7 ms·

Why do you say it's an attempt to make Bitcoin more efficient? It's essentially exactly the code base of Bitcoin core with some very minor changes including a b

Why do you say it's an attempt to make Bitcoin more efficient? It's essentially exactly the code base of Bitcoin core with some very minor changes including a block size commitment in the future. Seems pretty clear that it is about control of that code base, and not really the technical underpinnings which are almost identical. I think the issue is that people have a vision of what Bitcoin is, that doesn't align with the reality of a proof-of-work system with a computation bound hash. The block size is basically orthogonal to the proof-of-work, and the proof-of-work is distributed in the sense that anyone can do it. There is nothing stopping any entity from doing the proof-of-work if they have the resources and capabilities. So this idea that there will be one company that is the only one doing Bitcoin doesn't really make sense if it's cost competitive for other companies to be involved, regardless of the computation or bandwidth requirements. End users can still validate transactions via SPV, which is completely valid and provable without storing the entire block chain. Consensus relay nodes can do the same thing, although they will start dropping off the network when the bandwidth costs become prohibitive. So in a small block system we have an extremely limited amount of space for transactions, which means the cost will eventually be excessively high and result in settlement between big players. That's the choke point that allows for KYC and AML. You can submit a transaction to the network, but you can't afford to because there isn't enough bandwidth to service your request so you are forced into regulated channels, onto exchanges, or through third party choke points that can be audited. To a certain extent this is already happening. People who want small blocks for Bitcoin really need to be thinking about using an Alt coin, it was never in the plans to have an extremely low bandwidth pipe to keep things decentralized when the proof-of-work is by default a centralizing force.

kanzure 9y ago
> End users can still validate transactions via SPV, which is completely valid and provable without storing the entire block chain fraud proofs don't work because if you want to prevent someone from creating a fraud proof, you never send them the data that would be necessary to prove a fraud ("the block is too big! nobody (but some list of companies) have the bandwidth to support the enormous bitcoin network!"). SPV users don't require (nor check) the block data-- exactly the kind of scenario where you need in place so as to hide fraudulent double spends or other rule violations. > the proof-of-work is by default a centralizing force sounds like a good argument for regular pow change hard-forks. also to be watchful for economies of scale-- but economies of scale can hide pretty well i think, even after significant capital accumulation, it's an interesting problem.
- buttershakes 9y ago
  SPV does absolutely check the block headers, which is all you need to do the proof. You can say that transactions could be omitted from the actual block chain, but not that invalid header data could be served that let someone believe they were paid when they were not or some other falsification.
  - kanzure 9y ago
    you're talking only about SPV proof of transaction inclusion, not about the other fraud proofs necessary for the version of SPV theorized in bitcoin.pdf here's a recent one: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0180.mediawiki https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0180.mediawi... But why would a miner give an SPV user the data that proves a fraudulent double spend in the same block?
    - buttershakes 9y ago
      Blocks aren't valid with double spends in them. You are saying the miner makes an invalid block by the rules in order to have a double spend transaction and then mislead the spv client with that information? I'm not making the argument that relay nodes are useless just that their security is being over stated, it catches this particular issue.
hudon 9y ago
1. SPV is not sufficient for security because it requires whitelisted nodes. If your client connects to a malicious node, you are shit out of luck. 2. There is no non-blockchain alternative to online censorship resistant cash. So if the price to use it is high, you will either pay the fee for censorship resistance or use your credit card (which is faster, cheaper, gives you rewards or cash back, provides consumer protection, etc., but is not censorship resistant). Altcoins basically act as market forces which allow us to discover what the world is willing to pay for censorship resistant digital cash, and you see this when markets which actually need censorship resistance (eg. Silk Road, AlphaBay, etc.) talk about considering Monero or something else when Bitcoin's fees get too high.
- buttershakes 9y ago
  1. You just need to connect to enough nodes that their is a statistical probability that you aren't being censored. 2. There are already alternatives which have better censorship resistance than Bitcoin, limiting the block size does little to fix those issues. I also don't think the market actually values censorship resistance in their digital cash as much as you think.
  - hudon 9y ago
    > I also don't think the market actually values censorship resistance in their digital cash Alphabay processed $600,000 to $800,000 per day [1]. This is economic activity for tangible goods. In the list of other top uses of the blockchain might be ICOs, which are a way to leverage censorship resistance to raise money without permission from the SEC. On the high end, these accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars within minutes. Please show me a use case for a blockchain-based cryptocurrency that even comes close to these numbers and that does not need censorship resistance. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/alphabay-takedown-dark-web-chaos/ https://www.wired.com/story/alphabay-takedown-dark-web-chaos...
    - buttershakes 9y ago
      I'm not sure why you think $800,000 per day is a lot. Compare that to daily volume for usage of the currency itself across all applications. https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-...
hellbanner 9y ago
Making sure I'm following your last sentence -- "centralizing force" because of the power miner teams wield over the blockchain? (Electricity power = control of network)

