3 ms·

I like it when L1 blockchains just increase their system requirements over time, acknowledging improvements in global bandwidth like everything else I like how

I like it when L1 blockchains just increase their system requirements over time, acknowledging improvements in global bandwidth like everything else I like how we don’t have to debate blocksize on other chains Someone looked at the Bitcoin whitepaper and said, hey what if nodes required 256gb RAM and a Threadripper CPU because it’s not 2008 anymore. And it was awesome I would like to see an EVM take a similar approach

qqqult 2y ago
The issue is not so much hardware requirements (although they matter as well) but bandwidth which is the main limitation to a distributed decentralized network that's not hosted in datacenters
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  Did you skip the first sentence > acknowledging improvements in global bandwidth like everything else
  - danlugo92 2y ago
    p2p still capped at sub 5mbps for most people
ForHackernews 2y ago
On the other hand, I think technology should get more efficient and better over time, rather than expand to be maximally inefficient. This is probably why I dislike blockchain. At least ETH abandoned proof-of-waste.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  But they also do that
TacticalCoder 2y ago
> Someone looked at the Bitcoin whitepaper and said, hey what if nodes required 256gb RAM and a Threadripper CPU because it’s not 2008 anymore. It's a very contentious issue in the Bitcoin world but Satoshi himself wrote code, that was commented out, showing that he envisioned bigger blocks at some point. Doubling the size of the blocks wouldn't have been an issue. And politics got in the way and shady deals were made: IIRC everybody agreed on adding "segwit" and 2x bigger blocks to Bitcoin. But as soon as Segwit was locked in, a majority said "oh after all screw you 2x bigger block, we're not doing that". They knew all along they'd act like snakes but first made sure enough people voted to lock segwit in. That's when Roger Ver (aka "Bitcoin Jesus", who owns the bitcoin.com domain) said "screw you guys, I'm doubling the size of the blocks like we all agreed to and like Satoshi envisioned" and the Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash fork happened. It's not as if Satoshi didn't plan for bigger blocks at some point: he had both code and comments on forums explaining that at some point the block size should grow. But politics got in the way and a little cabal of "faketoshis" made sure bigger blocks couldn't happen. P.S: Bitcoin Cash is a failure but, arguably, it is Satoshi's original vision, where blocks got bigger as machines got bigger.

qqqult 2y ago

The issue is not so much hardware requirements (although they matter as well) but bandwidth which is the main limitation to a distributed decentralized network that's not hosted in datacenters

yieldcrv 2y ago
Did you skip the first sentence > acknowledging improvements in global bandwidth like everything else
- danlugo92 2y ago
  p2p still capped at sub 5mbps for most people

ForHackernews 2y ago

On the other hand, I think technology should get more efficient and better over time, rather than expand to be maximally inefficient. This is probably why I dislike blockchain. At least ETH abandoned proof-of-waste.

yieldcrv 2y ago
But they also do that

TacticalCoder 2y ago

> Someone looked at the Bitcoin whitepaper and said, hey what if nodes required 256gb RAM and a Threadripper CPU because it’s not 2008 anymore. It's a very contentious issue in the Bitcoin world but Satoshi himself wrote code, that was commented out, showing that he envisioned bigger blocks at some point. Doubling the size of the blocks wouldn't have been an issue. And politics got in the way and shady deals were made: IIRC everybody agreed on adding "segwit" and 2x bigger blocks to Bitcoin. But as soon as Segwit was locked in, a majority said "oh after all screw you 2x bigger block, we're not doing that". They knew all along they'd act like snakes but first made sure enough people voted to lock segwit in. That's when Roger Ver (aka "Bitcoin Jesus", who owns the bitcoin.com domain) said "screw you guys, I'm doubling the size of the blocks like we all agreed to and like Satoshi envisioned" and the Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash fork happened. It's not as if Satoshi didn't plan for bigger blocks at some point: he had both code and comments on forums explaining that at some point the block size should grow. But politics got in the way and a little cabal of "faketoshis" made sure bigger blocks couldn't happen. P.S: Bitcoin Cash is a failure but, arguably, it is Satoshi's original vision, where blocks got bigger as machines got bigger.