3 ms·

> In particular I can't really imagine how LN could reach a Visa-level number of transactions without having a few mega "nexus nodes" I think that's a valid po

> In particular I can't really imagine how LN could reach a Visa-level number of transactions without having a few mega "nexus nodes" I think that's a valid point, but we won't know how it will play out until we actually get there. It seems to me that the "large block" crowd is of the "let's not go there" opinion, but I think they're resisting the inevitable.

smokeyj 9y ago
> I think that's a valid point, but we won't know how it will play out That sounds like a terrible plan. Let it play out on Litecoin or some other toy blockchain. The large block crowd wants the easiest most straight forward way of scaling now. Which isn't to say other solutions aren't welcomed. But it's strange that the Core team has made it an either or. It's weird how in certain forums there seems to be overwhelming support for blockstream - but everyone I meet in real life doesn't have that same enthusiasm.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  Well some of the big blockers are against anything that'd prevent ASICBoost (which is a really fun/neat thing, look up the details if you haven't.) That does cast some suspicion on the purity of their motives. But I think the slightly-larger blocksize (8MB) for now is quite reasonable, and the lack of even 2MB size is really indefensible.
  - smokeyj 9y ago
    I don't know much about ASICBoost - but if the reason for changing the PoW algo is because of the US patent system.. then let the US patent system catch up, not the other way around. Bitcoin wasn't designed so that American miners have an equal opportunity.. Who comes up with these ideas
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      Parents aside, I understand AsicBoost encourages empty blocks.
simias 9y ago
>I think that's a valid point, but we won't know how it will play out until we actually get there. That seems to be the consensus and that's my main issue with the entire ordeal. We're talking about a $40 billion market cap currency, not a bittorent tracker. Maybe it would be worth taking a bit more time to run some simulations and figure out the long term plan? IMO looking mostly from the outside (I'm not heavily invested in any cryptocurrency) it would've been more reasonable to bump the block size a little bit in the short term (maybe 2 or 4MB) to let the current architecture carry its weight for a few more months or even years and take that time to come up with something better than "back of the envelope calculations", to cite what I read in some LN papers.
MichaelGG 9y ago
So block even slightly larger blocks just because "we'll find a better way eventually"? Why not both?

smokeyj 9y ago

> I think that's a valid point, but we won't know how it will play out That sounds like a terrible plan. Let it play out on Litecoin or some other toy blockchain. The large block crowd wants the easiest most straight forward way of scaling now. Which isn't to say other solutions aren't welcomed. But it's strange that the Core team has made it an either or. It's weird how in certain forums there seems to be overwhelming support for blockstream - but everyone I meet in real life doesn't have that same enthusiasm.

MichaelGG 9y ago
Well some of the big blockers are against anything that'd prevent ASICBoost (which is a really fun/neat thing, look up the details if you haven't.) That does cast some suspicion on the purity of their motives. But I think the slightly-larger blocksize (8MB) for now is quite reasonable, and the lack of even 2MB size is really indefensible.
- smokeyj 9y ago
  I don't know much about ASICBoost - but if the reason for changing the PoW algo is because of the US patent system.. then let the US patent system catch up, not the other way around. Bitcoin wasn't designed so that American miners have an equal opportunity.. Who comes up with these ideas
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    Parents aside, I understand AsicBoost encourages empty blocks.

simias 9y ago

>I think that's a valid point, but we won't know how it will play out until we actually get there. That seems to be the consensus and that's my main issue with the entire ordeal. We're talking about a $40 billion market cap currency, not a bittorent tracker. Maybe it would be worth taking a bit more time to run some simulations and figure out the long term plan? IMO looking mostly from the outside (I'm not heavily invested in any cryptocurrency) it would've been more reasonable to bump the block size a little bit in the short term (maybe 2 or 4MB) to let the current architecture carry its weight for a few more months or even years and take that time to come up with something better than "back of the envelope calculations", to cite what I read in some LN papers.

MichaelGG 9y ago

So block even slightly larger blocks just because "we'll find a better way eventually"? Why not both?