If Eric was serious about this he would have targeted this post at chinese miners who are stalling on activating segwit (which is a 2x blocksize increase and the foundation for instant & nearly free txs via the Lightning Network).
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.
The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions
51–60 of 121 posts
Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions
#52Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions
#53There 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had some legitimate arguments a few years ago when discussion of this issue first started but those have all since been superseded by improvements in the protocol like xthin.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…
The ones who oppose a block-size increase today are the miners and the anti-Core crowd. The rest of the bitcoin community, including its technical and business community, are pushing for an increase to 2MB blocks in the form of SegWit.
And I think the "hostile comments" referred to by the OP are the non-stop personal attacks and toxicity that is happening on r/btc.
Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The Lightning Network is open-source and decentralized. It has no "hubs", but rather just peers that route payments to each-other using a payment routing algorithm. Lightning has no counterparty risk, as no one can ever steal your bitcoins and you're always in full control.
The best way to describe Lightning is as an write-cache layer. It improves the scalability properties of Bitcoin by many factors, makes micro- and nano- payments a reality, reduces fees to fractions of a cent, and even improves privacy (using a Tor-like onion routing for anonymized payments).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpfvhiqFw7A
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-light...
Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions
#55Earlier 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 recently presented these slides on this topic, but they assume a fair amount of background:
https://www.docdroid.net/TouvFPl/embassy-future-politics-feb...
Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>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. With a bigger block size what hardware constraints begin to appear? > This is a big problem for miners who have poured lots of money into their rigs, because now the blo…
Mostly it is an issue of disk space and network bandwidth. right now a 1 MB block is produced every 10 minutes. That has to be transferred over the network to every node and each so called "full node" has to store that block. The total size of the Bitcoin block chain for all time is currently ~100GB and grows 1 MB every 10 minutes under current conditions. If the block size grew too big that you couldn't transfer a block within the 10 minute space between blocks then your connection is too slow to run a node. On the disk space front you can run what is called a "prunning" node which discards older parts of the block chain that are no longer relevant which reduces disk space requirements greatly.
There is also the issue of the initial blockchain download where when you are setting up a new node you have to download 100GB of historical block chain data to catch up to the current state of the network. These are all solvable problems though and Bitcoin's inventor envisioned that some day full nodes would be run out of data centers on heavy duty hardware. Small block supporters have argued that that hurts decentralization because some poor guy in Africa can't run a node on his Raspberry Pi and 3g internet if the block size gets much bigger. On the other hand if you are too poor to run a full node with a larger block size then you can hardly afford to pay huge transaction fees to transact on a network with a constricted block size so the whole argument that limiting the block size decreases centralization doesn't really hold water because in the end it limits user growth which is the ultimate decentralization mechanism.
> So the motivation is strictly monetary?
I think so. This whole stink started because some guy who happened to have a ton of BTC was upset that people running full nodes didn't get a cut of any of the transaction fees. Today, the main company that is pushing the Segwit / small block agenda hopes to push everyone to their off chain lightening network where they can collect the fees instead of the miners. Miners don't want to do anything that will jeopardize their profitability long term and keeping the block size too small limits their ability to control the supply of their product (block space).
Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on what? Can you name a single dev that expresses support for bigger blocks that hasn't been systematically ridiculed and excluded from Bitcoin Core development by the small block crowd? It isn't even possible to get an accurate perception of Bitcoin Unlimited support from reading the traditional Bitcoin discussion forums like /r/bitcoin because there is ZERO tolerance for discussion of bigger blocks unless it…
SegWit is a block size increase. Pretty much every developer in the bitcoin community supports SegWit.
Only in the censored outskirts. I recommend everyone to read John Blocke's articles: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/the-importance-of-clear-defin... https://medium.com/@johnblocke/its-not-the-censorship-resist...
Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions
#58There 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…
> There is a small faction of the Bitcoin community working exceptionally hard to prevent any block size increase.
This small faction is composed of nearly ~all the technical experts we have in the Bitcoin space, over 100 businesses and projects that support SegWit, the majority of bitcoin users that I'm personally familiar with, the majority of full-nodes on the network (~85%), and the vast majority by pretty much every metric you choose.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/
https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/
https://coin.dance/nodes/share
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases
> /r/bitcoin is now just an echo chamber where yes men regurgitate the agenda of a select few.
r/bitcoin is the largest and most active bitcoin community by far. It had to start engaging in more heavy-handed moderation when the voting bots, sockpuppet accounts and other manipulation made it impossible to conduct productive discussions. Its sad, but I don't really see an alternative.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4biob5/research_in...
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/a-closer-look-at-reddit...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hf5z7/determining...
https://news.bitcoin.com/the-block-size-debate-and-sock-pupp...
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5n3wsw/birds_by_bitcoi...
Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> partly because these off-chain networks would quickly form large central "hubs" which would obviate many of the benefits of Bitcoin The Lightning Network is open-source and decentralized. It has no "hubs", but rather just peers that route payments to each-other using a payment routing algorithm. Lightning has no counterparty risk, as no one can ever steal your bitcoins and you're always in full control. The best wa…
https://chrispacia.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/lightning-networ...
Re: The True Cost of Bitcoin Transactions
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> partly because these off-chain networks would quickly form large central "hubs" which would obviate many of the benefits of Bitcoin The Lightning Network is open-source and decentralized. It has no "hubs", but rather just peers that route payments to each-other using a payment routing algorithm. Lightning has no counterparty risk, as no one can ever steal your bitcoins and you're always in full control. The best wa…
I also don't buy that hubs won't tend to centralize since hubs with channels open with a lot of other peers will naturally be central points.