Topic: Can the Block Chain get too big and make Bitcoin unworkable? (Read 31584 times)
One of my mentor yesterday said bitcoin and this whole blockchain thing is likely to fail in a massive scale, he later said it might get too huge to load, glad there are plans for that.
Well that's why light wallets are created. And, spamming does occur in transactions but it's so tiny it's basically useless and the spammer will be wasting a lot in transaction fees
2 years later... Blockchain is too damn big
compared to what, exactly?
Well it's almost as big as my windows folder
Ran out of room on SSD drive long ago and had to shove it all on the mechanical storage drive.
2 years later... Blockchain is too damn big
compared to what, exactly?
Well it's almost as big as my windows folder
Yeah, that's pretty big.
2 years later... Blockchain is too damn big
compared to what, exactly?
Well it's almost as big as my windows folder
2 years later... Blockchain is too damn big
compared to what, exactly?
2 years later... Blockchain is too damn big
Google doesn't have to build profiles on us and sell our data to other companies, but they do. Our data has value and that provides incentive.
Oh, I see what you mean now.
That's true enough, but still true regardless of whether or not you have an account or not, so nothing changes. If your bitbank asks for personal data, in order to sell it or for any other reason, just find one that does not or start your own.
The resource requirements will be lower if we keep most transactions off the chain.
This is a circular argument, the reason people started using bitcoin bank in the first place was because of the resource requirements.An analogy to explain the distinction: Why, quantitatively, does Bitcoin have value? Because you can buy stuff with it. Why can you buy stuff with it? Because it has value. Is this a circular argument? No, it's a positive feedback loop with two equilibria - one where the value is 0, and one where the value is proportional to the commerce Bitcoin enables. Luckily, we have managed to bootstrap ourselves away from the 0 equilibrium.
Bitcoin had speculative value before you could buy things with it, but this is beside the point.
If the resource load lightens then people will start using the full client again. The system will attempt to reach equilibrium but there will be a resource impoverished underclass that will always be forced to use the bitbank.
Even if you are able to create an un-shutdownable bitbank (TOR I assume?) it still doesn't solve the privacy issue.
Why not? What says that a bitcoin bank (on Tor or otherwise) needs to have your true identity? Unless they are forced by some government edict, the bitcoin bank doesn't need that in order to either pay your bills, they have your money (or, at least, a irrevocable contract to do so, enforceable within the bitcoin network itself). I can see no reason why a bitcoin bank, uncoerced by some government ditate, would need to know your name, your home address, or any other such stuff.
Google doesn't have to build profiles on us and sell our data to other companies, but they do. Our data has value and that provides incentive.
Even if you are able to create an un-shutdownable bitbank (TOR I assume?) it still doesn't solve the privacy issue.
Why not? What says that a bitcoin bank (on Tor or otherwise) needs to have your true identity? Unless they are forced by some government edict, the bitcoin bank doesn't need that in order to either pay your bills, they have your money (or, at least, a irrevocable contract to do so, enforceable within the bitcoin network itself). I can see no reason why a bitcoin bank, uncoerced by some government ditate, would need to know your name, your home address, or any other such stuff.
The resource requirements will be lower if we keep most transactions off the chain.
This is a circular argument, the reason people started using bitcoin bank in the first place was because of the resource requirements.An analogy to explain the distinction: Why, quantitatively, does Bitcoin have (edit: fundamental) value? Because you can buy stuff with it. Why can you buy stuff with it? Because it has value. Is this a circular argument? No, it's a positive feedback loop with two equilibria - one where the value is 0, and one where the value is proportional to the commerce Bitcoin enables. Luckily, we have managed to bootstrap ourselves away from the 0 equilibrium.
The resource requirements will be lower if we keep most transactions off the chain.
This is a circular argument, the reason people started using bitcoin bank in the first place was because of the resource requirements.
And payment processors of the kind I'm considering can't really be regulated any more than miners and network nodes, if they choose not to be.
Even if you are able to create an un-shutdownable bitbank (TOR I assume?) it still doesn't solve the privacy issue.
Exchanges have a problem because they deal with traditional money which isn't a cryptocurrency.
So are you saying bitcoin will never be view by the authorities as real money? because I think its probably just a matter of transaction volume.What makes Bitcoin decentralized is that there are many nodes and miners, with a low barrier of entry to becoming one. The situation is almost as good if there are multiple payment processors which have a low barrier of entry and trust requirement.
The growing resource requirements are a barrier to entry, as are the regulations that will be imposed on payment processors.What, in your opinion, is the difference between miners and banks in this regard?
The difference from my perspective is that I can use a bitcoin bank but I can not use a miner for sending transactions due to not having enough resources to run the full client.
Sure, miners are anonymous by default, but Bitcoin banks can also be anonymous, unlicensed and operating through TOR if they want.
