9 ms·

Many early Bitcoiners support Bitcoin Cash today which is closer to the original design of Bitcoin and does not have these issues you mentioned. Bitcoin was alw

Many early Bitcoiners support Bitcoin Cash today which is closer to the original design of Bitcoin and does not have these issues you mentioned. Bitcoin was always meant to scale on-chain, and BTC's fees are entirely self-imposed by the Core developers who refuse to increase the block size. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) increased the block size, and now fees on BCH are a fraction of a penny. Speed of payments too is not an issue on BCH, and 0-conf instant transactions are acceptable for many types of purchases. The main argument against BCH is that home users won't be able to run their own full nodes, but these nodes do nothing useful and do not deserve subsidization. This was actually demonstrated in the Bitcoin bug CVE-2018-17144 (discovered by Bitcoin Cash developers, mind you) where 80% of the network (ie. home users) didn't upgrade their full node with the patch and the network remained secure. Armstrong has suggested he supports BCH's scaling path in several places.

xorcist 8y ago
If the original design of Bitcoin is important to you, why not study the orginal design and motivation in depth? Most of the early development work is still out there for everyone to see. You will find that questions about scaling was, and still is, the first thing that comes to mind for most people who hear about a plantary scale distributed ledger, and that payment channels was first suggested by Satoshi himself, if such provenance is considered important now.
- nil_pointer 8y ago
  Unfortunately the current state of Blockstream's Bitcoin project does not align at all with Satoshi's whitepaper.
  - r32a_ 8y ago
    This is FUD. Blockstream does not own Bitcoin Core and does not even sponsor a majority of the developers. Their "influence" has actually dropped since the departure of Maxwell as CTO
- nivexous 8y ago
  I have studied the early discussions, and on-chain scaling was always intended to be primary. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to rewrite history. Payment channels are certainly useful for some cases (high volume, low amounts) but they also come with a host of UX issues and technical complexity that make them unsuitable for primary user payments.
  - beaner 8y ago
    TBH, it doesn't matter what the original intention was if it doesn't work. 2nd layer works. Maybe so do bigger blocks, for now, but certainly at the cost of decentralization. I'm sure you can post some theory or statistics that will say otherwise. But it seems pretty clear conceptually that if you make something take up more space, fewer nodes will have the resources to operate it. The Bitcoin whitepaper had a title of "peer to peer electronic cash", but what it actually described was a system for financial sovereignty. If you want a payment network, use paypal. Why wouldn't you use Paypal? Because it's not decentralized - that's the first reason. And you realize by asking and answering that question that decentralization is the first and most important feature of the system, because it enables everything else. Payments is second. Layer 2 is a system that preserves the financial sovereignty of Bitcoin. Bigger blocks are a populist movement which disregard science as a result of a conspiracy theory that Blockstream is out to destroy everything. And it ignores so many things - like the other hundreds of core developers; the original intention and literature of the cypherpunks; the actual beauty of layer 2 itself and the amazing speed and privacy benefits it's bringing. Nobody care's about "what satoshi intended" in terms of on-chain vs. off-chain. "Satoshi's vision" was a decentralized system, and it can happen either way. More likely with layer 2 than without. BCH is all politics.
    - uncletammy 8y ago
