On Bitcoin and externality costs | Bitcointalksearch.org

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: mda on May 27, 2019, 03:20:54 AM

Also I would suggest shardcoiners to start mining with block reward 50 so all empty talkers here would pay the price for their intellectual indolence.

Quote from: HeRetiK on May 27, 2019, 08:26:46 AM

Quote from: mda on May 27, 2019, 03:20:54 AM

Also I would suggest shardcoiners to start mining with block reward 50 so all empty talkers here would pay the price for their intellectual indolence.

The size of the block reward is irrelevant when the coin itself is worth nothing in fiat terms ie. purchasing power. Miners can't pay their running costs and hardware based on the arbitrary number that is the size of the block reward.

The only reason why the upcoming difference in block reward between BTC and BCH / BSV is relevant at all is because we're looking at running systems sharing the same mining resources with a somewhat stable equilibrium that will soon be broken. For all we know BCH / BSV might as well manage to offset their premature halvening by doubling their value relative to BTC.

Let's hope they do it. It would make a good example that the Core developers' design-decisions, and Bitcoin's model is far more superior and robust.

Quote

Regardless of that I'm looking forward to see the first coin apply sharding to cryptocurrencies. Be it Ethereum, be it a Bitcoin fork or be it something else entirely. I personally doubt that blockchain sharding is the scaling solution that some people make it out to be, but the worst case that can happen is a learning experience for all.

Then do it on Ethereum in my opinion.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 2066

Cashback 15%

Quote from: mda on May 27, 2019, 03:20:54 AM

Also I would suggest shardcoiners to start mining with block reward 50 so all empty talkers here would pay the price for their intellectual indolence.

The size of the block reward is irrelevant when the coin itself is worth nothing in fiat terms ie. purchasing power. Miners can't pay their running costs and hardware based on the arbitrary number that is the size of the block reward.

The only reason why the upcoming difference in block reward between BTC and BCH / BSV is relevant at all is because we're looking at running systems sharing the same mining resources with a somewhat stable equilibrium that will soon be broken. For all we know BCH / BSV might as well manage to offset their premature halvening by doubling their value relative to BTC.

Regardless of that I'm looking forward to see the first coin apply sharding to cryptocurrencies. Be it Ethereum, be it a Bitcoin fork or be it something else entirely. I personally doubt that blockchain sharding is the scaling solution that some people make it out to be, but the worst case that can happen is a learning experience for all.

mda

member

Activity: 144

Merit: 13

Also I would suggest shardcoiners to start mining with block reward 50 so all empty talkers here would pay the price for their intellectual indolence.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: mda on May 26, 2019, 02:11:56 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 25, 2019, 05:00:00 AM

Plus that proposed "solution" is vaporware. Where is the Github repository? Or the testnet? Some people want to say something, just to say something. Cool

You are absolutely right, there is no repository or testnet yet. But as soon as shardcoin is deployed my cripplecoins will be slowly but surely exchanged to shardcoins at a factor of 3 to 5. I'm unsure if it counts as 'just to say something' or not.

You are placing all your feelings of expectations, hopes, and desires to "kill" Bitcoin on vaporware? Good luck. All miners in Bitcoin forks that made design-decisions to make fees close to zero will go back to mining Bitcoins. Watch Bitcoin Cash's next halving next year. It will start there. The stubborn miners who decide to stay with Bitcoin Cash will need to subsidize their mining themselves. A hard lesson in externality costs in POW blockchains.

mda

member

Activity: 144

Merit: 13

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 25, 2019, 05:00:00 AM

Plus that proposed "solution" is vaporware. Where is the Github repository? Or the testnet? Some people want to say something, just to say something. Cool

You are absolutely right, there is no repository or testnet yet. But as soon as shardcoin is deployed my cripplecoins will be slowly but surely exchanged to shardcoins at a factor of 3 to 5. I'm unsure if it counts as 'just to say something' or not.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: mda on May 23, 2019, 08:40:20 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 23, 2019, 06:42:52 AM

Or their network proposes another hard fork to make blocks smaller again, and adopt a fee market, then increase transaction throughput only as necessary.

Then shards it hundred times and says goodbye to Blockstream's and Core's cripplecoin.

0 correlation, sharding is aimed to fix high cost to run full nodes and allow better on-chain scaling with some trade-off.
It'd be relevant if we're talking about cost to run full nodes or on-chain scaling.

Plus that proposed "solution" is vaporware. Where is the Github repository? Or the testnet? Some people want to say something, just to say something. Cool

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: mda on May 23, 2019, 08:40:20 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 23, 2019, 06:42:52 AM

Or their network proposes another hard fork to make blocks smaller again, and adopt a fee market, then increase transaction throughput only as necessary.

