6 ms·

Understanding Bitcoin is hard. Here is a response to some of the criticism: > Every time a block is validated, a single node in the network gets a reward, and

by VMG 9y ago

Understanding Bitcoin is hard. Here is a response to some of the criticism: > Every time a block is validated, a single node in the network gets a reward, and everyone else’s computing time is completely wasted. This is a misunderstanding of what PoW is http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ > The system already features a rather steep cost per transaction, and hardly any of those transactions are for the purchase of goods and services Second-layer scaling allows an arbitrary number of off-chain transactions based for a single on-chain transaction. See https://lightning.network https://lightning.network

UncleMeat 9y ago
Only if "arbitrary number" doesn't include an arbitrary number of addresses. You still need a transaction to set up a channel. Lightning shifts a cap on transactions to a cap on users while assuming that most people transact repeatedly with the same person and that btc users will be happy to lose the trust guarantees that btc brings over traditional services.
- Klathmon 9y ago
  You are missing the "network" part of lightning network. A "payment channel" only allows unlimited "transactions" between 2 people, the "lightning network" allows you to chain those together similar to an IP network where you can transact with anyone that has a route to you through anyone else. So if I have a channel open with my friend, who has a channel open with coinbase, who has a channel open with gemini, who has a channel open with you, we can transact over LN without opening or closing a channel.
- VMG 9y ago
  In addition to what my sibling comment says, LN channels retains trustlessness. Great Zappa album btw.
alex_young 9y ago
>> Every time a block is validated, a single node in the network gets a reward, and everyone else’s computing time is completely wasted. >This is a misunderstanding of what PoW is http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ Honest question: I tried to find the problem with that view in the link you provided, but couldn't. Can you explain it to others who may share the same belief? I think that's what the Bitcoin white paper describes, but could be mistaken.
- VMG 9y ago
  You need opportunity cost in order to secure the network. Without that, there is no incentive to keep the network secure. There is no cheaper solution to solve this problem, therefore there is no waste.
  - alex_young 9y ago
    Are claiming that the Bitcoin solution is the ideal solution to distributed trust? I don't know that that is not the case, but it seems unlikely that the first working solution was the best one doesn't it?
    - Klathmon 9y ago
      I doubt it's the "ideal" solution, but I do feel it's the "best" we currently have. You also need to remember that bitcoin is upgradable. If in the future we find better ways of doing distributed trust, and we can prove it, that doesn't mean that bitcoin is done and gone. If the vast majority of the users of bitcoin believe a change to whatever other "distributed trust" system that is better, the network can be upgraded to take advantage of it.
  - smogcutter 9y ago
    "Bitcoin is inherently wasteful, therefore it's not wasteful." What?
    - spookthesunset 9y ago
      Welcome to Bitcoin advocate logic. Clearly using more energy than a moderate sized european country in order to process 3 or 4 transactions per second isn't wasteful. Right? I mean in absolute numbers, says the bitcoin advocate, the fiat banking system has to use more, right?.... ....nevermind the fact they do something that is not driven by pure speculation and do it at thousands of times larger scales. Bitcoin -- the perfect intersection of people who don't understand finance, economics, computer science, scaling, politics, socio-economics, or math. PS: People only quote Bitcoin's energy use and often times they leave out things like air conditioning. Nobody seems to sum up the total energy required to power the entirety of the crypto "space" including Ethereum, Litecoin, etc.
ramphastidae 9y ago
There seems to be no timeline for LN’s release, and no sense of urgency from the devs. It feels very amateurish. There’s a good chance that by the time it comes out Bitcoin could be left in the dust by a different crypto currency.
- SkyMarshal 9y ago
  What are you talking about? The protocol is standardized, there are 3 implementations in testing, they're sending multi-hop transactions across all 3 different implementations on the Bitcoin mainnest, there's at least one client plus an explorer. https://news.bitcoin.com/lightning-networks-new-infrastructure-and-interoperability/ https://news.bitcoin.com/lightning-networks-new-infrastructu... It's clearly on track for a 2018 release.
  - ramphastidae 9y ago
    "On track for a 2018 release" is not a timeline, IMO. Elizabeth Stark said we were <6 months away in Dec 2015. https://twitter.com/starkness/status/676599570898419712 https://twitter.com/starkness/status/676599570898419712 And for the downvoters: I am no shill. I've been holding BTC long-term. I am just a realist with a good understanding of the reliability of software engineers' estimates, esp. in this case.
    - SkyMarshal 9y ago
      You can ignore what people say and just look at the evidence, which in this case is pretty clear. Segwit made LN a lot easier, the software is here and working, the fact that they can send a) multihop tx's b) across multiple different clients is a substantial signal about the project's progress. And yeah, don't expect anyone to commit to a more concrete timeline than "in 2018 sometime" when folks like you hold them to it.

by VMG 9y ago

UncleMeat 9y ago

Only if "arbitrary number" doesn't include an arbitrary number of addresses. You still need a transaction to set up a channel. Lightning shifts a cap on transactions to a cap on users while assuming that most people transact repeatedly with the same person and that btc users will be happy to lose the trust guarantees that btc brings over traditional services.

