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

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

#381

Post by celticninja » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 9:46 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.

POS is neither secure nor an obvious solution.

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

#382

Post by Phenomenit » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 9:47 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #367

Phenomenit wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really a fare comparison? I mean Visa and Mastercard use the global banking infrastructure to complete its transactions. I cant open a Visa or Mastercard account but I can generate a wallet in one second and use it instantly.

I have two questions: 1) Is this wallet going to have any spendable money in it one second after creation, or do you have to wait for the network to process your transaction like everyone else? 2) How often is it useful to create a wallet in one second?

My point wasn't really about comparing Visa/Mastercard connected accounts with cryptoaccounts.

I just wanted to highlight that for a traditional transaction to be completed between to accounts requires a lot more energy and infrastructure than just the energy consumed directly by those services.

Nevertheless I still think its outrageous that so much energy is wasted mining BTC.

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

#383

Post by fullshark » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 9:47 PM UTC

sgspace wrote: post #373

Check out Bitcoin Cash if you want a scalable on chain crypto currency. Bitcoin Cash has the same history as Bitcoin up until August 1st, 2017 when they forked off the majority chain. Bitcoin Cash allows you to send any amount of money to anyone in the world for about 1 penny per transaction.

And if its transaction volume were equal to bitcoin what would happen?

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

#384

Post by chisleu » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 9:49 PM UTC

Bitcoin is like gold, has always been. It's pretty bad for routine payments.

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

#385

Post by KirinDave » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 9:49 PM UTC

Jasper_ wrote: post #214

KirinDave wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What on earth is this logic. Bitcoin is _by design_ inefficient. Its scaling inefficiency is the principle method by which it ensures fairness . That's what PoW chain commits are. That's how they work. Bitcoin was ALWAYS going to be inefficient. It was assumed that hardware would scale to keep up with demand, but that hasn't proven true in the advent of ad hoc mining pools.

> It was assumed that hardware would scale to keep up with demand, No, it was designed to stay at "one block every ten minutes" regardless of the hardware added or overall hashrate of the system. Which is why you hear a lot of people arguing over block size and block compression: you always have one block every ten minutes, how many transactions can we squeeze into that block? The only thing that adding more hashrate…

The power consumption is what I was alluding to. I guess I was too vague.

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

#386

Post by etr-strike » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

lawn wrote: post #370

etr-strike wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re upset the core devs didn’t let Bitcoin become a centralized coin? If you refuse to acknowledge the benefit of SegWit or the other scaling solutions then I can’t help you. Big blockers have their Jihan and Roger coin now. Stop trying to steal the bitcoin brand. If there was consensus for big blocks then Bitcoin would have activated. Jihan and Roger couldn’t convince the educated people that their proposals woul…

Sigh. Increasing the block size to 2MB nor 8MB for that matter will not make a centralized coin. Segwit (besides being a crappy implementation) is by far not enough scaling. That you blame Jihan and Roger is typical stupid propaganda which doesn't belong here.

According to actual research here: http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23...

Each additional kb results in an additional 80ms of delay until the majority learns about a block. Increasing to 8mb means you’re adding a 9min delay in propagation. That is pretty much guaranteed centralization.

Perhaps you have some research you can point me to that demonstrates otherwise?

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

#387

Post by sgspace » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

fullshark wrote: post #383

sgspace wrote: post #373

Check out Bitcoin Cash if you want a scalable on chain crypto currency. Bitcoin Cash has the same history as Bitcoin up until August 1st, 2017 when they forked off the majority chain. Bitcoin Cash allows you to send any amount of money to anyone in the world for about 1 penny per transaction.

And if its transaction volume were equal to bitcoin what would happen?

Well right now Bitcoin Cash has 8x the capacity for on chain scaling 1mb blocks on BTC vs 8mb on BCH. Next Bitcoin Cash fork gives us 32mb blocks or 32x transaction capacity.

Simplified a little bit I know you can pack segwit transactions into 1.7mb blocks on BTC.

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

#388

Post by rescripting » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 9:51 PM UTC

rabidrat wrote: post #270

rescripting wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that matter? If you're looking to develop a drug to treat hypertension but end up with Viagra by accident instead, do you throw it away because that wasn't the original goal?

If the production of Viagra at scale winds up causing global health problems, then yes, you throw it away.

This may be straining the metaphor a bit, but I think you underestimate how much individuals want a magic sex pill.

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

#389

Post by drdrey » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 9:51 PM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #222

goialoq wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dose makes the poison.

Except Bitcoin is inefficient by design (it’s what proof of work is) and the dosage is the market cap and transaction load. So what you’re really saying is bitcoin at the scale it was meant to operate at is poison.

No, the dosage is the hash rate (if more hash rate joins, the difficulty is automatically adjusted to keep it at 1 blocks / 10 min). The transaction output is constant, and market cap is irrelevant to the energy inefficiency discussion.

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

#390

Post by etr-strike » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 9:51 PM UTC

yonatano wrote: post #307

etr-strike wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn’t increase because simulations of increasing blocksize have demonstrated centralization. If we didn’t care about decentralization we’d just use a database.

Could you point me to some sources that discuss simulation of the blockchain network? I would be interested to learn more.

Sure, here you go: http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23...

Tl,dr: each additional kB in blocksize adds approximately 80ms of delay until the majority learns about a block.