      There's nothing wrong with layer 2 as long as they aren't try to pass it off as a scaling solution. If it isn't on-chain, it's not Bitcoin. > Maybe so do bigger blocks, for now, but certainly at the cost of decentralization You seem to think that BTC, a coin with a single client implementation controlled by a handful of devs, some of which are employed by a company who's value proposition is in direct conflict with Bitcoin's success, is decentralized. It is not. It couldn't be further from it. There is a reason Bitcoin Cash is still around and surrounded by drama in the same ways Bitcoin used to be. It's because everyone who was fighting to make Bitcoin "magic internet money" got tired of being censored and forked off in an attempt to fire those few core devs getting in the way of progress. I would recommend you start by reading about the censorship. The censorship is the only reason Bitcoin Cash exists today.
- stale2002 8y ago
  If you really want to look at what Satoshi believed, all you have to do is look at some of his original posts. He himself gave directions on how to increase the blocksize, and talked about how the base layer could scale up to visa scale transactions.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    The problem with the "directions on how to increase the blocksize" is that they're not compatible with what Bitcoin is. It's a system that nobody has the authority to change. The only people who can change it are the people running the software. If enough of them migrate to new rules, they may be able to move the economy with them. But given there's a tremendous risk that they could fail to bring the economy with them (proven by Bitcoin Cash), then few are going to take that risk. So the question isn't whether we should or shouldn't change a block size. It's how the hell do we change the block size? Can you change the blocksize? Please enlighten me on how you intend to change the blocksize in everyone else's client? Bitcoin has become too large for even developers of the primary client to forcefully change, and they're certainly not going to risk their own reputation by attempting to change it against the will of users. So how do you even get the consensus of users of the system to agree to whatever blocksize increase you intend to have? Attempts at civil discussion were shut on both sides. There were some not willing to compromise on the existing blocksize, or even asking for smaller sizes, while others were not willing to accept anything but complete removal of the limit. The correct action was taken to do nothing, since it was too controversial to force one opinion on everyone, and would've set a terrible precedent that a few developers have the authority to specify the rules on behalf of everyone. Bitcoiners have settled on the fact that nobody is in charge. Bitcoin Cashers are still arguing about who's going to be in power.
    - uncletammy 8y ago
      > Bitcoiners have settled on the fact that nobody is in charge. Bitcoin Cashers are still arguing about who's going to be in power. Bitcoiners are silenced as soon as they start asking questions. Bitcoin Cashers have carried on with the original experiment and are currently trying to figure out governance.
londons_explore 8y ago
You neglect to mention that real bitcoin payments for the last few months have had negligible fees too.
- nivexous 8y ago
  Because it's not a good argument. The fees are low because usage is low, but as soon as usage rises, the fees will rise again too. That's a broken system. Also, fees on BTC today are still not negligible. Average is 30-50 cents USD, which is unacceptable still for many parts of the world. BCH fees are 0.2 cents.
  - h1d 8y ago
    > The fees are low because usage is low > BCH fees are 0.2 cents You're eating your own tail.
    - nivexous 8y ago
      BCH fees would stay this low even with 30x Bitcoins transaction volume.
    - uncletammy 8y ago
      This is where that whole "blocksize debate" turns out to have been worth discussing. A sudden increase in demand for BTC will send the fees through the roof because of it's tiny 1mb blocksize. The same increase in demand will result in ~ 1/32 the increase in fees. This is due to BCH's 32mb block size.

