, the average size of transactions was significantly bigger than usual.

Bigger than usual transactions generally involve many inputs or outputs, or simply store data on the blockchain. Alex Saunders, the CEO and founder of Australian cryptocurrency news outlet NuggetsNewsAU, suggested in a tweet on Nov. 17 that the cause of the large size of the mempool was the activity of cryptocurrency exchange Binance.

Saunders said that the mempool was filled by Binance moving small quantities of Bitcoin or Omni-based Tether (USDT) from many addresses with the lowest possible fees, which would result in the transactions being held in the mempool for more time.

At the end of 2017, Bitcoin saw its mempool reach 120MB and transaction fees cost as much as $16. At the time, Bitcoin analyst and researcher Nic Carter suggested that the mempool showed suspicious behavior because the network was flooded by a great number of transactions sent with the lowest possible fees.


Zur Quelle
[/ihc-hide-content]

Bitcoin’s blockchain mempool reached a size not seen since January 2018 on Saturday

Blockstream’s Samson Mow: Bitcoin’s Block Size May Already Be ‘Too Big’

Blockstream’s Samson Mow: Bitcoin’s Block Size May Already Be ‘Too Big’

Even 1MB blocks are more than Bitcoin needs, says Samson Mow

[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=“show“ ihc_mb_who=“reg“ ihc_mb_template=“1″ ]

The chief strategy officer at Bitcoin (BTC) technology firm Blockstream has said that the current block size capacity may not even be needed in the future.

Speaking in an interview with industry news outlet Decrypt on Oct. 6, Samson Mow stated that as off-chain scaling solutions such as the Lightning Network (LN) progress, Bitcoin will need less on-chain capacity.

Current block size is suitable

According to Mow, Bitcoin now has the equivalent of 4-megabyte blocks if transactions which use Segregated Witness technology are included. The future will show, however, “that the current block size may actually be ‘too big,’” he noted.

Mow’s comments are in stark contrast with the often quoted narrative among commentators who worry that Bitcoin’s network capacity will fail to deal with future increases in demand.

Mow champions the Lightning Network for Bitcoin

Blocks are currently around 1 megabyte in size. Off-chain transactions do not contribute to network load by filling them up, and hence the technology which allows them is seeing considerable development.

For Mow, the LN represents the most likely winner. The protocol allows almost instant off-chain Bitcoin transactions which can cost just 1 satoshi ($0.00007944 at press time). Its popularity remains limited due to its experimental nature and lack of user-friendly interface, but adoption must continue in order to advance the LN’s status. Mow explained:

“Lightning has to grow organically, there’s no real way to jumpstart it artificially. People need to open up channels, lock up Bitcoins and start connecting with other nodes.”

Earlier in 2019, the Lightning Torch transaction relay has significantly increased the profile of both the technology and Bitcoin itself, with participants including Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.


Zur Quelle
[/ihc-hide-content]

Even 1MB blocks are more than Bitcoin needs, says Samson Mow

Bitcoin Cash Learns Block Size Economics, Ver Says BCH Not Restricted

Bitcoin Cash Learns Block Size Economics, Ver Says BCH Not Restricted

Is Bitcoin Cash incapable of scaling or is it merely a media circus? Developer indications of a 2MB block size limit have set the community abuzz

[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=“show“ ihc_mb_who=“reg“ ihc_mb_template=“1″ ]

Those who have followed the Bitcoin saga from the very beginning know that it’s a mistake in 2019 to only pay attention to the so-called “grandfather cryptocurrency,” as that would mean ignoring Bitcoin’s many relatives (and competitors) that share the same DNA. Bitcoin Cash (BCH), when it comes down to brass tacks, is similar to Bitcoin in most ways, but with one large distinction — it’s bigger block size of 32 megabytes. This is a result of BCH innovator Roger Ver’s idea that scaling should be possible on-chain, without third-party accelerators like the Lightning Network.

This project’s proposed solution to the decade-long debate on decentralized network scaling recently took a bit of egg to the face, when lead developer Amaury Séchet suggested on Reddit that he believes BCH miners are unwilling to process blocks any bigger than 2MB in size. 

The claim has been mischaracterized since, but the limits on Bitcoin Cash’s capacity might be relevant after all. Making block size the epicenter of the scaling debate complicates the problem with economics (see below), and the ease with which blockchains multiply may have also impeded the industry as a whole.

Are BCH limits self-imposed?

In April 2009, Satoshi Nakamoto posted to Bitcointalk.org, writing: “The existing 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.” 

The next year, the debate began with Jeff Garzik, who posted his desire to see Bitcoin “at least match PayPal’s average transaction rate” and suggested a patch — which later failed to win support — for scaling up the network. Bitcoin still hasn’t reached consensus on the matter, which is why so many projects have sprouted off of it — e.g., BCH, Bitcoin Gold (BCG), Bitcoin SV (BSV) — and on top of it, such as the Lightning Network.

