Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale? • Hacker News Board

Re: Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale?

#181

Post by jon_smark » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 5:45 PM UTC

lawn wrote: post #66

TD-Linux wrote: post #3

I don't know what you mean by "prove". People have known about the block size limit for years. It's been increased, but most haven't updated their software to make use of it yet. Lightning now works on mainnet, but no one is using that either. Maybe it's more proof that no one cares?

Segwit isn't a a block size increase. It allows for a tiny amount more transactions but it's very clear it's not enough. An actual block size increase (say to 8MB) would solve the current problems. LN is years from being actually usable by the masses. This is from their developers themselves. > Maybe it's more proof that no one cares? That's a pretty idiotic thing to say. The technology isn't ready yet despite the de…

> Segwit isn't a a block size increase. It allows for a tiny amount more transactions but it's very clear it's not enough. An actual block size increase (say to 8MB) would solve the current problems.

But what about the new problems it would introduce? I run a full node and even now it eats a significant portion of my bandwidth. With even larger blocks I would probably drop off the network altogether. And I'm sure I'm not the only one out there in this situation. Therefore, I don't think Core developers are exaggerating in their concerns about the centralization pressure caused by overly large blocks.

Moreover, wouldn't increasing the block size simply kick the can down the road? One advantage of the current fee pressure is that it strongly encourages the development of 2nd layer solutions. There are right now at least three independent teams working on Lightning Network implementations and they seem to be making quick progress...

Re: Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale?

#182

Post by etr-strike » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 5:45 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #167

moduspol wrote: post #79

Others here are touching on Bitcoin being like the "1.0" of cryptocurrency, but it's actually a lot more than that. In the public eye, it's a symbol of what cryptocurrencies can be. You're suggesting Bitcoin just proved it can't scale, but it actually just proved it did--just not with transaction volume. The network continued to process transactions averaging one block every ten minutes exactly as it was built to do,…

Bitcoin is a lot of things, and many of them interesting, but suggesting that ~4 t/s is impressive or "scaling" is an insult to kids in high school writing rails apps that can do 100x the volume. We already know at least 2 obvious ways to improve the transaction flow rate of bitcoin in trustless ways, and many others are being proposed that do not also create energy arms races. Please don't redefine success.

If proof of stake proves itself to actually work, Bitcoin will adopt it. Migrating a 200 billion dollar network to an untested PoW proposal would be irresponsible.

Arbitrarily increasing blocksize without addressing propagation delay and centralization impacts is also irresponsible.

Bitcoin has been tirelessly working on the scaling problem in a responsible way. SegWit will allow up to 12t/s. Mimble Wimble and Schnorr Signatures will further compress transaction size and increase t/s to roughly 20t/s. All this without increasing propagation delay (increasing blocksize).

Lightning network further reduces the number of onchain transactions necessary.

Rootstock adds ethereum compatible smart contracts to bitcoin as a side chain.

All these technologies responsibly scale Bitcoin. Your comment implies Bitcoin is stagnant which to me implies you don't know what you're talking about.

Re: Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale?

#183

Post by nigealj » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 5:47 PM UTC

jiggunjer wrote: post #156

wmnwmn wrote: post #145

Not only is BTC epicly badly designed (energy consumption=Denmark) but it doesn't solve a problem that anyone actually has (and neither do any of the other cryptos). Nobody uses them to pay for things, and nobody has any incentive to start doing so, because paying for things is not currently a problem. Compare with the Internet boom: along with the stock bubble, millions of people began using this new tool which chan…

You must not have any experience with international transfers or currencies other than euro and USD.

Trouble is it's still not mainstream enough for everyone to start accepting it as a form of payment but that will change with time. For instance visit amazonbitcoin.com and see what happens!

Re: Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale?

#184

Post by Animats » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 5:47 PM UTC

blondie9x wrote: post #141

As engineers and technologists we must always be mindful of our impact on the planet. Bitcoin has been a disaster when it comes to environmental concerns. It is a shadow on techs efforts to lead the way toward a sustainable future. We need to figure out a way to solve this issue, especially if cryptocurrency utilization is to increase, in particular through Bitcoin: Bitcoin uses about 32 terawatts of energy every yea…

The number I've seen is about 1 gigawatt, +- 50%. That's about one big power plant.

It could be worse. Bitcoin mining is centralized in mining centers running custom ASICs, mostly located in cold areas with cheap hydroelectric power. That wasn't the original plan. If Bitcoin mining was widely distributed, we could have a billion laptops mining in the background. Laptops running 24/7, wearing out their ICs through electromigration, and consuming power from all sources at retail rates.

Re: Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale?

#185

Post by jon_smark » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 5:48 PM UTC

andrewtbham wrote: post #7

My understanding is... There is a scaling problem. It could be help by increasing the block size (like segwit2x) But the miners don't want to fix it because they like the high transaction fees.

