4 ms·

This block-size hurdle isn't new and is one of the ongoing examples of how Bitcoin is suffering from Tragedy of the Commons. The offshore miners control Bitcoi

by bduerst 11y ago

This block-size hurdle isn't new and is one of the ongoing examples of how Bitcoin is suffering from Tragedy of the Commons. The offshore miners control Bitcoin, and they are independently and rationally aligned with their own self-interest and profit (as they should be). When it comes to forking changes that are not directly beneficial to the miners (block size), it's nearly impossible to get a consensus, even if it means making Bitcoin a better currency. When you consider a change that makes it more difficult for a miner or cuts into a miner's profits, like increasing the supply to counteract deflation and hoarding, then you start to realize why Bitcoin is still having these issues.

wyager 11y ago
You're inaccurately oversimplifying the mining market. The most important thing that refutes any notion of "miners control the network" is that, if some miners adopt a ruleset unfavourable to users, users will simply stop accepting whatever that miner is mining as Bitcoins, and their profits will go to zero (because they're mining some Bitcoin-Like but not really Bitcoin currency). If users start using a different ruleset than miners, the miners have to switch over or they will have no one to sell their coins to.
- bduerst 11y ago
  Nope. It's neither inaccurate or oversimplified to say the miners have control, when the forked fix to the issue in the article requires a 51% consensus amongst the miners. To say that the entire bitcoin userbase will band together to form a concensus to avoid miners is to turn the same blind eye to rational human behavior and tragedy of the commons. It's just as much wishful thinking and hand waving as thinking the miners will act solely out of benevolence for Bitcoin.
  - brighton36 11y ago
    It's not a tragedy of the commons. Whether we grow the blocks or keep them the same, the network continues to function just fine. It's a matter of values and how to grow the network. If the miners do nothing, Lightning Network and off-chain networks will route most transactions outside of the blocks. Some in the network want Bitcoin only to be used for settlement, instead of for every payment. We've actually had larger blocks in the past (32 MiB I believe) and it was reduced to combat spam.
    - bduerst 11y ago
      That's not a counter-argument to tragedy of the commons. You just described off-chain transactions which aren't considered Bitcoin, and if anything are only a temporary fix to the block-size problem. Tragedy of the commons exists because any of the solutions to a number of problems in the Bitcoin implementation need to be directly profitable for the miners in order to happen. For block-size and supply, they are the opposite of profitable for the miners.
  - wyager 11y ago
    Did you read my comment? The miners don't have to act selflessly; they just have to realize that no one will take their "Bitcoin" if it's mined with different rules than the actual Bitcoin that others are willing to accept as payment. It actually doesn't necessarily require a 51% consensus to change the rules. That's just a nice tradition the devs follow. Users are free to change the rules and ignore miners that continue to use the old rules. Waiting for consensus just ensures that there will be a minimal loss of mining power.
    - bduerst 11y ago
      Because that's not how bitcoin even works?? Users transmit transactions to the network, where miners put them into blocks, generate hashes, and add them to the chain. Nodes always trust the longest chains as being correct. Miners control the blocks, not users. This isn't some Starbucks or Target where a centralized policy maker is deciding what to do based on "user demand", assuming users were even able to collude.
      - wyager 11y ago
        I think you may have an oversimplified mental model of Bitcoin. Consider this; if a miner were to change their code to mine 100 Bitcoin per block instead of 25, would people trust them just because they represent the longest chain? Obviously not. A node will accept a block if it's in the longest chain AND it follows the node's ruleset.

by bduerst 11y ago

wyager 11y ago

You're inaccurately oversimplifying the mining market. The most important thing that refutes any notion of "miners control the network" is that, if some miners adopt a ruleset unfavourable to users, users will simply stop accepting whatever that miner is mining as Bitcoins, and their profits will go to zero (because they're mining some Bitcoin-Like but not really Bitcoin currency). If users start using a different ruleset than miners, the miners have to switch over or they will have no one to sell their coins to.

bduerst 11y ago
Nope. It's neither inaccurate or oversimplified to say the miners have control, when the forked fix to the issue in the article requires a 51% consensus amongst the miners. To say that the entire bitcoin userbase will band together to form a concensus to avoid miners is to turn the same blind eye to rational human behavior and tragedy of the commons. It's just as much wishful thinking and hand waving as thinking the miners will act solely out of benevolence for Bitcoin.
- brighton36 11y ago
  It's not a tragedy of the commons. Whether we grow the blocks or keep them the same, the network continues to function just fine. It's a matter of values and how to grow the network. If the miners do nothing, Lightning Network and off-chain networks will route most transactions outside of the blocks. Some in the network want Bitcoin only to be used for settlement, instead of for every payment. We've actually had larger blocks in the past (32 MiB I believe) and it was reduced to combat spam.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    That's not a counter-argument to tragedy of the commons. You just described off-chain transactions which aren't considered Bitcoin, and if anything are only a temporary fix to the block-size problem. Tragedy of the commons exists because any of the solutions to a number of problems in the Bitcoin implementation need to be directly profitable for the miners in order to happen. For block-size and supply, they are the opposite of profitable for the miners.
- wyager 11y ago
  Did you read my comment? The miners don't have to act selflessly; they just have to realize that no one will take their "Bitcoin" if it's mined with different rules than the actual Bitcoin that others are willing to accept as payment. It actually doesn't necessarily require a 51% consensus to change the rules. That's just a nice tradition the devs follow. Users are free to change the rules and ignore miners that continue to use the old rules. Waiting for consensus just ensures that there will be a minimal loss of mining power.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Because that's not how bitcoin even works?? Users transmit transactions to the network, where miners put them into blocks, generate hashes, and add them to the chain. Nodes always trust the longest chains as being correct. Miners control the blocks, not users. This isn't some Starbucks or Target where a centralized policy maker is deciding what to do based on "user demand", assuming users were even able to collude.
    - wyager 11y ago
      I think you may have an oversimplified mental model of Bitcoin. Consider this; if a miner were to change their code to mine 100 Bitcoin per block instead of 25, would people trust them just because they represent the longest chain? Obviously not. A node will accept a block if it's in the longest chain AND it follows the node's ruleset.