5 ms·

I don't really get why we have a thousand coins trying to solve the same problem that Bitcoin Cash solved in 2017. (Or, in 2009, if you accept that BCH is the s

I don't really get why we have a thousand coins trying to solve the same problem that Bitcoin Cash solved in 2017. (Or, in 2009, if you accept that BCH is the same formula as original Bitcoin, and that it is Bitcoin Core that changed its design. They share the same history.) If you want cheap transactions, for actual cash-like usage rather than a "settlement layer", you need big blocks. It is not rocket science.

landemva 5y ago
BCH cheap payments as ethereum side chain could be interesting experiment.
v64 5y ago
Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash's scripting capabilities aren't comparable to Ethereum's smart contracts. Making Ethereum transactions cheaper is a different and more complex problem.
- LeoPanthera 5y ago
  I'm not referring to Ethereum, I'm talking about the "layer 2" coins described in the article or, more specifically, what they are used for.
  - fhaldridge7 5y ago
    all of these chains that are described in the article are EVM-compatible and allow running ethereum smart contracts for example the uniswap contracts can be deployed on arbitrum. users can then swap coins on the arbitrum blockchain rather than ethereum and therefore save gas costs
    - landemva 5y ago
      Problems with composability and liquidity pool fragmentation.
miracle2k 5y ago
You should read some of Vitalik's writing on the subject, for example: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html
ReaLNero 5y ago
A transaction incurs one-time electricity costs for the miner, but also permanent storage costs for miners (who must have a full blockchain copy). For a miner, currently the latter is negligible. Increasing block size implies more storage space needed, which would push amateur miners out, making Bitcoin less decentralized than now[0]. Over time, the storage costs will become massive. This is why block sizes have stayed relatively low. One reason I'm bearish on Bitcoin is that it's absurd that a one-time fee allows you to essentially have a permanent public billboard. For example, people have posted links to illegal content on the blockchain that is essentially unremovable[1]. [0]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/829.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/829.pdf [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47130268 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47130268
- carry_bit 5y ago
  With Bitcoin, the miners can be expected to pay for large ASIC mining rigs, but can't be expected to pay for a couple of TB (for 10x increase) of extra storage every year?
  - thebean11 5y ago
    The miners aren't the only ones who need to store the blockchain. If you don't run your own node, you are trusting someone else to tell you your balance and whether or not someone has paid you which is..not ideal.
    - carry_bit 5y ago
      You don't need to store the entire blockchain to know that from scratch. Download yes, but not store.
throwaway21332 5y ago
Big blocks cause centralization which makes the whole thing kind of pointless.

landemva 5y ago

BCH cheap payments as ethereum side chain could be interesting experiment.

v64 5y ago

Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash's scripting capabilities aren't comparable to Ethereum's smart contracts. Making Ethereum transactions cheaper is a different and more complex problem.

LeoPanthera 5y ago
I'm not referring to Ethereum, I'm talking about the "layer 2" coins described in the article or, more specifically, what they are used for.
- fhaldridge7 5y ago
  all of these chains that are described in the article are EVM-compatible and allow running ethereum smart contracts for example the uniswap contracts can be deployed on arbitrum. users can then swap coins on the arbitrum blockchain rather than ethereum and therefore save gas costs
  - landemva 5y ago
    Problems with composability and liquidity pool fragmentation.

miracle2k 5y ago

You should read some of Vitalik's writing on the subject, for example: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html

ReaLNero 5y ago

A transaction incurs one-time electricity costs for the miner, but also permanent storage costs for miners (who must have a full blockchain copy). For a miner, currently the latter is negligible. Increasing block size implies more storage space needed, which would push amateur miners out, making Bitcoin less decentralized than now[0]. Over time, the storage costs will become massive. This is why block sizes have stayed relatively low. One reason I'm bearish on Bitcoin is that it's absurd that a one-time fee allows you to essentially have a permanent public billboard. For example, people have posted links to illegal content on the blockchain that is essentially unremovable[1]. [0]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/829.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/829.pdf [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47130268 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47130268

carry_bit 5y ago
With Bitcoin, the miners can be expected to pay for large ASIC mining rigs, but can't be expected to pay for a couple of TB (for 10x increase) of extra storage every year?
- thebean11 5y ago
  The miners aren't the only ones who need to store the blockchain. If you don't run your own node, you are trusting someone else to tell you your balance and whether or not someone has paid you which is..not ideal.
  - carry_bit 5y ago
    You don't need to store the entire blockchain to know that from scratch. Download yes, but not store.

throwaway21332 5y ago

Big blocks cause centralization which makes the whole thing kind of pointless.