7 ms·

The creator actually suggested that it could scale fine if they increased the block size and mentioned future miner farms in 2010. However, it would make sense

The creator actually suggested that it could scale fine if they increased the block size and mentioned future miner farms in 2010. However, it would make sense that exchanges and credit-card-like institutions would want to keep bitcoin unscalable for the foreseeable future and stall scalable development.

bathtub365 7y ago
Do you have any evidence of this kind of collusion?
- phillipsjk 7y ago
  Blockstream (Which funds Core developers) was funded by AXA Strategic Ventures with about $80Million in two rounds. Digital Currency Group, which has investment in a lot of Bitcoin companies has a controlling interest from MasterCard. That alone does not prove anything, but Bitcoin (BTC) failed to scale. When fees hit $50/transaction, with weeks long confirmation times, most companies backed by DGC failed to switch to the upgraded version of Bitcoin (BCH). This was despite BCH being a drop-in replacement, while Segregated Witness (the BTC upgrade) was not. Part of the reason nobody switched to BCH was a major marketing push to strip Bitcoin Cash of the name "Bitcoin", and to frame it as a "scam" with "air-dropped tokens" you can "claim". (It was just a direct blockchain copy at fork time). The truth is that BCH forked from BTC after 4 years of obstructionism. We forked just in time: because the huge transaction backlog on BTC happened within months of the fork. The result was an entirely predictable result of failing to scale.
  - once_inc 7y ago
    > but Bitcoin (BTC) failed to scale. Citation needed. > When fees hit $50/transaction, with weeks long confirmation times, most companies backed by DGC failed to switch to the upgraded version of Bitcoin (BCH). This was despite BCH being a drop-in replacement, while Segregated Witness (the BTC upgrade) was not. The upgraded version of Bitcoin is the version that holds consensus among its users. Bitcoin Cash never held that position, and probably never will. Calling it "Bitcoin (BCH)" shows your bias. > Part of the reason nobody switched to BCH was a major marketing push to strip Bitcoin Cash of the name "Bitcoin", and to frame it as a "scam" with "air-dropped tokens" you can "claim". (It was just a direct blockchain copy at fork time). If I were to run a direct blockchain copy of Bitcoin and change some arbitrary rule (such as making the difficulty readjust every 2000 blocks), that does not a bitcoin make. I would be running a dead chain nobody uses. If I were to argue the change and everyone follows my chain and runs my code, only then would it be Bitcoin, since it carries consensus. > The truth is that BCH forked from BTC Correct. You forked off, and aren't bitcoin. The 2017Q4 spike in transaction fees was probably due to a number of separate issues and misconfigurations, such as wallet fee estimation being mostly broken, users feeling FOMO and wanting in at any price, and transactions not optimally filling the space alotted to them (which SegWit partially fixed, as designed).
    - nighthawk24 7y ago
      BCH forked off to reject the SegWit+RBF add-on that ain't Bitcoin. Replace by Fee has caused ATM hacks and breaks trust in 0-conf. BCH upgraded version holds consensus among its users & fees are low as P2P Electronic Cash System was designed to have had.
- kain_niak 7y ago
  Yes read this history https://www.removeddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/ https://www.removeddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/...
nullc 7y ago
In one of his last messages in 2010 before going publically inactive, Bitcoin's creator wrote: > Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg289... ) Hal Finney, one of the main developers of PGP and Bitcoin's first user wrote in 2010: > I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg342... ) That sort of view was well known and understood by others in early 2011 when (now former) Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen had recently started he wrote of the future: > I bet there will be alternative, secure-and-trusted, very-high-speed network connections between major bitcoin transaction processors. Maybe it will just be bitcoin transactions flying across the existing Visa/MasterCard/etc networks (I have no idea what their transaction clearing/processing networks look like or how they work). ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3118.msg44789#msg44789 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3118.msg44789#msg447... ) Or, look at other discussions early in Bitcoin's life-- and instead of quoting myself from back then, I'll show that these views were broadly understood: > 2010-12-09 02:14:28 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: that seems like a bad idea; I have a niggling feeling in the back of my head that the optimal bitcoin-like system would have even smaller blocks/transactions than current bitcoin.... ( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2010-12-09.html#l-345 https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2010-12-09.html#... ) > 2011-07-15 03:32:13 <moa7> actually the more it shakes out the more bitcoin is looking like a settlement clearing system like interbank market e.g. > 2011-07-15 03:41:46 <jgarzik> moa7: RE "settlement clearing system" <<-- EXACTLY > 2011-07-15 03:42:22 <jgarzik> moa7: it is presumed by many that a future bitcoin (if successful) will involve a secondary layer that can handle higher volumes, microtransactions, etc. ( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2011-07-15.html#l-350 https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2011-07-15.html#... ) 2012-04-13 17:56:22 <jgarzik> IMO I think the current bitcoin's endgame is as a not-high-volume settlement network. ( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-04-13.html#l-851 https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-04-13.html#... ) Or, > 2012-09-09 20:00:32 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I am against changing block size, FWIW. I think the market will properly intervene, bitcoin will reach a steady state where all blocks are 1MB, and the best bidding gets block placement. SatoshiDICE and other data apps automatically solve themselves, once 1MB is normal. > 2012-09-09 20:00:48 <jgarzik> I think I will be overruled, but that is my position. > 2012-09-09 20:03:24 <jgarzik> bitcoin exists _because_ of certain constrained limits. money creation is one of them. block space is another. > 2012-09-09 20:03:35 <jgarzik> that is a fundamental constraint; messing with it massively changes the economics ( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-09-09.html#l-679 https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-09-09.html#... ) There are plenty of tough trade-offs in Bitcoin and reasonable people can have no end of a disagreement about them. But these discussions, mostly from before any credit card company ever heard of Bitcoin-- show that a nuanced understanding existed all along. Disagree if you like, but the conspiracy theories are an insult to everyone's intelligence borne out of a malicious and dishonest rewriting of Bitcoin's history pushed on by court decreed fraudsters like Craig Wright. You have plenty of alternatives-- if they're better then they should stand on their own without the abuse and deceptive FUD.