Then shards it hundred times and says goodbye to Blockstream's and Core's cripplecoin.

But that doesn't fix their problem. Block rewards from fees would be still small for miners after their halvings, and would either turn off their miners, or start pointing their miners back to Bitcoin.

There's also no guarantee for sharding, what coin made it work?

mda

member

Activity: 144

Merit: 13

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 23, 2019, 06:42:52 AM

Or their network proposes another hard fork to make blocks smaller again, and adopt a fee market, then increase transaction throughput only as necessary.

Then shards it hundred times and says goodbye to Blockstream's and Core's cripplecoin.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: HeRetiK on May 21, 2019, 07:45:53 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 21, 2019, 03:32:39 AM

You wait until Bitcoin Cash ABC and SV's next halvings. How would their networks subsidize miners if their developers designed them for 0 - low fees?

They will have no other path to go, except to copy Bitcoin's model in my opinion.

With BCH currently mining at merely 5% of Bitcoin's hashrate [1] they already have a problem with subsidizing miners and keeping the network safe as is, no halving needed. It's definitely going to be interesting to see what happens after BCH's and BSV's first halving regardless.

[1] https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate

Or their network proposes another hard fork to make blocks smaller again, and adopt a fee market, then increase transaction throughput only as necessary.

Bitcoin's model. Cool

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 2066

Cashback 15%

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 21, 2019, 03:32:39 AM

You wait until Bitcoin Cash ABC and SV's next halvings. How would their networks subsidize miners if their developers designed them for 0 - low fees?

They will have no other path to go, except to copy Bitcoin's model in my opinion.

With BCH currently mining at merely 5% of Bitcoin's hashrate [1] they already have a problem with subsidizing miners and keeping the network safe as is, no halving needed. It's definitely going to be interesting to see what happens after BCH's and BSV's first halving regardless.

[1] https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: squatter on May 15, 2019, 05:48:29 PM

Quote from: bob123 on May 14, 2019, 04:15:23 AM

For the people who support big blocks: You are the guy saying 'double faster'..

I don't think it's just small blockers vs. big blockers anymore. There's a third group who were (or may still be) small blockers but do advocate for future block size increases. We can't immediately write this group off as reckless like the Bitcoin Cash crowd. The question becomes, are we going to modestly increase the block weight as technology improves -- and when? -- or is this actually a complete impasse?

Quote from: bob123 on May 14, 2019, 04:15:23 AM

Oh.. are we talking about block size increase again? Roll Eyes

Isn't that water under the bridge ?

I don't think many people are taking the BCH or BSV approaches seriously, but I wouldn't quite say that. Judging by the recent aggravation I've been seeing around rising fees, I'm sure we'll be hearing more and more about this debate again as the months wear on.

You wait until Bitcoin Cash ABC and SV's next halvings. How would their networks subsidize miners if their developers designed them for 0 - low fees?

They will have no other path to go, except to copy Bitcoin's model in my opinion.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3444

Merit: 10558

Quote from: squatter on May 15, 2019, 05:48:29 PM

I don't think many people are taking the BCH or BSV approaches seriously, but I wouldn't quite say that.

we shouldn't even be talking about these coins because what they did was an advertising technique so that they can say our token can handle x times more transactions than bitcoin hence it is better and also because their block sizes are around 200 kB in reality not that big MB size they have as their cap, so it doesn't even count.

squatter

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1196

STOP SNITCHIN'

Quote from: bob123 on May 14, 2019, 04:15:23 AM

For the people who support big blocks: You are the guy saying 'double faster'..

I don't think it's just small blockers vs. big blockers anymore. There's a third group who were (or may still be) small blockers but do advocate for future block size increases. We can't immediately write this group off as reckless like the Bitcoin Cash crowd. The question becomes, are we going to modestly increase the block weight as technology improves -- and when? -- or is this actually a complete impasse?

Quote from: bob123 on May 14, 2019, 04:15:23 AM

Oh.. are we talking about block size increase again? Roll Eyes

Isn't that water under the bridge ?

