11 ms·

All existing cryptocurrencies have a block size issue because blockchains have terrible scalability; removing a safety limit doesn't make the underlying problem

All existing cryptocurrencies have a block size issue because blockchains have terrible scalability; removing a safety limit doesn't make the underlying problem go away.

bduerst 10y ago
I'm referring to the famed blocksize debate [1] that's happened with Bitcoin, in which several miners have gained control of the blockchain through economies of scale and are preventing forks for block size increase [2]. This size increase would allow for more than 7 tx/s but it would also increase costs for miners, so the miners are ignoring it, effectively making it tragedy of the commons. Note: This isn't a blockchain issue, it's a Bitcoin issue. Other blockchains have implemented different measures to deal with transaction saturation and block size caps. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy [1] https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.xtjp0wbx1 https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experi...
- stale2002 10y ago
  Look, I am a pro big blocker myself (I think that the network would be perfectly fine with a 4-8x capacity increase). But Peter Todd has a point. (I would hope so. He is literally one of the experts) Imagine if blocks were x Gigabytes. Thats X GigaBytes that have to be sent to every single miner in the world every 10 minutes! There is a fundamental N squared problem in blockchains that you can't get around without using some very clever tricks that haven't been implemented yet.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Litecoin has the same blocksize as Bitcoin, but resolves blocks every 2.5 minutes instead of 10, giving it more 4x capacity. ZCash just forces block size increases as hard forks. Like I said, different blockchains solves the blocksize differently, and Bitcoin has demonstrated that it's not capable of addressing it's blocksize issue and can't scale. You can scoff and say, "That's a non-issue.", but even at the start of an NPR Planet Money podcast episode about Bitcoins, where they do a Bitcoin transfer, it hits the cap and gets lost.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      Litecoin's capacity is still nothing compared to VISA or Mastercard. The question is not whether a crytocurrency can do 4X. The question is whether it can do 1,000X or more.
      - tlrobinson 10y ago
        You don't need to settle every transaction on the blockchain itself. See https://lightning.network/ https://lightning.network/
        bduerst 10y ago
        Sidechains are not a workaround, even ignoring that they're centralized and marketed as such. Sidechains only solve the problem of user scalability, not volume scalability, because they still require the Bitcoin network to verify. For example, on a side chain it would take seconds to make 10,000,000 transactions between 2 people, but making 2 transactions between 10,000,000 people would take over a month.
        tlrobinson 10y ago
        Sidechains and Lightning Network are not the same thing. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network https://lightning.network/ https://lightning.network/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-network-better-than-sidechains-for-scaling-bitcoin-1461077424 https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-... It's basically a network of "payment channels" you can route instantaneous off-chain payments over, which occasionally settle on the blockchain. And you don't need to trust anyone in the network with your funds.
        bduerst 10y ago
        So it's an alt-coin that still requires bitcoin?
  - pmorici 10y ago
    The creator of Bitcoin very much disagreed with Peter Todd's view. In 1999 people thought sending video let alone HD video over the Internet was totally nuts and impossible. Then YouTube happened and now we have HD video streaming to the extent that cable companies are worried it is going to put them out of business.

All existing cryptocurrencies have a block size issue because blockchains have terrible scalability; removing a safety limit doesn't make the underlying problem go away.

bduerst 10y ago

I'm referring to the famed blocksize debate [1] that's happened with Bitcoin, in which several miners have gained control of the blockchain through economies of scale and are preventing forks for block size increase [2]. This size increase would allow for more than 7 tx/s but it would also increase costs for miners, so the miners are ignoring it, effectively making it tragedy of the commons. Note: This isn't a blockchain issue, it's a Bitcoin issue. Other blockchains have implemented different measures to deal with transaction saturation and block size caps. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy [1] https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.xtjp0wbx1 https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experi...

stale2002 10y ago
Look, I am a pro big blocker myself (I think that the network would be perfectly fine with a 4-8x capacity increase). But Peter Todd has a point. (I would hope so. He is literally one of the experts) Imagine if blocks were x Gigabytes. Thats X GigaBytes that have to be sent to every single miner in the world every 10 minutes! There is a fundamental N squared problem in blockchains that you can't get around without using some very clever tricks that haven't been implemented yet.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Litecoin has the same blocksize as Bitcoin, but resolves blocks every 2.5 minutes instead of 10, giving it more 4x capacity. ZCash just forces block size increases as hard forks. Like I said, different blockchains solves the blocksize differently, and Bitcoin has demonstrated that it's not capable of addressing it's blocksize issue and can't scale. You can scoff and say, "That's a non-issue.", but even at the start of an NPR Planet Money podcast episode about Bitcoins, where they do a Bitcoin transfer, it hits the cap and gets lost.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Litecoin's capacity is still nothing compared to VISA or Mastercard. The question is not whether a crytocurrency can do 4X. The question is whether it can do 1,000X or more.
    - tlrobinson 10y ago
      You don't need to settle every transaction on the blockchain itself. See https://lightning.network/ https://lightning.network/
      - bduerst 10y ago
        Sidechains are not a workaround, even ignoring that they're centralized and marketed as such. Sidechains only solve the problem of user scalability, not volume scalability, because they still require the Bitcoin network to verify. For example, on a side chain it would take seconds to make 10,000,000 transactions between 2 people, but making 2 transactions between 10,000,000 people would take over a month.
        tlrobinson 10y ago
        Sidechains and Lightning Network are not the same thing. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network https://lightning.network/ https://lightning.network/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-network-better-than-sidechains-for-scaling-bitcoin-1461077424 https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-... It's basically a network of "payment channels" you can route instantaneous off-chain payments over, which occasionally settle on the blockchain. And you don't need to trust anyone in the network with your funds.
        bduerst 10y ago
        So it's an alt-coin that still requires bitcoin?
- pmorici 10y ago
  The creator of Bitcoin very much disagreed with Peter Todd's view. In 1999 people thought sending video let alone HD video over the Internet was totally nuts and impossible. Then YouTube happened and now we have HD video streaming to the extent that cable companies are worried it is going to put them out of business.