6 ms·

> Decentralization refers to being able to use money electronically without any third party's permission. Decentralization refers to many things, it depends on

> Decentralization refers to being able to use money electronically without any third party's permission. Decentralization refers to many things, it depends on the discussion. I explained the scope of my statements in the parent. > Non mining nodes...All they can do is relay blocks that the miner decide. You are wrong here, they also do validation which is why its important for wallet owners and services to run their own nodes even if they dont mine. >Do you ever stop to think about why other cryptocurrencies don't need a second layer? Yes, it is because they are highly centralized chains that might as well run on sql and/or ghost chains with no users. >Do you think the optimal throughput is a few kilobytes per second worth of transactions for the whole world? Yes, offchain transaction batching is a good scaling strategy. Satoshi recommended it as a solution. >Have you ever done the math on this? Yes, bitcoin full nodes are much cheaper to host on a vps than ethereum full nodes for that reason. Larger blocks = more bandwidth and hd space = more time to download and fully validate. I assure you, running one costs a lot more than 10$/month. Perhaps you should check the math on your claim.

CyberDildonics 4y ago
Decentralization refers to many things, it depends on the discussion. No it doesn't. Decentralization in cryptocurrency always meant being able to make transactions without a central controlling authority. Someone has mislead you to a strange backwards rationalization to say bitcoin is unique. they also do validation which is why its important for wallet owners and services to run their own nodes even if they dont mine. They might validate blocks before rebroadcasting them. This is not the same as miners dictating the ordering of transactions that goes in to a block. These are two different things. One is vital, one is a very minor convenience. Have you read the actual bitcoin pdf? Have you read about cryptocurrencies outside of /r/bitcoin ? It actually isn't crucial for someone to run their own node, someone just needs a way to query the current state of the chain. Yes, it is because they are highly centralized chains that might as well run on sql and/or ghost chains with no users. Where are you getting nonsense like this? This is circular logic, your 'evidence ' is just saying the same thing over and over. Ethereum has had more transactions than bitcoin for the last four years. Here is actual evidence: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth.html#3y https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth.ht... Yes, offchain transaction batching is a good scaling strategy. Satoshi recommended it as a solution. Satoshi recommended lifting the block size limit and having relatively few nodes that could handle huge amounts of on chain traffic. I don't remember anything about stopping at 1.166 KB/s as throughput. I assure you, running one costs a lot more than 10$/month. Perhaps you should check the math on your claim. Your evidence is "I assure you" ? I'll show you actual evidence and you can check my math. Here you can see a 700KB average block size roughly every 10 minutes. That is 1.166.66 KB/s https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc.html#3m A $10/month VPS will have a 1 gigabit connection. That is going to be 125 megabytes per second. That is 107,204 times faster than the bandwidth of the bitcoin network. The entire bitcoin blockchain is only 437 gigabytes. That VPS could download the entire chain from the last 13 years in about an hour. To give you some reference of how much faster that is than what is needed, an SR71 blackbird at a top speed of mach 3.3 is only 75,600 times faster than a slug. As for drive space, the entire chain will fit on a 512 GB thumb drive. These can be bought for $40 USD. Here is where the average fee for a single transaction was over $62 USD. A average single transaction cost more than storing the entire chain on an SSD because of the terrible bitcoin throughput. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3y https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-512GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B083ZLJ5MG/ https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-512GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B0... I would check your math, but you didn't give any at all. You have been taken in by a complete lack of real information. Try asking about it on /r/bitcoin and watch your comment be deleted or shadow banned. There is a reason you aren't getting any real information.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  >Decentralization in cryptocurrency always meant being able to make transactions without a central controlling authority. Incorrect, that is a laymans view. >It actually isn't crucial for someone to run their own node, someone just needs a way to query the current state of the chain. "Dont trust, verify" means nothing to you, I can see. >That VPS could download the entire chain from the last 13 years in about an hour. Download and validate is the objective, not just download. Do that math for an avg dual core vps. It takes about 48 hours. Now calculate the same for full 10-100x sized blocks and realize how silly the idea of onchain scaling gets. >As for drive space, the entire chain will fit on a 512 GB thumb drive. These can be bought for $40 USD. Lol, I'm sure vps hosts will allow you to plug thumb drives in as storage or sell storage to you at the off-the-shelf price /s. Putting that absurdity aside for a second, 10-100x the chain size and do the same math. I can tell youve never self-hosted or cloud-hosted a node by your approach to calculating the costs. Full nodes need to be easy to spin up, validate on limited hardware/bandwith in a reasonable period of time, and stay synced. Also its good to remember that 99% of nodes sitting on big 3 cloud hosting providers is not real node decentralization. Finally, I dont use reddit. You can stop referencing it.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    Incorrect, that is a laymans view. This was the original definition by the creator of bitcoin and the people that took it over. Maybe you should think about who the 'layman' is here. "Dont trust, verify" means nothing to you, I can see. When you say stuff like this, it's obvious you don't understand how cryptocurrencies even work. You aren't going to be able to forge a different chain without mining blocks yourself. You aren't going to be able to out mine the miners. This is the whole point and you seem desperate to ignore it. Download and validate is the objective, not just download. Do that math for an avg dual core vps. It takes about 48 hours. Now calculate the same for full 10-100x sized blocks and realize how silly the idea of onchain scaling gets. I've been syncing with the chain on desktops, raspberry pis and old cell phones for 10 years. You are probably basing this on downloading a block then verifying in lockstep on a very inefficient implementation. Blocks take fractions of a second to verify even on the slow reference implementation with bizarre vector copying and memory allocation choices. All these are the same arguments people have made on /r/bitcoin for years, since they delete replies from anyone who proves them wrong. Lol, I'm sure vps hosts will allow you to plug thumb drives in as storage or sell storage to you at the off-the-shelf price /s. Putting that absurdity aside for a second, 10-100x the chain size and do the same math. I did all the math for you, you still have no evidence. All you're saying is "what about 100x the capacity??" It would obviously work fine, which I showed you with numbers and basic stats of the current blockchain. 10x would be literally $70 of hard drive space. Where are you getting your information and why do you think these things won't work? Other cryptocurrencies are literally doing what you keep saying is impossible and you haven't given any actual numbers.

