4 ms·

The actual transactions must all still be transmitted, so this "compression" is actually a way to avoid transmitting transaction data that has already been rece

The actual transactions must all still be transmitted, so this "compression" is actually a way to avoid transmitting transaction data that has already been received by the other side. Bitcoin already does this and while maybe xthinner is better (I don't know) its absolutely not a 99X improvement over standard bitcoin. The problem with the bch people was that they were reckless and dishonest, not that they didn't occasionally create interesting things and have good points. It was a community that was problematic, but still contained some people doing good work.

topranks 5y ago
It’s core principal; that the 1MB blocks use cap was arbitrary and holding back the network, remains 100% true. The arguments against SPV wallet use in this text don’t ring true for me.
- grlass 5y ago
  It may be arbitrary, but increasing blocksize to mitigate network congestion is not a good solution, since any cap you set it to will also be arbitrary, and harm decentralisation (block propagation time, node operation costs, etc). And given how valuable it is to have data in a semi-permanent near-immutable distributed ledger, that block space would be filled up pretty quickly, solving nothing. Keeping the limit however has inspired a number of novel innovations to use the space more efficiently, including segwit (effectively increasing blocks to 4MB), and taproot. In short, block size increases are an "easy solution" that don't really solve much.
  - dylkil 5y ago
    >since any cap you set it to will also be arbitrary Unless you done quantitative analysis into the most appropriate blocksize. But that will never happen at this stage.
dylkil 5y ago
>problem with the bch people was that they were reckless and dishonest Anything relevant you would like to share to back up this claim?
- etrabroline 5y ago
  There were opportunists on both sides but the blockstream people argued that purely observational non-mining nodes somehow 'secure' the network despite having no effect and need to be possible to run with a non-broadband connection and less than 100GB of free disk space. Satoshi himself in the Bitcoin whitepaper estimated higher bandwidth and storage requirements for nodes than what the blockstream employed devs said were too high. The point of Wall Street getting involved was to kill Bitcoin as a currency and turn it into a pure speculator's playground. (aka bitcoin as gold)
uncletammy 5y ago
https://news.bitcoin.com/xthinner-protocol-tested-on-bch-mainnet-shows-99-block-compression/ https://news.bitcoin.com/xthinner-protocol-tested-on-bch-mai...

topranks 5y ago

It’s core principal; that the 1MB blocks use cap was arbitrary and holding back the network, remains 100% true. The arguments against SPV wallet use in this text don’t ring true for me.

grlass 5y ago
It may be arbitrary, but increasing blocksize to mitigate network congestion is not a good solution, since any cap you set it to will also be arbitrary, and harm decentralisation (block propagation time, node operation costs, etc). And given how valuable it is to have data in a semi-permanent near-immutable distributed ledger, that block space would be filled up pretty quickly, solving nothing. Keeping the limit however has inspired a number of novel innovations to use the space more efficiently, including segwit (effectively increasing blocks to 4MB), and taproot. In short, block size increases are an "easy solution" that don't really solve much.
- dylkil 5y ago
  >since any cap you set it to will also be arbitrary Unless you done quantitative analysis into the most appropriate blocksize. But that will never happen at this stage.

dylkil 5y ago

>problem with the bch people was that they were reckless and dishonest Anything relevant you would like to share to back up this claim?

etrabroline 5y ago
There were opportunists on both sides but the blockstream people argued that purely observational non-mining nodes somehow 'secure' the network despite having no effect and need to be possible to run with a non-broadband connection and less than 100GB of free disk space. Satoshi himself in the Bitcoin whitepaper estimated higher bandwidth and storage requirements for nodes than what the blockstream employed devs said were too high. The point of Wall Street getting involved was to kill Bitcoin as a currency and turn it into a pure speculator's playground. (aka bitcoin as gold)

uncletammy 5y ago

https://news.bitcoin.com/xthinner-protocol-tested-on-bch-mainnet-shows-99-block-compression/ https://news.bitcoin.com/xthinner-protocol-tested-on-bch-mai...