Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it's not.
Contribute to the discussion please as to why private property rights should not apply?
Bitcoin Is Dead, Long Live Bitcoin
41–50 of 199 posts
Re: Bitcoin Is Dead, Long Live Bitcoin
#42Back in 2009 when I was getting into bitcoin, it was widely described as a "stateless currency" and not just an alternative to Visa or credit cards. Having a background in economics, bitcoin looked to me like a truly revolutionary technology and if it was adopted en masse would change politics forever. The problem however is that a nation's currency is arguably the primary source of it's sovereignty. Whomever control…
Re: Bitcoin Is Dead, Long Live Bitcoin
#43Re: Bitcoin Is Dead, Long Live Bitcoin
#44Back in 2009 when I was getting into bitcoin, it was widely described as a "stateless currency" and not just an alternative to Visa or credit cards. Having a background in economics, bitcoin looked to me like a truly revolutionary technology and if it was adopted en masse would change politics forever. The problem however is that a nation's currency is arguably the primary source of it's sovereignty. Whomever control…
How does Canadian Tire Money work then? :^)
Re: Bitcoin Is Dead, Long Live Bitcoin
#45> At the core of the debate is whether the Bitcoin blockchain should be a settlement layer that supports a number of new blockchains that can be scaled to achieve various goals or whether the Bitcoin blockchain itself should evolve in a way that it can scale to achieve those various goals. No, among the developers actually working on Bitcoin that is not what the debate is about at all. Bitcoin is a decentralized ledg…
This is very interesting and another rephrasing of "what the debate is actually about!" At this point, as a complete outsider to Bitcoin I must say I am a bit confused. Here are the camps I am seeing: Hearn seems to be saying that Bitcoin right now is not really decentralized - aka the Chinese firewall problem and so much power already centralized in a few peoples hands. He also seems to be saying that the motivation…
This is true, and people are working to fix it on many levels. For example, separating the transaction selection from coinbase reward (what p2pool does, but with better scaling properties). Also, large chip manufacturers like BitFury selling all-in-one mining setups rather than running the miners themselves--they are presently doing mostly in-house mining, but are moving in the right direction. Also, smart property miners so that it doesn't matter if the hardware centralizes to where power is cheapest. There are also protocol-level changes along the lines of Bitcoin-NG, or non-outsourceable puzzles which remove a good deal of the mining centralization pressures.
So what you might not have gotten from the Hearn article is that this is a known problem and while scarily bad, work is progressing on this front.
> He also seems to be saying that the motivations for Bitcoin Core developers are not based on good faith technical disagreements, but more about bad faith political disagreements.
I don't know what to say to that. We had two open workshops last year for discussing the scaling problem, which Hearn did not participate in. We have a plan for increasing the capacity of the system which also references what we do genuinely believe to be the technical hurdles to scaling. I charitably hope that Hearn is simply ignorant on this matter.
> I assume you also believe that Hearn's qualms about the current centralization are wrong in some way.
No, the present state of mining centralization is concerning. But I'm not willing to throw in the towel on that just yet.
> Can you tell me why the decentralized ledger can't just be made more granular so that increasing the block size might make kick out current under-powered nodes, but those nodes could be turned into virtual nodes where under-powered machines could pool resources to establish a virtual node and thus maintain decentralization?
Decentralization in Bitcoin is about mining decentralization. Everything else barely matters. A cabal of miners can censor transactions costlessly. A cabal of miners can require extra-protocol information to de-anonymize bitcoin holders. A cabal of miners can keep anyone else from mining bitcoin, thereby closing off competitors. The threat to Bitcoin's decentralization is centralization of control over the mining hashpower -- whether from the form of pools, or external coercion on pools, or companies having exclusive or back-door access to mining hardware (e.g. 21co).
Outside of the back-doors, what causes mining centralization is a combination of validation cost, latency, and external factors like electrical power subsidies.
