91–100 of 216 posts
Serious question, why does HN seemt o be in favor of lightning over BCH’s approach of not neutering the block size? LN has so many drawbacks. Have to always be online, need to hold hot walkets, need liquidity provided at both ends (kyc/aml)...
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally I just don't like the approach of trying to solve the problem by throwing more disk space at it. It feels... inelegant, and probably unsustainable long term. Imagine for a minute a future where Bitcoin goes mainstream and needs to process ~2k transactions per second. (A reasonable estimate of the world's current credit card transaction rate, and 3 orders of magnitu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a really bizarre rational, disk space is insanely cheap and simply storing the blockchain does nothing to actually validate transactions or contribute to the network. 8000GB drives cost about $150 now. Storage is getting cheaper. Why not change the PoW hash algo to avoid costly ASICs and help decentralize the more important aspect of blockchain transaction verification?
> 8000GB drives cost about $150 now That's enough to handle the blockchain size increasing by one order of magnitude. I just talked about a scenario where it could conceivably increase by 3. Storage is indeed cheap, but not _that_ cheap. Unless you're envisioning a scenario where only large stakeholders like miners and exchanges ever have to store a full copy of the blockchain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally I just don't like the approach of trying to solve the problem by throwing more disk space at it. It feels... inelegant, and probably unsustainable long term. Imagine for a minute a future where Bitcoin goes mainstream and needs to process ~2k transactions per second. (A reasonable estimate of the world's current credit card transaction rate, and 3 orders of magnitu…
If we keep bitcoin block sizes as they are or reasonable we can roughly predict how big the whole chain would be 100 years from now(im being very optimistic here.)
Serious question, why does HN seemt o be in favor of lightning over BCH’s approach of not neutering the block size? LN has so many drawbacks. Have to always be online, need to hold hot walkets, need liquidity provided at both ends (kyc/aml)...
In computer science terms, a block size increase is a O(n) solution to a O(n^2) problem (at least).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a really bizarre rational, disk space is insanely cheap and simply storing the blockchain does nothing to actually validate transactions or contribute to the network. 8000GB drives cost about $150 now. Storage is getting cheaper. Why not change the PoW hash algo to avoid costly ASICs and help decentralize the more important aspect of blockchain transaction verification?
> 8000GB drives cost about $150 now That's enough to handle the blockchain size increasing by one order of magnitude. I just talked about a scenario where it could conceivably increase by 3. Storage is indeed cheap, but not _that_ cheap. Unless you're envisioning a scenario where only large stakeholders like miners and exchanges ever have to store a full copy of the blockchain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but if you're someone who wants to see Bitcoin succeed then you probably don't want to use a scaling solution which only works if you assume Bitcoin will never achieve mainstream adoption.
> you probably don't want to use a scaling solution which only works if you assume Bitcoin will never achieve mainstream adoption But, that's exactly what happened with segwit. Why is that worth doing but increasing the block size is not?
Serious question, why does HN seemt o be in favor of lightning over BCH’s approach of not neutering the block size? LN has so many drawbacks. Have to always be online, need to hold hot walkets, need liquidity provided at both ends (kyc/aml)...
If we ever want Bitcoin to evolve from a store of value to an actual payment method we have to come up with something that does at least better than VISA's 8000tx/s and that's just not solved with going from 7tx/s to Bitcoin Cash's ~62tx/s. We have to be able to compete with every payment method out there and we should be able to handle peak throughput during sales period. Another important factor is the 10 minutes c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 8000GB drives cost about $150 now That's enough to handle the blockchain size increasing by one order of magnitude. I just talked about a scenario where it could conceivably increase by 3. Storage is indeed cheap, but not _that_ cheap. Unless you're envisioning a scenario where only large stakeholders like miners and exchanges ever have to store a full copy of the blockchain.
What makes you think you need to store the whole blockchain? Older blocks can be pruned. The whitepaper discussed this. The UXTO set is all that's needed for block validation, and that's quite small (currently ~50M).
Like I said, the blockchain is currently ~150 GB. Seems to me it's already overdue for a good pruning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even with the hub-spokes model, it won't work since every transaction has the power to invalidate multiple routes. The white paper is a joke. https://youtu.be/Ug8NH67_EfE?t=635 People are just handwaving this away like it's a side thought, while touting the solution this gives as THE gift to mankind to get away from traditional banks. Another cryptocurrency 'innovation' delivering overly complex solutions to problems…
Maybe routes won't get invalidated if hub-to-hub credit is 100x larger than any single transaction.