Live data from Hacker News

Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale?

news.ycombinator.com

341–350 of 501 posts

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

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a silly comment. This is like saying that you have a Bus with 20 seats and 40 people that want to ride. Your advice isn't get a bigger bus it is get to the bus stop earlier. It doesn't matter how early everyone gets there in the end there are only 20 seats.

You are right although I don't fully understand your analogy but bitcoin never guaranteed all transactions will go through because it couldn't because noone could make a system with infinite capacity. 20$ transaction fee is an incentive for the users to restrain themselves to smaller number of larger transfers. Is the limit too strict? Probably. Miners still get a lot from mining rewards and don't need to be incentiv…

Visa manages to make all of its transactions go through. Mastercard doesn't seem to run into scaling problems. Paypal can transfer money at pretty much any time. Why is bitcoin exempt as a transaction layer?

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

#342
post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure why it matters what the original purpose was. It seems that current consensus of bitcoin is to be a competitor to gold for store of value. there may be other cryptocurrencies that act more like currencies

> It seems that current consensus of bitcoin is to be a competitor to gold for store of value. Only made by the incompetent/corrupt developers. Regular users just don't want to pay outrageous fees.

what outrageous fees? you can send a billion dollars for 10 bucks.

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

#344

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,…

Not sure what is going on in this thread, but every comment defending lightning or current bitcoin implementation or bitcoin-core is being massively downvoted... And they are substantive or at least informative comments.

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sold on Bitcoin but I don’t agree with your definition of what it needs to be successful. There is no reason that actual bitcoin end-users need to deal directly in bitcoin. If Bitcoin were to ever become a major currency, a big if, there would be financial institutions (banks) issuing instruments (physical or digital notes) backed by real bitcoins held by those institutions. Real bitcoin transactions would be…

This defeats the entire purpose of bitcoin. The goal is a decentralized currency that isn’t controlled by shady political interests, and can reasonably replace normal currency. Why would you want Bank 2.0?

Bank 2.0 could also run its ledger of debts and credits on a public/easily auditable blockchain, and make a lot of guarantees that Bank 1.0 can't.

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

#346
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "demand for USD" is really demand for goods and services that are priced in USD. Because everyone living in the U.S. uses USD because that's what we pay taxes in in the U.S., most people in the U.S. offer their goods and services in exchange for it.

The demand for USD comes from the legal structures that exist in the United States for things like debts, torts, taxes, etc. Basically, if you take out a loan to buy a house, you have a legal obligation to repay it regardless of how it is denominated by your bank; but if you fail to meet that obligation, you will need to deal with a bankruptcy court, which will only deal in USD. So if you take out a 40BTC mortgage an…

> So the demand for USD is only indirectly due to demand for goods and services; after all, there must be some reason why merchants are pricing their wares in USD. The direct driver of demand is the law itself, hence "fiat" currency.

That's exactly what I was saying: the goods and services are priced in USD because the legal structures require USD. I just used taxes as the most simple example.

But the whole point of the legal structures requiring USD is to get people to offer goods and services for sale in exchange for it. That way the government can purchase goods and services from the private sector to use as public goods, without having to first "get the money" from somewhere else.

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

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sold on Bitcoin but I don’t agree with your definition of what it needs to be successful. There is no reason that actual bitcoin end-users need to deal directly in bitcoin. If Bitcoin were to ever become a major currency, a big if, there would be financial institutions (banks) issuing instruments (physical or digital notes) backed by real bitcoins held by those institutions. Real bitcoin transactions would be…

This defeats the entire purpose of bitcoin. The goal is a decentralized currency that isn’t controlled by shady political interests, and can reasonably replace normal currency. Why would you want Bank 2.0?

There will always be derivatives of underlying assets. Preventing that is not the “entire point” of bitcoin. Replacing the underlying asset, currently fiat currency, is the point.

