6 ms·

You can check the real data. https://bitcoinblocks.live https://bitcoinblocks.live https://whatsonchain.com https://whatsonchain.com There is no problem with

You can check the real data. https://bitcoinblocks.live https://bitcoinblocks.live https://whatsonchain.com https://whatsonchain.com There is no problem with practical use. Once you know "peer-to-peer transaction protocol," you will understand that it can work without any problems. https://blog.moneybutton.com/2020/03/30/handcash-and-money-button-restore-peer-to-peer-electronic-cash/ https://blog.moneybutton.com/2020/03/30/handcash-and-money-b... This was Satoshi's original Bitcoin design and is the key to the scalability solution.

rglullis 5y ago
> There is no problem with practical use. For current loads, I believe you. Come back when you have millions of users and thousands of TPS, and let me know (a) the hardware requirements to run a node, (b) how much it costs to run such a node and (c) what percentage of the population could theoretically afford this. It is very easy to "scale" if you centralize all processing in a handful of nodes.
- andelu 5y ago
  >It is very easy to "scale" if you centralize all processing in a handful of nodes. "Yes"
- kylelee99 5y ago
  A few specialized miners form a complete graph. The majority of users use the SPV introduced in Chapter 8 of the Bitcoin white paper. Miners compete for their own incentives, processing hundreds of millions of TX. This is also Satoshi's Bitcoin design. This type of graph is called a mandala network. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09082 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09082
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > A few specialized miners form a complete graph. How "few" is few? What number of would you say is "too few" to count as an actual decentralized system? > The majority of users use the SPV introduced in Chapter 8 of the Bitcoin white paper. Why? Why would people get themselves into a system that has none of the advantages of central systems (institutions with authority to correct human errors and some type of checks-and-balances) but will still require them to trust a handful of "specialized miners"? > Miners compete for their own incentives, processing hundreds of millions of TX. At what cost? And what kind of capital will be required for the operation to be profitable? Presumably these costs are not low, otherwise more people would be interested in joining the network and you wouldn't have "few specialized miners". How distributed are these miners going to be around the world? Given the amount of hashpower that is already concentrated in China, one would assume that these "few specialized miners" would be seeking places where energy can be cheaper and/or subsidized. How robust is a system that depends on geo-political factors? What happens when the cost of securing the network are just too big and China decides it is not worth it anymore and pulls the plug? If there are "few specialized miners", what's stopping them from colluding? If the competition is actually efficient and drives the prices down, the operation would be barely profitable. If the ROI is low, what would stop stopping from some bigger entity to just buy them out and keep them running? Doesn't that just give us the world's most expensive central bank? ---- Putting aside the cult-like obsession with Satoshi, the problem with maxis is that they assume always that their models (the "designs") are right and that people will change their behaviors and attitudes to fit into their model. Whoever continues to spew that BS after any kind of "one true way" is either incredibly naive or a pathological crook.
    - kylelee99 5y ago
      SPV doesn't trust a handful of miners. Since SPV has block header information, it can verify itself.
    - kylelee99 5y ago
      First of all, I thank you very much for your professional reply. Perhaps the biggest misconception about the Bitcoin network is that miners think they can change the rules. Satoshi's designed the Bitcoin protocol to be immutable. Therefore, miners only follow the rules according to their own interests. And it's the police who verify if other miners or users are breaking the rules. If they can't change the rules, there's no profit for some miners to collude. They can try to get in the way with money, but to no avail. In order to scale to a large scale, it is natural to specialize. ISPs are few in the world, but We are not saying they are centralized. This is because it only serves its role according to the Internet protocol. This is not an obsession with Satoshi. Since we are using what Satoshi made, we check whether it works by itself. Satoshi fixed the protocol, and I think he is right if scaling were made from the fixed rules. And the real expansion is taking place.
      - rglullis 5y ago
        I have asked very specific questions, and you are responding with vague references to "the protocol" and very bad economic justifications for the feasibility of it all. > Bitcoin protocol to be immutable. The protocol doesn't matter for the purposes of these questions. The point is that your proposed architecture relies on a "few specialized miners". These miners (whether BTC, BCH or BSV) are few presumably due to the costs of running the operation profitably. PoW requires a lot of energy and blockspace requires ever more storage capacity - in the case of BSV, they would be requiring TBs of storage per week. > And it's the police who verify What police??? You just said before that miners can only act on their own interest, then you go to say there is someone that can force miners to do (or not do) something? > If they can't change the rules, there's no profit for some miners to collude. Like you said, in your design, they are few. If they are few, they can act as a cartel, which is effectively THE SAME as "changing the rules". They can collude to increase fees. They can collude to create periodic 51% attacks. They can collude to block transactions from certain addresses. > ISPs are few in the world, but We are not saying they are centralized. The cost to run one ISP is not dependent on how many other ISPs are out there. Its profitability may depend on market conditions and the market price may fluctuate due to increasing supply. But the operational costs are predictable and they grow slower than revenue. Also, it's very unlikely that once an ISP acquired a customer that they will be easily migrating to another that started offering better prices. Lastly, an ISP can use its servers for a long time, even if a newer/more powerful model comes to the market. Mining does not give you that. The cost to run a miner goes up with the amount of competition. Every one is competing for more hashpower and if you don't keep up in the race, your revenue is lost. People running outdated mining rigs will be priced out of the market or forced to buy newer/more efficient rigs. No amount of specialization and optimization will let you compete with a miner that is running on China with subsidized and/or dirty energy.

