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

The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

vitalik.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 465 posts

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#51

Post by crispyporkbites »

mvzvm wrote: post #26

Scam after scam, that's all blockchain is. Just another way to fleece the average consumer. There has not been a single valuable use, a single product, that actually improves anyone's day / process / life / anything. I am very open to changing my stance if someone presents evidence to the contrary.

If this scaling blog post is accurate, a global payment network at 1m transactions/second, decentralised, is massively valuable.

Imagine if the only way to send a message to someone was through fb messenger or WhatsApp, and then someone invented email. The UX might not be great, but the benefits are huge.

Additionally if the eth virtual computer can scale with very low gas costs, there’s a lot of accountancy and banking functions that can replaced with eth code. Potentially some legal functions as well.

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#52

Post by dmitriid »

crazypython wrote: post #37

Hi. Bitcoin.org contributor[0] here. You can start and run a fully validating Bitcoin node with 7GB of storage space and 128MB-256MB RAM. Download the official GUI Bitcoin software here[1]. Enable pruning to store just 7GB. This validates all blocks. The ability to prune older blockchain data is an inherent feature of blockchain, as explained by Satoshi himself: > Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under…

> Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space.

Everyone should have this quote ready when there's an inevitable "but there's no tampering of the log, and all transactions are kept forever and can be verified!"

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#53

Post by nivexous »

So many reputations and projects in blockchain rest on this flawed idea that users need to run nodes. Users do nothing to extend the chain! If a group of miners wants to change the protocol, it takes another group of miners to counter it. And there always will be another group, because miners compete. From the bitcoin whitepaper: "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules". And let's get serious: users will hear about such a protocol war on news outlets, not by watching their node. Then they can choose which fork to buy, sell, and use.

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#54

Post by dmitriid »

nivexous wrote: post #53

So many reputations and projects in blockchain rest on this flawed idea that users need to run nodes. Users do nothing to extend the chain! If a group of miners wants to change the protocol, it takes another group of miners to counter it. And there always will be another group, because miners compete. From the bitcoin whitepaper: "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules". And let's get serious: users…

> Then they can choose which fork to buy or sell.

Funny how this is now the only activity for this: buy and sell forks in a vacuum.

Because in actual real world scenarios users definitely don't chose that. Just go into a shop and watch people not chosing anything, but, you know, just paying.

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#55

Post by jbverschoor »

mvzvm wrote: post #26

Scam after scam, that's all blockchain is. Just another way to fleece the average consumer. There has not been a single valuable use, a single product, that actually improves anyone's day / process / life / anything. I am very open to changing my stance if someone presents evidence to the contrary.

You should look at it as a public service of authenticity.

Notary services / time stamping. But also noncustodian assets. Although still not usable for daily life, I think the more we move into digital, the more we will want and need better licensing/ownership of digital content. For example when blizzard bans your wow account, which is worth many hours and dollars.

Big tech has too much control over these things, and the road to get a response se or to go to court is way too long and expensive for the average joe

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#56

Post by seibelj »

jeremycarter wrote: post #45
seibelj wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have responded to a thousand versions of your comment on HN. No matter what I write the haters never change their minds. HN is not an enthusiastic place for blockchain devs.

I'm not a hater. I am just applying some critical thinking and design thinking to try to figure out where the value is in all of this to the customer. I am happy to say I'm wrong, and happy to backflip.

Here is one of many comments I have written https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25641940

But again, to those reading this thread, HN is not a place where you will find a lot of people who patiently defend crypto and blockchain. It garners a lot of downvotes.

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#57

Post by gruez »

jeremycarter wrote: post #40
gruez wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because layer 2 solutions (eg. LN) are trustless. ie. it doesn't involve you depositing your coins with some third party and trusting that they don't run off with them.

And you've personally lost money from government regulated financial institutions?

1. I'm fortunate to live in a country with a stable enough banking system that I haven't ...yet. Others are not so lucky.

2. whether you "lost money" is also the wrong question to ask. eg. if there was a massive bank failure and the government decided to bail them out by printing massive amounts of cash, you'd technically gotten your money back but you still "lost" money.

3. this feels like a derail/moving the goalposts and eventually devolving to arguments about monetary policy, intrinsic value, and whether the state should have a monopoly on currencies.

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#58

Post by portemonnaie »

sktrdie wrote: post #13

This "blockchain" space is getting so complicated that I can't see anymore what it is about. Is it a database? Is it a p2p network? Is it a currency? Most of the "blockchains" listed on aggregators such as coinmarketcap.com are essentially clients communicating to a few nodes which, for all we know, sync up in a coordinated way to provide the illusion of a decentralized consensus system. Like maybe we need to take a…

That's why you should stick to Bitcoin, not Ethereum. While I find the problems and musings of the Ethereum crew fascinating, I have started to wonder if it is the crypto equivalent to a planning economy: they'll just add patch after patch to fix thing that are not fixable, making the system more and more complicated.

I understand Bitcoin (in principle), it is not that hard to understand. I don't understand most of Ethereum.

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#59

Post by jeremycarter »

seibelj wrote: post #56
jeremycarter wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a hater. I am just applying some critical thinking and design thinking to try to figure out where the value is in all of this to the customer. I am happy to say I'm wrong, and happy to backflip.

Here is one of many comments I have written https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25641940 But again, to those reading this thread, HN is not a place where you will find a lot of people who patiently defend crypto and blockchain. It garners a lot of downvotes.

I will read it without bias. Thank you.

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#60

Post by crazypython »

dmitriid wrote: post #52
crazypython wrote: post #37

Hi. Bitcoin.org contributor[0] here. You can start and run a fully validating Bitcoin node with 7GB of storage space and 128MB-256MB RAM. Download the official GUI Bitcoin software here[1]. Enable pruning to store just 7GB. This validates all blocks. The ability to prune older blockchain data is an inherent feature of blockchain, as explained by Satoshi himself: > Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under…

> Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. Everyone should have this quote ready when there's an inevitable "but there's no tampering of the log, and all transactions are kept forever and can be verified!"

Yes, the blockchain data structure ensures that if you verify the older transactions, the newer transactions on top of it are verified. If the old version was valid, the newer block built on top of it is too.
Post reply on HN