After watching this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M&feature=youtu.beI have come to the conclusion that on-chain scaling is indeed feasible. My previous objections were that it takes pools too long to verify transactions. Therefore, 1GB blocks would result in many empty blocks being mined.
I see no scenario where that would be a consequence. Can you explain? For that matter, how does one quantify 'too many empty blocks'? As long as all transactions are processed with reasonable alacrity, what does the block fullness matter?
Currently, there is a bottleneck in the way nodes need to verify transaction included in the previous block before they start including transactions in the new block they are working on. This is why empty blocks are frequently mined if they arrive within about 30 seconds of the previous block. 1GB blocks would compound this bottleneck 1000x. However, nChain is working on ways to relieve the bottleneck. Therefore, my objection would be thwarted.
Again, I fail to see why this is a problem.
I actually had a significant discussion about a year ago with the author of the leading independent mining SW about this very issue. Though the motivating factor was the nonsense about nonlinear hash time for aberrant transactions. Yes, there is a significant opportunity to improve the threading model within leading Bitcoin clients.
However, I don't see how your reply addresses my question. As long as all transactions are processed with reasonable alacrity, what does the block fullness matter?
If a 1MB block takes 30 seconds to verify and validate, with the current code, wouldn't a 1GB block take 50 minutes to verify? Or is it not linear like that? I don't know, 1 block with transactions in it followed by 5 empty blocks seems inefficient. However, it appears the BCH team is working on this bottleneck, so why are we debating about my original concerns? The concern is no longer valid.
At this time, I believe this would cause a barrier to entry for small start ups that require a full node be run. (New exchanges, information services, mining pools etc.)
If a startup can't lose 0.1 BTC in the noise of its annual CapEx budget, it is likely to be a non-entity anyhow.
According to Craig Wright, the initial setup would be $20,000. If I wanted to start a block explorer or a sight like fork.lol, that's quite an outlay, especially since it extremely difficult to be able monetize such an informational sight, to make up the costs. I enjoy these information sights and don't deem them "non-entities."
I have heard Craig Wright speak of the $20K figure. But I have not heard him speak of it as a minimum viable investment - merely exemplary. More importantly, $20K (I note that this is a depreciating asset with a useful life exceeding one year) is a drop in the bucket for any real business. Crippling Bitcoin in order to save paying a $5/year subscription to access fork.lol's data is the wrong decision.
Perhaps $5/year is trifling to you, but to a minnow like me who constantly consults many information sight, it starts to add up. This would be even more of a burden to the millions of unbanked people Craig Wright wants to help. Also, I suspect many sights would have alternate ways to monetize. I would find it particular irritating to have to watch a 30 second ad or have the web page try to make my computer mine Monero for them. (something which my AV blocks, thank god.)
