but it may be just wishful thinking..
regardless of scaling solution, still gonna be a PoW arms race. do you see any way around it?
Topic: Greg Maxwell on Scaling in 2011 (what a difference $71M makes) (Read 775 times)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
why are pools bad? isn't it easy to change pools?
To keep it short, and since you love all things satoshi, it's supposed the be "one-CPU-one-vote". Pools can potentially be zero-CPUs-many-votes. At least mining farms require a sizeable hardware investment.
Yes, I know many pools are some combination of both. Don't get me wrong either, I'd prefer both pools and mining farms go the way of the Dodo.
Also, I consider a hash rate provider (gets work from the pool operator) to be less valuable to the network than an actual miner (creates his own work). I remember back when I mined full time that when a pool would go down most miners weren't even set up to fall back to solo mining (or even a back-up pool), even though it was readily accessible with the mining software of the time.
Anyway, there are several reasons why centralized mining is simply bad for Bitcoin, and it should be easy enough to research this on your own.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
why are pools bad? isn't it easy to change pools?
In 2011-12-13 I would post pictures of SD cards that could easily hold the entire block chain (which is still true) as my ignorant example of why blocks could be much bigger. I actually argued that there should be no limit.
Then as Bitcoin gained in popularity and blocks started filling up, I noticed how much bandwidth my node was using.
Finally it's 2017 and I've since had to upgrade to internet speeds that are better than most of the world's population in order to run a full node without impacting other internet use.
I guess I just missed the part where I get paid millions of dollars to adjust my viewpoint.
Then as Bitcoin gained in popularity and blocks started filling up, I noticed how much bandwidth my node was using.
Finally it's 2017 and I've since had to upgrade to internet speeds that are better than most of the world's population in order to run a full node without impacting other internet use.
I guess I just missed the part where I get paid millions of dollars to adjust my viewpoint.
Lets have a more productive conversation
than arguing about the scaling roadmap.
Why do you run a full node?
Satoshi seems to
not mention anything about non mining full nodes.
To me, all non-mining nodes really do is relay.
Sure, they can verify the miners' blocks but
you don't really need that many nodes to do
that, and other miners can also do that.
I run a full node for several reasons.
I enjoy the privacy it affords my transactions. I enjoy the security of verifying the block chain for myself. I like to provide others with the option to enjoy both those things.
If only large data centers ran full nodes, they could easily collude to censor transactions.
Satoshi was a genius. No doubt in my mind. Either that or a group of people well versed in many different fields.
However, that does not make him perfect, and relying on his now outdated comments on how to move Bitcoin into the future would be a mistake. His ghost lacks all the data we have amassed since he left us.
Also, sometimes inventions outgrow their inventors and become something they never expected them to be.
Satoshi's biggest failure, in my opinion, was not hardening mining against centralization (pools are actually worse than huge server farms IMO), and I've spent a large part of my time on Bitcointalk trying to get people to wake up to that fact.
Very interesting to see
-large full nodes not catastrophic for decentralization
-will be a long time before 'visa scale' needed
-can see a world where offchain freely competes with onchain
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
Pretty different stance than the rhetoric of today. Gee, I wonder why...
-large full nodes not catastrophic for decentralization
-will be a long time before 'visa scale' needed
-can see a world where offchain freely competes with onchain
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
Pretty different stance than the rhetoric of today. Gee, I wonder why...
Why cant people's opinions change over time?
You're really trying to sell me the idea that this is totally unrelated...and that the other Blockstream paid devs is unrelated. ok.
Quote
Why choose risky methods like a hardfork when a soft fork gets the job done?
A HF isn't risky if the community is behind it. This is the lie that Core told everyone
to stall the scaling...and it worked.
Jonald Fyookball, you sound like a real noob/troll and paid shill just like Franky1.
It's funny how all these 'noobs/paid shills' are legendary accounts.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
In 2011-12-13 I would post pictures of SD cards that could easily hold the entire block chain (which is still true) as my ignorant example of why blocks could be much bigger. I actually argued that there should be no limit.
Then as Bitcoin gained in popularity and blocks started filling up, I noticed how much bandwidth my node was using.
Finally it's 2017 and I've since had to upgrade to internet speeds that are better than most of the world's population in order to run a full node without impacting other internet use.
I guess I just missed the part where I get paid millions of dollars to adjust my viewpoint.
Then as Bitcoin gained in popularity and blocks started filling up, I noticed how much bandwidth my node was using.
Finally it's 2017 and I've since had to upgrade to internet speeds that are better than most of the world's population in order to run a full node without impacting other internet use.
I guess I just missed the part where I get paid millions of dollars to adjust my viewpoint.
Lets have a more productive conversation
than arguing about the scaling roadmap.
