4 ms·
> It has been in development for 7 years. Good. They need to get it right. > Why use this complicated hack solution It’s complicated but not a hack at all. I
by wyager 5y ago
> It has been in development for 7 years.
Good. They need to get it right.
> Why use this complicated hack solution
It’s complicated but not a hack at all. It makes perfect sense.
> when anyone can just use a different cryptocurrency and not have these problems in the first place?
There are 0 (zero) cryptocurrencies that scale better than Bitcoin that don’t also compromise on security or decentralization. Lightning is the best known option which keeps these properties which make Bitcoin desirable in the first place.
- loveitmore 5y ago0 that scale better? XRP performs better at scale and I don’t believe for a second Bitcoin is anymore decentralized. That being said, I don’t know enough about the security aspect - so your claim may end up being correct!
- billytetrud 5y agoXRP isn't decentralized at all... Bitcoin is absolutely far far far more decentralized than a currency that is wholely controlled by a single company.
- tastyfreeze 5y agoDefine decentralized. Ripple owns a lot of XRP(in escrow). That is the only claim of centralization that is true. The network has equal or greater decentralization than BTC.
- CyberDildonics 5y agoThere is at least monero, bitcoin cash and ethereum. Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum both have more transactions than bitcoin already. Ethereum has four times the transaction throughput. Bitcoin Cash has 32x the max block size. There is no technical reason bitcoin could not increase their max block size, but then there would be no reason for their hacky second layer to exist. The only way what you are saying makes sense is if you decide to for some reason define security as "bitcoin's hashing and has rate". No one is doing any sort of mining attacks on bitcoin cash, monero or ethereum. Like the "lightning network" the only way to pretend it is necessary is to pretend it solves a made up problem.
- billytetrud 5y ago> There is no technical reason bitcoin could not increase their max block size You should read the paper this thread is about. It tells you tons of technical reasons that it would be a bad idea to increase the max block size very much if at all.
- zionic 5y agoEthereum has increased its max block size 7+ times in the last 5 years and has had zero issues doing so. “Papers” from technically illiterate authors that ignore very real, tangible evidence contradicting them are about as useful as flat earth “math”.
- fsh 5y agoExcept that I can easily run a full bitcoin node on my desktop but not an ethereum node. What is the point of having a cryptocurrency if I have to trust someone else to run the software for me?
- wyager 5y agoEthereum archive nodes are >20x larger than Bitcoin full nodes and notoriously hard to set up.
- topranks 5y agoIt doesn’t really though. It makes laughable claims like miners have only 94KB of bandwidth. It’s the same old fud that says SPV is unsafe for the average user, Moore’s law is nonexistent, and even then makes crazy lowball assumptions about what hardware and network connectivity people have. It’s basic fallacy is the same old one that says every user needs to download and validate the entire chain and all transactions to use Bitcoin. If that’s true it’s going nowhere anyway.
- wyager 5y agoYeah no shit you can just increase the block size. That doesn’t result in better asymptotic scaling. Spinning up an ethereum full node (“archive node”) is way harder than spinning up a Bitcoin full node, partially because the eth blockchain is over 7TB vs about 300GB for BTC.
- tromp 5y agoMimblewimble improves on Bitcoin's scalability by allowing all spent outputs to be removed from the Initial Block Download.