CyberDildonics 4y ago

Decentralization refers to many things, it depends on the discussion. No it doesn't. Decentralization in cryptocurrency always meant being able to make transactions without a central controlling authority. Someone has mislead you to a strange backwards rationalization to say bitcoin is unique. they also do validation which is why its important for wallet owners and services to run their own nodes even if they dont mine. They might validate blocks before rebroadcasting them. This is not the same as miners dictating the ordering of transactions that goes in to a block. These are two different things. One is vital, one is a very minor convenience. Have you read the actual bitcoin pdf? Have you read about cryptocurrencies outside of /r/bitcoin ? It actually isn't crucial for someone to run their own node, someone just needs a way to query the current state of the chain. Yes, it is because they are highly centralized chains that might as well run on sql and/or ghost chains with no users. Where are you getting nonsense like this? This is circular logic, your 'evidence ' is just saying the same thing over and over. Ethereum has had more transactions than bitcoin for the last four years. Here is actual evidence: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth.html#3y https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth.ht... Yes, offchain transaction batching is a good scaling strategy. Satoshi recommended it as a solution. Satoshi recommended lifting the block size limit and having relatively few nodes that could handle huge amounts of on chain traffic. I don't remember anything about stopping at 1.166 KB/s as throughput. I assure you, running one costs a lot more than 10$/month. Perhaps you should check the math on your claim. Your evidence is "I assure you" ? I'll show you actual evidence and you can check my math. Here you can see a 700KB average block size roughly every 10 minutes. That is 1.166.66 KB/s https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc.html#3m A $10/month VPS will have a 1 gigabit connection. That is going to be 125 megabytes per second. That is 107,204 times faster than the bandwidth of the bitcoin network. The entire bitcoin blockchain is only 437 gigabytes. That VPS could download the entire chain from the last 13 years in about an hour. To give you some reference of how much faster that is than what is needed, an SR71 blackbird at a top speed of mach 3.3 is only 75,600 times faster than a slug. As for drive space, the entire chain will fit on a 512 GB thumb drive. These can be bought for $40 USD. Here is where the average fee for a single transaction was over $62 USD. A average single transaction cost more than storing the entire chain on an SSD because of the terrible bitcoin throughput. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3y https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-512GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B083ZLJ5MG/ https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-512GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B0... I would check your math, but you didn't give any at all. You have been taken in by a complete lack of real information. Try asking about it on /r/bitcoin and watch your comment be deleted or shadow banned. There is a reason you aren't getting any real information.

ashwagary 4y ago
>Decentralization in cryptocurrency always meant being able to make transactions without a central controlling authority. Incorrect, that is a laymans view. >It actually isn't crucial for someone to run their own node, someone just needs a way to query the current state of the chain. "Dont trust, verify" means nothing to you, I can see. >That VPS could download the entire chain from the last 13 years in about an hour. Download and validate is the objective, not just download. Do that math for an avg dual core vps. It takes about 48 hours. Now calculate the same for full 10-100x sized blocks and realize how silly the idea of onchain scaling gets. >As for drive space, the entire chain will fit on a 512 GB thumb drive. These can be bought for $40 USD. Lol, I'm sure vps hosts will allow you to plug thumb drives in as storage or sell storage to you at the off-the-shelf price /s. Putting that absurdity aside for a second, 10-100x the chain size and do the same math. I can tell youve never self-hosted or cloud-hosted a node by your approach to calculating the costs. Full nodes need to be easy to spin up, validate on limited hardware/bandwith in a reasonable period of time, and stay synced. Also its good to remember that 99% of nodes sitting on big 3 cloud hosting providers is not real node decentralization. Finally, I dont use reddit. You can stop referencing it.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  Incorrect, that is a laymans view. This was the original definition by the creator of bitcoin and the people that took it over. Maybe you should think about who the 'layman' is here. "Dont trust, verify" means nothing to you, I can see. When you say stuff like this, it's obvious you don't understand how cryptocurrencies even work. You aren't going to be able to forge a different chain without mining blocks yourself. You aren't going to be able to out mine the miners. This is the whole point and you seem desperate to ignore it. Download and validate is the objective, not just download. Do that math for an avg dual core vps. It takes about 48 hours. Now calculate the same for full 10-100x sized blocks and realize how silly the idea of onchain scaling gets. I've been syncing with the chain on desktops, raspberry pis and old cell phones for 10 years. You are probably basing this on downloading a block then verifying in lockstep on a very inefficient implementation. Blocks take fractions of a second to verify even on the slow reference implementation with bizarre vector copying and memory allocation choices. All these are the same arguments people have made on /r/bitcoin for years, since they delete replies from anyone who proves them wrong. Lol, I'm sure vps hosts will allow you to plug thumb drives in as storage or sell storage to you at the off-the-shelf price /s. Putting that absurdity aside for a second, 10-100x the chain size and do the same math. I did all the math for you, you still have no evidence. All you're saying is "what about 100x the capacity??" It would obviously work fine, which I showed you with numbers and basic stats of the current blockchain. 10x would be literally $70 of hard drive space. Where are you getting your information and why do you think these things won't work? Other cryptocurrencies are literally doing what you keep saying is impossible and you haven't given any actual numbers.