6 ms·

> BCH’s approach of not neutering the block size? Because increasing the block size is an inelegant approach that will only work briefly and then there will be

> BCH’s approach of not neutering the block size? Because increasing the block size is an inelegant approach that will only work briefly and then there will be more demands to make the blocks bigger again, eventually leading to centralization. Increasing the block size doesn't solve the problem, it just makes the problem bigger. other "coins" with larger faster block sizes are already running into storage issues.

gruez 9y ago
>Because increasing the block size is an inelegant approach that will only work briefly and then there will be more demands to make the blocks bigger again see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand edit: what's up with the downvotes? i'm providing a name to the phenomena and providing a wikipedia link to it.
- osteele 9y ago
  > what's up with the downvotes? Maybe because you provided a link without summarizing it? (Just guessing — I thought your comment was sufficient, and I upvoted it. Also — I know it's policy not to discuss votes, but I'm also a fan of feedback loops that lead to desired behavior, and I don't see enough signal in this one.)
osteele 9y ago
> then there will be more demands to make the blocks bigger again, eventually leading to centralization Because having a bigger block size raises the barrier to being a miner. (CapEx and OpEx are both greater.) Imagine the other extreme: mining is so cheap that every phone, watch, and — oh let's just throw in every mouse and pigeon cortex — can be a miner. This is near one extreme of decentralization. That's unattainable[1], but it's an intuition hook for the fact that the more expensive you make mining, the more centralized it becomes. [1] IOTA tries to get closer to this. It makes a couple of changes from Bitcoin / Ethereum / etc. (1) IOTA uses a graph instead of a chain — this is why mining is cheaper, and low-powered IOT devices can mine. (2) IOTA uses homegrown cryptography, (EDIT: that has been proven exploitable multiple times), instead of reviewed standards. (2) isn't necessary for (1), nor does it help decentralization; it just seems to be an attached vanity project.
- lawlessone 9y ago
  Iota is horrendous(they rolled their own crypto and its bad) and no IOT company will ever bother with it.
  - osteele 9y ago
    > Iota is horrendous(they rolled their own crypto and its bad) Yeah, I probably didn't emphasize this enough. In addition to last year's curl fiasco[1], and this year's email dump[2], there's now this unlucky-13 exploit[3]. > no IOT company will ever bother with it This would seem to follow, but [4] (partnership with Cisco, Samsung, and Volkswagen), if true, contradicts it. (I'm skeptical of IOTA partnership announcements because of last year's IOTA/Microsoft “partnership”[5].) [1] https://hackernoon.com/why-i-find-iota-deeply-alarming-934f1908194b https://hackernoon.com/why-i-find-iota-deeply-alarming-934f1... [2] https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/cryptographers-urge-users-and-researchers-to-abandon-iota-after-leaked-emails https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/crypt... [3] http://blog.lekkertech.net/blog/2018/03/07/iota-signatures/ http://blog.lekkertech.net/blog/2018/03/07/iota-signatures/ [4] https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/630565/blockchain-network-iota-teams-up-cisco-volkswagen-others-data-marketplace/ https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/630565/blockchain-n... [5] https://cointelegraph.com/news/iota-clarifies-misleading-microsoft-quote-no-official-partnership https://cointelegraph.com/news/iota-clarifies-misleading-mic...
- SnowProblem 9y ago
  If anyone can be a miner, then malware can be used to do a 51% attack. Something like that happened with Monero recently [1]. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/news/sites-are-using-your-browser-mine-crypto-it-could-be-good-thing/ https://www.investopedia.com/news/sites-are-using-your-brows...
  - wmf 9y ago
    Bitcoin is not vulnerable to botnets because it effectively requires ASICs.
colordrops 9y ago
> leading to centralization Repeating this propaganda over and over and over doesn't make it true. No centralization will occur with an increase in block size, as there will still be enough participants to prevent attacking the block chain. If what is meant by centralization is the reduction of people who can run nodes, then keeping the block size small also increases centralization by this definition, as there is a reduction in people who can afford to transact on the main chain. But when it comes to maintaining the core trustless network inherent in the bit coin algorithm, increasing block size does nothing to break its function. Stop with the propaganda.
- eklitzke 9y ago
  I guess that's true based on your definition of "trustless". But I wouldn't consider a network where as a practical matter I have to rely on a small number of centralized servers for validation "trustless".
  - __blockcipher__ 9y ago
    lol, with lightning you have to rely on a small number of centralized payment hubs who will likely be strongarmed by the government into keeping tabs on transactions through KYC/AML laws. It completely breaks the fundamental and original usecase of bitcoin: peer to peer electronic cash. Now it's "first world speculator to first world speculator through intermediary financial institution electronic store-of-value". Doesn't roll of the tongue quite so well, does it? IMO, XMR and BCH are the current best options for transactions. BTC is being destroyed by people who hadn't even heard of it 5 years ago.
    - hahainternet 9y ago
      > lol, with lightning you have to rely on a small number of centralized payment hubs There is no requirement for this. This is FUD.
  - topranks 9y ago
    That is true. I guess my definition is as long as new players / players with different motives and agendas can join the fray, it is ok. So like I don't mind if we end up that you need at least $1million to become a miner, hell we are half way there anyway on both chains, I just mind if nobody can join, or if it goes to $1billion to be able to mine. LN seems like the ultimate in centralisation so as an alternative (while it might work,) it's a far inferior solution on that score.
__blockcipher__ 9y ago
I don't buy the increased centralization argument. It usually comes down to the problem of orphan blocks / block propagation, a problem which has been made significantly better over time. Even Satoshi was convinced that the block limit would be increased (it was only added for ddos protection reasons). He didn't even foresee the "block size debate" as an issue because it was never a debate. Of course the transaction throughput would be increased. He literally said "Bitcoin never really hits a scaling cap". Now, I'm not saying we should deify them or assume that they thought of every potential issue. But I think we should be very hesitant to deviate from their vision without an actual justification. I believe that the community has been poisoned by people who don't even understand the original vision. As soon as Bitcoin Core / Blockstream got involved after Satoshi left the scene, everything went to shit. Lightning is fundamentally an inferior user experience. You should be able to send money instantly without a third party. THAT was the point of bitcoin. Not to force people through a new type of financial institution (lightning hubs), solely to fix a manufactured fee problem.
- EGreg 9y ago
  How is it instant? It takes 30 - 60 mins to have enough confirmations to be sure, and also pay a fee for miners to even take your transaction.

