4 ms·

Still wrapping my head around the Bitcoin ecosystem, but listened to an interview of Nick Szabo by Tim Ferris where Nick pretty explicitly indicates that increa

Still wrapping my head around the Bitcoin ecosystem, but listened to an interview of Nick Szabo by Tim Ferris where Nick pretty explicitly indicates that increasing the block size isn't a good idea and shouldn't even be a debate. He makes it sound like anyone in the "know" understands this. What is the argument for the other side? A Reddit post has the quote here, but I recommend the whole interview. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6fhmge/nick_szabo_theres_an_obsessive_group_of_people/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6fhmge/nick_szabo_... https://tim.blog/2017/06/04/nick-szabo/ https://tim.blog/2017/06/04/nick-szabo/

MichaelGG 9y ago
Satoshi said blockchain size isn't an issue, and the solution is to not care about how big it gets. For this guy to pretend this is some super advanced thing mere mortals can't understand and shouldn't talk about is obscene.
TD-Linux 9y ago
He's probably referring to this handy chart of Bitcoin Core developer support of current hard and soft forks: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support However, I think it's incorrect to say most developers disagree with increasing the block size or a hard fork. Segwit increases the block size, as do hard forks proposed by some Bitcoin Core developers like Spoonnet [1]. There is just a general dislike towards the existing technical proposals. [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-February/013542.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017...
wolco 9y ago
We must look very closely at experts who made the argument that anyone who is an expert agrees and understands this. If you do not agree you are not in the 'know'. This shouldn't even be discussed now that experts like myself have stated our opinion. This topic seems technical but at it's core it is about self interest, fear and money.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
> He makes it sound like anyone in the "know" understands this. That's quite telling, isn't it? There's this huge debate, but his argument is that it's obvious? From a 'tradition' or 'legacy' standpoint, the blocksize limit was never meant to be a persistent thing. It was not present in the whitepaper or the initial implementations, and when Satoshi added it, it was explicitly stated that the limit should be raised as needed and as computer hardware and network capacity increased. When Satoshi left, the project was handed to Gavin, who has gone to great lengths to support blocksize increase. Similarly, other early developers like Jeff Garzik and Mike Hearn strongly support on-chain scaling. I think it is quite fair to say that the original intention for the limit was simply an anti-spam measure, and was not intended to limit network usage, for whatever that's worth. Larger blocks require more cost to run a node. It costs more network capacity, more storage, more time to spin up a node, etc. The argument is that these costs will decrease node count to a dangerous degree. More network use could, however, create incentive for more people to run nodes. Clearly there's a trade-off between extremes, so a careful consideration must be made about where the best trade-off occurs. Larger blocks are a liability to miners as they increase the chance of orphaned blocks. This has two primary effects: it places a natural limit to the block size miners are willing to mine, and it creates incentives for miners to have excellent network access to the rest of the network. This later issue can mean mining centralization. This is one of the core arguments against increasing block size, but it's a very complicated issue. One of the primary confounders is ASIC development, which means rapid capital turnover and short investment timelines for mining. As ASIC development reaches state-of-the-art node sizes, and also as the Bitcoin price stabilizes, mining investment looks very different. This is very difficult to predict. Small blocks greatly limit what Bitcoin can do. It places a hard cap on transaction throughput. The formation of a transaction fee market greatly discourages small transactions, making Bitcoin inaccessible to a wide range of people. It makes any address with Bitcoin less than the txn fee effectively unspendable. In the extreme, it limits Bitcoin to the role of digital gold, a speculation vehicle with little use as a medium of transaction. There are two big open questions: * Will larger blocks lead to dangerous centralization? * Will 2nd layer solutions provide effective scaling solutions? In the end, all of this deals with trade-offs, but worse, trade-offs with difficult-to-quantify risks at either extreme. I simply would not trust anyone that is dogmatic about their favored approach. My personal view is that the conservative approach with least risk is to permit moderate blocksize increases while 2nd layer solutions are being developed, and to continue the debate as the network develops. This is, in effect, exactly what the '2X' compromise does.

MichaelGG 9y ago

Satoshi said blockchain size isn't an issue, and the solution is to not care about how big it gets. For this guy to pretend this is some super advanced thing mere mortals can't understand and shouldn't talk about is obscene.

TD-Linux 9y ago

He's probably referring to this handy chart of Bitcoin Core developer support of current hard and soft forks: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support However, I think it's incorrect to say most developers disagree with increasing the block size or a hard fork. Segwit increases the block size, as do hard forks proposed by some Bitcoin Core developers like Spoonnet [1]. There is just a general dislike towards the existing technical proposals. [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-February/013542.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017...

wolco 9y ago

We must look very closely at experts who made the argument that anyone who is an expert agrees and understands this. If you do not agree you are not in the 'know'. This shouldn't even be discussed now that experts like myself have stated our opinion. This topic seems technical but at it's core it is about self interest, fear and money.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago

> He makes it sound like anyone in the "know" understands this. That's quite telling, isn't it? There's this huge debate, but his argument is that it's obvious? From a 'tradition' or 'legacy' standpoint, the blocksize limit was never meant to be a persistent thing. It was not present in the whitepaper or the initial implementations, and when Satoshi added it, it was explicitly stated that the limit should be raised as needed and as computer hardware and network capacity increased. When Satoshi left, the project was handed to Gavin, who has gone to great lengths to support blocksize increase. Similarly, other early developers like Jeff Garzik and Mike Hearn strongly support on-chain scaling. I think it is quite fair to say that the original intention for the limit was simply an anti-spam measure, and was not intended to limit network usage, for whatever that's worth. Larger blocks require more cost to run a node. It costs more network capacity, more storage, more time to spin up a node, etc. The argument is that these costs will decrease node count to a dangerous degree. More network use could, however, create incentive for more people to run nodes. Clearly there's a trade-off between extremes, so a careful consideration must be made about where the best trade-off occurs. Larger blocks are a liability to miners as they increase the chance of orphaned blocks. This has two primary effects: it places a natural limit to the block size miners are willing to mine, and it creates incentives for miners to have excellent network access to the rest of the network. This later issue can mean mining centralization. This is one of the core arguments against increasing block size, but it's a very complicated issue. One of the primary confounders is ASIC development, which means rapid capital turnover and short investment timelines for mining. As ASIC development reaches state-of-the-art node sizes, and also as the Bitcoin price stabilizes, mining investment looks very different. This is very difficult to predict. Small blocks greatly limit what Bitcoin can do. It places a hard cap on transaction throughput. The formation of a transaction fee market greatly discourages small transactions, making Bitcoin inaccessible to a wide range of people. It makes any address with Bitcoin less than the txn fee effectively unspendable. In the extreme, it limits Bitcoin to the role of digital gold, a speculation vehicle with little use as a medium of transaction. There are two big open questions: * Will larger blocks lead to dangerous centralization? * Will 2nd layer solutions provide effective scaling solutions? In the end, all of this deals with trade-offs, but worse, trade-offs with difficult-to-quantify risks at either extreme. I simply would not trust anyone that is dogmatic about their favored approach. My personal view is that the conservative approach with least risk is to permit moderate blocksize increases while 2nd layer solutions are being developed, and to continue the debate as the network develops. This is, in effect, exactly what the '2X' compromise does.