Topic: Bitcoin scaling: Revisiting the 2015 debate (Read 456 times)

1. I never say anything about "needing to BUILD a super computer to multitask". If you ever use standard PC or laptop with Windows 10/11 and 8GB to perform multitask (e.g. browser with some tabs, Microsoft office and chat application), you'll see memory usage is very high.
2. Able to create transaction daily with low fee isn't strong guarantee they'll run full node, unless they create transaction on their PC or laptop.
3. Why do you assume i read someone else script?

1. you talked about 3rd world countries BUILD COST like they have extra expense compared to normal office use
you are also not realising that although computers are made in asia. by the time they reach UK/US alot of profiteering and greed is added and retail prices of pc in US/UK are higher than what someone in asia/africa pay. so you assuming africans/asian pay at the lifestyle rate of us/uk is a hint that you did not think much passed the real costs developing countries actually pay for their goods. its like you gave an auto-pilot script answer without thinking beyond what you read
(a US sold pc at $600.. does not cost $600 to people in developing countries, they have cheaper options)
yep people in africa/asia are frugal. they can not only buy a pc CHEAPER than a UK/US.. but they can build one even cheaper again.

2. if people dont use something daily they wont leave app open daily. the more they use something the more chance they will leave app open, test the theory with anything.. those that only use facebook once a week dont leave app open. but those messaging daily probably will. so there is a correlation between utility vs access
look at your own browser tabs. most of them are for things you frequent more regularly. but things you only use once a month you probably dont have open

3. when you use old scripts without you thinking if they are true or not. without testing the theory. it makes me laugh that you then want to say you dont use the scripts..

yes people can think up their own reasons of pro-con of something. but if your just repeating verbatim a script that has been heard before. i will assume you read someone elses script instead of having an independent thought

i have no problems with people thinking for themselves. but its the irritation of the blind leading the blind just repeating a debunked script and re energising it into a new viral cycle of echo chambers until they all believe its true because they hear each other say it.. as if its a valid argument again.. that script is dead, dont bring it back from the dead. we are not in the windows 98/xp/vista/win 7 era .. its 2023

its the biggest problem of this forum. certain people "group think" and blind repeat something, to the point they believe it to be true because its said so much, there is a huge lack of people thinking for themselves and looking at the source/details and scrutinising it.

bitcoin was/is supposed to be about independent review, independent verification. not blind trust copying
its like the "backward compatible 'isvalid' " bypass where the same echo chamber group tell idiots that their node is still a full node even if their node is not fully validating/archiving..
they say that as long as someone at centre of network validated it and then streamed the data out its trustable and still decentralised because in their mind as long as users are distributed, thats good enough(facepalm).. yet the point of bitcoin is/was to independently verify and archive to be full node

The main problem that's responsible for the situation created is the mentality that the user with the lowest specs should be able to be part of the network . Bitcoin isn't a communist experiment . Bitcoin was always a race to the top . Better chips created because of it , renewable energy is powering more and more miners , ideas about the heat produced by them etc . What btc is trying to do right now is to stagnate all the other uses that society can get benefit from . Cheap remittances , cheap payments , microtransactions , supply chain integrity , voting , governance and much more . This whole thing could be compared with R&D where no one can use an advantage ( knowledge , money ) against the most vulnerable researcher . This has become a race to the bottom , completely opposite from what bitcoin was meant to be . Example https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012652.html

The main excuse is decentralisation . But no one defines it . I have asked many times people about the definition . I will pose the question here .
Can a network with 5 nodes be decentralised and a network with 10000 nodes be centralised ?

Decentralisation doesn't come from the number of nodes . For me , the silliest excuse for the 1 MB limit is that each user should be able to be part of the network . There are thousands , even millions of people that would be willing to spend tens and hundreds of thousands to be part of the network and gain from that , contributing to decentralisation not by running only a node but also profiting from it . With the current btc model no one other than pools/miners , exchanges and scammers get profit . And it's funny that nodes in L2 have the option to profit from their channels , while in L1 the same is anathema .



