3 ms·

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 belie

by 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.
- hudon 9y ago
  > 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 That's precisely my point. Contributors have shown that full nodes are necessary to preserve the security of the network (see the links I posted), but the proposal of S2X was executed without ever engaging on a discussion to answer the very questions you are asking now. They are good questions, and we should discuss them and we should answer them. But Jeff Garzik and the 5 other CEOs did not attempt to do this research and instead steamrolled ahead with btc1/s2x.
  - lawn 9y ago
    The damage the 1MB limit has done and is doing to Bitcoin is far more than possibly a couple of lost nodes would mean after an upgrade to 2MB. This has been a problem for years. For example Gavin thought 16MB would be perfectly safe. There's research being done now examining 1GB blocks and how that would affect propagation time. A lousy 2MB is honestly laughable. Doing nothing isn't the pragmatic or sane approach, it's the insane one.
    - hudon 9y ago
      In one post your criticism is that there is a lack of research, and I agree. But now you're making unsubstantiated claims again... the damage done to bitcoin? All meaningful metrics from BitPay's transaction volume [0] to on chain USD volume [1] to the price [2] shows that Bitcoin is doing fine and does not need saving. Public data shows that even though a fee market is developing, Bitcoin is still rising quickly in use and value. As for the 1GB block research you're talking about, it was literally presented 5 days ago. S2X proposal started in May and the fork was planned for next week. The way we want this secure digital money thing to work is that proposals that are controversial or that may affect security are researched and the research is reviewed over many months or years. I know you want to take the quick approach and just LOWER FEES NOW, but we know -- from experience -- that a cowboy attitude with blockchains makes it trivial to lose a lot of money [3]. [0] https://blog.bitpay.com/bitpay-growth-2017/ https://blog.bitpay.com/bitpay-growth-2017/ [1] https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?daysAverageString=7&timespan=2years https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-... [2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#charts https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#charts [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/accidental-bug-may-have-frozen-280-worth-of-ether-on-parity-wallet.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/accidental-bug-may-have-froz...

by hudon 9y ago

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.

hudon 9y ago
> 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 That's precisely my point. Contributors have shown that full nodes are necessary to preserve the security of the network (see the links I posted), but the proposal of S2X was executed without ever engaging on a discussion to answer the very questions you are asking now. They are good questions, and we should discuss them and we should answer them. But Jeff Garzik and the 5 other CEOs did not attempt to do this research and instead steamrolled ahead with btc1/s2x.
- lawn 9y ago
  The damage the 1MB limit has done and is doing to Bitcoin is far more than possibly a couple of lost nodes would mean after an upgrade to 2MB. This has been a problem for years. For example Gavin thought 16MB would be perfectly safe. There's research being done now examining 1GB blocks and how that would affect propagation time. A lousy 2MB is honestly laughable. Doing nothing isn't the pragmatic or sane approach, it's the insane one.
  - hudon 9y ago
    In one post your criticism is that there is a lack of research, and I agree. But now you're making unsubstantiated claims again... the damage done to bitcoin? All meaningful metrics from BitPay's transaction volume [0] to on chain USD volume [1] to the price [2] shows that Bitcoin is doing fine and does not need saving. Public data shows that even though a fee market is developing, Bitcoin is still rising quickly in use and value. As for the 1GB block research you're talking about, it was literally presented 5 days ago. S2X proposal started in May and the fork was planned for next week. The way we want this secure digital money thing to work is that proposals that are controversial or that may affect security are researched and the research is reviewed over many months or years. I know you want to take the quick approach and just LOWER FEES NOW, but we know -- from experience -- that a cowboy attitude with blockchains makes it trivial to lose a lot of money [3]. [0] https://blog.bitpay.com/bitpay-growth-2017/ https://blog.bitpay.com/bitpay-growth-2017/ [1] https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?daysAverageString=7&timespan=2years https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-... [2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#charts https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#charts [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/accidental-bug-may-have-frozen-280-worth-of-ether-on-parity-wallet.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/accidental-bug-may-have-froz...