As others have pointed out, your understanding is backwards. Mining is heavily centralised already (in China of all places!), and larger block sizes would only exacerbate the mining centralisation, which is probably why the biggest fans of larger blocks are the Chinese miners.

Re: Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale?

#186

Post by Bombthecat » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 5:53 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #79

Others here are touching on Bitcoin being like the "1.0" of cryptocurrency, but it's actually a lot more than that. In the public eye, it's a symbol of what cryptocurrencies can be. You're suggesting Bitcoin just proved it can't scale, but it actually just proved it did--just not with transaction volume. The network continued to process transactions averaging one block every ten minutes exactly as it was built to do,…

Dude,

It literally stopped accepting transactions.

After 72 hours your transaction is dropped.

Without further notice. Until then you must guess if it was processed or not.

Re: Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale?

#187

Post by spookthesunset » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

etr-strike wrote: post #182

KirinDave wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is a lot of things, and many of them interesting, but suggesting that ~4 t/s is impressive or "scaling" is an insult to kids in high school writing rails apps that can do 100x the volume. We already know at least 2 obvious ways to improve the transaction flow rate of bitcoin in trustless ways, and many others are being proposed that do not also create energy arms races. Please don't redefine success.

If proof of stake proves itself to actually work, Bitcoin will adopt it. Migrating a 200 billion dollar network to an untested PoW proposal would be irresponsible. Arbitrarily increasing blocksize without addressing propagation delay and centralization impacts is also irresponsible. Bitcoin has been tirelessly working on the scaling problem in a responsible way. SegWit will allow up to 12t/s. Mimble Wimble and Schnor…

> If proof of stake proves itself to actually work, Bitcoin will adopt it.

I wouldn't hold my breath for that. Bitcoin still is having a holy war about increasing the blocksize.

One side effect of this whole deal is it shows that it is incredibly hard, if not possible, to change a decentralized system. By its very design, it will be all but impossible to make any breaking changes to bitcoin at this point.

> Lightning network further reduces the number of onchain transactions necessary.

Besides being complete vaporware, I do love how the solution to Bitcoin's scaling problems is to not use it...

Re: Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale?

#188

Post by Bombthecat » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

Pica_soO wrote: post #73

colordrops wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is being missed by your analysis is that the value in a blockchain comes more from the network than the tech. There are thousands upon thousands of blockchains of no value. You could fork bitcoin or some other chain right now and start it on your laptop. Doesn't mean anything - the network is the value. So taking this into account, when the shackles of Bitcoin's simplicity and limitations become unbearable, the…

If humanity decides to walk the path of the worser tech, you can build a metropolis from diamond and light elsewhere as much as you want- nobody is going to migrate. They are going to pay outrageous sums, to upgrade the path the group is already heading down, the will pay to bribe and cast aside tech that holds them back. Alternative standards, no matter how pure and clean from a technical point of perspective, will…

Jep, that's why you just invest in bitcoin if you want to make money

Re: Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale?

#189

Post by spookthesunset » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 6:00 PM UTC

hbosch wrote: post #92

kybernetikos wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it'll happen because Bitcoin is not the technically best solution in this incredibly exciting field Not only that, but it's shown that it doesn't have the ability to make the changes necessary to innovate and stay current.

In fairness (I'm personally not a Bitcoin supporter) from the outside, it seemed more like the problem is no one can agree on who should be pushing changes and innovation: Core Dev or the coalition of miners?

> In fairness (I'm personally not a Bitcoin supporter) from the outside, it seemed more like the problem is no one can agree on who should be pushing changes and innovation: Core Dev or the coalition of miners?

If you step back and look at any kind of "libertarian" driven project this becomes a problem. When everybody who makes something inherently distrusts authority or having anybody "in charge", you can never really build anything big. I'd say bitcoin provides good evidence that to make any big change in a system the buck always has to stop with some individual.

With nobody in charge, you'll just drift around at the same local maximum--sometimes going up a bit, sometimes going down a bit, but never moving to an even larger but different source of value.

I dunno... just a thought....

Re: Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale?

#190

Post by natch » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 6:00 PM UTC

Bombthecat wrote: post #186

moduspol wrote: post #79

Others here are touching on Bitcoin being like the "1.0" of cryptocurrency, but it's actually a lot more than that. In the public eye, it's a symbol of what cryptocurrencies can be. You're suggesting Bitcoin just proved it can't scale, but it actually just proved it did--just not with transaction volume. The network continued to process transactions averaging one block every ten minutes exactly as it was built to do,…

Dude, It literally stopped accepting transactions. After 72 hours your transaction is dropped. Without further notice. Until then you must guess if it was processed or not.

Citation needed.