kanzure 9y ago

> End users can still validate transactions via SPV, which is completely valid and provable without storing the entire block chain fraud proofs don't work because if you want to prevent someone from creating a fraud proof, you never send them the data that would be necessary to prove a fraud ("the block is too big! nobody (but some list of companies) have the bandwidth to support the enormous bitcoin network!"). SPV users don't require (nor check) the block data-- exactly the kind of scenario where you need in place so as to hide fraudulent double spends or other rule violations. > the proof-of-work is by default a centralizing force sounds like a good argument for regular pow change hard-forks. also to be watchful for economies of scale-- but economies of scale can hide pretty well i think, even after significant capital accumulation, it's an interesting problem.

buttershakes 9y ago
SPV does absolutely check the block headers, which is all you need to do the proof. You can say that transactions could be omitted from the actual block chain, but not that invalid header data could be served that let someone believe they were paid when they were not or some other falsification.
- kanzure 9y ago
  you're talking only about SPV proof of transaction inclusion, not about the other fraud proofs necessary for the version of SPV theorized in bitcoin.pdf here's a recent one: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0180.mediawiki https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0180.mediawi... But why would a miner give an SPV user the data that proves a fraudulent double spend in the same block?
  - buttershakes 9y ago
    Blocks aren't valid with double spends in them. You are saying the miner makes an invalid block by the rules in order to have a double spend transaction and then mislead the spv client with that information? I'm not making the argument that relay nodes are useless just that their security is being over stated, it catches this particular issue.

hudon 9y ago

1. SPV is not sufficient for security because it requires whitelisted nodes. If your client connects to a malicious node, you are shit out of luck. 2. There is no non-blockchain alternative to online censorship resistant cash. So if the price to use it is high, you will either pay the fee for censorship resistance or use your credit card (which is faster, cheaper, gives you rewards or cash back, provides consumer protection, etc., but is not censorship resistant). Altcoins basically act as market forces which allow us to discover what the world is willing to pay for censorship resistant digital cash, and you see this when markets which actually need censorship resistance (eg. Silk Road, AlphaBay, etc.) talk about considering Monero or something else when Bitcoin's fees get too high.

buttershakes 9y ago
1. You just need to connect to enough nodes that their is a statistical probability that you aren't being censored. 2. There are already alternatives which have better censorship resistance than Bitcoin, limiting the block size does little to fix those issues. I also don't think the market actually values censorship resistance in their digital cash as much as you think.
- hudon 9y ago
  > I also don't think the market actually values censorship resistance in their digital cash Alphabay processed $600,000 to $800,000 per day [1]. This is economic activity for tangible goods. In the list of other top uses of the blockchain might be ICOs, which are a way to leverage censorship resistance to raise money without permission from the SEC. On the high end, these accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars within minutes. Please show me a use case for a blockchain-based cryptocurrency that even comes close to these numbers and that does not need censorship resistance. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/alphabay-takedown-dark-web-chaos/ https://www.wired.com/story/alphabay-takedown-dark-web-chaos...
  - buttershakes 9y ago
    I'm not sure why you think $800,000 per day is a lot. Compare that to daily volume for usage of the currency itself across all applications. https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-...

hellbanner 9y ago

Making sure I'm following your last sentence -- "centralizing force" because of the power miner teams wield over the blockchain? (Electricity power = control of network)