python - Sending IPv6 multicast packets through a specific ...
python - Sending IPv6 multicast packets through a specific ...
IPv6 multicast addresses: Is the Group ID field ...
Why can't IPv6 send broadcasts? - Server Fault
What is multicast IP routing? Plus Multicast Types and ...
There’s No Place Like ::1 — Enumerating Local IPv6 ...
Curiosity....
Hi there, so I've been doing some research and noticed that Metanet is very similar to what another project I follow very closely is doing. I'm not trolling here, I can see that SV has some good idea's and a good team behind it, and I feel that to achieve ultimate success some projects will need to work with others to cater to more individuals as this is not a zero sums game. This other project already has a completed protocol being audited and running on testnet ready for a July/August release, way ahead of Ethereum, Cardano, Eos and basically any project trying to achieve 'on chain' high throughput. They are going to relesse a multicast internet using the IPV6 standard and they have connections to a cube satellite company and plan to launch cube sats with full node running a new internet protocol. Their blockchain has many state of the art features and I see SV moving in this direction, but instead of throwing the kitchen sink into everything why not try to work with a company that has already came up with the solution and could probably use the help of the team behind SV to achieve ultimate success and mass adoption. Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin core are clearly stuck in their ways and will fall further behind, metanet seems like a great idea but it won't be first to market, it seems like Craig has had all these great ideas but someone has also been thinking inline with Craig and already added a lot of these feature talked about by Craig before Craig publicly spoke about any of it. Obviously Craig is highly resourceful and an intelligent future thinking, but maybe to over throw Bitcoin core, Ethereum, Cardano and Eos two projects working together might be better then one. As this project already has a 'Metanet' basically ready to deploy maybe the team at SV could help work with the some extra features and the merchant side of things and then the mass adoption will follow. Food for thought. I feel like I can't mention the project on here in fear of the comunity attacking the other project but maybe something good will come from this.
M. Sc. in Telecommunications here. I don't think we will ever have a problem with network bandwidth.
I've been following a little the discussions on this subreddit about how well the blockchain could scale eventually. I would like to share some of my own views with regards to network bandwidth. I have a Master of Science degree in Telecommunications (although to be honest, my major was in signal processing and acoustics, focus on real-time systems, but I took several courses about network protocols et cetera) and I work in the field. There are several reasons why I think that network bandwidth will never be a show stopper for the mainstream adoption of Bitcoin:
First of all, there's the often cited Nielsen's Law which states that network connection speeds would increase 50% every year. My home connection is currently 100/10 (Mbps), but let's assume it would be something like 1/1. According to Nielsen's Law it would be approximately 60/60 Mbps in 10 years. Assuming the only web traffic I have would be blocks from the blockchain and no orphans, it would support more than 4 GB blocks.
In my opinion, what is more interesting than Nielsen's Law is what's happening in the internet space in general. While Nielsen's Law always could cease from delivering, the forecast right now is the opposite. Live streaming video is becoming more popular as we speak. The forecast shows that this trend is only accelerating. You know how much video streaming eats up bandwidth? Bitcoin traffic will always be peanuts compared to it.
However, let's pretend both the points above don't hold true and Bitcoin traffic becomes a real issue for internet service providers. With my experience from the field I would say the whole ecosystem only grows stronger from technical challenges. While some service providers could fail to deliver, others would pick up the slack. Players in the field are always looking for ways to stand out from the crowd.
If everything else would fail, I think that ultimately we could use the IPv6 multicast feature for Bitcoin traffic. Both transactions and block relying should fit very nicely into multicast. As far as I know, IPv6 multicast is not widely adopted right now, but if Bitcoin would get viral I'm sure the technical solutions would pop up and core network router providers would need to adapt. There are a lot of young communication networks researchers who are looking for interesting problems to solve. Using IPv6 multicast to support Bitcoin traffic is certainly one of those.
To reiterate, I don't think Bitcoin traffic will ever be a show stopper. It will scale even if blocks would get big and there would be a lot of transactions. Storage space is a completely different topic, and so is retrieval of old data. I'm not an expert on those so I will leave that to others.
IPv6 includes much better multicast features and many more multicast addresses than IPv4. Since multicast under IPv4 was hampered in large part due to lack of support of the feature by many hardware devices, support for multicasting is a required, not optional, part of IPv6. About Bitcoin 01-15-2020. Bitcoin. Beginner Recent Badges. Awards. Stats. Member since 10-22-2019. 4 Posts 0 Helpful 0 Solutions Latest Contributions by Bitcoin. Latest Contributions by Bitcoin ... NX-OS 9K Switch IPV6 CLI Commands Created by Bitcoin in Switching. 12-20-2019. 12-20-2019. The initial scan performed by the web application sends out eight IPv6 multicast packets and immediately plots the devices that responded to a force-directed graph. ... Bitcoin: If Not HODLing ... windows: issue with ipv6 address detection. I guess that by some reason there is no ipv6 address reported. Can you try the following code to verify that you have IPv6 address, and libevent sees it.. I'm not sure what the supported versions of Windows are for libevent, so obviously changing those defines isn't necessarily a solution here, but I'm happy to help improve this if it's deemed an issue. IPv6 solved that problem with ULA that gives each company a set of local addresses that have a high probability of being unique. If the companies need to use multicast between them, then the IPv4 globally unique multicast was rather limiting with only 256 different multicast addresses. IPv6 multicast solves that problem.
IPv6 and IPv4 networks act differently, and solicited node multicast groups sit at the heart of IPv6's improved speed and efficiency. A device on a network doesn't know, by default, the Layer 2 ... MicroNugget: Solicited Nodes Multicast Group in IPv6 - Duration: 7:36. Keith Barker 3,427 views. ... 'Fake Bitcoin' - How this Woman Scammed the World, then Vanished - Duration: 17:50. Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. - Silent - 山梨では アマチュアにより IPv4.Multicastは 2001年夏から、IPv6,MUlticastは 2007年春から、 簡単な模擬実験が行われております。 (NTT-NGN直近 ... CCNA/CCENT 200-120: IPv6 Unicast and Multicast 23/84 Free Video Training Course - Duration: 19:30. Andrew Crouthamel 24,257 views. 19:30. Cisco Router Access-Lists Part 3 ...