xorcist 8y ago

If the original design of Bitcoin is important to you, why not study the orginal design and motivation in depth? Most of the early development work is still out there for everyone to see. You will find that questions about scaling was, and still is, the first thing that comes to mind for most people who hear about a plantary scale distributed ledger, and that payment channels was first suggested by Satoshi himself, if such provenance is considered important now.

nil_pointer 8y ago
Unfortunately the current state of Blockstream's Bitcoin project does not align at all with Satoshi's whitepaper.
- r32a_ 8y ago
  This is FUD. Blockstream does not own Bitcoin Core and does not even sponsor a majority of the developers. Their "influence" has actually dropped since the departure of Maxwell as CTO
nivexous 8y ago
I have studied the early discussions, and on-chain scaling was always intended to be primary. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to rewrite history. Payment channels are certainly useful for some cases (high volume, low amounts) but they also come with a host of UX issues and technical complexity that make them unsuitable for primary user payments.
- beaner 8y ago
  TBH, it doesn't matter what the original intention was if it doesn't work. 2nd layer works. Maybe so do bigger blocks, for now, but certainly at the cost of decentralization. I'm sure you can post some theory or statistics that will say otherwise. But it seems pretty clear conceptually that if you make something take up more space, fewer nodes will have the resources to operate it. The Bitcoin whitepaper had a title of "peer to peer electronic cash", but what it actually described was a system for financial sovereignty. If you want a payment network, use paypal. Why wouldn't you use Paypal? Because it's not decentralized - that's the first reason. And you realize by asking and answering that question that decentralization is the first and most important feature of the system, because it enables everything else. Payments is second. Layer 2 is a system that preserves the financial sovereignty of Bitcoin. Bigger blocks are a populist movement which disregard science as a result of a conspiracy theory that Blockstream is out to destroy everything. And it ignores so many things - like the other hundreds of core developers; the original intention and literature of the cypherpunks; the actual beauty of layer 2 itself and the amazing speed and privacy benefits it's bringing. Nobody care's about "what satoshi intended" in terms of on-chain vs. off-chain. "Satoshi's vision" was a decentralized system, and it can happen either way. More likely with layer 2 than without. BCH is all politics.
  - uncletammy 8y ago
    There's nothing wrong with layer 2 as long as they aren't try to pass it off as a scaling solution. If it isn't on-chain, it's not Bitcoin. > Maybe so do bigger blocks, for now, but certainly at the cost of decentralization You seem to think that BTC, a coin with a single client implementation controlled by a handful of devs, some of which are employed by a company who's value proposition is in direct conflict with Bitcoin's success, is decentralized. It is not. It couldn't be further from it. There is a reason Bitcoin Cash is still around and surrounded by drama in the same ways Bitcoin used to be. It's because everyone who was fighting to make Bitcoin "magic internet money" got tired of being censored and forked off in an attempt to fire those few core devs getting in the way of progress. I would recommend you start by reading about the censorship. The censorship is the only reason Bitcoin Cash exists today.
stale2002 8y ago
If you really want to look at what Satoshi believed, all you have to do is look at some of his original posts. He himself gave directions on how to increase the blocksize, and talked about how the base layer could scale up to visa scale transactions.
- sparkie 8y ago
  The problem with the "directions on how to increase the blocksize" is that they're not compatible with what Bitcoin is. It's a system that nobody has the authority to change. The only people who can change it are the people running the software. If enough of them migrate to new rules, they may be able to move the economy with them. But given there's a tremendous risk that they could fail to bring the economy with them (proven by Bitcoin Cash), then few are going to take that risk. So the question isn't whether we should or shouldn't change a block size. It's how the hell do we change the block size? Can you change the blocksize? Please enlighten me on how you intend to change the blocksize in everyone else's client? Bitcoin has become too large for even developers of the primary client to forcefully change, and they're certainly not going to risk their own reputation by attempting to change it against the will of users. So how do you even get the consensus of users of the system to agree to whatever blocksize increase you intend to have? Attempts at civil discussion were shut on both sides. There were some not willing to compromise on the existing blocksize, or even asking for smaller sizes, while others were not willing to accept anything but complete removal of the limit. The correct action was taken to do nothing, since it was too controversial to force one opinion on everyone, and would've set a terrible precedent that a few developers have the authority to specify the rules on behalf of everyone. Bitcoiners have settled on the fact that nobody is in charge. Bitcoin Cashers are still arguing about who's going to be in power.
  - uncletammy 8y ago
    > Bitcoiners have settled on the fact that nobody is in charge. Bitcoin Cashers are still arguing about who's going to be in power. Bitcoiners are silenced as soon as they start asking questions. Bitcoin Cashers have carried on with the original experiment and are currently trying to figure out governance.

londons_explore 8y ago

You neglect to mention that real bitcoin payments for the last few months have had negligible fees too.

nivexous 8y ago
Because it's not a good argument. The fees are low because usage is low, but as soon as usage rises, the fees will rise again too. That's a broken system. Also, fees on BTC today are still not negligible. Average is 30-50 cents USD, which is unacceptable still for many parts of the world. BCH fees are 0.2 cents.
- h1d 8y ago
  > The fees are low because usage is low > BCH fees are 0.2 cents You're eating your own tail.
  - nivexous 8y ago
    BCH fees would stay this low even with 30x Bitcoins transaction volume.
  - uncletammy 8y ago
    This is where that whole "blocksize debate" turns out to have been worth discussing. A sudden increase in demand for BTC will send the fees through the roof because of it's tiny 1mb blocksize. The same increase in demand will result in ~ 1/32 the increase in fees. This is due to BCH's 32mb block size.