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

The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

tandfonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 344 posts

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#241

Post by lawn »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #220
ddtaylor wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that "bcash" is used as a slanderous term between the two camps struggling for power. This comment seems to be attempting to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. As far as I am aware there is no evidence that shows Bitcoin Cash clients are attempting to "steal your bitcoin private keys".

when the fork happened there were indeed scam sites that asked you to "paste your private key to see if you have BCH" There were also replay attacks possible, so that if you paid some BCH to someone they could replay the transaction to get the corresponding BTC as well Neither of these are a concern anymore AFAIK (the first one never really was, never give away your private key) And yes, "bcash" has a negative connot…

You confuse it with other forks, for example in Bitcoin Gold key stealing was very prevalent. It wasn't a big problem for Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash also had replay protection from the start.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#242

Post by blueprint »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #36

I 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.

Yeah let's increase block size without a way to control the precedent of size increase so only a very select few groups have the compute power to mine. Yay centralization

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#243

Post by dylkil »

mpapec wrote: post #197
nullc wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure if he posts a digital signature from a well known Satoshi address, HN will unban him. I posted instructions below, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21978680 ... but I will not be holding my breath.

Thank you for explaining how censorship works; I hope you're not one of these cypherpunks who whine when censored. ;)

greg loves censorship https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-histor...

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#244

Post by marcinjachymiak »

phillipsjk wrote: post #104
nullc wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why add TCP to IP or HTTP to TCP? It's sound engineering. Like in other systems by composing layers you can achieve the advantages of each component while addressing their costs, without creating insurmountable complexity... "have your cake and eat it too". Particularly, the central Bitcoin system is a global broadcast medium-- necessarily for its security. Global broadcast is inherently somewhat limited in its scala…

Scaling with second layers instead of on-chain is NOT "sound engineering" The Engineering discipline relies on empirical studies. With constantly full blocks, you have no way to measure transaction demand. Fees are only a weak indicator of transaction demand because of substitute goods.

A great empirical study you should pursue is initial blockchain download time with (full) 2000 MB blocks and low-grade consumer hardware.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#245

Post by nighthawk24 »

jobeirne wrote: post #236
nighthawk24 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Absolutely, there is no good reason for private entities who take over an open source project and limit it for private interests when a major chunk of people reject it.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#246

Post by freeAgent »

marcinjachymiak wrote: post #244
phillipsjk wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scaling with second layers instead of on-chain is NOT "sound engineering" The Engineering discipline relies on empirical studies. With constantly full blocks, you have no way to measure transaction demand. Fees are only a weak indicator of transaction demand because of substitute goods.

A great empirical study you should pursue is initial blockchain download time with (full) 2000 MB blocks and low-grade consumer hardware.

People have already done this and it is quite fast! https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ek0614/current_node_im...

Flowee the Hub (Bitcoin Cash full node implementation) can sync the equivalent of 4GB blocks using just a cheap quad-core VPS.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#247

Post by j23450n »

nullc wrote: post #144
BigBubbler wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably technically true, but, it is just a part of the dishonest language-shell-game to fool people into thinking BTC can really scale to become a real peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. 1.3 MB is still tiny! Pretending a small difference matters is so disingenuous.

Blocksize is a rate. If you were traveling at 120 MPH and then accelerated to 156 MPH you would not say that this was a small difference without consequences. It mattered significantly, in several respects. E.g. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees...

Blocksize is clearly not literally a rate; that's a ridiculous statement. When you artificially cap it, like putting a limiter on your car in your analogy, it can be rate limiting, i.e. limiting the transaction rate - an actual rate. That chart you posted in meaningless in this context, but clearly just greg being greg, trying to manipulate; are you seriously trying to suggest that the tiny increase from segwit shenanigans is responsible for that (cropped) decrease in tx fees? That's demonic.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#248

Post by scotty79 »

etherael wrote: post #230
scotty79 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get your argument. Block size is limited so fees can go up to pay the miners so they have incentive to mine. If fees are a barrier to you, you can make your transfer of value using any other traded cryptocurrency (or lightning whatever it is). Aim of bitcoin is not to be the fastest cryptocurrency but the most mined one (thus safest?).

> I don't get your argument. Block size is limited so fees can go up to pay the miners so they have incentive to mine. Probably because that point has nothing to do with anything, as basically every single blockchain in existence has fees that go to miners. BTC isn't the slightest bit unique in that. > Aim of bitcoin is not to be the fastest cryptocurrency but the most mined one (thus safest?). Which once again has n…

>> Aim of bitcoin is not to be the fastest cryptocurrency but the most mined one (thus safest?).

> Which once again has nothing to do with the artificial useless block limit.

It has everything to do with block limit because its whole purpose is to make each block more valuable for the miners so that a lot of hashpower competes to mine that block.

Size of mining reward and transaction fees per given amount of kb of transactions is vital thing for miners. Increasing block size would be same as decreasing payout (of tx fees) for each block. Since transaction fees will eventually become the only reward for the miners tampering with their value would be just as frightening as tampering with the block reward (like doubling it or halving it on a whim). It would affect miners. And miners are ultimately who decide with their legs on what version of crypto to secure.

> The cryptocurrency that is most mined is the one in which mining is most profitable, the US federal reserve could launch a competitor tomorrow with a goal directly opposed to every other cryptocurrency in existence and if they paid more per SHA256 hash rate unit they would become the most mined cryptocurrency.

Sure, but if you are not federal reserve and can't invest billions of your own money in your crypto then what bitcoin does is exactly how you get to be the most mined crypto.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#249

Post by alwillis »

DagAgren wrote: post #212
once_inc wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Because LN is seeing barely any usage at all. The routing problem will bite as soon as it tries to scale.

Because LN is seeing barely any usage at all. The routing problem will bite as soon as it tries to scale.

Definitely not true.

As I previously mentioned in this thread, lightning has over $6 billion USD in liquidity, nearly 11,000 nodes and tens of thousands of transactions every day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21980404

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#250

Post by nullc »

mpapec wrote: post #199
nullc wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure if he posts a digital signature from a well known Satoshi address, HN will unban him. I posted instructions below, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21978680 ... but I will not be holding my breath.

And, greetings again. =============== @DrCraigWright =============== Really... What well known address. Not one is PKI'd. There are addresses I have asserted are, ones that others have stated. There is nothing that proves it beyond reasonable doubt. Or, do people just assume as I created it that I must be the only miner? That may be, but it is not more than circumstantial evidence and is a long way from proof. Signin…

You claimed on many occasions to have you your possession the keys for the first 9 coinbase outputs. Signing with all of those, particularly block 9 since Hal claimed that it was Satoshi's-- would be exceptionally influential.

Sign "Gmax, Wright is Satoshi." with all those and I'll leave Bitcoin forever and never bother you again.

Post reply on HN