Next step less reliance on Github for management too
Radicle.xyz, or something else?
Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization
191–200 of 229 posts
Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization
#192People like this shouldn't be leading a project that threatens to upend multi-trillion dollar institutions. If it weren't for his timidity, Bitcoin would have hard forked in 2015 to raise the block size limit to allow for mass-adoption.
Raising the block size is complete nonsense. It will simply kill of nodes and at best create increased transactions per block proportional to the block size increase. A very poor trade-off.
Bitcoin's creator thought the block size should be raised and nodes would end up in server farms. Whether you agree with this or not, that was the original vision of Bitcoin. Now, start-ups pivot, and it's great that there are experiments, but BTC should not have used the Bitcoin name to do this. That is the point being made.
Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raising the block size is complete nonsense. It will simply kill of nodes and at best create increased transactions per block proportional to the block size increase. A very poor trade-off.
Nodes can handle far more than 7 transactions per second of throughput, even if you 4X the data size of that to account for propagation to multiple peers. 10 KB/s is nothing. Keeping nodes so light so that you can validate with a Raspberry Pi with a dialup connection, at the cost of preventing 100X more people from using Bitcoin, is a terrible tradeoff. There is no technological bottleneck preventing a 100X raising o…
Checkpointing very much runs counter to the decentralizing philosophy of bitcoin. Nodes should be able to fully verify the transaction history with reasonable resources.
Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nodes can handle far more than 7 transactions per second of throughput, even if you 4X the data size of that to account for propagation to multiple peers. 10 KB/s is nothing. Keeping nodes so light so that you can validate with a Raspberry Pi with a dialup connection, at the cost of preventing 100X more people from using Bitcoin, is a terrible tradeoff. There is no technological bottleneck preventing a 100X raising o…
Get out of here with this bullshit. Do you know it is bitcoins resistance to change that makes it appealing? Layer 2 is where the scaling happens. END OF STORY.
Problem is, there is no working layer 2, after all these years and tremendous effort. That project has failed. END OF STORY.
Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization
#195Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization
#196Can you give me an example of a successful widescale fully decentralized software project?
* Web browsers that all use a standardized name resolution and data transfer protocol to transmit hyperlinked documents * Email
Sorry to repeat myself, but these are not good examples. HTTP/HTTPS, SMTP, IMAP are just protocols. I'm talking about a single piece of software, built in a fully-distributed manner without centralization.
Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization
#197Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raising the block size is complete nonsense. It will simply kill of nodes and at best create increased transactions per block proportional to the block size increase. A very poor trade-off.
Bitcoin's creator thought the block size should be raised and nodes would end up in server farms. Whether you agree with this or not, that was the original vision of Bitcoin. Now, start-ups pivot, and it's great that there are experiments, but BTC should not have used the Bitcoin name to do this. That is the point being made.
That is really misleading, in one of Satoshi's last public messages he wrote:
> Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg289...
There has always been a challenging trade-off here, which is presumably why he limited the size in the first place.
This trade-off was widely acknowledged in the community going back essentially as far as records do.
And as time has gone on we've only learned more about how some ideas don't work. For example, Satoshi believed businesses would run nodes to verify their own transactions-- but we've found in practice few do, instead outsourcing it to centralized third parties often with dubious security practices.
Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raising the block size is complete nonsense. It will simply kill of nodes and at best create increased transactions per block proportional to the block size increase. A very poor trade-off.
Nodes can handle far more than 7 transactions per second of throughput, even if you 4X the data size of that to account for propagation to multiple peers. 10 KB/s is nothing. Keeping nodes so light so that you can validate with a Raspberry Pi with a dialup connection, at the cost of preventing 100X more people from using Bitcoin, is a terrible tradeoff. There is no technological bottleneck preventing a 100X raising o…
If the throughput of the network equals the throughput of your device, you'll never catch up if you go offline at all. At 90% capacity it will take you 10 hours to catch up for every hour you are behind. Taking long periods of catch up time for outages isn't acceptable. At 100x capacity most conventional equipment right now would fail to complete its initial synchronization before the participant gave up.
The security of the system comes from decenteralization, so its goals can't be reached if its only workable for the best funded 10% of the participants. Moreover, the operating cost of a node are only compensated fairly indirectly and are a public good (if everyone else runs an honest node, you don't gain from running your own). As a result, it's not sufficient to just be not-astronomical, it has to be fairly close to painless.
Node's ability to keep up is also only one part of the equation. Bitcoin's long term security is absolutely dependant on transaction fees paying for proof of work. With functionally limitless capacity the natural price of transactions is essentially zero-- as has been demonstrated by competing systems which have found that they can only fund security with inflation.
Most critically-- while you can make a fine argument that some moderate increases (more like 2x or 5x than 100x) are viable without too much increase in security risks-- those kinds of changes (heck, even 100x) don't categorically change the situation.
But we do have technology to categorically change the situation, tech that was thought of and made accordance for before Bitcoin was ever released and has always been part of the long term plans-- regardless of whatever lies motivated parties might want to tell you-- tech like lighthing adds essentially unlimited transaction throughput to Bitcoin because it doesn't require public broadcast for each and every transaction. I was talking to someone this morning who is doing a test sustaining 400 transactions per second.
> and that was the sentiment expressed by Satoshi any time he commented on it.
Sorry, that is just a flat out lie-- at I pointed out in a prior comment literally the last public statement Satoshi made on the matter of scalablity/resource usage was: "Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg289...
There is a long history of the position I'm presenting, going back to many of Bitcoin's earliest participants.
Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raising the limit 100x means the blockchain would grow 5tb a year. So personal computers would not be able to use Bitcoin anymore. Only companies like Google would have the resources to participate in the Bitcoin network.
The block limit has nothing to do with the transaction rate. You'll just wind up waiting longer for a block. Bitcoin core has had since the Big Forks a larger number of transactions than Bitcoin Cash, which was forked to allegedly fix the transaction rate. If the rest of you had actually tried /running a node/ instead of just copying and pasting the fifty cent army's argument of the day maybe you'd realize that.
I don't think you're disagreeing with the post you're replying to.