Live data from Hacker News

Did Bitcoin just prove it can't scale?

news.ycombinator.com

81–90 of 501 posts

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

#81

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,…

The size of blocks is not core to the algorithm of Bitcoin though. What would you say to the person trying to send $30 only to have $20 of it eaten up in fees? Come back later when you can afford to use Bitcoin?

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

#82
post #4

IMHO (because to claim to "know" anything about how this is all going to turn out is to be a fraud), Bitcoin is the proof of concept for this whole crypto thing. It was the first. It was the genesis idea. But good lord, do we think it's the actual solution? What would be the odds? I imagine that Bitcoin will play its part as the public face of the blockchain revolution, but something else - or many other somethings -…

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…

With atomic swaps and other innovations in the space, the cost of switching networks is becoming smaller. It’s hard to say how all of this will pan out, but I’m guessing we’ll see a much more diverse space than what you’re picturing.

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

#83
post #4

IMHO (because to claim to "know" anything about how this is all going to turn out is to be a fraud), Bitcoin is the proof of concept for this whole crypto thing. It was the first. It was the genesis idea. But good lord, do we think it's the actual solution? What would be the odds? I imagine that Bitcoin will play its part as the public face of the blockchain revolution, but something else - or many other somethings -…

If you have a bitcoin and cash out the amount you make us fixed/limited to the current value if a bitcoin. If you don't cash out the maximum you could possibly lose is 1 bitcoin but that amount you could make is largely unlimited. Your bitcoin could triple or 100x in value.

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

#84

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.

You have it flipped. Recall that most miners (by hash rate) supported segwit2x. Miners want bigger blocks because they can make more through volume.

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

#85

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,…

The size of blocks is not core to the algorithm of Bitcoin though. What would you say to the person trying to send $30 only to have $20 of it eaten up in fees? Come back later when you can afford to use Bitcoin?

I'd say stop storing your spending money as btc, it's an asset not cash. Can you liquidate your 30$ peice of gold in < 4 hours for market value? Probably not.

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

#86

Two popular refrains on scaling: a. Block size - This was increased in bitcoin cash. What many people are not aware of is the paper 'Information propagation in the bitcoin network' by Decker and Wattenhofer in 2013. The average time for a block to be seen by a node is ~13 secs. As per the paper: "For blocks, whose size is larger than 20kB, each kilobyte costs an additional 80ms delay until a majority knows about the…

Anybody can run a lightning node. I intend to do so. It's not like PayPal where if you want to pay using PayPal you have to use PayPal-the-company. With Lightning, if you want to pay using Lightning you can use any route you like over the Lightning Network to reach the recipient of the payment.

If you run your own LN node, your channel is associated with your IP, and your transactions are associated with your channel. It is the same as reusing a single bitcoin address for all your transactions, with all the consequences [1], except this time you can tracked down to your physical location. In vanilla bitcoin you can at least generate addresses at will, while opening and closing payment channels every now and then undermines the whole idea of the off-chain transaction layer.

[1] - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse

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

#87
post #64
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's about 19 minutes and 59 seconds longer than what would be acceptable for a digital cash system.

You just need to wait for a few seconds for the transaction to be "pending" though, which is enough for small-medium payments. Unless you're worried the guy buying a 5$ burrito from you will mine a block with his double-spent transaction.

A service could pop up that offers to double spend your $5 transaction and refund you a percentage of the amount. If they mine the block you scam a few bucks, if they don’t you paid full price. It would be profitable for the miner and for the burrito buyer at the expense of the burrito seller. If such a service becomes common, that seller is going to start making you pre-order your burrito 20 minutes in advance – at which point people will just switch to cash, credit, or a blockchain without these problems.

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

#89

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,…

The size of blocks is not core to the algorithm of Bitcoin though. What would you say to the person trying to send $30 only to have $20 of it eaten up in fees? Come back later when you can afford to use Bitcoin?

Use a different cryptocurrency.

Seriously. And I'm not trying to be cheeky. If Bitcoin ends up only being a settlement layer, it'll still be a colossal success just being a decentralized, supply-limited, uncensorable, world-accessible payment system and store of value.

If someone else solves the scaling debacle better, I'll be the first to recommend that normal people switch to it. But it's not easy, and the world is watching Bitcoin. Governments are starting to accept its existence, big financial institutions are starting (just this month) to allow options trading, etc. That stuff is far more important even for other cryptocurrencies than low fees.

After six months of no issues with Bitcoin options trading, it's only a matter of time before other cryptocurrencies get the same treatment. That's why we need Bitcoin to be rock steady and predictable, while others can try to solve these tough problems.

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

#90
post #4

IMHO (because to claim to "know" anything about how this is all going to turn out is to be a fraud), Bitcoin is the proof of concept for this whole crypto thing. It was the first. It was the genesis idea. But good lord, do we think it's the actual solution? What would be the odds? I imagine that Bitcoin will play its part as the public face of the blockchain revolution, but something else - or many other somethings -…

This is my thought as well, and I don't understand why it isn't more commonly stated. The sheer chances that the very first implementation of this technology turns out to not only be viable for long-term success, but is actually adopted as such, seems extraordinarily low. There's what I call the "football" effect. The player jumps on the football after a fumble, and while he's the first to grab it, there's a handful…

There's also something called "first mover advantage", which kind of contradicts your "football effect". There have been a ton of altcoins created, none of which have crushed Bitcoin. Bitcoin is still holding on to the football quite handily.
Post reply on HN