Topic: BUgcoin strikes back - page 3. (Read 6677 times)

"Oh sure, it's an incredibly-tiny, one-time, and slow-motion increase in the effective block size limit -- one whose extremely modest capacity benefits will only be realized slowly over time if and when people convert to SegWit-style transactions. And it comes with a mountain of technical debt and a huge arbitrary, economics-changing discount for certain types of data that will also make future increases in capacity harder to implement... But putting those little details aside for the moment, didn't you people say you wanted larger blocks? You're obviously just impossible to please." -Roger Murdock

It's not debatable that the extra burden will be very considerable, and the increase in tx/s will be as well with the coming improvements that SegWit makes possible.

You think putting burden on nodes is a goal? rather than increasing tx/s capacity. Because you talk of increasing block size as a feature.

Get a grip.

Fair enough.  I guess this is where we can shake hands and agree to disagree.  Sure Segwit offers *some* on chain scaling, but too little too late for my taste.

SegWit as proposed already will increase the size of the block and the burden on nodes very substantially.

You can't escape the limitations of the protocol, or you destroy it for its main purpose.

muyuu:

I still didn't see you answer my question:

Congrats, so you do run nodes and you managed to ignore the main issue.

Access to high-speed uploads is relatively limited around the world. My node wrecks my home connection and I have the fastest provider in East London.

The issue of compensating nodes needs to be addressed before placing an even much higher burden on them than they already have. And it goes up exponentially with block size, it's a P2P gossip protocol not "downloading websites" like Gavin used to say - which is moronic.

I run 2 nodes. One since I started with Bitcoin, and the second was fired up recently as a BU node as a hedge just in case but has since gone back to core after their bugs and closed source patch.

Bandwidth hadn't even entered my head, probably because I have no caps both here and at my office, will have to take a look what they are actually using and if they are maxing out my connections (I am also sure I read that the problem isn't the downloading of the blockchain but the processing of it once it arrives).

Even so upload speeds here have increased over time in the same way as hard disks have got bigger, so I don't see a problem.

It's also silly to me that the 7,000 nodes all need the full blockchain, and surely there has to be a better way that maintains security ?

You're not recommending anything different jonald


Emergent Chaos just de facto centralises blocksize changes with the mining cartel - not decentralised

Neither Bitcoin EC or Bitcoin Unlimited decentralise development, they keep it centralised (which the Classic devs admitted was the whole point just recently) - not decentralised


Well, all I can say is, thanks for helping to stall Segwit, it's given the Lightning developers much more time to get it ready for when Segwit activates  

If you ran a node, which I'm going to assume you don't because of that nonsensical argument, you'll know that the number one constraint is upload bandwidth.

Nodes are hungry on upload bandwidth and this is quite expensive past a certain point. And it barely increases over time because most home consumers need mainly download bandwidth.

The only way to scale past where we currently are in terms of raw blocksize, is to start cutting corners related to P2P connectivity which endanger the network more the higher you take them.

This cannot be done "freely" under any circumstance unless you intend to destroy Bitcoin as a censorship-resistant transaction protocol.

I see their side of the argument as far as what would happen to storage requirements and connectivity requirements when we have 300 TPS, and
Moore's law won't always be there to save us.

(But they still haven't convinced me that it sufficient reason to restrict scaling at the present time)

Node's are running fine on Raspberry PI's and an SD Card for ~$75, that's a perfect example of how technology has moved on since bitcoin started.

Why wasn't the 1MB block size a concern in the beginning when the biggest hard disk you could by was ~10GB, these days we have 10TB drives.

I just don't see how 'node maintenance cost' is an issue at all ?

Sure.  But node maintenance cost increases are inevitable.  

I understand you are in favor of mitigating/delaying those increases, but what is wrong with letting the free market decide?

In other words, if second layer solutions can shoulder some of the load on the main chain, great...but why not let people choose
those solutions on their own then the solutions are available?   Why do we need to centrally plan this and keep constraints,
ESPECIALLY when LN isn't even ready?  

If you consider that bitcoin is a "fiat-to-fiat" sending device, yes it is a double layer.   That is:

1) you have permissioned, banking-style access to bitcoin through exchange 1 (where you send fiat from your bank account to the exchange, to withdraw true bitcoins on chain).

2) you can send bitcoins permissionless to whomever you want

3) on the receiving side, the person needs permissionned, banking style conversion of his received bitcoin on an exchange, and back to his bank account

With LN, this becomes the following:

1) idem

2) this time, you have to ask the exchange to send bitcoins to you through your permissionned channel on your "LN bank" where you are connected to.

3) you have to ask your LN bank if you can send a permissionned payment to your destination (your LN bank can accept or refuse, ask fees, conditions, explanations, ....), that is to say, to your destination's permissioned LN bank

4) on the receiving side, the person will need to ask his permissioned LN bank to send the coins to his preferred permissioned exchange, convert to fiat, and get that fiat on his bank account.

So, what has disappeared in the LN story, is the permissionless sending of coins from sender to receiver.  You have to go through your fixed, permissioned LN bank, and so does your counter party (your "LN hub" to which you are attached until your LN link is sufficiently used that you can settle on chain).

If I remember correctly it all comes down to the amount of hashing power that decides to go with one fork or the other, and at some point the network is supposed to collectively move to whatever fork is decided in order for the rest of the network to continue propagating.

Nodes only do so much, but a mix of nodes and hashing power is required in order for any fork concept to be successful.

You're not in favour of on-chain scaling jonald, whereas the Bitcoin devs are. They've actually developed on-chain scaling ideas, some with early implementations.

What have you done? You're promoting on-chain capacity increases, which don't scale at all. Your position is untenable on this issue.

Hard protocol constraints impede the 1st layer from scaling freely without compromising basic conditions on node maintenance cost.


Layer-2 will not be part of the Layer-1 Bitcoin network itself. Nobody will be forced to use them, except by the very constraints of the protocol that are inevitable.

thanks Frankie, but lets not lose the forest for the trees.  If both parties want to transact, muyuu is saying
they can do so...but i'm saying it may be infeasible economically. thoughts?

LN is not prmissionless.
its a 2 party signature

EG
imagine it like a co-sign bank account.. you cant buy a hooker without your wife signing the cheque..

you cannot just send funds(permissionless). you need to find a second party to agree.

So we agree that he is working on a 2nd layer.  You should also agree that he's decidely against allowing the first layer to scale freely.
He's openly stated he wants full blocks and a fee market.  Are we on the same page with that?

To answer your questions:  I use exchanges but those are not part of the Bitcoin network itself. 

LN may be permissionless theoretically, but in practical terms, it may not be...because it may not be economically
feasible to open your open channel, and you'll have to rely on someone else's.   

 

Bitcoin is a 2-layered network already, or do you not use exchanges or mixers? Maxwell is working on a 2nd layer that is permission-less.