Why do you run a full node?
Satoshi seems to
not mention anything about non mining full nodes.
To me, all non-mining nodes really do is relay.
Sure, they can verify the miners' blocks but
you don't really need that many nodes to do
that, and other miners can also do that.
jonald_fyookball, we get your point and you have already made that clear many many times already and with all due respect there is no need for further assaults in the Core developers and contributors. We get it and it is time for the community to think for themselves now and what is good for them as users of Bitcoin.
Jonald Fyookball, you sound like a real noob/troll and paid shill just like Franky1.
oh yeah, and why is that? Because I don't support the core scaling roadmap which turns
Bitcoin from p2p cash into a settlement network? or... what ?
No, because you post thread after thread trying to get as much visibility as possible for your narrative. If you ignore about 4-5 people on this forum, all talk of BU disappears with them.
In 2011-12-13 I would post pictures of SD cards that could easily hold the entire block chain (which is still true) as my ignorant example of why blocks could be much bigger. I actually argued that there should be no limit.
Then as Bitcoin gained in popularity and blocks started filling up, I noticed how much bandwidth my node was using.
Finally it's 2017 and I've since had to upgrade to internet speeds that are better than most of the world's population in order to run a full node without impacting other internet use.
I guess I just missed the part where I get paid millions of dollars to adjust my viewpoint.
Then as Bitcoin gained in popularity and blocks started filling up, I noticed how much bandwidth my node was using.
Finally it's 2017 and I've since had to upgrade to internet speeds that are better than most of the world's population in order to run a full node without impacting other internet use.
I guess I just missed the part where I get paid millions of dollars to adjust my viewpoint.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Jonald Fyookball, you sound like a real noob/troll and paid shill just like Franky1.
oh yeah, and why is that? Because I don't support the core scaling roadmap which turns
Bitcoin from p2p cash into a settlement network? or... what ?
Very interesting to see
-large full nodes not catastrophic for decentralization
-will be a long time before 'visa scale' needed
-can see a world where offchain freely competes with onchain
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
Pretty different stance than the rhetoric of today. Gee, I wonder why...
-large full nodes not catastrophic for decentralization
-will be a long time before 'visa scale' needed
-can see a world where offchain freely competes with onchain
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
Pretty different stance than the rhetoric of today. Gee, I wonder why...
Why cant people's opinions change over time?
You're really trying to sell me the idea that this is totally unrelated...and that the other Blockstream paid devs is unrelated. ok.
Quote
Why choose risky methods like a hardfork when a soft fork gets the job done?
A HF isn't risky if the community is behind it. This is the lie that Core told everyone
to stall the scaling...and it worked.
Jonald Fyookball, you sound like a real noob/troll and paid shill just like Franky1.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Very interesting to see
-large full nodes not catastrophic for decentralization
-will be a long time before 'visa scale' needed
-can see a world where offchain freely competes with onchain
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
Pretty different stance than the rhetoric of today. Gee, I wonder why...
-large full nodes not catastrophic for decentralization
-will be a long time before 'visa scale' needed
-can see a world where offchain freely competes with onchain
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
Pretty different stance than the rhetoric of today. Gee, I wonder why...
Why cant people's opinions change over time?
You're really trying to sell me the idea that this is totally unrelated...and that the other Blockstream paid devs is unrelated. ok.
Quote
Why choose risky methods like a hardfork when a soft fork gets the job done?
A HF isn't risky if the community is behind it. This is the lie that Core told everyone
to stall the scaling...and it worked.
Very interesting to see
-large full nodes not catastrophic for decentralization
-will be a long time before 'visa scale' needed
-can see a world where offchain freely competes with onchain
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
Pretty different stance than the rhetoric of today. Gee, I wonder why...
-large full nodes not catastrophic for decentralization
-will be a long time before 'visa scale' needed
-can see a world where offchain freely competes with onchain
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
Pretty different stance than the rhetoric of today. Gee, I wonder why...
Why cant people's opinions change over time? Bitcoin is a completely different beast than it was in 2011 with a much more complex and fragile codebase. If we needed to fork in 2011 it would have been fine, but now theres 14 billion dollars worth of peoples money on the line if something gets fucked up. Why choose risky methods like a hardfork when a soft fork gets the job done?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Very interesting to see
-large full nodes not catastrophic for decentralization
-will be a long time before 'visa scale' needed
-can see a world where offchain freely competes with onchain
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
Pretty different stance than the rhetoric of today. Gee, I wonder why...
-large full nodes not catastrophic for decentralization
-will be a long time before 'visa scale' needed
-can see a world where offchain freely competes with onchain
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
Pretty different stance than the rhetoric of today. Gee, I wonder why...
Jump to: