5 ms·

I'm still not sure how I feel about implementing a layer over the Bitcoin network like this instead of just fixing the inherent flaws with the protocol. Especia

by jswny 10y ago

I'm still not sure how I feel about implementing a layer over the Bitcoin network like this instead of just fixing the inherent flaws with the protocol. Especially when said network is being pushed by the company Blockstream which is known for shady practices.

paavokoya 10y ago
>instead of just fixing the inherent flaws with the protocol What are the "inherent flaws"? Seems like the bitcoin blockchain has done its job better than any other blockchain for longer. Also, it's open source.. You can submit a proposal yourself if you want to fix it..
- sanswork 10y ago
  It doesn't scale.
- stale2002 10y ago
  "You can submit a proposal yourself if you want to fix it" Not really. The vast majority of the bitcoin community has been trying to do just that. But a few devs have unilaterally been able to block the changes. The Devs have a lot of "soft power" to do stuff like that.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    How do you know the vast majority has been trying to do it?
    - stale2002 10y ago
      As measured by the fact that every major bitcoin company and mining pool has explicitly said that they want these changes to take place? They want these changes to happen, they just want the Core Development team to say that they are going to stay out of the way, and not attempt to burn the whole thing down if they don't get their way.
      - sanswork 10y ago
        If they want them to happen the Core Development team can't do anything to stop it. They can huff and puff but if everyone moves to another fork they lose all power. So if every major company and mining pool really wants it why haven't they gone around the core developers and coordinated a move?
        stale2002 10y ago
        Yes they can do things to stop it. They can refuse to update core. They can say that they have 10% of the mining power and threaten to not move over to the hard fork. Basically, they can scare people into thinking that there is going to be two separate, competing chains. This would cause prices to crash , and crash hard. Because of this threat to burn the whole thing to the ground, they prevent the community from acting in the first place, even though it has the support to do so.
        sanswork 10y ago
        >They can refuse to update core. Doesn't matter the majority of users have moved to the new fork. That becomes the new core. >They can say that they have 10% of the mining power and threaten to not move over to the hard fork. Why would this matter? That 10% of miners will move over quickly or lose money by mining on a fork with no value. >Basically, they can scare people into thinking that there is going to be two separate, competing chains. There would be but since the majority of users and miners and companies want the one you want theirs would be losing right? >This would cause prices to crash , and crash hard. Why? If the vast majority want the change then they will just continue on as normal. It's only the people still using the old fork that will have problems. None of these problems exist if the majority truely wants the change.
        nullc 10y ago
        If it's a simple majority then that isn't true, a 50/50 split of the economy or hashrate would be pretty devastating. But if it were overwhelming, what you argue would hold.
  - nullc 10y ago
    > The vast majority of the bitcoin community has been trying to do just that. Thats a common claim made on easily sockpuppeted forums, but when put to cryptographic votes, we find pretty much the opposite response: http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-win... Similarly, I've found in person meetings to also yield similar results. > But a few devs Really, almost the _entire_ technical community; with the exception of a few high profile companies and their consultants. > have unilaterally been able to block the changes That isn't how Bitcoin works.
    - out_of_protocol 10y ago
      I'm looking at this mess for quote a while and still don't understand - why not bigger blocks? Is there good reason for that? (Combibed with thin blocks it doesn't increase propagation and stuff even for chinese miners). I'd like to hear that developers think
    - bachback 10y ago
      why can't you face up to the fact that Blockstream is the de-facto governance body for Bitcoin? It claims it is, and you spend countless hours on the Internet trying to show the opposite. "Cryptographic votes" - duh, that's what the Bitcoin consensus should be for. I can't fathom that somehow so deeply engaged in the project doesn't understand this most obvious fact.
  - wellthissukz 10y ago
    This is the truth. Bitcoin development has been hijacked by Blockstream since 2014.
- ptokb3 10y ago
  I think he means that blocks are full and even transactions with correct fees will fail to confirm during high-volume transaction times. It's a flaw because users did nothing wrong yet their transaction could take hours if not days to confirm if it confirms at all. The most simple and straightforward fix is to increase the maximum blocksize from 1MB to something larger, which many users in the space have demanded. The max-blocksize was always meant to deter spam and attacks. New users should use Bitcoin Classic, which fixes the problem and subverts Blockstream's obstruction.
- ywecur 10y ago
  It's not nearly that straight forward. Many "fixes" would create incompatible blockchains between the different versions. In practise you need to get consensus before your fork can even be used.
josephpoon 10y ago
The Lightning Network is blocksize agnostic. I haven't been arguing on either side of the blocksize debate.
um_ya 10y ago
Lightning network is the fix. It essentially makes bitcoin transactions lightning channels rather than recording every transaction that ever existed. Raising the block size won't solve anything, it will only make miners store more data and transfer more data. Lighting network solves all of this, and the concept is actually pretty simple and very secure once you understand it.
- mhluongo 10y ago
  Lightning is a fix, not the fix. Even with lightning, we need bigger blocks (and a number of other measures) to scale.
  - TheBlight 10y ago
    LN doesn't even exist. There's no design for how it will function at scale as dishonestly advertised.
- CookieMon 10y ago
  It's an awesome feature, but it's not a fix - Lightning requires a 24/7 online connection, which will also combine with several other pressures to strongly favor central hubs, putting easily regulated payment processors back in change of who can spend money (a bad thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11944011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11944011). Plus it won't work (in the sense of saving blockchain space) for people who have few peers and tend to move money in one direction, e.g. a consumer connected to a "paypal"-like lightning service who makes purchases but doesn't sell online, this could be a significant portion of users. It's a great extension to Bitcoin, but it shouldn't be confused with what Bitcoin does.
  - onetallnerd 10y ago
    No. You don't. It can be set to having to be on at least once a week, or trustlessly outsourcing the requirement.
    - 10y ago
bachback 10y ago
Yes. The actual competition takes place in the market. If you have a really good idea - make a new Coin or join any of the 100's out there.
nullc 10y ago
> which is known for shady practices What are you referring to?

