3 ms·

>Decentralization in cryptocurrency always meant being able to make transactions without a central controlling authority. Incorrect, that is a laymans view. >

>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.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  >Maybe you should think about who the 'layman' is here. Its pretty clear by the sidestepping and bad calculations in your responses. > Blocks take fractions of a second to verify. We were talking about spinning new nodes, why move the goal posts to make yourself sound reasonable? 10-100x the time it takes to download and fully validate 700,000 blocks in the big block world you want. >I did all the math for you, you still have no evidence. Cloud hosting 10-100x (5-50TB) is not a one time $70 cost, not even close. Youre doing bad math. It's silly and we havent even touched the hardware update frequency required to store the volume of onchain spam this would introduce. You may be out of your depth in this discussion. High degree of node centralization would be the outcome of the parameters you are proposing. I'm not surprised your posts get deleted from subreddits. Based on your description, the admins seem to expect users to think about 2nd order effects before posting.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    Its pretty clear by the sidestepping and bad calculations in your responses. There has been no sidestepping, I showed you real numbers and evidence, you showed me nothing. We were talking about spinning new nodes, why move the goal posts to make yourself sound reasonable? 10-100x the time it takes to download and fully validate 700,000 blocks in the big block world you want. No, you keep harping on that even though it has no impact on decentralization. This one of the many weird talking points you keep lumping together without understanding what matters. If you have ever synced with the chain yourself you would know that CPU usage is practically nothing overall. Again, other currencies already deal with and have tested this stuff out. It's trivial. Cloud hosting 10-100x (5-50TB) is not a one time $70 cost, not even close. Youre doing bad math. It's silly and we havent even touched the hardware update frequency required to store the volume of onchain spam this would introduce. This are predictions of a future that is already here for everyone else. You originally said it was all about bandwidth before being proved wrong with how absurd that idea is. Now it's "cloud hosting" even though people are running nodes off of raspberry pis and cable modems. Also you still haven't acknowledged all the other points, like how satoshi envisioned miners mostly running large nodes themselves. It's silly and we havent even touched the hardware update frequency required to store the volume of onchain spam this would introduce. This doesn't mean anything, and is just gish galloping. You may be out of your depth in this discussion. High degree of node centralization would be the outcome of the parameters you are proposing. I'm not surprised your posts get deleted from subreddits. Based on your description, the admins seem to expect users to think about 2nd order effects before posting. This has been the line for almost 10 years now. Every other cryptocurrency has proved this wrong over and over. Why do you believe this in the face of overwhelming evidence and why do you even think non mining nodes matter? It's clear from your other messages that you don't understand the difference between non mining nodes and mining nodes. Here is the most important question though - where are you getting your information? I know you didn't come to these conclusions yourself, because you say the exact same ridiculous things as anyone who only reads /r/bitcoin. If it isn't from there where is it and why won't you link 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.

ashwagary 4y ago
>Maybe you should think about who the 'layman' is here. Its pretty clear by the sidestepping and bad calculations in your responses. > Blocks take fractions of a second to verify. We were talking about spinning new nodes, why move the goal posts to make yourself sound reasonable? 10-100x the time it takes to download and fully validate 700,000 blocks in the big block world you want. >I did all the math for you, you still have no evidence. Cloud hosting 10-100x (5-50TB) is not a one time $70 cost, not even close. Youre doing bad math. It's silly and we havent even touched the hardware update frequency required to store the volume of onchain spam this would introduce. You may be out of your depth in this discussion. High degree of node centralization would be the outcome of the parameters you are proposing. I'm not surprised your posts get deleted from subreddits. Based on your description, the admins seem to expect users to think about 2nd order effects before posting.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  Its pretty clear by the sidestepping and bad calculations in your responses. There has been no sidestepping, I showed you real numbers and evidence, you showed me nothing. We were talking about spinning new nodes, why move the goal posts to make yourself sound reasonable? 10-100x the time it takes to download and fully validate 700,000 blocks in the big block world you want. No, you keep harping on that even though it has no impact on decentralization. This one of the many weird talking points you keep lumping together without understanding what matters. If you have ever synced with the chain yourself you would know that CPU usage is practically nothing overall. Again, other currencies already deal with and have tested this stuff out. It's trivial. Cloud hosting 10-100x (5-50TB) is not a one time $70 cost, not even close. Youre doing bad math. It's silly and we havent even touched the hardware update frequency required to store the volume of onchain spam this would introduce. This are predictions of a future that is already here for everyone else. You originally said it was all about bandwidth before being proved wrong with how absurd that idea is. Now it's "cloud hosting" even though people are running nodes off of raspberry pis and cable modems. Also you still haven't acknowledged all the other points, like how satoshi envisioned miners mostly running large nodes themselves. It's silly and we havent even touched the hardware update frequency required to store the volume of onchain spam this would introduce. This doesn't mean anything, and is just gish galloping. You may be out of your depth in this discussion. High degree of node centralization would be the outcome of the parameters you are proposing. I'm not surprised your posts get deleted from subreddits. Based on your description, the admins seem to expect users to think about 2nd order effects before posting. This has been the line for almost 10 years now. Every other cryptocurrency has proved this wrong over and over. Why do you believe this in the face of overwhelming evidence and why do you even think non mining nodes matter? It's clear from your other messages that you don't understand the difference between non mining nodes and mining nodes. Here is the most important question though - where are you getting your information? I know you didn't come to these conclusions yourself, because you say the exact same ridiculous things as anyone who only reads /r/bitcoin. If it isn't from there where is it and why won't you link it?