4 ms·

It's laughably bad engineering to try to solve the scaling issue of the base layer by adding another layer on top. It's like you'd try to solve a throughput pro

by lawn 7y ago

It's laughably bad engineering to try to solve the scaling issue of the base layer by adding another layer on top. It's like you'd try to solve a throughput problem of IP by layering TCP or HTTP on top. But this is the logic of one of the main devs who championed the "fee market" idea of Bitcoin[0], that high fees are required for Bitcoin to function. And who in 2017 celebrated when fees were around $50.[1] [1]: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/the-fee-market-myth-b9d189e45096 https://medium.com/@johnblocke/the-fee-market-myth-b9d189e45... [0]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015455.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017...

__s 7y ago
2nd layer avoids bloating the ledger. Once limits of 2nd layer are being explored, you can make adjustments to 1st layer with information about how that'll improve 2nd layer throughput. This is like arguing that we shouldn't have in-memory caches, we should just have faster disks Fees prevent spam
- lawn 7y ago
  Once limits of 1st layer are explored (the Bitcoin developers have never even bothered to research where the limits are) you can augment it with 2nd layer solutions. Both should of course be done simultaneously, and never focus on one to the exclusion of the other. Even the Lightning Network whitepaper states it needs much larger blocks, and for it to work well you need to be able to settle quickly and cheaply on-chain, which is not the case with full blocks.
  - vegarde 7y ago
    Let me get this clear: You want to WAIT until it's evident that we can't scale anymore, and then add 2nd layers? And this, you want to do after significant adoption? So, you are basically going to tell the Starbuckses and other large corporations that have built a large infrastructure around onchain transactions that they need to stop that, wait a few years until 2nd layers are adopted, and then start using that?
    - lawn 7y ago
      I think you should re-read what I wrote: > Both should of course be done simultaneously, and never focus on one to the exclusion of the other. I have no issues with developing 2nd layers, but ignoring on-chain scaling and not even looking at what can be achieved is beyond stupid. In fact we know that moderate blocksize increases are safe (we can increase it many times before block propagation time becomes an issue for example). Yet we've thrown that out and placed our hope that 2nd layers will magically solve this for us. > So, you are basically going to tell the Starbuckses and other large corporations that have built a large infrastructure around onchain transactions that they need to stop that, wait a few years until 2nd layers are adopted, and then start using that? No, that's exactly what has happened to Bitcoin, and what the Bitcoin developers have been saying the last few years. It's what I'm saying is so stupid. The Lightning Network has been "ready in 18 months" the last 4 years. And it's still not ready.
      - DSingularity 7y ago
        Are knobs for scaling the primary network already well understood? They are limited. Block size and block frequency. So shouldn’t we delay irreversible changes to primary layer until we understand the additional capacity and knobs of second layer solution?
        zhoujianfu 7y ago
        No.
  - chris123 7y ago
    Bitcoin don't need no stinkin" bigger blocks. Second layer FTW.
nullc 7y ago
The article you're linking is an extremely dishonest anonymous hit piece that distorts history to manipulate the audience. The design of Bitcoin where security is supported by fees to get into blocks is established in the Bitcoin whitepaper and has been in the software since day one. Contrary to the claims of the article the term "fee market" was introduced and promoted by Jeff Garzik-- rather than people opposing him as the article claims. (Fee market is kind of a bad term, the correct term would be blockspace market, but it actually made sense in the original usage which was about wallets paying 'fees at market rates'). > The answer is lies in the free market. Move transaction fees away from hardcoded limits, and towards something more dynamic, with economic feedback between merchants, users and miners. ... Also introduced is an anti-spam rule that avoids relaying transactions whose value is below that of the transaction fee required to send it. This rule self-adjusts over time, as the "tx fee required to send" changes over time. In a dynamic fee market, it might change a lot. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196138.msg2044717#msg2044717 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196138.msg2044717#ms... ) > 2010-11-19 20:55:42 <jgarzik> eventually we'll all be paying TX fees, sooner or later. and competition to get -some- fee (at lower prices) versus no fee kicks in. > 2011-02-28 04:13:57 <jgarzik> amiller: it's inevitable that fees will be required. nobody should be assuming bitcoin transactions are / will always be free. > 2011-03-01 20:32:21 <jgarzik> fees are inevitable > 2011-03-10 22:14:34 <jgarzik> I think TX fees are a great feedback system; a healthy attribute of bitcoin. > 2011-11-07 22:43:12 <gavinandresen> Lolcust: yes, but I worry because transaction fees are broken right now-- clients and miners really need more flexibility to let fees go where the market decides, instead of us guessing what the right fees are. > 2012-10-11 17:01:27 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I think storage and network will be cheap enough that any non-zero fees will be interesting to miners > 2013-03-16 00:47:40 <gavinandresen> So: I have no idea what the right answer for fees is. We need to create a market between miners and users, and let the fees go where they belong. > 2013-03-17 21:12:04 <jgarzik> TD: Satoshi obviously wanted fees to support the system long term. If there is no scarcity, there are no fees. And people being willing to pay substantive fees to use Bitcoin is absolutely something to celebrate, Bitcoin's long term security is completely dependent on fee income. Getting a non-trivial part of the rewards from fees is a basic validation of the concept. > 2013-03-17 21:12:44 <jgarzik> TD: The current situation, where block subsidy dominates other incentives, clouds thinking on block size > 2013-08-12 17:59:33 <jgarzik> auctions make me want replace-by-fee :) > 2014-05-12 15:13:22 <gavinandresen> hearn: fee cap, meaning what? Fees need to be a market, and rise or fall based on supply and demand for block space > 2014-08-15 12:37:53 <jgarzik> Merge this useful change, and next will come the call to remove block size limit altogether, which will throw a nuclear bomb onto any nascent fee market. > 2014-08-15 12:38:37 <jgarzik> All the VCs and execs want an infinite block size limit. It's a sad fixation.