Related: Lightning Network, Explained

An issue that wasn’t anticipated in the early community was that implementing larger blocks does indeed make the chain “wider” and thereby faster — but given the need to simultaneously update every node on the ledger, it also puts greater strain on participants. Larger blocks require more resources from everyone, meaning individual PCs become outpowered. 

Therefore, powering the blockchain inevitably lands in the hands of those who have consolidated PC power, invariably resulting in centralization. With a dearth of machines capable of this kind of power anyway, it’s no wonder that the network almost never mines blocks of maximum size, and the average block size largely strays toward 1MB or less. Few have asked if it matters.

Economic entanglement

Block size also throws an economic wrench into the problem, though in the end, it may stem from the idea that a desire for gains in fiat value limits blockchain efficacy, due to the desire for participants to “break even” on cost. It’s true that the hard-forked BCH can technically process a 32MB block, but it does not matter when most miners are unwilling to raise their block size limit. 

Related: Bitcoin Block Size, Explained

Block size, like any decentralized idea, is somewhat of a two-way street that must be agreed upon by those who support the network. Miners — and many who are part of the biggest BCH mining pools — don’t have much incentive to allow larger blocks because their fees don’t scale well with block size.

Mining software allows miners to accept or reject payments based on the size of the attached fee, which is itself set by BCH wallets and wallet owners who wish to prioritize their transactions accordingly. Many miners won’t process transactions that don’t have a hefty fee reward, as these can be as low as a single Satoshi, the smallest divisible unit for Bitcoin, and are instead incentivized by the block reward only. 

The mempool (i.e., the “waiting room” for transactions in the BCH queue) therefore spikes to over 1,000 regularly, showing the direct effect of soft-capping by mining pools like Antminer, BTC.com and Bitcoin.com. It’s a business risk, as one Redditor pointed out, and somewhat of a paradox: Why would miners tax their hardware exponentially for a minute financial gain, even if it radically advances the ability of their underlying instrument?

With mining already centralized due to the ASIC arms race and profitability, miners get to make this decision anyway. Big blocks such as those supported by BCH naturally delegate the network’s burden to these miners, who begin needing better hardware to support the expectation of faster and cheaper transactions. Smaller blocks put the financial onus on users via fees. If you’re a miner with the ability to determine your software’s max block size, there’s no question which choice you’ll make.

Developers and BCH leaders speak out

The limelight on Bitcoin Cash isn’t going unaddressed. Concerning both the potential impediment that speculation over the scaling competition represents and the real muscle behind larger blocks, BCH developers and even its outspoken founder, Roger Ver, have a lot to say. Asked if Bitcoin Cash truly has a 2MB limit, Ver noted in a conversation with Cointelegraph: 

“I’m already working directly with payment companies that expect to reach close to 100 transactions per second with 100M+ users around the world. If BCH had a 2MB limit, they wouldn’t be interested in it, and for this same reason they aren’t considering BTC either.”

There will always be those who are critical of a blockchain solution for its approach to decentralization, or for compromising on relevant principles for speed and mainstream appeal. The ball is in Bitcoin Cash’s court — though, in characteristic fashion, its leader was quick to extinguish doubts and tout the strengths of the product. Ver concluded: 

“The 1MB block size limit and censorship of discussion clearly have already set the industry back by close to half a decade, and more mischaracterization of Amaury’s post winds the clock back further. Bitcoin Cash’s block size restriction isn’t true.”


Zur Quelle
[/ihc-hide-content]

Is Bitcoin Cash incapable of scaling or is it merely a media circus? Developer indications of a 2MB block size limit have set the community abuzz

R3 Doubles London Office Size in Anticipation of Growing Branch

R3 Doubles London Office Size in Anticipation of Growing Branch

R3 is doubling the size of its London office to support new hires by the start of 2020

[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=“show“ ihc_mb_who=“reg“ ihc_mb_template=“1″ ]

New York-based enterprise software firm R3, known for its enterprise blockchain platform Corda, has doubled the size of its London Wall office. Business intelligence firm Mondo Visione reported on the company’s new hiring goals on Aug. 1.

According to the report, R3 has increased the size of its London branch as partial accommodation for the company’s intended 85 global hires by the end of 2019. Out of the 85, over half are intended to be installed in the company’s London office. R3 is reportedly primarily recruiting software engineers, but will also onboard some commercial and client-facing professionals.

Additionally, the report states that the London expansion is a cornerstone of R3’s rapid growth plans. The company reportedly is seeking to add a new engineering center by early 2020, and is currently mulling over the best location for its new building. R3 is reportedly scheduled to announce the location some time in the coming months.

According to R3 CEO David E. Rutter, the United Kingdom’s impending departure from the European Union will position London in a favorable economic position:

“There is enormous opportunity for London post-Brexit. While there clearly remain some uncertainties, we believe the city is well placed and established to thrive in the coming years. That’s why we are confident in making this substantial long-term commitment now. 