by jswny 10y ago

paavokoya 10y ago

>instead of just fixing the inherent flaws with the protocol What are the "inherent flaws"? Seems like the bitcoin blockchain has done its job better than any other blockchain for longer. Also, it's open source.. You can submit a proposal yourself if you want to fix it..

sanswork 10y ago
It doesn't scale.
stale2002 10y ago
"You can submit a proposal yourself if you want to fix it" Not really. The vast majority of the bitcoin community has been trying to do just that. But a few devs have unilaterally been able to block the changes. The Devs have a lot of "soft power" to do stuff like that.
- sanswork 10y ago
  How do you know the vast majority has been trying to do it?
  - stale2002 10y ago
    As measured by the fact that every major bitcoin company and mining pool has explicitly said that they want these changes to take place? They want these changes to happen, they just want the Core Development team to say that they are going to stay out of the way, and not attempt to burn the whole thing down if they don't get their way.
    - sanswork 10y ago
      If they want them to happen the Core Development team can't do anything to stop it. They can huff and puff but if everyone moves to another fork they lose all power. So if every major company and mining pool really wants it why haven't they gone around the core developers and coordinated a move?
      - stale2002 10y ago
        Yes they can do things to stop it. They can refuse to update core. They can say that they have 10% of the mining power and threaten to not move over to the hard fork. Basically, they can scare people into thinking that there is going to be two separate, competing chains. This would cause prices to crash , and crash hard. Because of this threat to burn the whole thing to the ground, they prevent the community from acting in the first place, even though it has the support to do so.
        sanswork 10y ago
        >They can refuse to update core. Doesn't matter the majority of users have moved to the new fork. That becomes the new core. >They can say that they have 10% of the mining power and threaten to not move over to the hard fork. Why would this matter? That 10% of miners will move over quickly or lose money by mining on a fork with no value. >Basically, they can scare people into thinking that there is going to be two separate, competing chains. There would be but since the majority of users and miners and companies want the one you want theirs would be losing right? >This would cause prices to crash , and crash hard. Why? If the vast majority want the change then they will just continue on as normal. It's only the people still using the old fork that will have problems. None of these problems exist if the majority truely wants the change.
        nullc 10y ago
        If it's a simple majority then that isn't true, a 50/50 split of the economy or hashrate would be pretty devastating. But if it were overwhelming, what you argue would hold.
- nullc 10y ago
  > The vast majority of the bitcoin community has been trying to do just that. Thats a common claim made on easily sockpuppeted forums, but when put to cryptographic votes, we find pretty much the opposite response: http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-win... Similarly, I've found in person meetings to also yield similar results. > But a few devs Really, almost the _entire_ technical community; with the exception of a few high profile companies and their consultants. > have unilaterally been able to block the changes That isn't how Bitcoin works.
  - out_of_protocol 10y ago
    I'm looking at this mess for quote a while and still don't understand - why not bigger blocks? Is there good reason for that? (Combibed with thin blocks it doesn't increase propagation and stuff even for chinese miners). I'd like to hear that developers think
  - bachback 10y ago
    why can't you face up to the fact that Blockstream is the de-facto governance body for Bitcoin? It claims it is, and you spend countless hours on the Internet trying to show the opposite. "Cryptographic votes" - duh, that's what the Bitcoin consensus should be for. I can't fathom that somehow so deeply engaged in the project doesn't understand this most obvious fact.
- wellthissukz 10y ago
  This is the truth. Bitcoin development has been hijacked by Blockstream since 2014.
ptokb3 10y ago
I think he means that blocks are full and even transactions with correct fees will fail to confirm during high-volume transaction times. It's a flaw because users did nothing wrong yet their transaction could take hours if not days to confirm if it confirms at all. The most simple and straightforward fix is to increase the maximum blocksize from 1MB to something larger, which many users in the space have demanded. The max-blocksize was always meant to deter spam and attacks. New users should use Bitcoin Classic, which fixes the problem and subverts Blockstream's obstruction.
ywecur 10y ago
It's not nearly that straight forward. Many "fixes" would create incompatible blockchains between the different versions. In practise you need to get consensus before your fork can even be used.

josephpoon 10y ago

The Lightning Network is blocksize agnostic. I haven't been arguing on either side of the blocksize debate.

um_ya 10y ago

Lightning network is the fix. It essentially makes bitcoin transactions lightning channels rather than recording every transaction that ever existed. Raising the block size won't solve anything, it will only make miners store more data and transfer more data. Lighting network solves all of this, and the concept is actually pretty simple and very secure once you understand it.

mhluongo 10y ago
Lightning is a fix, not the fix. Even with lightning, we need bigger blocks (and a number of other measures) to scale.
- TheBlight 10y ago
  LN doesn't even exist. There's no design for how it will function at scale as dishonestly advertised.
CookieMon 10y ago
It's an awesome feature, but it's not a fix - Lightning requires a 24/7 online connection, which will also combine with several other pressures to strongly favor central hubs, putting easily regulated payment processors back in change of who can spend money (a bad thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11944011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11944011). Plus it won't work (in the sense of saving blockchain space) for people who have few peers and tend to move money in one direction, e.g. a consumer connected to a "paypal"-like lightning service who makes purchases but doesn't sell online, this could be a significant portion of users. It's a great extension to Bitcoin, but it shouldn't be confused with what Bitcoin does.
- onetallnerd 10y ago
  No. You don't. It can be set to having to be on at least once a week, or trustlessly outsourcing the requirement.
  - 10y ago

bachback 10y ago

Yes. The actual competition takes place in the market. If you have a really good idea - make a new Coin or join any of the 100's out there.

nullc 10y ago

> which is known for shady practices What are you referring to?