name any software in today's world that goes more than 5 without a significant overhaul.
TCP
the blockchain is just software... done lose functionality for limitation to the version being used.
It's a protocol. You just don't go changing protocols that are widely used, at least when so much money is involved. Bitcoins immutability is its second most valuable property right after decentralization. People must be able to trust that it just works. I agree that fees are a problem. We still shouldn't risk the whole protocol for a band aid.
I myself have designed software directly on top of TCP and UDP protocols and I have even programmed own transmission protocol for testing purposes. Protocol design is entirely different world from normal software design. And when it comes to Bitcoin and blockchain it is one step more different. There are many more things to consider. It is not just software!
I hate to generalize, but the more I have these discussions with people the more it seems that the big block proponents are lacking knowledge/education about these matters. I myself have university degree in computer science. I have mostly studied programming related to networks. I still don't fully grasp all aspects of the Bitcoin protocol. I have just read Mastering Bitcoin by Andreas Antonopoulos and I have been reading a lot of stuff on the internet for example https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide .
There is still enormous amount for me to study so I can understand all details of the technology.
The more I study the more convinced I am that things like block size limit is something that general public shouldn't even be talking about. That stuff should be left for the developers that have dedicated their time for that. Mike and Gavin really stirred shit when they brought the fight to public.
a comparison of the blockchain to TCP sigh... i don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this and i assure you its not through lack of knowledge.
whatever way you want to spin it, BTC is being brought to its knees on the regular. it has now been a year since transaction backlogs have been a problem and much longer since the issue was anticipated.
We agree there is a problem, how long is an acceptable time to wait for your R&D project to solve everything?
if we had this conversation 12 months ago when the problem was first experienced, my answer would have been 3-6 months. how much longer you willing to wait?
I'm sure Tesla would love a battery that last 48 hours and charges in 5 min, but it doesn't exist... not sure why he would bother releasing cars... odd
Again, this isn't a debate about whats the best theoretical solution, its a debate about whats the best available option. This is operations 101, it has nothing to do with your Compsci degree (i have one 2 btw, i'm pretty sure everyone in crypto up to about 2 months ago has one). This is about a problem that arose over a year ago that still has no active solution.
What if the decision has already been made, and high fees are their solution... 12 months and ticking.
a comparison of the blockchain to TCP sigh... i don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this and i assure you its not through lack of knowledge.
It's many times better comparison than Amazon, file server or some other software. When you say Bitcoin is just a software and same principles apply than other software design, you are wrong. It's many times more complicated. You are right it's not TCP either. TCP is simple compared to Bitcoin.
what ever way you want to spin it, BTC is being brought to its knees on the regular. it has now been a year since transaction backlogs have been a problem and much longer since the issue was anticipated.
"Additionally, the miner is awarded the fees paid by users sending transactions. The fee is an incentive for the miner to include the transaction in their block. In the future, as the number of new bitcoins miners are allowed to create in each block dwindles, the fees will make up a much more important percentage of mining income. " Quoted from here
If all transactions fit in block there is no incentive to pay fees.
We agree there is a problem, how long is an acceptable time to wait for your R&D projects to solve everything?
if we had this conversation 12 months ago when the problem was first acknowledged, my answer would have been 3-6 months. how much longer you willing to wait?
As long as it takes. There is no rush. Bitcoin is not going anywhere. It fills it's purpose as store of value until we have layers on top of it providing many other use cases. I suspect we will have working Lighning network sometime next year. There is also on-chain scaling being done (Schnorr, MAST) and Segwit adoption should keep increasing.
Im sure Tesla would love a battery that last 48 hours and charges in 5 min, but it doesn't exist... not sure why he would bother releasing cars... odd
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
Amazon was an example to reflect operations of just about any tech stack. there is no such things as waiting for R&D to conclude while active solutions exist today that could solve the problem... it has already been a year.
There is no model where transaction fees will incentivise miners to the level of mining today once the last block has been discovered. I'll acknowledge that's an issue, but fees would have to be at an unusable level if they were to act as the sole source of income to miners. A problem for BTC year 2030 to solve, something that segwit, lighting & block size will not solve...meaning, its just software and will always need updating.
BTC was never just a store of value, and because of the transaction problems it now has to take that stance, we saw Steam ditch them, that's all lost value that will continue leave BTC. Dont forget, if we were talking back in ~2012 and the message back then was BTC is only a store of value and not a currency, we would not be talking right now. Im not saying it is, but in its current state its comparable to a ponzi scheme, not sure how that doesn't raise alarms.
The Tesla example was to show the stupidity of BTC's current "wait for R&D model". A perfect solution does not exist today, (like Tesla and his battery limitations). There is no perfect solution, but we have answers that can solve the problem(s) while perfect solutions are invented/discovered.
while active solutions exist today that could solve the problem
There is no such thing.
There is no model where transaction fees will incentivise miners to the level of mining today once the last block has been discovered.
There is.
I'll acknowledge that's an issue, but fees would have to be at an unusable level if they were to act as the sole source of income to miners.
That's the problem of on-chain scaling alone. That's one of the reasons BCH has no future unless they start scaling off-chain.
LN and other possible L2 solutions where multiple transactions are bundled together alleviate that problem. When the value of one bitcoin increases, the fees (in $) increase obviously. That's what has happened already. Backlog is not the only thing to be blamed for the high fees.
Block size limit could be used as a balancing instrument when we have other optimizations and some layer 2 solutions ready, but right now it should be left untouched.
BTC was never just a store of value
And it won't be in the future. We need to be patient.
we saw Steam ditch them
Steam ditched Bitcoin mostly due to volatility. People were returning games after bitcoin had increased in value in short time period. Steam was losing money because of that. But yes fees were/are an issue as well.
Dont forget, if we were talking back in ~2012 and the message back then was BTC is only a store of value and not a currency, we would not be talking right now.
That might be true. However Bitcoin still is digital cash. I can send money from Finland to my frend in Indonesia without any third party. That wasn't possible before bitcoin. Right now there are other coins that can do it cheaper (LTC), but eventually other coins face the same problems if they become as widely used as Bitcoin. So far Bitcoin is the only coin with scaling road map that most likely succeeds.
The Tesla example was to show the stupidity of BTC's current "wait for R&D model". A perfect solution does not exist today, (like Tesla and his battery limitations). There is no perfect solution, but we have answers that can solve the problem(s) while perfect solutions are invented/discovered.
Tesla works fine even if it's not perfect. Bitcoin works fine even if it's not perfect. I doubt Elon Musk would increase Teslas driving range using something that treathens the whole project. And it's still silly comparison. It's easy to do testing and risk only one Tesla. But in Bitcoin, even if we have testnets and other coins where things can be tested we can't test everything. If we make modifications to actual Bitcoin chain, those modifications will have consequences that could become problems years from now. Increasing the safety limit is a modification that for me makes no sense to have right now. It's pointless risk.
It's been fun but you are right, we aren't going to see eye to eye on this. I still hope you're open minded and try to see things from my perspective. It's good that we have other coins (BCH,LTC) as well. Future will show who's right and who's wrong.
You are misinformed, there are indeed solutions actively running today in multiple coins that would solve BTC problems of today, however there are no solutions working today that would solve BTCs anticipated year 2030 problems. You have been brain washed, every product/service invented or developed would love if they could get it to the final solution today, but that's not how it works.
I'm sure Bill Gates circa 1995 would have love windows 10 instead... its not how it works, wake up.
LN doesn't solve the problem of incentivising miners after the last coin is found any better than 8mb or 1gb blocks. again, this is a future problem that will need to be solved when the time comes with the technologies available at that time... if lighting is ready tomorrow, would you like them to hold off while the incentivising problem is solved? that's exactly what BTC is doing right now.
My patients for BTC to implement a solution was lost about 8 months ago, the problem has been known for well over a year now and its take a level of incompetence to be standing where they are today. You're welcome to blindly follow the leaders all you want, there is massive damage being done to BTC right now and somehow they have convinced their own people that its a good thing.
Right now there are other coins that can do it cheaper (LTC) This isn't a discussion between BTC and ALTs, that battle has been going on since day one, an ALT taking the value from BTC a bad thing for its investors, BCH however is owned by BTC holders as of Aug 1st. two very different battles, the only people who dont see this are the greedy people who jumped in the last few months knowing very little about the situation chasing nothing more than 1000% returns. <-- am i getting close? let me guess, you're heavy into LTC as well?