rglullis 5y ago

> There is no problem with practical use. For current loads, I believe you. Come back when you have millions of users and thousands of TPS, and let me know (a) the hardware requirements to run a node, (b) how much it costs to run such a node and (c) what percentage of the population could theoretically afford this. It is very easy to "scale" if you centralize all processing in a handful of nodes.

andelu 5y ago
>It is very easy to "scale" if you centralize all processing in a handful of nodes. "Yes"
kylelee99 5y ago
A few specialized miners form a complete graph. The majority of users use the SPV introduced in Chapter 8 of the Bitcoin white paper. Miners compete for their own incentives, processing hundreds of millions of TX. This is also Satoshi's Bitcoin design. This type of graph is called a mandala network. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09082 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09082
- rglullis 5y ago
  > A few specialized miners form a complete graph. How "few" is few? What number of would you say is "too few" to count as an actual decentralized system? > The majority of users use the SPV introduced in Chapter 8 of the Bitcoin white paper. Why? Why would people get themselves into a system that has none of the advantages of central systems (institutions with authority to correct human errors and some type of checks-and-balances) but will still require them to trust a handful of "specialized miners"? > Miners compete for their own incentives, processing hundreds of millions of TX. At what cost? And what kind of capital will be required for the operation to be profitable? Presumably these costs are not low, otherwise more people would be interested in joining the network and you wouldn't have "few specialized miners". How distributed are these miners going to be around the world? Given the amount of hashpower that is already concentrated in China, one would assume that these "few specialized miners" would be seeking places where energy can be cheaper and/or subsidized. How robust is a system that depends on geo-political factors? What happens when the cost of securing the network are just too big and China decides it is not worth it anymore and pulls the plug? If there are "few specialized miners", what's stopping them from colluding? If the competition is actually efficient and drives the prices down, the operation would be barely profitable. If the ROI is low, what would stop stopping from some bigger entity to just buy them out and keep them running? Doesn't that just give us the world's most expensive central bank? ---- Putting aside the cult-like obsession with Satoshi, the problem with maxis is that they assume always that their models (the "designs") are right and that people will change their behaviors and attitudes to fit into their model. Whoever continues to spew that BS after any kind of "one true way" is either incredibly naive or a pathological crook.
  - kylelee99 5y ago
    SPV doesn't trust a handful of miners. Since SPV has block header information, it can verify itself.
  - kylelee99 5y ago
    First of all, I thank you very much for your professional reply. Perhaps the biggest misconception about the Bitcoin network is that miners think they can change the rules. Satoshi's designed the Bitcoin protocol to be immutable. Therefore, miners only follow the rules according to their own interests. And it's the police who verify if other miners or users are breaking the rules. If they can't change the rules, there's no profit for some miners to collude. They can try to get in the way with money, but to no avail. In order to scale to a large scale, it is natural to specialize. ISPs are few in the world, but We are not saying they are centralized. This is because it only serves its role according to the Internet protocol. This is not an obsession with Satoshi. Since we are using what Satoshi made, we check whether it works by itself. Satoshi fixed the protocol, and I think he is right if scaling were made from the fixed rules. And the real expansion is taking place.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      I have asked very specific questions, and you are responding with vague references to "the protocol" and very bad economic justifications for the feasibility of it all. > Bitcoin protocol to be immutable. The protocol doesn't matter for the purposes of these questions. The point is that your proposed architecture relies on a "few specialized miners". These miners (whether BTC, BCH or BSV) are few presumably due to the costs of running the operation profitably. PoW requires a lot of energy and blockspace requires ever more storage capacity - in the case of BSV, they would be requiring TBs of storage per week. > And it's the police who verify What police??? You just said before that miners can only act on their own interest, then you go to say there is someone that can force miners to do (or not do) something? > If they can't change the rules, there's no profit for some miners to collude. Like you said, in your design, they are few. If they are few, they can act as a cartel, which is effectively THE SAME as "changing the rules". They can collude to increase fees. They can collude to create periodic 51% attacks. They can collude to block transactions from certain addresses. > ISPs are few in the world, but We are not saying they are centralized. The cost to run one ISP is not dependent on how many other ISPs are out there. Its profitability may depend on market conditions and the market price may fluctuate due to increasing supply. But the operational costs are predictable and they grow slower than revenue. Also, it's very unlikely that once an ISP acquired a customer that they will be easily migrating to another that started offering better prices. Lastly, an ISP can use its servers for a long time, even if a newer/more powerful model comes to the market. Mining does not give you that. The cost to run a miner goes up with the amount of competition. Every one is competing for more hashpower and if you don't keep up in the race, your revenue is lost. People running outdated mining rigs will be priced out of the market or forced to buy newer/more efficient rigs. No amount of specialization and optimization will let you compete with a miner that is running on China with subsidized and/or dirty energy.