Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions

moneyandstate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 121 posts

Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions

#21

Post by slaveofallah93 »

steveklabnik wrote: post #18
pmorici wrote: post #2

There is a small faction of the Bitcoin community working exceptionally hard to prevent any block size increase. I find their motives really baffling. They had some legitimate arguments a few years ago when discussion of this issue first started but those have all since been superseded by improvements in the protocol like xthin. They now resort to distasteful tactics by running anyone out of town that even so much as…

> Eeveyone else is shadow banned. On reddit, only admins can shadow ban, and they claimed that they stopped doing it over a year ago, in my understanding.

Subs can do a pseudo-shadowban by setting up automoderator to delete any comment you make automatically without explicitly banning you.

Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions

#22

Post by pmorici »

hnolable wrote: post #19
pmorici wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Segwit is not a 2x block size increase. That is marketing spin that Blockstream started spreading to try and fool people into supporting their agenda w/o having to compromise and raise the block size. Segwit does _not_ increase the block size in the sense that people are discussing and in some cases it might even make the transaction throughput much worse than the current system. The whole reason people want bigger b…

You can play semantical games but segwit gives about 2x onchain capacity. And the only thing holding it up is a group of chinese miners/pools. Anyone truly wanting more onchain capacity should be engaging those miners/pools. Of course that's not really what people bitching about tx fees want.

That's my point exactly people calling segwit a block size increase are playing semantic games. Miners and devs met a year ago and agreed on a path forward of segwit+hardfork blocksize increase to 2MB. Now they are trying to get people to activate segwit w/o a 2mb increase. It's not a mystery why this is happening and it isn't just Chinese miners that oppose it.

Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions

#23

Post by cloakandswagger »

joshontheweb wrote: post #11
knocte wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really baffling, I perceived quite the opposite.

Can you expound on why? I'm interested in hearing both sides of this.

I've been an outside observer of the block size debate for a while now, so here is my naive take on it:

The anti-block size increase camp says that increasing the block size is only a temporary fix, and that no blockchain can accommodate Visa levels of throughput.

They also posit that any increase in the block size will make running a full node more difficult, meaning Bitcoin will become more and more centralized and consolidated around the big mining pools that have the hardware to handle bigger block sizes.

However, many in the anti camp are pro segwit (segregated witness), a code change that does several things and is the first step to enabling off-chain networks like Lightning Network. These are basically pools of Bitcoins tracked by networks off the blockchain that would allow you to instantly exchange Bitcoins to anyone else in your network.

This is a big problem for miners who have poured lots of money into their rigs, because now the blockchain would be little more than a settlement network. There would be far more transactions occurring off the network, meaning less money for miners.

Again I'm no expert on this but this seems to be the crux of the debate. The Core developers seem to be OK with having the blockchain relegated to being a settlement network (similar to how Visa, your bank and merchants work together), but many people are opposed to this, partly because these off-chain networks would quickly form large central "hubs" which would obviate many of the benefits of Bitcoin (anonymity, privacy, security and decentralization).

Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions

#24

Post by pmorici »

steveklabnik wrote: post #18
pmorici wrote: post #2

There is a small faction of the Bitcoin community working exceptionally hard to prevent any block size increase. I find their motives really baffling. They had some legitimate arguments a few years ago when discussion of this issue first started but those have all since been superseded by improvements in the protocol like xthin. They now resort to distasteful tactics by running anyone out of town that even so much as…

> Eeveyone else is shadow banned. On reddit, only admins can shadow ban, and they claimed that they stopped doing it over a year ago, in my understanding.

None of the comments I make in that sub seem to show up any more and the only reason I realized it is because I stopped getting any responses and checked from an incognito window. Sure enough nothing there. I know others who have experienced the same. Some people are outright banned as well.

Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions

#25

Post by mhluongo »

hnolable wrote: post #16
mhluongo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm, targeted at? You mean he would have, what, written it in Chinese? Note he said most businesses are looking for Segwit activation + a hard fork blocksize increase (ours included). The "Chinese miners" have expressed that desire as well. Segwit is stalling because it's not what the market is asking for.

Segwit requires 95% of miners to activate. Currently about 75% of hash power is controlled by a group of chinese miners/pools. This is about the % of hashing power that is missing for Segwit to activate.

Aware of how Segwit activation works, thanks. I'm speaking to the miners' motivations. They've been asking for a simple blocksize increase for quite some time. See the HK agreement if you don't get the politics.

Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions

#27

Post by Animats »

That's just the transaction fee paid to miners. You also have to consider the currency conversion cost of getting into and out of Bitcoin. Most sellers use Coinbase to immediately get out of Bitcoin. There's also a volatility risk.

Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions

#28

Post by hnolable »

pmorici wrote: post #22
hnolable wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can play semantical games but segwit gives about 2x onchain capacity. And the only thing holding it up is a group of chinese miners/pools. Anyone truly wanting more onchain capacity should be engaging those miners/pools. Of course that's not really what people bitching about tx fees want.

That's my point exactly people calling segwit a block size increase are playing semantic games. Miners and devs met a year ago and agreed on a path forward of segwit+hardfork blocksize increase to 2MB. Now they are trying to get people to activate segwit w/o a 2mb increase. It's not a mystery why this is happening and it isn't just Chinese miners that oppose it.

You admitted that "The whole reason people want bigger blocks is for higher transaction throughput on-chain."

And said that "Segwit doesn't deliver that".

Segwit delivers that.

Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions

#29

Post by hnolable »

mhluongo wrote: post #25
hnolable wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Segwit requires 95% of miners to activate. Currently about 75% of hash power is controlled by a group of chinese miners/pools. This is about the % of hashing power that is missing for Segwit to activate.

Aware of how Segwit activation works, thanks. I'm speaking to the miners' motivations. They've been asking for a simple blocksize increase for quite some time. See the HK agreement if you don't get the politics.

Yes that's the issue here, the miners are playing politics by trying to flex their power. But no one is willing to play petty games. There's an obvious win for everyone sitting on the table ready to go. Political games will be ignored.

Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions

#30

Post by cloakandswagger »

pmorici wrote: post #24
steveklabnik wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eeveyone else is shadow banned. On reddit, only admins can shadow ban, and they claimed that they stopped doing it over a year ago, in my understanding.

None of the comments I make in that sub seem to show up any more and the only reason I realized it is because I stopped getting any responses and checked from an incognito window. Sure enough nothing there. I know others who have experienced the same. Some people are outright banned as well.

I don't even bother with r/bitcoin anymore. The level of groupthink is insufferable, but hard for me to say whether it formed naturally or via direct influence (considering it's Reddit, both are likely)
Post reply on HN