4 ms·

In the long term you can't have fast and low fees with decentralized and censorship-resistance you have to chose one or the other. Bitcoin Cash is fast and as

by elmar 9y ago

In the long term you can't have fast and low fees with decentralized and censorship-resistance you have to chose one or the other. Bitcoin Cash is fast and as low fees but if it manages to scale to something like a Visa network number of transactions, it will be centralized and then some geographical jurisdiction or miner cartel will try to have control over it lowering the censorship-resistance characteristic. I think is great to have to different paths on Bitcoin BTC vs BCH so we have opportunity to see own they evolve.

jamoes 9y ago
> Bitcoin Cash is fast and as low fees but if it manages to scale to something like a Visa network number of transactions, it will be centralized This just isn't true. Today's commodity hardware can already process gigabyte blocks[1], which corresponds to approximately 3000 tx/s globally. In addition, Moore's and Nielsen's laws will bring down the cost of cpu power and bandwidth, and will enable terrabyte-sized blocks within the next decade or two - all while still running on commodity hardware. [1] https://news.bitcoin.com/gigablock-testnet-researchers-mine-the-worlds-first-1gb-block/ https://news.bitcoin.com/gigablock-testnet-researchers-mine-...
- statoshi 9y ago
  This was a highly contrived test - an interesting point to note is that they don't talk about how long it would take new nodes to perform an initial sync if there were weeks / months / years worth of gigablocks in the chain.
- elmar 9y ago
  A big problem is latency even today anything above 3s is unacceptable for mining, half of miners are not validating blocks before starting to mine because it takes to "long", miners spy on other miners and then try to mine empty blocks, Bitcoin doesn't have a lot of orphan blocks today because mining is centralised in China, do you think increasing the block size will help with any of these problems? One thing is to test on a controlled environment another completely diferent thing is to test on real world.
koonsolo 9y ago
Check RaiBlocks: instant transactions, feeless, scalable. Basically each adress has its own blockchain, and proof of share is done with directed acyclic graphs.

by elmar 9y ago

jamoes 9y ago

> Bitcoin Cash is fast and as low fees but if it manages to scale to something like a Visa network number of transactions, it will be centralized This just isn't true. Today's commodity hardware can already process gigabyte blocks[1], which corresponds to approximately 3000 tx/s globally. In addition, Moore's and Nielsen's laws will bring down the cost of cpu power and bandwidth, and will enable terrabyte-sized blocks within the next decade or two - all while still running on commodity hardware. [1] https://news.bitcoin.com/gigablock-testnet-researchers-mine-the-worlds-first-1gb-block/ https://news.bitcoin.com/gigablock-testnet-researchers-mine-...

statoshi 9y ago
This was a highly contrived test - an interesting point to note is that they don't talk about how long it would take new nodes to perform an initial sync if there were weeks / months / years worth of gigablocks in the chain.
elmar 9y ago
A big problem is latency even today anything above 3s is unacceptable for mining, half of miners are not validating blocks before starting to mine because it takes to "long", miners spy on other miners and then try to mine empty blocks, Bitcoin doesn't have a lot of orphan blocks today because mining is centralised in China, do you think increasing the block size will help with any of these problems? One thing is to test on a controlled environment another completely diferent thing is to test on real world.

koonsolo 9y ago

Check RaiBlocks: instant transactions, feeless, scalable. Basically each adress has its own blockchain, and proof of share is done with directed acyclic graphs.