    
 

The article you mentioned is very long, and is a solution to a future problem that may happen to Bitcoin, not a current problem. Almost all of us believe that as long as they pay low fees and their transactions are confirmed in a small time then Bitcoin works efficiently. If you notice that the volume of transactions is increasing annually, despite this, the network fees are still within acceptable limits. the current solutions for expanding the Bitcoin network are excellent, but everyone must know that you cannot enjoy absolute decentralization in exchange for fast transactions, especially if everyone uses the Bitcoin network, but this does not mean providing faster solutions such as side networks and the Lightning Network and trying to reduce signatures to make the block the size of one megabyte capable of It contains transactions worth more than 8MB.
Continuous development and more minds joining Bitcoin will contribute to strengthening this issue.

The "expensive hardware" argument fore full nodes is fully outdated by now. Bitcoin's requirements have stayed relatively stable compared to moore's law progress. And to put that to perspective, the most major hardware requirement now is the hard drive space. But you can now get a NEW HDD of 1 TB for ~20$. A full mini PC which can easily run as a server would set you back ~150$ with the hard drive included, refurbished, like new. These things are everywhere these days. There's no shortage of ex-office computers these days.

I want to better illustrate this with an image:



This price even includes 24% VAT. Windows included, and 2TB hard drive included. This is a computer ready to go and anyone can buy it as a plug and play bitcoin core server. And it's not like this is a machine where bitcoin will barely run. Even without upgrades, this computer will still be able to run bitcoin for years. Even if you were to buy a Raspberry Pi 5 these days, it'd cost around 90€, and that's without a case, without cooling or even a power adapter.

So, when bitcoin can effectively run on hardware that's only a tiny bit more expensive than modern single board computers, it's a win for how sustainable its requirements is. And this also means that there's space for increasing requirements.

The "expensive hardware enlargement is entirely moot at this point. So what remains? Perhaps the argument against increases in bandwidth. Well, just remember that all those sounding the alarm about "bandwidth limitations" in 2015 ended up supporting a solution that allowed for blocks 4 times the 1MB limit that existed prior. So perhaps that's also a pretty silly enlargement. Bitcoin could surely use some upgrades in on-chain infrastructure. The arguments against that are just not there anymore (and its unsure if these arguments held any merit even back then to begin with). Unless some new arguments have come up.

you are still stuck in the DEBUNKED theory of needing to BUILD a super computer to multitask
you still think the cost of a PC that lasts more than 4 years is more of a concern compared to tx fee..

instead of reading and repeating other peoples scripts. try some maths out for yourself

the cost of a pc is not the deterrent.. the actual deterrent of running a full node is if you are not using the network daily you wont see any advantage to keep node running daily. (logic: if you dont play a games console each day, you dont have a games console on 24/7)

so all these gimmick solutions of offramping users to another network which time locks people into one month thus not wanting/needing to check the blockchain for a whole month because they are using some litwallet channel manager host means people wont want to be full nodes.
(i truly laugh at people who promote the subnetworks acting like users are experiencing all the features of bitcoin)

however if fee's were reasonable onchain and people used it daily, more people would be full nodes just because of that, (still not caring about their PC cost)
and again if you think that while running a full node means people cant stream movies or do normal work tasks on their standard pc then you have been listening to the wrong script writers

every time i hear them scripts it makes me feel like they are users of windows 98 based computers.. dont they even know the core devs have said that bitcoin system requirements are not recommending 98,me,xp,vista. so a standard 2023 windows 11 base price pc is fine for next many years. even a few year old windows 8-10 is fine.. so dont use scripts that sound like your Pc is windows XP(decades old).. because the options is not XP vs super computer custum build).. the actual option is current standard pc most people buy standard spec every 3-5 years. (not every 2nd decade)

EG YOU said.. developing countries have HIGHER BUILD COSTS

usually people interested in technology already have a pc.. its not like they need to "build" a high spec gaming machine..
standard pc is fine

please stop using silly outdated scripts pretending that africa/india has dial-up internet or dont have pc access... fact is they have fibre/5g internet that is better then most 1st world countries
i know media show africa as the mud-hut scenes of people walking 10 miles for water... but those people dont even want to use youtube
if you actually look at Ethiopia in 2023 you will see cities.

..
did you know for people that want to daily transact on bitcoin would need to pay $2 a day(1-2tx a day) meaning $730 a year
yet they can get a desktop pc for under $400 that lasts 4 years = under $100 a year

if your concern was costs.. you would PAY ATTENTION that its the fee war that ends up costing a bitcoiner the most

if there were more transactions allowed per block each user pays less in fees.

mos african/indian people i speak to are concerned and annoyed by the fee's and lack of transaction count. not the price of their desktop computer

I think a lot does come down to that.
If you are in the situation where yes the cost of getting a PC that can run a full node is a large expense based on your economic situation then you are either:
1) Not going to do it
2) Do it in a way that may be very difficult to keep going because you had to cut so many corners to make it work
3) Use the PC for web surfing / doing other things and that leads to security / privacy concerns.

There is no good answer.

-Dave

When I talk to people who have no idea about Bitcoin, they look at me as if I were a god, but it's because I talk to them so well, that at once they become interested , of course I don't talk to them about casinos, because I use them in most of them. People around me see it as something bad, that is another thing that they should educate themselves, but they are people who are very old-fashioned, they believe that banks are the safest, and that is Something that cannot be so easy to remove the thought, but if I talk to them about how the best Investment can be above real estate and also Above gold , I don't know if in the end they will listen to me , but I will comply with telling them that it is the best 'for their Future.

Exactly. Not to mention that on-chain scaling will make the Blockchain centralized. That's because node operational costs will increase (higher storage + bandwidth costs), making it harder for the average person to help support the network. Scaling with a sidechain or an L2 network is the way to go. Unfortunately, Bitcoin's Lightning Network (an L2 scaling solution) has proven to be extremely-vulnerable against external attacks. It's full of bugs. Sidechains aren't even a thing, especially when the majority are focused on altcoins (ETH, BNB, etc.). They're experimental from what I can tell.

I'd expect Bitcoin-based forks (BCH, BSV, eCash) to die in the long run, due to lack of interest/demand from mainstream investors. Things might change if they start bringing real use cases to the world. It's not about the hype, but rather utility and innovation. Maybe someday Bitcoin will finally solve the "scaling problem" without sacrificing decentralization? Just my two sats.

^myths of 2017 mantra of treating onchain scaling as a danger

why in 2023 are people still spouting debunked scripts from 6+ years ago

blocks are upto 4mb. ram is measured in gigabytes.. meaning processing thousands per second.
as for internet speed..
relaying thousands of transactions or a whole block is measured in milliseconds

with bitcoin being "tor safe" knowing tor is the most slowest annoying internet speeds of the whole world... it means standard ADSL is fine, fibre and 5g which in 2023 is nearly the norm is more then fine

if people want to go extremes using tor. expect their node to be slow due to TOR not bitcoin

if you want to exaggerate concerns.. then why are you not crying about downloading or sharing MP3 files. or doing VOIP or streaming on twitch

franky1 is right on resource cost though. These days you can buy an all in one mini desktop for $300 USD. Buy it refurbished and it'll be even less. There's very cheap options that will be up in par with running BTC. The current block limit of 4MB with SegWit was not shy when it comes to how resource intensive it was in 2017, but computing has progressed since then... And don't forget that back in 2015 devs were saying that even above 1MB was too much but obviously that was a lie.

higher cost to build?
im sorry to inform you but to run bitcoin needs LESS resources then a PC used gaming
im sorry to inform you but to run bitcoin needs LESS resources then a PC used to stream online movies all day

so if you want to cry about the developing countries and think bitcoin is dead because x y z.. then you are saying that netflix and gaming industry is not fit for people to entertain themselves with

a normal desktop computer at standard spec has more resources to run bitcoin.

normal desktop computers only possible consideration is the hard drive for futureproof-ness of the data..
yet 1-4TB hard drives are real. they exist. we are not stuck in 1993 where 4GB was seemed to be the limit of hard drive

even funnier core devs themselves used the quoted stupid/debunked arguments even in june 2017.. yet by august 2017 were happy with 4mb blocks

again we are not stuck in 1993 the data resource argument is stupid..

but with all that said..  not everyone NEEDS to be a full nodes. yes some "nerds" that like gaming like to up-spec their PC to dominate and do fantastic things. but you dont need a super spec PC to "nerd out" on bitcoin

even this year when people are mentioning that a 4x of lean bitcoin transactional ability compared to 2015 lean transaction thresholds has not occured.. yet certain idiots are happy that one transaction with only a couple inputs and outputs but a 3.95mb bloated meme image is perfectly fine
yes they are ok with a block only having a few transactions and 99% junk data.. but argue forever that bitcoin should not be doing 10k+ transactions a block

read between the lines of myth busted arguments the core devs make.. their "conservatism" has not been about allowing the 3rd world full node access.. its about not expanding transaction counts because they want people to get annoyed by bitcoin and be promoted into using subnetworks that give middle men fee's
remember the core devs were given hundreds of millions of dollars in sponsorship to add features that open gateways to subnetworks.. these sponsors want to get returns on their investment on the subnetworks..
read between the lines and work out the real reasons stupid illogical arguments were made to not expand transactional ability on the bitcoin network

as for fee's instead of charging users 4x more per tx. they should have allowed 4x more transactions per block.. if their real reason for wanting higher fee's were to compensate mining pools

1) True.

2) If you don't have the bandwidth to move that kind of data then you probably should not be running a node but using a SPV wallet. Not saying it's good or bad it just is. Having a transaction not go though because your are on a bad / low speed connection is probably going to be worse then the privacy loss using using something like electrum

3 & 4) An i3-4130 with 4GB of RAM and a 1TB SSD running windows 10 (ok it's not running it's walking really fast) can more then run (walk really fast) core. And IBD in a couple of days if you have the bandwidth. Getting them from wherever they are to a low income location is the expense. The PCs are being given away by the truckload from corporations.

5) Yeah, probably a ton of stuff we are not considering.

-Dave

Is increasing the block size really a solution? Let's imagine that the block size is increased significantly. Even then, each transaction will take around 10 minutes to be validated on the network (and this is an average, it can sometimes take up to 1 or 2 hours), so I don't see how increasing the block size would solve the scalability problem. In fact, on average, the amortised analysis will tell us that the network will be capable of carrying out thousands/millions of transactions per second, but we'll still have to wait for the transaction to be finally validated. A more logical solution would be to reduce the time between blocks (without touching the supply, all we would have to do is divide the reward for blocks by 100 if we want an average time of 6 seconds per block, for example), but this is obviously unthinkable given the decentralisation problem it would pose. But if one day the price of hard disks were to be divided by 100, or by 1000, would that still be a problem? A 100TB hard drive for $50, for example. As we saw above, you'd need to get a network that's scalable enough for 9 billion people, and without doing any calculations that seems very complicated to me. I prefer a second-layer solution like LN, but for the moment there's no miracle solution.

I think one of the best thing that came out of that debate, was the exit of Gavin Andresen (CW so-called proof of Satoshi) and also (Tantrum Baby) Mike Hern from Bitcoin. We do not need Google spies and 3Letter agency snitches ..being in our core developers.

Let's not forget that Satoshi vanished after Gavin talked to the government.    Yes, the solutions for Bitcoin scaling might not be perfect, but it is working. Let's just build on that and improve the technology that we love. 

Yeah, I'm listening to my "forum-wife". Meanwhile, every sane person within and outside this board calling segwit a softfork.

Got it. Replying to you was a mistake, I guess. Back to ignore.

you are guided by your insane forum-wife that has gaslit you into thinking that 2017 segwit activation was a UASF.. it was not soft. nor user assisted

stop listening to your forum-wife and stop playing dumb just to stay in a happy relationship with your forum wife.. then you might learn something

there is actual blockdata. code and historic events.. you have been informed of them before so dont play dumb pretending its new to you. its just not what your forum-wife told you so you ignore it to stay in a relationship with your forum wife even when they are wrong

it FOLLOWS
im talking about and this topic is talking about implementation clients that offer a proposal for a change of the protocol... and its these protocol proposition changes that are treated unfairly and as the enemy

only clients that FOLLOW core and just allow core to make the decisions are not given grief

Most people run Bitcoin Core, no doubt about that. But, Bitcoin Core is merely a client. When another client connects to the Bitcoin network, given that it follows the same consensus rules, will be treated equally.

However, it seems quite reasonable to metaphorically "get rekt" by the Core community if they decide to enforce something that contradicts Core's beliefs about how the system should operate. To avoid speaking in theoretical terms, could you direct me to a client that has implemented a policy contrary to Core's? Excluding hardforks for obvious reasons.

There has never been a single hardfork in Bitcoin's history supported by Core. To which are you referring to?