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

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right although I don't fully understand your analogy but bitcoin never guaranteed all transactions will go through because it couldn't because noone could make a system with infinite capacity. 20$ transaction fee is an incentive for the users to restrain themselves to smaller number of larger transfers. Is the limit too strict? Probably. Miners still get a lot from mining rewards and don't need to be incentiv…

Visa manages to make all of its transactions go through. Mastercard doesn't seem to run into scaling problems. Paypal can transfer money at pretty much any time. Why is bitcoin exempt as a transaction layer?

I don't know how many times I couldn't pay with my Visa because system is down or slow today or transaction gets rejected for whatever reason. I believe there's a subset of whole Visa thing that always works, does what it supposed to do and processes everything it supposed to (while cashing in few percents on each purchase) but it is far from perfect from the point of view of the user.

The real difference is that visa has percentage fees on volume and bitcoin has fees dependent on number of transactions want to do at the moment. It's sensible since to avoid trusting single party bitcoin nodes all keep all thansactions that ever happened. Incentivising people to limit their number is a good thing for bitcoin network.

But thanks to that bitcoin won't ever be Visa 2.0

For me bitcoin for payments should work similarily to how prepaid phones work. You land in another country, you buy a card from local provider, you charge it with bitcoins and you usr it to shop.

I think bitpay is already doing something like that.

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

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lightning allows instantaneous and cheap payments without the need to hit the chain. Mimblewimble allows for pruning of block chain history down to a few dozen bytes per historical transaction in the limit. If it is still an issue then at some point we could decide to checkpoint the UTXO set of a block sufficiently buried in the past (say, 1+ year) and just sync from there.

> Lightning allows instantaneous and cheap payments without the need to hit the chain. But a transaction to set up a channel needs to hit the chain first. What's the intended workflow for occasionally (once every few weeks) instantaneously ordering pizza via Lightning? Would I have to set up a very long lived channel with my preferred pizza place in advance?

No no no, that's just payment channels. Lightning is multi-hop payment protocol on top of the traditional channel idea. Alice has a channel with Bob, and Bob has a channel with the Pizza company, and the Pizza company has a channel with its employees for salary and tips. On delivery, Alice pays Bob, Bob pays the Pizza company, and the Pizza company keeps some and forwards on just Alice's tip to the delivery guy. This is coordinated and setup in less than a second of communication among the parties along the route (meaning Bob and the Pizza company need to have their nodes online; but there can be non-routable offline signers at the endpoints; the Lightning routing is an online protocol however), but the payment is atomic -- intermediaries like Bob only get their money if they forward it on (minus a reasonable micro-fee), and either all channel updates happen or none at all. It only takes about the same amount of time as a point of sale credit card transaction to setup and sign, and completion of the atomic signing step is finality of settlement, so long as the parties remain online to check for preemptive or fraudulent channel closure.

Lightning allows sub-second transactions with finality of settlement for any routable path along a peer-to-peer network of payment channels. Because of the six degrees of Kevin Bacon idea, anyone can pay anyone else on the network with a dozen or so different hops in the worst case, each hop taking a really small fee, like a hundredth of a percent. A true peer-to-peer electronic cash system, if you will.

As in this example, your long-lived channels as an individual are likely to be with your employer or payroll company, your mortgage company, your telco, your favorite restaurants, and other other regular payments you make or sources of income. As an organization your channels will probably be with your suppliers (accounts payable) and major customers (accounts receivable), as well as payroll and office supply companies, etc. But you're able to reach everyone on the network through these starting points. This allows you to do things like proactively "pull" in funds from accounts receivable to cover expenses, by routing through that part of the network. It maps pretty well onto both the individual and corporate use cases.

It also allows micropayment in bitcoin again.. the cost of a payment is basically the cost of maintaining these online routable nodes, and the message communication, which is probably sub-cents in the limit. It's possible you can, e.g., do a 5-cent payment per article view on a news website, or per song played on a future Spotify, etc.

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

#350
post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems that current consensus of bitcoin is to be a competitor to gold for store of value. Only made by the incompetent/corrupt developers. Regular users just don't want to pay outrageous fees.

what outrageous fees? you can send a billion dollars for 10 bucks.

I'd be surprised if you weren't aware that the fee isn't proportional to the amount being transacted. A $10 fee on a $10 transaction is outrageous.
Post reply on HN