4 ms·

> > The larger issue is that some of the core developers don't want to scale Bitcoin at all. They would rather have a more decentralized, less widely used Bitco

by toomim 11y ago

> > The larger issue is that some of the core developers don't want to scale Bitcoin at all. They would rather have a more decentralized, less widely used Bitcoin. > This is not the case. See: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq No, parent's statement is correct. Luke Jr, for instance, thinks that 1MB is already too big: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/404b01/ulukejr_1_mb_is_too_large_today/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/404b01/ulukejr_1_mb_is... You're pointing at a document jointly written by a number of Core Developers, but some developers don't want Bitcoin to scale at all.

Rauchg 11y ago
Increasing the block size is not the only way to make the system scale. Imagine that you have 300GB available to store logs for requests to your webserver. Let's say you're at 250GB and you can make calculations that, based on your website's growth and traffic projections, you'll hit your 300GB limit by the end of the year. One way to scale is to buy new hard drives. Another way to scale is to keep only the most recent 300GB. Another way to scale is to ask yourself: do you want every single entry in the log, with user agent, IP, headers and TLS handshake parameters? Perhaps you care only about malicious actors. Perhaps you care about some critical business events. In that case, an alternative would be to aggregate and collapse log entries. In the context of a system that is designed for decentralization, those scaling strategies seem to be a better fit.
- pmorici 11y ago
  Bitcoin already supports what you describe, block chain pruning which greatly reduces the resources required to run a node.
  - Rauchg 11y ago
    Sure, but you also have to reduce the size of the incoming stream (by taking transactions off-chain).
    - pmorici 11y ago
      No, you really don't.
nullc 11y ago
Hi, Which developers don't want Bitcoin to scale at all. I think that it's critical that when the founder and lead developer of Bitcoin "Classic" makes allegations like this that they back them up concretely.

by toomim 11y ago

Rauchg 11y ago

Increasing the block size is not the only way to make the system scale. Imagine that you have 300GB available to store logs for requests to your webserver. Let's say you're at 250GB and you can make calculations that, based on your website's growth and traffic projections, you'll hit your 300GB limit by the end of the year. One way to scale is to buy new hard drives. Another way to scale is to keep only the most recent 300GB. Another way to scale is to ask yourself: do you want every single entry in the log, with user agent, IP, headers and TLS handshake parameters? Perhaps you care only about malicious actors. Perhaps you care about some critical business events. In that case, an alternative would be to aggregate and collapse log entries. In the context of a system that is designed for decentralization, those scaling strategies seem to be a better fit.

pmorici 11y ago
Bitcoin already supports what you describe, block chain pruning which greatly reduces the resources required to run a node.
- Rauchg 11y ago
  Sure, but you also have to reduce the size of the incoming stream (by taking transactions off-chain).
  - pmorici 11y ago
    No, you really don't.

nullc 11y ago

Hi, Which developers don't want Bitcoin to scale at all. I think that it's critical that when the founder and lead developer of Bitcoin "Classic" makes allegations like this that they back them up concretely.