[deleted]
Overheating datacenter stopped 2.5M bank transactions
81–90 of 91 posts
Re: Overheating datacenter stopped 2.5M bank transactions
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> lightning transactions are useless until you sync them with the main network. This is absolutely false. Why do you even think this?? Heck, have you never seen people buying real world stuff with Lightning transactions in El Salvador? Are you aware that if you receive BTC over lightning, you can spend them over lightning, with a different party, without hitting the main network? > Skip the middle man that no one wan…
What middle man? Is the middle man in the room with us? The middle man is a layer that no one wants and it is not in the room with us now because no one wants it. 15k "Entities" means a bunch of VMs spun on the same servers. And when they get moderately popular, the size of their block history becomes prohibitively expensive to download and verify. This is where the technical rubber meets the road with all the lightn…
> Bitcoin right now has the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem
You're only considering the bandwidth to monitor/receive transaction confirmations in real-time and not the bandwidth to download the transaction history, which cumulatively grows over time, forever.
It's already at more than half a terabyte, which you certainly can't download over a 28.8 modem.
> At one point single transactions cost more than the space to store the entire chain.
The problem has never been about space, it has always been about bandwidth.
> Normal people don't even need to sync with the main chain if they don't want to.
Sure, but you need to put some bounds on how fast the main chain can grow to ensure that anyone (even the people, say, in El Salvador or the Central African Republic, both poor countries where Bitcoin is legal tender) can verify it if they want to.
> The actual numbers of bandwidth and storage of this argument are so far removed from reality I can't believe people still say stuff like this. It's pure propaganda.
Or perhaps you are privileged and you don't even notice, and therefore you are incapable of empathizing with others who are less privileged than you (in this specific instance)?
In any case, even if you were to ignore this, increasing the block size even by a factor of 100 would not fundamentally solve the problem.
It would still be a pathetically low transaction rate compared to Lightning and it would also certainly constrain Bitcoin usage as it was intended (as a trustless currency/asset).
That's not to say I would be against increasing the block size by a reasonably small factor, but I'm certainly not in a position to judge whether this should be done right now. I think it'd be better to ask the people in those countries, or even poorer ones who might one day make Bitcoin legal tender as well...
Re: Overheating datacenter stopped 2.5M bank transactions
#83Seems like more testing is in order: > Upon the outage, both banks immediately activated IT disaster recovery and business continuity plans. > "However," according to Tan, "both banks encountered technical issues which prevented them from fully recovering their affected systems at their respective backup datacenters – DBS due to a network misconfiguration and Citibank due to connectivity issues." Perhaps regularly fl…
"No recovery plan is worth anything if it is not tested regularly." "An untested recovery plan is worth less than the paper on which it is printed." I'm sure there are many other versions of the quote
"Backup--very, very boring. Restore--very, very exciting."
Re: Overheating datacenter stopped 2.5M bank transactions
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
What middle man? Is the middle man in the room with us? The middle man is a layer that no one wants and it is not in the room with us now because no one wants it. 15k "Entities" means a bunch of VMs spun on the same servers. And when they get moderately popular, the size of their block history becomes prohibitively expensive to download and verify. This is where the technical rubber meets the road with all the lightn…
> Bitcoin right now has the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem You're only considering the bandwidth to monitor/receive transaction confirmations in real-time and not the bandwidth to download the transaction history, which cumulatively grows over time, forever. It's already at more than half a terabyte, which you certainly can't download over a 28.8 modem. > At one point single transactions cost more than the space to store…
A $9 VPS with gigabit internet is literally one million times the bandwidth that bitcoin transactions take. ONE MILLION. Downloading the whole chain should take just over one hour. There is no argument here. You didn't use actual numbers at all. It's all fake propaganda nonsense. And again, someone using a cryptocurrency doesn't need to sync with the chain. Exchanges and nodes do.
Even though you already said it's all about bandwidth, next you'll say it's about the CPU to verify, even though that takes a second per block at most.
Then you'll say it's actually about hard drive space, even though a 512 GB SSD costs $24 dollars while fees for a single transaction spiked above $30 on average earlier this year. Right now they are at $6 USD!
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees...
You didn't make a technical argument with numbers because you can't. Your next reply won't have real numbers either, it will be more attempts to obscure what you can't defend with attacks, distractions and more copy and pasted arguments that don't add up.
Re: Overheating datacenter stopped 2.5M bank transactions
#85Seems like more testing is in order: > Upon the outage, both banks immediately activated IT disaster recovery and business continuity plans. > "However," according to Tan, "both banks encountered technical issues which prevented them from fully recovering their affected systems at their respective backup datacenters – DBS due to a network misconfiguration and Citibank due to connectivity issues." Perhaps regularly fl…
Probably observer's bias, but I've never seen a recovery plan work like it's supposed to.
Seeing this play out in IT makes me really worried when it comes to critical infrastructure.
On paper, there are plans and redundancies upon redundancies, and everything is perfectly safe.
In practice, I haven't seen them exercised, and some of these plans sound incredibly optimistic...
Re: Overheating datacenter stopped 2.5M bank transactions
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably observer's bias, but I've never seen a recovery plan work like it's supposed to.
Seeing this play out in IT makes me really worried when it comes to critical infrastructure. On paper, there are plans and redundancies upon redundancies, and everything is perfectly safe. In practice, I haven't seen them exercised, and some of these plans sound incredibly optimistic...
Humans are pretty good at scrambling around to hack something together when shit really hits the fan.
Re: Overheating datacenter stopped 2.5M bank transactions
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the heck are you talking about? None of what you just said makes any sense.
Pennies need converted to BTC first, which means many more transactions, which means that Lightning destroys the planet even faster than BTC. It's simple math. BTC has been consuming all of the planets energy since at least 2020[1]. This increased transaction rate of Lightning just means that BTC will soon be consuming over twice the total energy produced by humanity, which is unsustainable. Of course, people who don…
> BTC has been consuming all of the planets energy since at least 2020[1].
That is plainly false[2], and the linked article does not say what your sentence purports it to say. :D
2: as evidence I can point out that I have seen at least one car moving since 2020. That was clearly using energy BTC did not consume. Same with observing at least one light bulb illuminating, or at least one person breathing.
Re: Overheating datacenter stopped 2.5M bank transactions
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seeing this play out in IT makes me really worried when it comes to critical infrastructure. On paper, there are plans and redundancies upon redundancies, and everything is perfectly safe. In practice, I haven't seen them exercised, and some of these plans sound incredibly optimistic...
Humans are pretty good at scrambling around to hack something together when shit really hits the fan.
That scrambling often comes too late to avert serious damage or deaths though.
Re: Overheating datacenter stopped 2.5M bank transactions
#89[flagged]
Re: Overheating datacenter stopped 2.5M bank transactions
#90[dead]