Klathmon 9y ago
You are missing the "network" part of lightning network. A "payment channel" only allows unlimited "transactions" between 2 people, the "lightning network" allows you to chain those together similar to an IP network where you can transact with anyone that has a route to you through anyone else. So if I have a channel open with my friend, who has a channel open with coinbase, who has a channel open with gemini, who has a channel open with you, we can transact over LN without opening or closing a channel.
VMG 9y ago
In addition to what my sibling comment says, LN channels retains trustlessness. Great Zappa album btw.

alex_young 9y ago

>> Every time a block is validated, a single node in the network gets a reward, and everyone else’s computing time is completely wasted. >This is a misunderstanding of what PoW is http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ Honest question: I tried to find the problem with that view in the link you provided, but couldn't. Can you explain it to others who may share the same belief? I think that's what the Bitcoin white paper describes, but could be mistaken.

VMG 9y ago
You need opportunity cost in order to secure the network. Without that, there is no incentive to keep the network secure. There is no cheaper solution to solve this problem, therefore there is no waste.
- alex_young 9y ago
  Are claiming that the Bitcoin solution is the ideal solution to distributed trust? I don't know that that is not the case, but it seems unlikely that the first working solution was the best one doesn't it?
  - Klathmon 9y ago
    I doubt it's the "ideal" solution, but I do feel it's the "best" we currently have. You also need to remember that bitcoin is upgradable. If in the future we find better ways of doing distributed trust, and we can prove it, that doesn't mean that bitcoin is done and gone. If the vast majority of the users of bitcoin believe a change to whatever other "distributed trust" system that is better, the network can be upgraded to take advantage of it.
- smogcutter 9y ago
  "Bitcoin is inherently wasteful, therefore it's not wasteful." What?
  - spookthesunset 9y ago
    Welcome to Bitcoin advocate logic. Clearly using more energy than a moderate sized european country in order to process 3 or 4 transactions per second isn't wasteful. Right? I mean in absolute numbers, says the bitcoin advocate, the fiat banking system has to use more, right?.... ....nevermind the fact they do something that is not driven by pure speculation and do it at thousands of times larger scales. Bitcoin -- the perfect intersection of people who don't understand finance, economics, computer science, scaling, politics, socio-economics, or math. PS: People only quote Bitcoin's energy use and often times they leave out things like air conditioning. Nobody seems to sum up the total energy required to power the entirety of the crypto "space" including Ethereum, Litecoin, etc.

ramphastidae 9y ago

There seems to be no timeline for LN’s release, and no sense of urgency from the devs. It feels very amateurish. There’s a good chance that by the time it comes out Bitcoin could be left in the dust by a different crypto currency.

SkyMarshal 9y ago
What are you talking about? The protocol is standardized, there are 3 implementations in testing, they're sending multi-hop transactions across all 3 different implementations on the Bitcoin mainnest, there's at least one client plus an explorer. https://news.bitcoin.com/lightning-networks-new-infrastructure-and-interoperability/ https://news.bitcoin.com/lightning-networks-new-infrastructu... It's clearly on track for a 2018 release.
- ramphastidae 9y ago
  "On track for a 2018 release" is not a timeline, IMO. Elizabeth Stark said we were <6 months away in Dec 2015. https://twitter.com/starkness/status/676599570898419712 https://twitter.com/starkness/status/676599570898419712 And for the downvoters: I am no shill. I've been holding BTC long-term. I am just a realist with a good understanding of the reliability of software engineers' estimates, esp. in this case.
  - SkyMarshal 9y ago
    You can ignore what people say and just look at the evidence, which in this case is pretty clear. Segwit made LN a lot easier, the software is here and working, the fact that they can send a) multihop tx's b) across multiple different clients is a substantial signal about the project's progress. And yeah, don't expect anyone to commit to a more concrete timeline than "in 2018 sometime" when folks like you hold them to it.