But, having said that, what you propose is known in the community as 'probabilistic validation' -- only checking part of the contents of a block and being able to relay small fraud proofs when such validation fails. This requires the ability to create such fraud proofs, which we will get with segregated witness (being worked on by Bitcoin Core right now), and with a lot work will eventually get us to the point where validation cost is not concern so long as there is a large, healthy network of probabilistically validating full nodes.
But we'd still have latency and real world power economies to worry about.
Re: Bitcoin Is Dead, Long Live Bitcoin
#461. a 32 MB block, when filled with simple P2PKH transactions, can hold approximately 167,000 transactions, which, assuming a block is mined every 10 minutes, translates to approximately 270 tps
2. a single machine acting as a full node takes approximately 10 minutes to verify and process a 32 MB block, meaning that a 32 MB block size is near the maximum one could expect to handle with 1 machine acting as a full node
3. a CPU profile of the time spent processing a 32 MB block by a full node is dominated by ECDSA signature verification, meaning that with the current infrastructure and computer hardware, scaling above 300 tps would require a clustered full node where ECDSA signature checking is load balanced across multiple machines.
For context, a meager 300 tps is less than 10% of what VISA does - hence this solves no long standing problems in Bitcoin, yet it condemns all the nodes to run in compute clusters in datacenters. Naturally, "small blockists" as we're called, point out that this isn't how Bitcoin works today at all. Forcing nodes into compute clusters in remote datacenters is a major, sweeping departure from nodes running on home networks with consequences both forseeable and unforseeable.
[1]: https://blog.conformal.com/btcsim-simulating-the-rise-of-bit...
Re: Bitcoin Is Dead, Long Live Bitcoin
#47Back in 2009 when I was getting into bitcoin, it was widely described as a "stateless currency" and not just an alternative to Visa or credit cards. Having a background in economics, bitcoin looked to me like a truly revolutionary technology and if it was adopted en masse would change politics forever. The problem however is that a nation's currency is arguably the primary source of it's sovereignty. Whomever control…
Not really. Many countries do not mint their own currency, and other mint currency but peg its value to another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution
What constitutes sovereignty is complex. It mostly comes down either legal recognition of sovereignty (de jure) or physical/guns on the ground control (de facto).
Re: Bitcoin Is Dead, Long Live Bitcoin
#48Back in 2009 when I was getting into bitcoin, it was widely described as a "stateless currency" and not just an alternative to Visa or credit cards. Having a background in economics, bitcoin looked to me like a truly revolutionary technology and if it was adopted en masse would change politics forever. The problem however is that a nation's currency is arguably the primary source of it's sovereignty. Whomever control…
Likewise, if people can use Bitcoin or some other digital currency to achieve some measure of independence from existing states, it will have achieved something important. Perhaps something important of the scale you mention will come about, but it will take more time.
Re: Bitcoin Is Dead, Long Live Bitcoin
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no history with Bitcoin, but if people want the value of Bitcoin to go up I think it'd behoove them to make Bitcoin useful to people as a solution to a problem. I'm not sure the idea of a decentralized reserve currency with unknown/random time-to-liquidity is a very useful solution to any problem. Bitcoin obviously has value right now as demonstrated by the fact that people can go out and exchange coins for th…
It isn't about computational difficulty. Larger block sizes simply mean larger blockchains and more network use to transfer them around. The verification of transactions in bitcoin is central to its protocol. Its the whole reason its novel and relevant. You would have to change the proof of work system from sha256 hashing to something else to make it anything but optimal for computation on specialized ASIC hardware.…
Re: Bitcoin Is Dead, Long Live Bitcoin
#50The problem with bitcoin, as I see it, is that discussion of problems that may exist can lower the value of bitcoin- whether the problem is real or not. If you're heavily invested emotionally with bitcoins, you need to discuss these problems so that they can be solved. If you're heavily invested financially , you need to make sure no one talks about these problems, at least until you have a plan for how you're not go…