5 ms·
>The claim that BTC chose a non-scalable solution for ease of running a node isn't true. Except that it is true. There were few reasons for not increasing the
by dylkil 6y ago
>The claim that BTC chose a non-scalable solution for ease of running a node isn't true.
Except that it is true. There were few reasons for not increasing the block size limit, one of those was the cost of running a node. If the costs became too much for normal people to afford, it would centralize the system in a small number of big miners.
- tubbyjr 6y agoThe only huge pushers of that were the like of core dev LukeJr... who wants to decrease the block size down to 100k or by 10x. The article states that claim, as though it was the sole one, when it was just one small reason pushed by Raspberry Pi hobbyists... while the average person doesn't even know wtf a Pi or ARM SBC is.
- dylkil 6y agoWhy not increase the block size limit then?
- xorcist 6y agoThis is also what happened. Larger blocks was implemented with segwit. This played out during an infected debate that provided the perfect cover to launch an altcoin without it, that changed the name and some constants in the code. The free PR gave them more economic activity from the start compared to similar coins, and was likely quite lucrative.
- dylkil 6y agoIncrease the block size limit was really just a 1 line change, a single variable within bitcoin core controlled it. Instead of changing this variable from a 1 to a 2 they chose the convoluted mess that was segwit. What was so wrong with increasing the block size limit the normal way?
- xorcist 6y agoThis was thoroughly debated over many months at the bitcoin-dev mailing list so it would be presumptuous of me to summarize that now. The list is open and anyone can read the actual back and forths that took place. There were several perspectives on this, including that no one found a way to deploy that protocol change to a live network in an acceptable way. It is much easier to build consensus around "soft" forks.
- elif 6y agonon-mining nodes have zero bearing on chain consensus
- dylkil 6y agoYes id agree with you there, many dont though.
- jude- 6y agoThat's not really true. If the vast majority of user- and exchange-operated nodes decided a miner's well-formed block is invalid, then other miners would be dissuaded from building on it, and would instead orphan it.
- dylkil 6y agoif a non mining node decides a block is invalid it will fork onto its own chain. If no mining nodes start mining on this forked chain then the original node is left on a chain where no transactions can be processed. Non-mining nodes have no power or influence over the networks state. It is the mining nodes who decide which chain lives and which chain dies.
- jude- 6y agoNon-mining nodes are still responsible for storing and relaying blocks. If no one stores and relays your block, was it ever mined?
- dylkil 6y agoRemove the non-mining nodes from the network and the node count goes down, but the network security stays the same. Non mining nodes do nothing for the security of the bitcoin network. Having more non mining nodes to store and relay blocks is beneficial to decentralization, but they have no influence over which chain becomes the longest chain.
- 6y ago
- Blockbuster 6y agoI never understood this argument. The cost of mining already centralizes nodes to the point where block size is not a factor. People that are able to run cost effective mining setups are also able to support blockchains of any size. Given the current state of mining, how would switching to 10mb blocks increase centralization?
- grubles 6y agoBlock propagation speed.
- CyberDildonics 6y agoHow does that make any sense? Block sizes are under 1MB. Anyone can rent a VPS for under $10 USD per month that would transfer that in 1/100th of a second. The block time is 10 minutes. Why do people repeat stuff like this? Is it because you have seen other people say it and never stopped to look at the math?
- xorcist 6y agoMiner centralization is not without risks, but is fundamentally very different from centralizing economic activity, with different security outcomes. A dominating miner runs the risk of a 51% attack, which can cause denial of service or censorship, but game theory dictates that the missed opportunity cost is huge. A dominating economic actor makes the whole blockchain an obsolete backend to something like Paypal.