gruez 9y ago

>Because increasing the block size is an inelegant approach that will only work briefly and then there will be more demands to make the blocks bigger again see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand edit: what's up with the downvotes? i'm providing a name to the phenomena and providing a wikipedia link to it.

osteele 9y ago
> what's up with the downvotes? Maybe because you provided a link without summarizing it? (Just guessing — I thought your comment was sufficient, and I upvoted it. Also — I know it's policy not to discuss votes, but I'm also a fan of feedback loops that lead to desired behavior, and I don't see enough signal in this one.)

osteele 9y ago

> then there will be more demands to make the blocks bigger again, eventually leading to centralization Because having a bigger block size raises the barrier to being a miner. (CapEx and OpEx are both greater.) Imagine the other extreme: mining is so cheap that every phone, watch, and — oh let's just throw in every mouse and pigeon cortex — can be a miner. This is near one extreme of decentralization. That's unattainable[1], but it's an intuition hook for the fact that the more expensive you make mining, the more centralized it becomes. [1] IOTA tries to get closer to this. It makes a couple of changes from Bitcoin / Ethereum / etc. (1) IOTA uses a graph instead of a chain — this is why mining is cheaper, and low-powered IOT devices can mine. (2) IOTA uses homegrown cryptography, (EDIT: that has been proven exploitable multiple times), instead of reviewed standards. (2) isn't necessary for (1), nor does it help decentralization; it just seems to be an attached vanity project.