I don't think many people are taking the BCH or BSV approaches seriously, but I wouldn't quite say that. Judging by the recent aggravation I've been seeing around rising fees, I'm sure we'll be hearing more and more about this debate again as the months wear on.

bob123

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 2481

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 13, 2019, 07:26:44 AM

Quote from: franky1 on May 11, 2019, 11:23:52 PM

failed economic theory of the core fanboys

While the big blockers believe they can go around the laws of physics. Cool

Quote from: pooya87 on May 14, 2019, 12:11:28 AM

obviously if block size increases the cost of running a node increases with it, even if it doesn't increase and remains fixed the cost still increases as the size of the blockchain and the UTXO set increases.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 14, 2019, 03:45:14 AM

Good. Plus another externality on a block size increase is on the miners, especially the small miners.

Oh.. are we talking about block size increase again? Roll Eyes

Isn't that water under the bridge ?

I guess i have to use the classic meme again..

P.s. For the people who support big blocks: You are the guy saying 'double faster'..

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on May 14, 2019, 12:11:28 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 13, 2019, 07:26:44 AM

~
Abstract, yes, but would you agree that costs move somewhere else because of externalities if the block size was increased in Bitcoin?

yes, if that is your only question here. obviously if block size increases the cost of running a node increases with it, even if it doesn't increase and remains fixed the cost still increases as the size of the blockchain and the UTXO set increases.

Good. Plus another externality on a block size increase is on the miners, especially the small miners. Because block propagation would take slightly longer, some miners would take that slight delay, wasting its time hashing on the wrong block. That's another added cost.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3444

Merit: 10558

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 13, 2019, 07:26:44 AM

~
Abstract, yes, but would you agree that costs move somewhere else because of externalities if the block size was increased in Bitcoin?

yes, if that is your only question here. obviously if block size increases the cost of running a node increases with it, even if it doesn't increase and remains fixed the cost still increases as the size of the blockchain and the UTXO set increases.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: franky1 on May 11, 2019, 11:23:52 PM

failed economic theory of the core fanboys

While the big blockers believe they can go around the laws of physics. Cool

There's not a way they can go around it. Costs exist, and the cost will move somewhere else if you relieve the users from some of the costs. It's physical reality.

Quote from: pooya87 on May 12, 2019, 12:20:45 AM

abstract talk in this board is meaningless, move it to reddit if you just want to talk drama. otherwise you have to post actual data with verifiable test cases to support what you are saying. the data should look like this:
- first categorization of hardware based on what people use to run a node. example 5% raspberry Pi, 15% PC with Corei7 CPU, 20% PC with Corei5, 10% with Pentium 2!, 20% VPS with different specs, ...
- then 4 sets of tests:
-- most common cases meaning from 2500 to 3000 tx with certain scripts that are used every day (99% of the blockchain)
-- same but with higher number
-- edge and rare cases with the same number of tx but with complicated scripts that require more time to verify
-- same with higher number.

then you can conclude how many "weak nodes" we have and whether they fall behind or not and if it matters.

Abstract, yes, but would you agree that costs move somewhere else because of externalities if the block size was increased in Bitcoin?

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3444

Merit: 10558

abstract talk in this board is meaningless, move it to reddit if you just want to talk drama. otherwise you have to post actual data with verifiable test cases to support what you are saying. the data should look like this:
- first categorization of hardware based on what people use to run a node. example 5% raspberry Pi, 15% PC with Corei7 CPU, 20% PC with Corei5, 10% with Pentium 2!, 20% VPS with different specs, ...
- then 4 sets of tests:
-- most common cases meaning from 2500 to 3000 tx with certain scripts that are used every day (99% of the blockchain)
-- same but with higher number
-- edge and rare cases with the same number of tx but with complicated scripts that require more time to verify
-- same with higher number.

then you can conclude how many "weak nodes" we have and whether they fall behind or not and if it matters.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

failed economic theory of the core fanboys

fail1.
staying at a block of ~3000tx to cover what they believe would give pools a comparative income via tx fee vs reward = fee of ~$20, which fools think is acceptable fee

fail2.
if a user intends to be a full node its presumed they will do more than lets say 50 transactions over 5 years.
just 50 transactions is $1000. yet the fools find it acceptable to make users pay $1000 to make transactions but then pretend people cant afford $1000 for a computer.

fail3.
putting aside the 'cost'... thinking pools need a hand in sorting out thier own economics, and thinking pools need that help now. and thinking pools need to stifle blocksize to guarantee income.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: HeRetiK on May 09, 2019, 05:31:53 AM

Looks like you guys have been having fun, what externality costs are you referring to precisely?

The cost of PoW, the security / decentralization / scalability trade-off, the construction of ASICs...?

The costs on the people who run full nodes if the block size was increased. Fees would go down, but nodes would require higher bandwidth, and better hardware to process more information, or else "weaker" nodes will fall behind.

Topic: On Bitcoin and externality costs (Read 606 times)