bathtub365 7y ago

Do you have any evidence of this kind of collusion?

phillipsjk 7y ago
Blockstream (Which funds Core developers) was funded by AXA Strategic Ventures with about $80Million in two rounds. Digital Currency Group, which has investment in a lot of Bitcoin companies has a controlling interest from MasterCard. That alone does not prove anything, but Bitcoin (BTC) failed to scale. When fees hit $50/transaction, with weeks long confirmation times, most companies backed by DGC failed to switch to the upgraded version of Bitcoin (BCH). This was despite BCH being a drop-in replacement, while Segregated Witness (the BTC upgrade) was not. Part of the reason nobody switched to BCH was a major marketing push to strip Bitcoin Cash of the name "Bitcoin", and to frame it as a "scam" with "air-dropped tokens" you can "claim". (It was just a direct blockchain copy at fork time). The truth is that BCH forked from BTC after 4 years of obstructionism. We forked just in time: because the huge transaction backlog on BTC happened within months of the fork. The result was an entirely predictable result of failing to scale.
- once_inc 7y ago
  > but Bitcoin (BTC) failed to scale. Citation needed. > When fees hit $50/transaction, with weeks long confirmation times, most companies backed by DGC failed to switch to the upgraded version of Bitcoin (BCH). This was despite BCH being a drop-in replacement, while Segregated Witness (the BTC upgrade) was not. The upgraded version of Bitcoin is the version that holds consensus among its users. Bitcoin Cash never held that position, and probably never will. Calling it "Bitcoin (BCH)" shows your bias. > Part of the reason nobody switched to BCH was a major marketing push to strip Bitcoin Cash of the name "Bitcoin", and to frame it as a "scam" with "air-dropped tokens" you can "claim". (It was just a direct blockchain copy at fork time). If I were to run a direct blockchain copy of Bitcoin and change some arbitrary rule (such as making the difficulty readjust every 2000 blocks), that does not a bitcoin make. I would be running a dead chain nobody uses. If I were to argue the change and everyone follows my chain and runs my code, only then would it be Bitcoin, since it carries consensus. > The truth is that BCH forked from BTC Correct. You forked off, and aren't bitcoin. The 2017Q4 spike in transaction fees was probably due to a number of separate issues and misconfigurations, such as wallet fee estimation being mostly broken, users feeling FOMO and wanting in at any price, and transactions not optimally filling the space alotted to them (which SegWit partially fixed, as designed).
  - nighthawk24 7y ago
    BCH forked off to reject the SegWit+RBF add-on that ain't Bitcoin. Replace by Fee has caused ATM hacks and breaks trust in 0-conf. BCH upgraded version holds consensus among its users & fees are low as P2P Electronic Cash System was designed to have had.
kain_niak 7y ago
Yes read this history https://www.removeddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/ https://www.removeddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/...

