5 ms·

Even if it would help that much the original issue with scalability still remains. It's not feasible for any individual to validate the blockchain. Maintaining

Even if it would help that much the original issue with scalability still remains. It's not feasible for any individual to validate the blockchain. Maintaining a full node is going to be expensive. So even in the best case it would be "Instead of scaling ridiculously badly bitcoin scales only horrendously badly". A natural solution for this, if we really really want to get cryptocurrencies to work, would be to basically have a cryptocurrency per nation or so, with different PoW function to avoid shifting asics around. The only reason Bitcoiners want a person in Argentina to keep a Finnish potato sack purchase in their books is just to pump up the value of their 'investment'. Every solution made in relation to Bitcoin is made from the viewpoint that if it would make any current Bitcoin holders potentially miss out on global domination it's ignored. Even if it would actually work better.

moe 12y ago
It's not feasible for any individual to validate the blockchain Huh? The above numbers are well within the reach of most western individuals even today. A rented server in the $50/mo range can trivially plow through ~100Mbit/s of SHA256 verifications. 250T of storage on spinning rust can be rented for ~$1000/mo from e.g. Hetzner (and obviously a fraction of that if you roll your own). By the time a Bitcoin adoption of 7 billion users becomes anywhere near realistic you will probably have this kind of storage and CPU capacity in your Smartwatch.
- XorNot 12y ago
  >By the time a Bitcoin adoption of 7 billion users becomes anywhere near realistic you will probably have this kind of storage and CPU capacity in your Smartwatch. If this type of processing power became true, other things would become untrue. For example the cumulative hash-breaking power of the world would be much, much higher. Also we'd have effectively limitless energy sources (how are you powering that multi-core smartwatch?) And it would still be a much better use of resources to do literally anything else for currency.
  - moe 12y ago
    the cumulative hash-breaking power of the world would be much, much higher Why would the "cumulative hash-breaking power" grow somehow disproportionally to the general computing power? how are you powering that multi-core smartwatch? Likely in the same way as your current multi-core smartphone?
    - XorNot 12y ago
      Because the Bitcoin hash function doesn't change, can't change, without effectively wiping out Bitcoin. Which is a bad thing for a currency in general. Which means SHA256 is getting weaker proportional to all power in the world - since confidence in Bitcoin depends on the idea that it can't break - not that "only people using it can't break it". Of course, this is already true anyway - the largest mining pool has been large enough to carry out 51% attacks for a while now, even before it was shown you could do it with much less power. >Likely in the same way as your current multi-core smartphone? Battery technology hasn't gotten appreciably better in a decade. And even if you could get enough power, how do you handle the heat? And even assuming all that...you then run into the problem above. The power of every other computer in the world will be a lot higher.
      - grubles 12y ago
        Bitcoin can change, but it's up to the people who use bitcoin to accept or reject said change. From the bitcoin FAQ: "Could miners fundamentally change the nature of Bitcoin? Once again, almost certainly not. Bitcoin is a distributed network, so any changes implemented to the system must be accepted by all users. Someone trying to change the way Bitcoins are generated would have to convince every user to download and use their software – so the only changes that would go through are those that would be equally benefit all users. And thus, it is more or less impossible for anyone to change the function of Bitcoin to their advantage. If users don't like the changes, they won't adopt them, whereas if users do like them, then these will help everyone equally. Of course, one can conceive of a situation where someone manages to get a change pushed through that provides them with an advantage that no one notices, but given that Bitcoin is structurally relatively simple, it is unlikely that any major changes will go through without someone noticing first. The fact that such changes are so difficult to make testifies to the fully distributed nature of Bitcoin. Any centrally controlled currency can be modified by its central agency without the consent of its adherents. Bitcoin has no central authority, so it changes only at the behest of the whole community. Bitcoins development represents a kind of collective evolution; the first of its kind among currencies." https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ
- sharpneli 12y ago
  By feasible I meant the price of doing that compared to the current systems. It's simply not cost effective.

moe 12y ago

It's not feasible for any individual to validate the blockchain Huh? The above numbers are well within the reach of most western individuals even today. A rented server in the $50/mo range can trivially plow through ~100Mbit/s of SHA256 verifications. 250T of storage on spinning rust can be rented for ~$1000/mo from e.g. Hetzner (and obviously a fraction of that if you roll your own). By the time a Bitcoin adoption of 7 billion users becomes anywhere near realistic you will probably have this kind of storage and CPU capacity in your Smartwatch.

XorNot 12y ago
>By the time a Bitcoin adoption of 7 billion users becomes anywhere near realistic you will probably have this kind of storage and CPU capacity in your Smartwatch. If this type of processing power became true, other things would become untrue. For example the cumulative hash-breaking power of the world would be much, much higher. Also we'd have effectively limitless energy sources (how are you powering that multi-core smartwatch?) And it would still be a much better use of resources to do literally anything else for currency.
- moe 12y ago
  the cumulative hash-breaking power of the world would be much, much higher Why would the "cumulative hash-breaking power" grow somehow disproportionally to the general computing power? how are you powering that multi-core smartwatch? Likely in the same way as your current multi-core smartphone?
  - XorNot 12y ago
    Because the Bitcoin hash function doesn't change, can't change, without effectively wiping out Bitcoin. Which is a bad thing for a currency in general. Which means SHA256 is getting weaker proportional to all power in the world - since confidence in Bitcoin depends on the idea that it can't break - not that "only people using it can't break it". Of course, this is already true anyway - the largest mining pool has been large enough to carry out 51% attacks for a while now, even before it was shown you could do it with much less power. >Likely in the same way as your current multi-core smartphone? Battery technology hasn't gotten appreciably better in a decade. And even if you could get enough power, how do you handle the heat? And even assuming all that...you then run into the problem above. The power of every other computer in the world will be a lot higher.
    - grubles 12y ago
      Bitcoin can change, but it's up to the people who use bitcoin to accept or reject said change. From the bitcoin FAQ: "Could miners fundamentally change the nature of Bitcoin? Once again, almost certainly not. Bitcoin is a distributed network, so any changes implemented to the system must be accepted by all users. Someone trying to change the way Bitcoins are generated would have to convince every user to download and use their software – so the only changes that would go through are those that would be equally benefit all users. And thus, it is more or less impossible for anyone to change the function of Bitcoin to their advantage. If users don't like the changes, they won't adopt them, whereas if users do like them, then these will help everyone equally. Of course, one can conceive of a situation where someone manages to get a change pushed through that provides them with an advantage that no one notices, but given that Bitcoin is structurally relatively simple, it is unlikely that any major changes will go through without someone noticing first. The fact that such changes are so difficult to make testifies to the fully distributed nature of Bitcoin. Any centrally controlled currency can be modified by its central agency without the consent of its adherents. Bitcoin has no central authority, so it changes only at the behest of the whole community. Bitcoins development represents a kind of collective evolution; the first of its kind among currencies." https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ
sharpneli 12y ago
By feasible I meant the price of doing that compared to the current systems. It's simply not cost effective.