lawlessone 9y ago
Iota is horrendous(they rolled their own crypto and its bad) and no IOT company will ever bother with it.
- osteele 9y ago
  > Iota is horrendous(they rolled their own crypto and its bad) Yeah, I probably didn't emphasize this enough. In addition to last year's curl fiasco[1], and this year's email dump[2], there's now this unlucky-13 exploit[3]. > no IOT company will ever bother with it This would seem to follow, but [4] (partnership with Cisco, Samsung, and Volkswagen), if true, contradicts it. (I'm skeptical of IOTA partnership announcements because of last year's IOTA/Microsoft “partnership”[5].) [1] https://hackernoon.com/why-i-find-iota-deeply-alarming-934f1908194b https://hackernoon.com/why-i-find-iota-deeply-alarming-934f1... [2] https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/cryptographers-urge-users-and-researchers-to-abandon-iota-after-leaked-emails https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/crypt... [3] http://blog.lekkertech.net/blog/2018/03/07/iota-signatures/ http://blog.lekkertech.net/blog/2018/03/07/iota-signatures/ [4] https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/630565/blockchain-network-iota-teams-up-cisco-volkswagen-others-data-marketplace/ https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/630565/blockchain-n... [5] https://cointelegraph.com/news/iota-clarifies-misleading-microsoft-quote-no-official-partnership https://cointelegraph.com/news/iota-clarifies-misleading-mic...
SnowProblem 9y ago
If anyone can be a miner, then malware can be used to do a 51% attack. Something like that happened with Monero recently [1]. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/news/sites-are-using-your-browser-mine-crypto-it-could-be-good-thing/ https://www.investopedia.com/news/sites-are-using-your-brows...
- wmf 9y ago
  Bitcoin is not vulnerable to botnets because it effectively requires ASICs.

colordrops 9y ago

> leading to centralization Repeating this propaganda over and over and over doesn't make it true. No centralization will occur with an increase in block size, as there will still be enough participants to prevent attacking the block chain. If what is meant by centralization is the reduction of people who can run nodes, then keeping the block size small also increases centralization by this definition, as there is a reduction in people who can afford to transact on the main chain. But when it comes to maintaining the core trustless network inherent in the bit coin algorithm, increasing block size does nothing to break its function. Stop with the propaganda.

eklitzke 9y ago
I guess that's true based on your definition of "trustless". But I wouldn't consider a network where as a practical matter I have to rely on a small number of centralized servers for validation "trustless".
- __blockcipher__ 9y ago
  lol, with lightning you have to rely on a small number of centralized payment hubs who will likely be strongarmed by the government into keeping tabs on transactions through KYC/AML laws. It completely breaks the fundamental and original usecase of bitcoin: peer to peer electronic cash. Now it's "first world speculator to first world speculator through intermediary financial institution electronic store-of-value". Doesn't roll of the tongue quite so well, does it? IMO, XMR and BCH are the current best options for transactions. BTC is being destroyed by people who hadn't even heard of it 5 years ago.
  - hahainternet 9y ago
    > lol, with lightning you have to rely on a small number of centralized payment hubs There is no requirement for this. This is FUD.
- topranks 9y ago
  That is true. I guess my definition is as long as new players / players with different motives and agendas can join the fray, it is ok. So like I don't mind if we end up that you need at least $1million to become a miner, hell we are half way there anyway on both chains, I just mind if nobody can join, or if it goes to $1billion to be able to mine. LN seems like the ultimate in centralisation so as an alternative (while it might work,) it's a far inferior solution on that score.

__blockcipher__ 9y ago

I don't buy the increased centralization argument. It usually comes down to the problem of orphan blocks / block propagation, a problem which has been made significantly better over time. Even Satoshi was convinced that the block limit would be increased (it was only added for ddos protection reasons). He didn't even foresee the "block size debate" as an issue because it was never a debate. Of course the transaction throughput would be increased. He literally said "Bitcoin never really hits a scaling cap". Now, I'm not saying we should deify them or assume that they thought of every potential issue. But I think we should be very hesitant to deviate from their vision without an actual justification. I believe that the community has been poisoned by people who don't even understand the original vision. As soon as Bitcoin Core / Blockstream got involved after Satoshi left the scene, everything went to shit. Lightning is fundamentally an inferior user experience. You should be able to send money instantly without a third party. THAT was the point of bitcoin. Not to force people through a new type of financial institution (lightning hubs), solely to fix a manufactured fee problem.

EGreg 9y ago
How is it instant? It takes 30 - 60 mins to have enough confirmations to be sure, and also pay a fee for miners to even take your transaction.