nullc 7y ago

In one of his last messages in 2010 before going publically inactive, Bitcoin's creator wrote: > Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg289... ) Hal Finney, one of the main developers of PGP and Bitcoin's first user wrote in 2010: > I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg342... ) That sort of view was well known and understood by others in early 2011 when (now former) Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen had recently started he wrote of the future: > I bet there will be alternative, secure-and-trusted, very-high-speed network connections between major bitcoin transaction processors. Maybe it will just be bitcoin transactions flying across the existing Visa/MasterCard/etc networks (I have no idea what their transaction clearing/processing networks look like or how they work). ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3118.msg44789#msg44789 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3118.msg44789#msg447... ) Or, look at other discussions early in Bitcoin's life-- and instead of quoting myself from back then, I'll show that these views were broadly understood: > 2010-12-09 02:14:28 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: that seems like a bad idea; I have a niggling feeling in the back of my head that the optimal bitcoin-like system would have even smaller blocks/transactions than current bitcoin.... ( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2010-12-09.html#l-345 https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2010-12-09.html#... ) > 2011-07-15 03:32:13 <moa7> actually the more it shakes out the more bitcoin is looking like a settlement clearing system like interbank market e.g. > 2011-07-15 03:41:46 <jgarzik> moa7: RE "settlement clearing system" <<-- EXACTLY > 2011-07-15 03:42:22 <jgarzik> moa7: it is presumed by many that a future bitcoin (if successful) will involve a secondary layer that can handle higher volumes, microtransactions, etc. ( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2011-07-15.html#l-350 https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2011-07-15.html#... ) 2012-04-13 17:56:22 <jgarzik> IMO I think the current bitcoin's endgame is as a not-high-volume settlement network. ( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-04-13.html#l-851 https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-04-13.html#... ) Or, > 2012-09-09 20:00:32 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I am against changing block size, FWIW. I think the market will properly intervene, bitcoin will reach a steady state where all blocks are 1MB, and the best bidding gets block placement. SatoshiDICE and other data apps automatically solve themselves, once 1MB is normal. > 2012-09-09 20:00:48 <jgarzik> I think I will be overruled, but that is my position. > 2012-09-09 20:03:24 <jgarzik> bitcoin exists _because_ of certain constrained limits. money creation is one of them. block space is another. > 2012-09-09 20:03:35 <jgarzik> that is a fundamental constraint; messing with it massively changes the economics ( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-09-09.html#l-679 https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-09-09.html#... ) There are plenty of tough trade-offs in Bitcoin and reasonable people can have no end of a disagreement about them. But these discussions, mostly from before any credit card company ever heard of Bitcoin-- show that a nuanced understanding existed all along. Disagree if you like, but the conspiracy theories are an insult to everyone's intelligence borne out of a malicious and dishonest rewriting of Bitcoin's history pushed on by court decreed fraudsters like Craig Wright. You have plenty of alternatives-- if they're better then they should stand on their own without the abuse and deceptive FUD.