by lawn 7y ago

__s 7y ago

2nd layer avoids bloating the ledger. Once limits of 2nd layer are being explored, you can make adjustments to 1st layer with information about how that'll improve 2nd layer throughput. This is like arguing that we shouldn't have in-memory caches, we should just have faster disks Fees prevent spam

lawn 7y ago
Once limits of 1st layer are explored (the Bitcoin developers have never even bothered to research where the limits are) you can augment it with 2nd layer solutions. Both should of course be done simultaneously, and never focus on one to the exclusion of the other. Even the Lightning Network whitepaper states it needs much larger blocks, and for it to work well you need to be able to settle quickly and cheaply on-chain, which is not the case with full blocks.
- vegarde 7y ago
  Let me get this clear: You want to WAIT until it's evident that we can't scale anymore, and then add 2nd layers? And this, you want to do after significant adoption? So, you are basically going to tell the Starbuckses and other large corporations that have built a large infrastructure around onchain transactions that they need to stop that, wait a few years until 2nd layers are adopted, and then start using that?
  - lawn 7y ago
    I think you should re-read what I wrote: > Both should of course be done simultaneously, and never focus on one to the exclusion of the other. I have no issues with developing 2nd layers, but ignoring on-chain scaling and not even looking at what can be achieved is beyond stupid. In fact we know that moderate blocksize increases are safe (we can increase it many times before block propagation time becomes an issue for example). Yet we've thrown that out and placed our hope that 2nd layers will magically solve this for us. > So, you are basically going to tell the Starbuckses and other large corporations that have built a large infrastructure around onchain transactions that they need to stop that, wait a few years until 2nd layers are adopted, and then start using that? No, that's exactly what has happened to Bitcoin, and what the Bitcoin developers have been saying the last few years. It's what I'm saying is so stupid. The Lightning Network has been "ready in 18 months" the last 4 years. And it's still not ready.
    - DSingularity 7y ago
      Are knobs for scaling the primary network already well understood? They are limited. Block size and block frequency. So shouldn’t we delay irreversible changes to primary layer until we understand the additional capacity and knobs of second layer solution?
      - zhoujianfu 7y ago
        No.
- chris123 7y ago
  Bitcoin don't need no stinkin" bigger blocks. Second layer FTW.

nullc 7y ago

The article you're linking is an extremely dishonest anonymous hit piece that distorts history to manipulate the audience. The design of Bitcoin where security is supported by fees to get into blocks is established in the Bitcoin whitepaper and has been in the software since day one. Contrary to the claims of the article the term "fee market" was introduced and promoted by Jeff Garzik-- rather than people opposing him as the article claims. (Fee market is kind of a bad term, the correct term would be blockspace market, but it actually made sense in the original usage which was about wallets paying 'fees at market rates'). > The answer is lies in the free market. Move transaction fees away from hardcoded limits, and towards something more dynamic, with economic feedback between merchants, users and miners. ... Also introduced is an anti-spam rule that avoids relaying transactions whose value is below that of the transaction fee required to send it. This rule self-adjusts over time, as the "tx fee required to send" changes over time. In a dynamic fee market, it might change a lot. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196138.msg2044717#msg2044717 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196138.msg2044717#ms... ) > 2010-11-19 20:55:42 <jgarzik> eventually we'll all be paying TX fees, sooner or later. and competition to get -some- fee (at lower prices) versus no fee kicks in. > 2011-02-28 04:13:57 <jgarzik> amiller: it's inevitable that fees will be required. nobody should be assuming bitcoin transactions are / will always be free. > 2011-03-01 20:32:21 <jgarzik> fees are inevitable > 2011-03-10 22:14:34 <jgarzik> I think TX fees are a great feedback system; a healthy attribute of bitcoin. > 2011-11-07 22:43:12 <gavinandresen> Lolcust: yes, but I worry because transaction fees are broken right now-- clients and miners really need more flexibility to let fees go where the market decides, instead of us guessing what the right fees are. > 2012-10-11 17:01:27 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I think storage and network will be cheap enough that any non-zero fees will be interesting to miners > 2013-03-16 00:47:40 <gavinandresen> So: I have no idea what the right answer for fees is. We need to create a market between miners and users, and let the fees go where they belong. > 2013-03-17 21:12:04 <jgarzik> TD: Satoshi obviously wanted fees to support the system long term. If there is no scarcity, there are no fees. And people being willing to pay substantive fees to use Bitcoin is absolutely something to celebrate, Bitcoin's long term security is completely dependent on fee income. Getting a non-trivial part of the rewards from fees is a basic validation of the concept. > 2013-03-17 21:12:44 <jgarzik> TD: The current situation, where block subsidy dominates other incentives, clouds thinking on block size > 2013-08-12 17:59:33 <jgarzik> auctions make me want replace-by-fee :) > 2014-05-12 15:13:22 <gavinandresen> hearn: fee cap, meaning what? Fees need to be a market, and rise or fall based on supply and demand for block space > 2014-08-15 12:37:53 <jgarzik> Merge this useful change, and next will come the call to remove block size limit altogether, which will throw a nuclear bomb onto any nascent fee market. > 2014-08-15 12:38:37 <jgarzik> All the VCs and execs want an infinite block size limit. It's a sad fixation.