I agree, there probably will be shady unlicensed operators in country beyond the reach of the regulations. But, I do not want to entrust them with my transaction history.
Exchanges have a problem because they deal with traditional money which isn't a cryptocurrency.
So are you saying bitcoin will never be view by the authorities as real money? because I think its probably just a matter of transaction volume.
What makes Bitcoin decentralized is that there are many nodes and miners, with a low barrier of entry to becoming one. The situation is almost as good if there are multiple payment processors which have a low barrier of entry and trust requirement.
The growing resource requirements are a barrier to entry, as are the regulations that will be imposed on payment processors.
Barrier of entry is really the key issue, and what the raw Bitcoin network allows, with all its power, is the lowering of barrier of entry to processors.
Barrier of entry is 'an' issue, for the average user there is also freedom and privacy.
All of them? All your addresses & all the bitcoin banks? Well, the long arm of the law stretches to the ends of the Earth & the deepest parts of the Internet then.
Bank and payment processor are subject to rules and regulations, even though there are lots of them and they are located all around the world. Our own bitcoin exchanges are being subjected to ever growing regulations and it will be no different for bitcoin banks or transaction gateways.
Not those on Tor. The Silk Road is, in effect, both an online wallet & a mixer, while also creating a convient market.
In that, rather extreme, distopian future why can't you fall back to starting your own client? Does anyone here not use a bank for something today? Does anyone here really trust them?
The reason I had to start using the bitcon bank in the first place was that the resource requirements of the client had grown beyond those available to the average user.
Not likely, many will exist long before it's a resource issue.
All of them? All your addresses & all the bitcoin banks? Well, the long arm of the law stretches to the ends of the Earth & the deepest parts of the Internet then.
Bank and payment processor are subject to rules and regulations, even though there are lots of them and they are located all around the world. Our own bitcoin exchanges are being subjected to ever growing regulations and it will be no different for bitcoin banks or transaction gateways.
What makes Bitcoin decentralized is that there are many nodes and miners, with a low barrier of entry to becoming one. The situation is almost as good if there are multiple payment processors which have a low barrier of entry and trust requirement. Barrier of entry is really the key issue, and what the raw Bitcoin network allows, with all its power, is the lowering of barrier of entry to processors.
You may also want to take a look at my new idea for trustless payment processors: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/trustless-instant-off-the-chain-bitcoin-payments-91732.
All of them? All your addresses & all the bitcoin banks? Well, the long arm of the law stretches to the ends of the Earth & the deepest parts of the Internet then.
Bank and payment processor are subject to rules and regulations, even though there are lots of them and they are located all around the world. Our own bitcoin exchanges are being subjected to ever growing regulations and it will be no different for bitcoin banks or transaction gateways.
In that, rather extreme, distopian future why can't you fall back to starting your own client? Does anyone here not use a bank for something today? Does anyone here really trust them?
The reason I had to start using the bitcon bank in the first place was that the resource requirements of the client had grown beyond those available to the average user.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of bitcoin users would prefer a p2p solution to this problem.
Quote
They may not be able to run off with your money, but they can control other things such as prior restraint.
I don't understand this question in this context.
It's a statement, I would be interested in your opinion of its validity.
Try restating it so that I can parse it.
Whats to stop them from blocking my account, or anything else that's not in my best interest?
Who is 'them' in this context? If you mean the bitcoin bank, then the answer is nothing. Excepting, of course, that they lose a customer & they have no access to your funds, so there is no incentive for them to do so.
Yeah, but the cops told them to ban me cos I used silk road. Now my addresses are banned from all the bitcoin banks.
All of them? All your addresses & all the bitcoin banks? Well, the long arm of the law stretches to the ends of the Earth & the deepest parts of the Internet then. In that, rather extreme, distopian future why can't you fall back to starting your own client? Does anyone here not use a bank for something today? Does anyone here really trust them?
Quote
They may not be able to run off with your money, but they can control other things such as prior restraint.
I don't understand this question in this context.
It's a statement, I would be interested in your opinion of its validity.
Try restating it so that I can parse it.
Whats to stop them from blocking my account, or anything else that's not in my best interest?
Who is 'them' in this context? If you mean the bitcoin bank, then the answer is nothing. Excepting, of course, that they lose a customer & they have no access to your funds, so there is no incentive for them to do so.
Yeah, but the cops told them to ban me cos I used silk road. Now my addresses are banned from all the bitcoin banks.
Quote
They may not be able to run off with your money, but they can control other things such as prior restraint.
I don't understand this question in this context.
It's a statement, I would be interested in your opinion of its validity.
Try restating it so that I can parse it.
Whats to stop them from blocking my account, or anything else that's not in my best interest?
Who is 'them' in this context? If you mean the bitcoin bank, then the answer is nothing. Excepting, of course, that they lose a customer & they have no access to your funds, so there is no incentive for them to do so.
Jump to: