Topic: Adjustable Blocksize Cap: Why not? (Read 1392 times)

You are one of the bitcoin dev bootlickers,

Explain:
Why does Litecoin have 4X the transaction capacity of bitcoin?
Why can Dogecoin do 10MB in 10 minutes and bitcoin can't?
Why do other coins have increased transaction capacity at transaction fees ~400X lower than bitcoin.
Why does bitcoin need LN and all of the others don't?
Why is bitcoin technically inferior to these lower cost coins.

Go ahead, or is that beyond your false religion?

 

I don't know if you're spouting idiocy because you simply want to expose your ignorance, or if you're genuinely trying to convert anyone with your abject drivel, but I don't think anyone in the Development & Technical Discussion subforum, of all places, is going to fall for it.

Network governance is either something you don't understand or fail to appreciate the significance of.  Part of the security we're talking about is the strength of the network to resist implementing terrible ideas that would weaken it.  If there were solely SPV users and miners, it would be far easier for corruption to set in and allow pools to collude and force undesirable changes to the protocol.  Non-mining full nodes prevent that.   If you can't comprehend the part where running a full node is an enacting of will where you quite literally enforce rules by rejecting any blocks that don't adhere to the requirements denoted within the software, then don't bother commenting because you just sound like an imbecile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalability

Adding resources to a system, in short: bigger blocks or more blocks in a shorter time frame.


The flaws in your thoughts are the following.

Scaling has zero to do with security.
Security is provided in a PoW coin, by the Mining Pools that together control greater than 51%.
Size or speed of the blocks or emptiness or fullness of the block are irrelevant to the above.
# of non-mining nodes are irrelevant to the above , as they only relay block data.
(Their is a false belief that more non-mining nodes actually help secure the network, sorry if you believe that your understanding is false.)

Decentralization is a buzzword , that you use as holy scripture, when you are utterly wrong.
All that matters are the mining nodes, 1 non-mining node or 1 billion, they do nothing but relay blocks.
1 block explorer (mining or non-mining) is all one needs to see if miners modify the block rewards or code ,
just 1 , running other non-mining nodes offer no real value except as a personal receipt holders ,
which if you are not making personal transactions daily is a waste of time.
*Note a valid 51% attack will reorg the chain mining or non-mining will not stop it , only relay it.
*When Satoshi started bitcoin, all nodes mattered because all were mining.*

LN, your supposed solutions is the most centralized design of all.
LN hubs have to process millions of transactions, have to lock millions of value, and need millions of users to be practical.
What institutions process million of transaction storing millions of dollars, and have millions of users. ie: Banks
LN hubs were designed from the beginning to be for bankers, as individuals will never have the resources to actually profit from them.
So LN users, you just help beta test the banks new software before they LN fee you into slavery again.  

Ask yourself,
Why does Litecoin have 4X the transaction capacity of bitcoin?
Why can Dogecoin do 10MB in 10 minutes and bitcoin can't?
Why do other coins have increased transaction capacity at transaction fees ~400X lower than bitcoin.
Why does bitcoin need LN and all of the others don't?
Why is bitcoin technically inferior to these lower cost coins.

If you have a semblance of honestly , you should realize the only reason is bitcoin is being artificially limited by it's supposed developers.

Odds are you will just fall back into your bitcoin cult mantra chants, and ignore the reality facing you.

 

The next question in this riddle is how to define decentralization.

Based on the proposals I was seeing at the time, I'm not convinced of that.  If we had taken any static blocksize increase, that still wouldn't have been a "solution".  There was always more work to do later.  The reason an adjustable blocksize/blockweight wasn't implemented at the time is because no one could guarantee that their proposal at the time was safe from manipulation.  I was following them all rather closely.



Except that's wrong.  At the time of writing, the last block mined was 1468.97kb.  That's 468.97 we didn't have before.  Or, put another way, a ~47% increase over the old 1mb blocks.  People need to stop pretending that we haven't added additional capacity.

But define “scaling”. If it’s simply to increase the Block Size, and decrease the time between blocks, DESPITE centralizing the validators, then that’s NOT scaling. It has to improve the network’s functionality, but without decreasing the network’s security/decentralization.

Scaling is not something that can be solved once and for all. It needs to be addressed every now and then so that we improve upon it and move on until next step in the future. It was addressed in mid 2017 already. We'll address it again with Schnorr fork.

I disagree. There is nothing hard about hard forks. They are just harder to perform, otherwise the network can easily upgrade to new version in the signalling period just like they upgrade for the soft-forks. It is not even an issue for light client users, take Electrum for example. Clients lower than 3.3.0 can no longer connect to network, so it is a mandatory update for everyone, similar to what happens in a hard fork.

If people want centralized middle men they can go back to banking system. Otherwise we have LN that they can use in a decentralize manner just as they use bitcoin mainnet.

At some point the block size bottleneck absolutely must be addressed. It's very sad for Bitcoin and the community that it wasn't just addressed and solved back in 2016-2018 when there was such loud debate about it. Could have solved it back then. Gets harder for community to do a hard fork the bigger Bitcoin gets in the world. We don't even need a perfect solution, just A solution that allows bitcoin capacity to grow as bitcoin adoption grows. The worst thing to do was do nothing...which is what was done 

But yeah LN and centralized third party processors (fintech/banks/etc) are the only way truly low cost transactions at mass scale can happen. Ideally those centralized third parties get on the LN so we have a network of individual power users and companies who service millions each all on LN creating an instantaneous and nearly free bitcoin payment network that is easy for a random Joe to join and use but also allows techie power user Joe to use on his own.

Of course, even with LN you STILL need block size increase on layer 1. Because you need space for all the normal layer 1 tx's plus you need space for all the onboarding, offboarding, topping up LN tx's.

Hopefully in the near future the scaling bottleneck will rear its head again in the community and actual force a solution, for the future of Bitcoin in general but also layer 2 solutions like LN if they are to ever take off.


Personally I have love been a fan of simply adding a block size increase to the halving. A block size increase halving (8x, 4x, 2x, 1.5x, 1.25x, etc - for example) so every four years the block size increases to handle increased adoption, but at a reasonable rate that allows the network and storage & internet speed tech to improve gradually with it. This would allow Bitcoin to gradually increase adoption as an actual transactional medium every four years, and only ever need a single hard fork to solve the problem. It would also allow the LN to grow if indeed it does take off in the future.

The true scaling options have always been

1.  Increase Block Size
2.  Faster Block Speed

Nothing else increases scaling.

If someone finds Litecoin to be better, they can always choose to use it the way they want. A lot of people do use it to move funds from centralized exchanges as its cheaper to do. if enough people use it and it gets as popular, who knows, it may well get to the same point as bitcoin.

The argument about lower blocktime giving more of an opportunity to generate fees is interesting though. Don't know if this is an over-simplification but in 10 minutes, it will process 4 times as many transactions getting the fees. Reducing blocktime may well be one of the scaling options in the distant future for Bitcoin itself.

Ha ,  No.

The Fact that Litecoin has 4X bitcoin transaction capacity ,
means the litecoin miner have the opportunity to make 4X the transaction fees.

LN (Bankers Network) does nothing to pay the miners, so it is irrevelant in the Miners profit margin.

Bitcoin has the bigger problem, because as rewards drop if the onchain artificially imposed block size limit continues.
Their ability to survive off transaction fees is 4X lower than litecoin.

Bitcoin current block reward is 6.25 bitcoins per block, with a price of ~$32000 ,
so a miner earns $200000 every block found.

Bitcoin average transactions ~2500 per block , meaning to achieve the current payout,
each transaction fee will need to be at least  $80 minimum.  
*FYI: If the price of bitcoin continues to increase as many of the btc supporters hope and pray,
this minimum transaction fee will continue to increase.*
* Litecoin minimum transaction fee would be $20 , 4X cheaper than bitcoin.*

At that price, it is cheaper to hand write checks and mail them off, over using bitcoin.  
As far as security, that check is federally insured, your bitcoin has no insurance if you send to the wrong address or lose your private key.
The number of hashes is just something to point the clueless at, so they don't realize how little it matters.
IE: The security is the exact same now as it was 6 years ago, top 4 mining pools secure the network (over 51%) then and do so now.
# of hashes are of little consequence.  
4 mining pool secure bitcoin, 4 mining pools secure litecoin, from a security standpoint they are exactly even.
Because at the end of the day, your security is trusting 4 pool operators not to collude and double spend.

It has not much to do with the choice of PoW. If the daily Litecoin issuance in dollars is not very significant, then
only a small fraction of whatever hardware is optimized for that PoW (e.g. scrypt ASICs) will be able to profitably mine on Litecoin, and it will be cheap to rent a bunch of the remaining hardware to mount a 51% attack on Litecoin.


Comparing hashrate of different PoW is generally meaningless.

It's difficult to say with absolute certainty due to the scrypt algorithm it uses.  If people have specialist ASIC hardware for mining scrypt coins, there may only be a limited number of coins that are worth mining with that hardware (there are a boatload of scrypt coins, but I can't imagine all of them are profitable).  It's conceivable people might continue to mine as hobbyists if other coins with that algorithm fall out of use, purely because the hardware is optimised for that algo.

But, regardless of subsidy, in terms of raw hashrate, it's already far lower than Bitcoin.  I get the impression no other coin comes close to BTC.  I don't know if any other coin can even denote their hashpower in exahash as Bitcoin does (without resorting to sub-whole units). 

As always, it's a question of where users choose to strike the balance between convenience and security.

Thanks to these low fees, Litecoin will become quite insecure once their block subsidy dwindles down to insignificance.

Hardly,
You have to make One onchain bitcoin transaction to lock the funds in multisig, ie: fund LN channel.
That One onchain bitcoin transaction current average of $13.63 U$ Dollar .
source=https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html

Since Litecoin has plently of Onchain Transaction capacity (4X bitcoin capacity) ,
their transaction fee is only ~3 cents.
source=https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/litecoin-transactionfees.html

No matter if the LN (Bankers Network) charged zero, the initial fee will still cause it to be unsuitable to a low cost transactions.

Fact of the matter is, you are better off buying a prepaid visa card than using LN. (Bankers run both anyway.)
Less fees and higher transaction capacity and definitely does not require a genius to constantly monitor channels to avoid loss of funds.

Or use a crypto such as litecoin with a decent average transaction fee, and plenty of onchain capacity and bypass the bankers networks.

That is the problem when onchain transaction capacity is artificially limited like bitcoin.
You're better off using a system that is not being limited.  

FYI:
If you ever close the LN channel, you have to pay a 2nd onchain transaction fee.
Note: Their are LN hubs funded with litecoin and litecoin activated segwit before bitcoin did.
Bitcoin Costs to fund & close LN channel = $27.26 in onchain fees alone not counting the fees charged in LN offchain bankers scam
Litecoin Costs to fund & close LN channel =  $0.06 cents in onchain fees alone not counting the fees charged in LN offchain bankers scam

The fees that the miners pay to themselves are irrelevant if you take into account all the transactions. All the other fees are paid by the users.
 

The miners will plan on the long term, not the short term. The hard cap is all what matters. An adjustable blocksize cap could end the conflict of interest between the miners and the users. People would be willing to pay a higher price if their transactions were confirmed faster and less people would be mad because their payments didn't go through. With this solution everyone wins!  

That said, the Lightning Network is the only viable solution for low cost transactions...

Yes, if the block size cap will be adjusted "on demand", that might have a negative impact on miners. Right now their daily workload, storage and bandwidth requirements are predictable. With adjustable block size system behavior will be unpredictable both for users and miners.

Somebody said that in 2013 tx fees were as low as 2 cents, median transaction was around 50$, market cap was 300 million $ and the grass was green. What if we surge Bitcoin market cap to 1 billion $? Would that solve the problem of high tx fees? What do you think?

But you don't know "the price that the users pay". You can only guess that transaction fees are related to "the price that the users pay". But still, it is possible to trick any algorithm based on that. You can pay more than mentioned in fees, just by sending some coins to some outputs owned by the miner, then you will indirectly and secretly pay more than you can read from fees. Or, you can receive some coins in exactly the same way, just the miner can send you some coins to your output in any transaction it can sign (or just in the coinbase).

More than that: remember about CPFP! If in some transaction some outputs are yours and some are owned by other people, then someone may want to spend some of the outputs in the near future. Then, you can even pay 1 satoshi per byte, but the other person will have to push your transaction to spend its own coins. And doing this on-chain transaction may sometimes be inevitable if someone wants to open or close some LN channels.

I think that fungibility is hard to obtain while sharding. For ex if one shard is more secure than another one then we can't consider the coins in those two shards as being the same. If not done properly, sharding could lead us in a situation where we end up with "different versions of the same cryptocurrency" (for that reason I'm still skeptical about this whole idea).


You're right everyone will not agree on everything but now you have to convince a lot of people that using external data into the codes of btc is the best option. We know that it could cause some consensus problems (what if the predictions turned out to be so inaccurate that we had to rewrite the codes and how can we agree on the validity of the data in the first place?). Your idea is good but will be hard to realize. I tried to come up with a simple formula that would make sense for most people and I couldn't find one. Speaking of which what if the amount of block space provided by the network was proportional to the price that the users pay? I think that would make perfect sense...

N: new block size limit
n: old block size limit
T: total of the transaction fees in the most recent block
t: total of the transaction fees in the previous block

N = n * T / t

I think that in this topic we only consider those changes that will be added with the consent of the entire community.

I think transaction with 0-fee could serve as evidence, even though the goal isn't to attack Bitcoin, but to prevent fees on transaction they actually want to create.