6 ms·

"6 people called off the fork. Think about that." [0] A censorship resistant digital cash is being built, and it only took 6 small time CEOs to completely thro

by hudon 9y ago

"6 people called off the fork. Think about that." [0] A censorship resistant digital cash is being built, and it only took 6 small time CEOs to completely throw everyone off and almost derail the project. When someone like CME Group, who now has skin in the game, also starts pulling their weight, who knows if the bitcoin experiment will survive? [0] https://twitter.com/arronschaar/status/928316853092433920 https://twitter.com/arronschaar/status/928316853092433920

matthewbauer 9y ago
But the main reason they called it off was that it was extremely unlikely to succeed in being a bitcoin successor.
lawn 9y ago
Contrast it to how many people it takes to block any on chain scaling. As everyone practically runs Core the power in practice lies with their maintainers. Bitcoin as it is now is crippled. There is no reason to block on chain scaling except for the Core maintainers to retain their power and allow their second layer solutions to viable.
- hudon 9y ago
  People choose to run Core and the network is worth 122 billion dollars. You haven't provided any good arguments for on chain scaling but the market is screaming "bitcoin is doing it right".
  - lawn 9y ago
    > You haven't provided any good arguments for on chain scaling Multiple dollar fees doesn't require any more arguments. The lack of arguments against on chain scaling, backed by actual research, is what's lacking. > but the market is screaming "bitcoin is doing it right". Have you considered that it's driven by speculation instead of technical merit? When the blockchain becomes unusable due to high fees and congestion the bottom will fall out. It cannot be driven by pure speculation forever.
    - hudon 9y ago
      The pure speculators I know invest in smaller cap cryptocurrencies to maximize their gains. The only people I know invested in bitcoin are in because they believe in its long term value. Anyway at this point you're trying to predict the future and I'm sharing anecdotes so we're not getting anywhere, let's tackle your main point: > The lack of arguments against on chain scaling, backed by actual research, is what's lacking. The value of full nodes is widely understood by bitcoin contributors [0][1][2]. Increasing the block size directly increases the amount of resources required to run a full node. Increased bandwidth requirements is especially a problem. It is up to the candidate (s2x), not the incumbent (core) to show that no, it won't be harder to run full nodes, or to show that you can have just as much security by running an SPV node. Because the candidate has failed to back up their proposal with evidence that security is not harmed, the proposal cannot be allowed to move forward. Makes sense? [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/3eq3y7/full_node_question/ctk4lnd/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/3eq3y7/fu... [1] https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-full-nodes-889c20100a8d https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-full-nodes-889c20100a8d [2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node
      - lawn 9y ago
        So your only focus is on full nodes. So where's the research of how expensive nodes are and how many nodes would be lost if an upgrade to 2MB would happen? How big of a loss would be acceptable? Ideally how many nodes should exist in the network for it to be sufficiently decentralized? How much bandwidth is needed? How long can we expect our storage to last? There is no credible research done, there are no numbers, yet even the smallest size increase is blocked. It's also blocked by the same people who have previously supported even larger increases. What made them change their minds? Sure isn't any new research. But the fundamental issue is that not everyone need to run a full node as long as you can connect to sufficiently many nodes yourself. There's simply no point in engaging in full node fetishism where everyone need to run one where the worst internet connection hamstrings the entire network. Most people run SPV wallets today anyway and the important nodes are the ones run by businesses and wallet services.
tpallarino 9y ago
Called off a fork that wasn't going anywhere anyway.
rrhd 9y ago
> A censorship resistant digital cash No, a way for a few people to get rich has been built.

by hudon 9y ago

matthewbauer 9y ago

But the main reason they called it off was that it was extremely unlikely to succeed in being a bitcoin successor.

lawn 9y ago

Contrast it to how many people it takes to block any on chain scaling. As everyone practically runs Core the power in practice lies with their maintainers. Bitcoin as it is now is crippled. There is no reason to block on chain scaling except for the Core maintainers to retain their power and allow their second layer solutions to viable.

hudon 9y ago
People choose to run Core and the network is worth 122 billion dollars. You haven't provided any good arguments for on chain scaling but the market is screaming "bitcoin is doing it right".
- lawn 9y ago
  > You haven't provided any good arguments for on chain scaling Multiple dollar fees doesn't require any more arguments. The lack of arguments against on chain scaling, backed by actual research, is what's lacking. > but the market is screaming "bitcoin is doing it right". Have you considered that it's driven by speculation instead of technical merit? When the blockchain becomes unusable due to high fees and congestion the bottom will fall out. It cannot be driven by pure speculation forever.
  - hudon 9y ago
    The pure speculators I know invest in smaller cap cryptocurrencies to maximize their gains. The only people I know invested in bitcoin are in because they believe in its long term value. Anyway at this point you're trying to predict the future and I'm sharing anecdotes so we're not getting anywhere, let's tackle your main point: > The lack of arguments against on chain scaling, backed by actual research, is what's lacking. The value of full nodes is widely understood by bitcoin contributors [0][1][2]. Increasing the block size directly increases the amount of resources required to run a full node. Increased bandwidth requirements is especially a problem. It is up to the candidate (s2x), not the incumbent (core) to show that no, it won't be harder to run full nodes, or to show that you can have just as much security by running an SPV node. Because the candidate has failed to back up their proposal with evidence that security is not harmed, the proposal cannot be allowed to move forward. Makes sense? [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/3eq3y7/full_node_question/ctk4lnd/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/3eq3y7/fu... [1] https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-full-nodes-889c20100a8d https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-full-nodes-889c20100a8d [2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node
    - lawn 9y ago
      So your only focus is on full nodes. So where's the research of how expensive nodes are and how many nodes would be lost if an upgrade to 2MB would happen? How big of a loss would be acceptable? Ideally how many nodes should exist in the network for it to be sufficiently decentralized? How much bandwidth is needed? How long can we expect our storage to last? There is no credible research done, there are no numbers, yet even the smallest size increase is blocked. It's also blocked by the same people who have previously supported even larger increases. What made them change their minds? Sure isn't any new research. But the fundamental issue is that not everyone need to run a full node as long as you can connect to sufficiently many nodes yourself. There's simply no point in engaging in full node fetishism where everyone need to run one where the worst internet connection hamstrings the entire network. Most people run SPV wallets today anyway and the important nodes are the ones run by businesses and wallet services.

tpallarino 9y ago

Called off a fork that wasn't going anywhere anyway.

rrhd 9y ago

> A censorship resistant digital cash No, a way for a few people to get rich has been built.