Three years after Britons voted to leave the EU, Brexit has still not been accomplished as the Parliament has failed to reach any substantive agreement. In May, the President of the European Council Donald Tusk predicted a 20-30% chance of it being cancelled outright, while Business Insider states that a Scottish court could rule out Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s plan to suspend Parliament and force a deal through.

R3 blockchain in Brazil

As previously reported by Cointelegraph, R3 has moved to develop a blockchain platform in Brazil as of June. More specifically, R3 has partnered with the banks Bradesco, Itau and B3 stock exchange to build a platform for foreign trade and insurance. R3 executives apparently shared the news at an R3 Consortium meeting, the members of which are from large banks and tech companies. The consortium has also said that the Brazilian stock exchange is currently using R3’s signature Corda platform for digital identification.


Zur Quelle
[/ihc-hide-content]

R3 is doubling the size of its London office to support new hires by the start of 2020

Bitcoin Block Size, Explained

Bitcoin Block Size, Explained

As chains compete to propose sound solutions to the block size debate, we take a look back at the major events that have defined the block size discourse

[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=“show“ ihc_mb_who=“reg“ ihc_mb_template=“1″ ]

3.

Over the years, Bitcoin has seen numerous proposals advocating that an increase is needed in order to reduce fees, process more transactions per second and allow Bitcoin to scale to compete with mainstream payments technologies.  

On May 4, 2015, Gavin Andresen published an article titled “Why increasing the max block size is urgent,” further escalating the perceived gravity of the block size debate, despite the average BTC block then being only 30-40% full. Andresen warned:

“If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don’t think that is likely — it is more likely people just stop using Bitcoin because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable.”

Later that month, Andresen asserted that he would shift his work toward alternative client Bitcoin XT should the community fail to reach consensus regarding the implementation of a block size increase. The 0.10 version of Bitcoin XT had been launched during December 2014 by Bitcoin Core developer and prominent critic of the 1 MB block limit Mike Hearn.

On June 4, 2015, Andresen advocated that the miners and node operators should be able to autonomously decide the size of blocks, arguing that the community should either maintain the limit and “see how high transactions fees must rise until miners realize they’re ‘leaving money on the table’ and raise the -blockmaxsie themselves” or alternatively “replace the limit with a ‘go along with the crowd’ rule that means any miner that doesn’t care will create blocks that neither increase nor decrease the average block size.”

On June 12, 2015, a statement requesting the introduction 8 MB blocks that had been signed by major Chinese mining pools F2pool, BTCChina, Antpool, Huobi and BW surfaced online, indicating transnational demand for larger blocks.

On June 22, 2015, Andresen published Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 101, which advocated “replacing the fixed one-megabyte maximum block size with a maximum size that grows over time at a predictable rate.”


Zur Quelle
[/ihc-hide-content]

As chains compete to propose sound solutions to the block size debate, we take a look back at the major events that have defined the block size discourse

Spam Attack? Bitcoin Average Block Size Suddenly Spikes to Over 3MB

Spam Attack? Bitcoin Average Block Size Suddenly Spikes to Over 3MB

Curious spike in Bitcoin average block size coincides with VeriBlock transaction reporting

[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=“show“ ihc_mb_who=“reg“ ihc_mb_template=“1″ ]

Blockchain validation platform VeriBlock produced almost 25% of on-chain Bitcoin (BTC) transactions in 24 hours July 14, the company confirmed on social media.

VeriBlock, which uses its own ‘Proof-of-Proof’ protocol to validate blockchains using Bitcoin’s computing power, launched its mainnet implementation in March. 

The service allows miners to compete for block rewards on altcoin blockchains, while tapping into Bitcoin’s superior levels of security due to the computing power sustaining its Proof-of-Work algorithm. 

The roughly one-quarter figure signalled by VeriBlock this weekend equates to around 68,000 transactions. 

Veriblock had previously generated higher proportions of Bitcoin traffic. According to statistics from monitoring resource and wallet provider Blockchain, however, the more recent figures appeared to coincide with a sharp spike in the average block size on the Bitcoin blockchain.

For July 13 and 14, the average block size suddenly jumped from around 1 megabyte to over 3 megabytes — by far the highest average in Bitcoin’s history. 

While the data is not repeated across other monitoring resources, VeriBlock will likely fuel existing speculation its activities overload the Bitcoin network with transactions, which are not genuine. 

The company has refuted that idea, its website still hosting comments from educator Andreas Antonopoulos from January, when he discussed VeriBlock and the issue of “spam” transactions. 

Despite the block size increasing, however, Bitcoin’s fee market appeared little changed in recent days. Getting a transaction processed within six blocks cost 7 satoshis per byte on July 13, and 8 per byte the following day, data from Bitcoinfees.info reports.

During Bitcoin’s three-month bull market beginning April 1, the network conversely saw periods of heightened fees, these coinciding with upticks in BTC/USD as it moved from around $4,000 towards highs of $13,800.


Zur Quelle
[/ihc-hide-content]

Curious spike in Bitcoin average block size coincides with VeriBlock transaction reporting