Are people really trying to re-ignite the blocksize debate in the HN comments section? This battle was waged, every conceivable argument on both sides was made. Small blocks with lightning to scale won, and the big blockers forked into arguably less successful coins like Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. Time for everyone to move on.
The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money
231–240 of 344 posts
Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lightning protocol addresses that. You can make millions of transactions per second [1]. Quite a lot of crypto sites are already supporting it and wallet support is increasing too [2]. [1] - https://lightning.network [2] - https://blog.bitrefill.com/top-11-lightning-network-wallets-...
Lightning requires that both sender and receiver be online at the same time to transact. Lightning was not ready when Bitcoin capacity was crippled by the aforementioned tiny cabal of developers in favor of Lightning. Lightning remains unready, forever 18 months away from the promised usable technology.
Lightning remains unready, forever 18 months away from the promised usable technology.
This is provably false. Lightning is huge and growing:
* more than $6 billion USD in liquidity
* nearly 11,000 nodes
* tens of thousands of transactions daily
* a growing ecosystem (https://www.lopp.net/lightning-information.html)
You can see the real-time stats at https://1ml.com/
Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money
#233I still hope that they listen to reason and increase bitcoin’s ability to scale. We are all held hostage by a tiny cabal of developers that think they know what is best and want bitcoin to have a perversely small block size and pitiful 7 transactions per second top speed.
Bitcoin already scaled on the Bitcoin Cash chain all whilst Bitcoin Core dev payroll was taken over by Blockstream co and Chaincode Labs co who's vested interest lies in limiting the core protocol to sell side-chain tech. The market still trades BTC as Bitcoin because of the strong branding and censorship in various online communities.
All that doesn't matter as P2P Electronic Cash is doing well on BCH.
Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money
#234I still hope that they listen to reason and increase bitcoin’s ability to scale. We are all held hostage by a tiny cabal of developers that think they know what is best and want bitcoin to have a perversely small block size and pitiful 7 transactions per second top speed.
No we are not. Lots of devs, miners and businesses got together and forked to BCH. The only thing holding up BTC price is Tether, it will fail and Ethereum and BCH will lead the space. The rest is pretty much bullshit because Ethereum and BCH together can almost do anything.
How is Tether holding up BTC price? Can you elaborate?
Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the amount of a transaction fee determined?
Every block has a limited amount of space for transactions (1 MB previously, 4 and up to 8 technically with segregated witness?) , the person mining the block includes transactions based on fees provided by users initiating the transaction. If there are tons of people looking to make transactions, fees go up or down based on people's willingness to pay to be included in the next block.
Bitcoin Cash chain has done increasing the blocksize rightfully.
Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money
#236I still hope that they listen to reason and increase bitcoin’s ability to scale. We are all held hostage by a tiny cabal of developers that think they know what is best and want bitcoin to have a perversely small block size and pitiful 7 transactions per second top speed.
Bitcoin already scaled on the Bitcoin Cash chain all whilst Bitcoin Core dev payroll was taken over by Blockstream co and Chaincode Labs co who's vested interest lies in limiting the core protocol to sell side-chain tech. The market still trades BTC as Bitcoin because of the strong branding and censorship in various online communities. All that doesn't matter as P2P Electronic Cash is doing well on BCH.
I am so glad Bitcoin Cash exists for people like you.
Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly, because building LN on the 1MB base layer is like building a pyramid upside down, it's unstable and creates more problems than it was meant to solve. Lightning was supposed to make tx fees low right? Well it technically has, but it also introduced the following problems that Bitcoin never had: - LN requires that both sender and receiver be online at the same time to transact. This never existed on Bitcoin. -…
> - Both creators of Lightning Drya and Poon have publically stated LN was never meant to be a scaling solution for Bitcoin [citation needed] The initial presentation of the paper was titled "SF Bitcoin Devs Seminar: Scaling Bitcoin to Billions of Transactions Per Day". If we didn't mean it to help scaling, what was it meant to be? [note: am one of the authors]
Here's a transcript of that talk:
https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/sf-bitcoin-meetup/2015-02...
Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blockstream (Which funds Core developers) was funded by AXA Strategic Ventures with about $80Million in two rounds. Digital Currency Group, which has investment in a lot of Bitcoin companies has a controlling interest from MasterCard. That alone does not prove anything, but Bitcoin (BTC) failed to scale. When fees hit $50/transaction, with weeks long confirmation times, most companies backed by DGC failed to switch t…
> but Bitcoin (BTC) failed to scale. Citation needed. > When fees hit $50/transaction, with weeks long confirmation times, most companies backed by DGC failed to switch to the upgraded version of Bitcoin (BCH). This was despite BCH being a drop-in replacement, while Segregated Witness (the BTC upgrade) was not. The upgraded version of Bitcoin is the version that holds consensus among its users. Bitcoin Cash never hel…
BCH forked off to reject the SegWit+RBF add-on that ain't Bitcoin. Replace by Fee has caused ATM hacks and breaks trust in 0-conf. BCH upgraded version holds consensus among its users & fees are low as P2P Electronic Cash System was designed to have had.
Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you should re-read what I wrote: > Both should of course be done simultaneously, and never focus on one to the exclusion of the other. I have no issues with developing 2nd layers, but ignoring on-chain scaling and not even looking at what can be achieved is beyond stupid. In fact we know that moderate blocksize increases are safe (we can increase it many times before block propagation time becomes an issue fo…
Are knobs for scaling the primary network already well understood? They are limited. Block size and block frequency. So shouldn’t we delay irreversible changes to primary layer until we understand the additional capacity and knobs of second layer solution?
No.
Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly, because building LN on the 1MB base layer is like building a pyramid upside down, it's unstable and creates more problems than it was meant to solve. Lightning was supposed to make tx fees low right? Well it technically has, but it also introduced the following problems that Bitcoin never had: - LN requires that both sender and receiver be online at the same time to transact. This never existed on Bitcoin. -…
> LN requires that both sender and receiver be online at the same time to transact. This never existed on Bitcoin. Correct, but this is clearly stated in its whitepaper and is one of the tradeoffs to get massively more txs and privacy. > If you're an LN merchant accepting payments, you must periodically topoff your side of the channel...just so you can keep accepting money. This problem never existed on Bitcoin. I ca…
> And yet, the vast majority of transactions on the LN proceed without a problem, and further improvements like AMP will further reduce the number of failed fees. Another option is to make an on-chain transaction.
Oh that's funny. While you're right that payments failing for not finding a route is a big problem, it's not even the real problem with routing.
The problem is for LN to function at scale, it have to centralize around a few big hubs. Because otherwise routing is impossible, and transactions will fail.
Decentralized routing is an intractable problem, and LN have to choose between centralization and scaling.