Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

laanwj.github.io

201–210 of 229 posts

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#201
post #155
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The miners are ultimately the ones who decide whether to fork or not.

Miners can't change Bitcoin without the consent of full nodes, who run the core client. That's why SegWit2x didn't happen three years ago. All the miners supported it, because bigger blocks means bigger transaction fees. Full nodes and core devs didn't support it, because big blocks means you won't be able to run Bitcoin on PCs much longer and therefore centralized online service providers will control it.

FWIW bigger blocks actually mean much much smaller transaction fees, both in theory and practice. Though it's true some miners erroneously believed arguments otherwise.

BCash, for example, some loopy "large block" clone of Bitcoin has only rarely had more than $1 in fees in blocks-- and not primarily because it has fewer transactions (though it does), but because there is no cause to pay more than negligible amounts when both capacity isn't scarce and mining isn't completely centralized.

The result is that the BitcoinUnlimited (one of the BCash clients) "chief scientist" proposes that security must be paid for by perpetual inflation... and they've been moving towards abandoning Bitcoin's decentralized consensus-- e.g. bcash clients will no longer reorg so if there is a split deeper than a few blocks (caused by a network partition or a block race), their nodes will just split off into separate networks. Quite a mess.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#202
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The miners are ultimately the ones who decide whether to fork or not.

Miners were solidly behind a hard fork. Every major stakeholder group, minus the Core development team, was solidly for it.

That is simply not true. You can even look to the public markets, there were futures on each of these fork attempts and they traded at a tiny fraction of the price of Bitcoin.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#203
post #46
post #2

bitcoin appears to have just become another asset that rich people on wall street are hoarding with no real attention or interest in the actual payment mechanism at all. it might as well just be some trading cards being shuffled around.

The dream of using bitcoin as p2p digital cash does seem to be dead for now, the fees are too high for that[1]. Lightning hasn't really taken off for that use case either, the number of bitcoins in Lightning channels appears to have stopped growing.[2] But it looks like bitcoin can still be very useful as an alternative settlement layer for international payments. Either directly for large payments, or under the hood…

> the number of bitcoins in Lightning channels appears to have stopped growing

That is misleading in two respects: Funds in lightning have high velocity, so it doesn't necessarily take a lot of funds to support a lot of economic activity.

Channels were originally all public, but now most channels are private, so no one really knows how much funds are involved in lightning channels.

People who use lightning generally describe it very positively. The bigger impediment to making small frequent payments is Bitcoin's tax treatment: E.g. in the US every single purchase made with Bitcoin requires line item reporting to the IRS and cost basis tracking.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#205
post #199

Earlier 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…

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 securit…

If you're going to interpret Satoshi's single "tyrannical" reference as endorsement of restraining block sizes to 1 MB, it is a much weaker 'endorsement' than multiple explicit calls for a much higher on-chain throughput, including his directly saying that the intended network configuration for Bitcoin at scale was for validation to be done only by users with server farms, which implies even greater than 100X boosts in throughput from current levels.

As for initial synchronization:

There is no basis for claiming users cannot keep up with it at 100X current throughput levels, and like I said, relying on trusted third party set checkpoints to completely do away with validating the entire blockchain history is always an option, and already one being utilized to some extent with the flag in Bitcoin Core to skip validation on transactions older than a TTP-set checkpoint.

Saying every one should validate, but then limiting the world to 300,000 on-chain writes a day, meaning limiting who can use Bitcoin without third-party intermediaries to 0.1% of the world population, is a bad trade-off. Better 10% of Bitcoiners be able to run their own fully validating node, and all 7 billion people be able to generate transactions *with their own private keys*, than let every one with a PC run a fully validating node, while only 0.1% make writes to Bitcoin with their own private keys.

In a scenario where a party cannot write a transaction to Bitcoin, due to limited on-chain capacity, there is little point in running a fully validating node. Emphasizing full node validation accessibility over main chain write accessibility to this extent is not a sensible prioritization.

Regarding this off-chain payment channel networks Red Herring, there is no reason to be confident that PCNs like the lightning network can provide a mix of trade-offs that will make them compelling to a wide set of users, and indeed the LN has still failed to get traction nearly 6 years after first being proposed.

The capital lock-up requirements, especially in a setting where on-chain transaction fees are high, the need for being online to trustlessly receive funds, and the routing challenges, are all potentially fundamental showstoppers for the LN being a viable technology for widespread utilization/adoption.

Finally, even if payment channel networks work - which is a very speculative 'if' and not one that the entire empowerment of humanity with access to electronic cash should be made dependent on - blocks would still need to be on the order of 100X larger to enable global mass-adoption, as payment channel networks do not completely do away with the need to have on-chain throughput.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#206
post #193

Earlier 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…

Checkpointing very much runs counter to the decentralizing philosophy of bitcoin. Nodes should be able to fully verify the transaction history with reasonable resources.

In practice, checkpoint is not a big deal. For history older than X, where X is a sufficiently distant time in the past, there will always be widespread consensus on the hash of the true chain, and numerous reputable parties that the hash of the true chain can be obtained from. Some poison node attack where fraudulent websites provide a hash of a fake history will not be viable.

Checkpointing is also currently being utilized in Bitcoin Core, so relying on it further is not a major departure on how things are currently done.

And at 100X current block sizes, validating the entire history with no checkpoints will still be possible for thousands of hobbyists with beefed up but still modest hardware/bandwidth.

The empowerment from 100X more people being able to write transactions to the main chain, with their own private keys, will be well worth the relatively tolerable compromises on full node validation.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#207
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why don't you quote all of the instances where he endorsed large blocks?

You're singling out one expression of mildly small-block sentiment and overlooking multiple expressions of strongly large-block sentiment by Satoshi.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#208
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It looks to me like he's describing a trend he disagrees with. Nobody would describe their own vision as "tyrannical".

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#209
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don,t think it is a myth, i do it all the time, living almost entirely without currency. digital technology only makes barter more easy and accessible. converting every trade into numbers and back is an outmoded method, which i think will become less used with time.

That is basically what the book is telling. You are probably not tit-for-tat bartering, but taking on debts and returning things you owe in some more vague approach. History went through multiple cycles where currency went in disuse in favor of just tracking and settling debts.

actually, i,m gifting without asking for anything in return. when i need something, it is offered or i ask.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#210
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why don't you quote all of the instances where he endorsed large blocks? You're singling out one expression of mildly small-block sentiment and overlooking multiple expressions of strongly large-block sentiment by Satoshi.

There aren't any?

He _implemented_ the block size limit, nothing forced him to. Had he wanted it to change automatically he could have coded it that way. Instead, he tended to describe the design as being mostly set in stone. When someone tried to remove the limit he urgently yelled at them to stop (and stated if it were ever needed it could be phased in). I'm sure that his, like everyone elses, understanding of the requirements evolved over time too.

Meanwhile, scaling Bitcoin via layers was endorsed explicitly by essentially every technical voice in the space for years until some got wrapped up with scammers. Satoshi even built specific affordances for payment channels directly into the transaction format, and was the first person to describe their use.

Post reply on HN