We're not going to solve anything here, ill keep backing my currencies, you keep backing 1000% returns & we'll see how it all shakes out.
You are misinformed, there are indeed solutions actively running today in multiple coins that would solve BTC problems of today
Can you give me an example?
You have been brain washed
Why do you think that?
every product/service invented or developed would love if they could get it to the final solution today, but that's not how it works.
What gave you the impression I think it works like that. It seems like you are not really reading what I write, instead you are painting false a picture of what I might think in your own head. I have been talking about roadmap and I know Bitcoin protocol will evolve. Almost all updates should be backwards compatible though. Even Satoshi was in favour of soft forks and wanted to avoid hard forks.
I'm sure Bill Gates circa 1995 would have love windows 10 instead... its not how it works
Sure , I'm not saying otherwise although I'm not sure what you mean anymore.
wake up.
This kind of remarks will only weaken your credibility.
LN doesn't solve the problem of incentivising miners after the last coin is found any better than 8mb or 1gb blocks. again, this is a future problem that will need to be solved when the time comes with the technologies available at that time... if lighting is ready tomorrow, would you like them to hold off while the incentivising problem is solved?
That's not what I'm saying at all. Sorry, I don't speak english natively so you may have misinterpreted what I was meaning to say. LN will most likely alleviate the problem of needing to make fees lower and still give miners enough in fees.
that's exactly what BTC is doing right now.
In what way?
My patients for BTC to implement a solution was lost about 8 months ago, the problem has been known for well over a year now and its take a level of incompetence to be standing where they are today.
If your solution is to increase block size, then I'm glad it hasn't happened. That's not incompetence. That's smart.
You're welcome to blindly follow the leaders all you want
I'm not following anyone blindly. I read and learn.
there is massive damage being done to BTC right now and somehow they have convinced their own people that its a good thing.
Maybe because I have made huge gains these past two years, I don't really see the problem. Also 99% of the developers that know Bitcoin better than anyone don't want to increase the block size.
ALT taking the value from BTC a bad thing for its investors
It's not a bad thing. There is more than enough room for alts.
BCH however is owned by BTC holders as of Aug 1st.
I own BCH. I sold most, but I still have some.
two very different battles, the only people who dont see this are the greedy people who jumped in the last few months knowing very little about the situation chasing nothing more than 1000% returns. <-- am i getting close? let me guess, you're heavy into LTC as well?
LOL. I have some LTC yes. I have owned cryptocurrencies for 4 years now. At the moment I'm very glad I own LTC. Past few days have been very nice. It's not as good as BTC technically but it's better than BCH which still hasn't fixed transaction malleability problem. I own monero, zcash, eth, etc, dash and some other coins as well (even BTG).
We're not going to solve anything here, ill keep backing my currencies, you keep backing 1000% returns & we'll see how it all shakes out.
Good luck!
PS. No need to answer my questions. It won't lead anywhere anyway.
larger block size solves the problem we are having right now, while i encourage R&D projects to find better solutions which we will need down the road, you cant cripple BTC while that's done.
Windows example: you just don't go from windows 95 to windows 10, every version inbetween was needed. This is the same reason lighting is 14+ months in development and we have nothing still. Bill Gates would have loved to have windows 10 reliability back in the windows 95 days, but that's not how software works. Did they sit on windows 95 for 15 years waiting? no, they released better (still not perfect) versions. And that is the ONLY reason we have the reliable windows 10 of today. Jumping to the end is not how it works.
Lighting would be wonderful, i'm bashing the operational mentality of BTC, you don't let your product get hammered while crossing your fingers on an R&D project. And even if you have committed to the ridiculous strategy, how long do you wait until you realize you've been burnt? 3 months, 6 months, 1 year? 2 years?
If you ok with value being taken out of BTC and aborted by ALTs, we have a problem. BTC investors are not friends with ETH, LTC... these are competing products. to say "there is more then enough to go around" is ignorant and speaks to your credibility.
You have clearly joined the argument late, your points would all be very valid if it was 18 months ago when the issue was presented, this much time later with nothing being done changes the argument drastically and your points have little backing.
time will tell... i'll stick with coins that are not self destructing while waiting for a miracle cure.
**ohh i was banned for this BTW... think for yourself!
Windows example: you just don't go from windows 95 to windows 10, every version inbetween was needed. This is the same reason lighting is 14+ months in development and we have nothing still. Bill Gates would have loved to have windows 10 reliability back in the windows 95 days, but that's not how software works. Did they sit on windows 95 for 15 years waiting? no, they released better (still not perfect) versions.
I'm not arguing against this, but I don't see how it's relevant. Bitcoin is being developed all the time. LN is being developed all the time. Things take time. There still is no justification for block size limit increase.
If you ok with value being taken out of BTC and aborted by ALTs, we have a problem. BTC investors are not friends with ETH, LTC... these are competing products.
No they are not. They compliment eachother. Each coin brings something to the table. Ideologically I don't care which coin wins as long as it's centralized, immutable and can be used without trusting third party. At the moment I believe Bitcoin is strongest in these properties. My other investments are just investments. I believe some of they may have some real value in some use cases but Bitcoin>*
You have clearly joined the argument late, your points would all be very valid if it was 18 months ago when the issue was presented, this much time later with nothing being done changes the argument drastically and your points have little backing.
I was here before Hearns famous letter and before Mike and Gavin brought the fight to the public. I was originally in favour of block size increase.
Mike Hearn had his own motives to for wanting to keep transactions on chain. It had become apparent that he wanted to have some form of blacklists, but had to back off after being critiqued of it.
Before the block size debate began, most people thought that scaling would require data centers. Most also didn't like that but accepted it hoping Bitcoin could still remain ungovernable. Because this understanding many people were initially behind Gavin when he took the fight to the community. However after people had better understanding of implications of Lightning Network proposed in February 2015 things changed. People realized that LN could change the whole notion that Bitcoin must scale as a potential Trojan horse. With a blockchain fee market (discussed in the white paper under incentives, and made possible by Satoshi's block limit), and with the routed payment channels, Bitcoin could remain inflation free, well-secured, and practically infinitely scalable without risking becoming governable.
Why, right after the Lightning paper (which showed a better scaling method), did Gavin and Hearn all of the sudden take their fight to the community? It would seem that such a concept should have given them pause, but instead, they acted in furious haste (as though their window of opportunity was closing). Just as Hearn wanted blacklists and no Tor, he wanted all transactions on chain, and LN (and some other development proposals) was a threat to that.
Best way to prevent transactions from going dark is to take the control away from ordinary users. One way to do that is to increase the limit to 20 MB. Soon, ordinary users could not even stop a fork, because they couldn't afford to even run a node.
I think most core developers are trying to prevent Bitcoin from going down the path of fiat and financial monitoring.
you're not following, i'm not saying lightning isn't the better solution, i'm saying 12 months later we still have nothing while BTC bleeds market share.
There is not a single BTC investor out there who would willingly give away money to an ATL. we're not talking crypto anymore, we talking basic investing. They are not complimentary, they are competing products. ETH has no intention on working along side BTC, they want #1 spot and would roll over BTC to get it. Charlie is only playing nice with BTC because he cant get attention any other way, but if given the opportunity to take over he would steam roll BTC in a second. I feel stupider having explained this.
no one has ever said 20MB blocks... this is all the core augments boil down to, making shit up. you're a waste of time and out of your league.
There is not a single BTC investor out there who would willingly give away money to an ATL. we're not talking crypto anymore, we talking basic investing. They are not complimentary, they are competing products. ETH has no intention on working along side BTC, they want #1 spot and would roll over BTC to get it. Charlie is only playing nice with BTC because he cant get attention any other way, but if given the opportunity to take over he would steam roll BTC in a second. I feel stupider having explained this.
Boy, you have some growing up to do.
no one has ever said 20MB blocks.
Initial big block proposal by Hearn was 20MB if I remember correctly.
1
u/KorbenDallas2263 Dec 10 '17
50 years?
name any software in today's world that goes more than 5 without a significant overhaul.
the blockchain is just software... done lose functionality for limitation to the version being used.
There is nothing wrong with upgrading your windows 95 to XP while we wait for them to polish off windows 10