5 ms·

Could you provide more context on this?

by kekebo 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ETH_start 3y ago
Bitcoin had a 1 MB block size limit put in place in its early life as an anti-DOS measure. The plan was to raise the limit as the block size, from genuine usage, came up against it. The problem is that it requires a hard fork to raise the limit, so there needed to be near-unanimous agreement to go through with it. While the vast majority of people in the Bitcoin space wanted to follow through with raising the limit, a small but dedicated group worked to undermine the efforts to reach a consensus. This article, published in 2015, provides a window into the politics surrounding the issue, and how the block size limit increase was ultimately sabotaged: https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830 https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830
- kekebo 3y ago
  Thanks!
- treyd 3y ago
  > While the vast majority of people in the Bitcoin space wanted to follow through with raising the limit, [citation needed] And even if it were true, there's very good reasons for not doing it that have been argued about at length. It's also curious the article has a section on "conflicts of interest" while the author is themselves a proponent of the big-block Bcash fork. The larger ecosystem has largely abandoned it since it compromises on the values of decentralization, defeating the theoretical purpose of using blockchains in the first place.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    The fact that r/Bitcoin had to resort to censorship to stop the rank and file from switching to BitcoinXT is one indication that the majority wanted a hard fork. Industry wanted one as well, considering the industry letter signed by most major industry actors, like Coinbase. [1] And the vast majority of miners signaled support for a hard fork to raise the block size limit. As for Bitcoin Cash, that was created long after the author of that article penned the article, so could not possibly have created a conflict of interest when he was writing it. >>The larger ecosystem has largely abandoned it since it compromises on the values of decentralization, defeating the theoretical purpose of using blockchains in the first place. Bitcoin Cash didn't have any network effects. Crypto users adopt the network with the largest user base and most liquidity. That's why a hard fork that is only supported by an economic minority is always facing an uphill battle in superseding the original fork. [1] https://github.com/bitcoinxt/website/blob/master/industry-letter.pdf https://github.com/bitcoinxt/website/blob/master/industry-le...
    - treyd 3y ago
      All of those "industry actors" stand to benefit from increasing blocksizes and pushing users away from running their own nodes. Their shared action and support on this matter is an indictment of their dishonesty and misaligned values.
      - ETH_start 3y ago
        Industry actors like exchanges and block explorers primarily stand to benefit from more people using the cryptocurrency. Most users, companies and miners wanted to implement the original scaling plan of raising the block size limit, contrary to your disingenuous initial claim.
        treyd 3y ago
        Of course, but specifically by maintaining custody over those users funds. And increasing the hardware requirements to have full custody of your own funds nudges users in the direction of delegating it to massive corporations. Also you're arguing along the lines of "the original plan" is just doing unfounded originalism. Satoshi had lots of bad ideas, there's no reason people should try to embody/achieve all the ideas of someone just because he had one good idea. Which of the claims I made do you think is disingenuous?
        ETH_start 3y ago
        No, exchanges and block explorers benefit from growth in usage regardless of whether self-custody is the norm or not. You implying that malevolent motivations is the only plausible explanation for their support for larger blocks is disingenuous. Your original claim, that the majority didn't support large blocks, is also disingenuous, as all facts indicate the contrary.
        treyd 3y ago
        > You implying that malevolent motivations is the only plausible explanation for their support for larger blocks is disingenuous. How is that disingenuous? They stand to benefit from more users and they stand to benefit more from being the gateway for user activity. It's not contradictory for both to be true at the same time. And we know they took steps to make this happen with BitPay saying "this is the new Bitcoin, go download it" and linking the new Bcash client. > as all facts indicate the contrary. This isn't true though. It's very hard to measure these popularity contests. And again, even if the majority (appears to) want something doesn't necessarily mean it's actually good. We'd all want free kittens but that doesn't mean it makes sense to give everyone them.

Could you provide more context on this?

by kekebo 3y ago

Could you provide more context on this?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ETH_start 3y ago

Bitcoin had a 1 MB block size limit put in place in its early life as an anti-DOS measure. The plan was to raise the limit as the block size, from genuine usage, came up against it. The problem is that it requires a hard fork to raise the limit, so there needed to be near-unanimous agreement to go through with it. While the vast majority of people in the Bitcoin space wanted to follow through with raising the limit, a small but dedicated group worked to undermine the efforts to reach a consensus. This article, published in 2015, provides a window into the politics surrounding the issue, and how the block size limit increase was ultimately sabotaged: https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830 https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830

kekebo 3y ago
Thanks!
treyd 3y ago
> While the vast majority of people in the Bitcoin space wanted to follow through with raising the limit, [citation needed] And even if it were true, there's very good reasons for not doing it that have been argued about at length. It's also curious the article has a section on "conflicts of interest" while the author is themselves a proponent of the big-block Bcash fork. The larger ecosystem has largely abandoned it since it compromises on the values of decentralization, defeating the theoretical purpose of using blockchains in the first place.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  The fact that r/Bitcoin had to resort to censorship to stop the rank and file from switching to BitcoinXT is one indication that the majority wanted a hard fork. Industry wanted one as well, considering the industry letter signed by most major industry actors, like Coinbase. [1] And the vast majority of miners signaled support for a hard fork to raise the block size limit. As for Bitcoin Cash, that was created long after the author of that article penned the article, so could not possibly have created a conflict of interest when he was writing it. >>The larger ecosystem has largely abandoned it since it compromises on the values of decentralization, defeating the theoretical purpose of using blockchains in the first place. Bitcoin Cash didn't have any network effects. Crypto users adopt the network with the largest user base and most liquidity. That's why a hard fork that is only supported by an economic minority is always facing an uphill battle in superseding the original fork. [1] https://github.com/bitcoinxt/website/blob/master/industry-letter.pdf https://github.com/bitcoinxt/website/blob/master/industry-le...
  - treyd 3y ago
    All of those "industry actors" stand to benefit from increasing blocksizes and pushing users away from running their own nodes. Their shared action and support on this matter is an indictment of their dishonesty and misaligned values.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      Industry actors like exchanges and block explorers primarily stand to benefit from more people using the cryptocurrency. Most users, companies and miners wanted to implement the original scaling plan of raising the block size limit, contrary to your disingenuous initial claim.
      - treyd 3y ago
        Of course, but specifically by maintaining custody over those users funds. And increasing the hardware requirements to have full custody of your own funds nudges users in the direction of delegating it to massive corporations. Also you're arguing along the lines of "the original plan" is just doing unfounded originalism. Satoshi had lots of bad ideas, there's no reason people should try to embody/achieve all the ideas of someone just because he had one good idea. Which of the claims I made do you think is disingenuous?
        ETH_start 3y ago
        No, exchanges and block explorers benefit from growth in usage regardless of whether self-custody is the norm or not. You implying that malevolent motivations is the only plausible explanation for their support for larger blocks is disingenuous. Your original claim, that the majority didn't support large blocks, is also disingenuous, as all facts indicate the contrary.
        treyd 3y ago
        > You implying that malevolent motivations is the only plausible explanation for their support for larger blocks is disingenuous. How is that disingenuous? They stand to benefit from more users and they stand to benefit more from being the gateway for user activity. It's not contradictory for both to be true at the same time. And we know they took steps to make this happen with BitPay saying "this is the new Bitcoin, go download it" and linking the new Bcash client. > as all facts indicate the contrary. This isn't true though. It's very hard to measure these popularity contests. And again, even if the majority (appears to) want something doesn't necessarily mean it's actually good. We'd all want free kittens but that doesn't mean it makes sense to give everyone them.