Topic: Will the Developers support main-chain scaling as a guiding principle? (Read 1902 times)

Technology that is built on top of Bitcoin, is not part of Bitcoin? I do not see it in that way. Just because you do not understand how it happens, that does not mean that it can't happen. I suggest that you read more about sidechains and two way peg. As long as we keep it to a single sidechain for a while, we should be fine.

Read the post by CIYAM once again. If we scale upwards without properly testing everything, we risk damaging the network. People need to stop looking back at the Bitcoin whitepaper. I doubt that satoshi had a 'lightning network' in his mind when he was writing it.

This interview with Adam Back is I think worthwhile watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYHyR2E5Pic&feature=youtu.be

(also it appears that Nick Szabo pretty much agrees with his views)

Guys I thinks you can share you opinion on the topic to this site http://coin-vote.com/ it uses bitcoin signatures for voting. 

It really isn't so simple (which is why it is an issue) and mostly this is because the majority of mining hashrate is in China which has much poorer bandwidth internet (especially when it comes to communicating with the outside world).

Already at least a few of the Chinese mining pools use SPV mining which was what led to the recent fork after the new block versions had achieved a super-majority.

If the block sizes are massively increased then SPV mining will probably become what is being used by the clear majority which would mean that Bitcoin will be less secure and more prone to future accidental forks.

There is really nothing you can do to stop SPV mining and as the Chinese have invested millions into their operations they are not going to just stop doing that because some core devs or other people think that they should do that in order for people to buy a coffee at Starbucks (which seems to me to be an odd idea when people aren't even being paid in BTC in the first place).

Personally I don't see the urgency of any of this - Bitcoin has failed to even make inroads into the remittance market (worth billions per year) and that is by far its easiest target (a so-called low hanging fruit). So instead of trying to get it to become a replacement for the entire financial system overnight why not first wait for it to actually succeed in doing what it should be able to do better than anything else?

I am not advocating that Bitcoin should only be used as a settlement layer but I think it would make more sense for that to be the focus for the next few years.

Offchain is not Bitcoin, if you don't have the private keys you don't control your coins. Sidechains have their problems too. How does exchanging your bitcoins to some sidechain coin happen? How do you know on which chain a merchant works? It all should be completely transparent to the user, but how is that achieved? There's so much to do and so many challenges on that front that it will take years before anything usable comes around (and what will be limitations and compromises of those solutions?).

We can scale the main chain now (Why is this even an issue?) and play with side chains later. Or should we just wait for n number of years and hope that Lightning Network or some sidechain solutions will appear? Seems like some Core devs think we should. :/

[edit] When I invested in Bitcoin I read the whitepaper and nowhere it says that Bitcoin should be only a settlement layer.

If you reason like Mike Hearn yes.

If you respect Bitcoin's ethos, no.

Didn't quite get this last post here, but I think we've both made our points.

Your own point about SPV mining shows that even with the current 1MB limit we have some issues.

Without a doubt if we change that to 8MBs we are going to have more issues and the further that increases the more problems I expect we'll see.

I guess it simply comes down to what we want Bitcoin to be - for me it should be inclusive rather than exclusive.

I don't disagree with the 'coffee vs a car' but the problem is you really don't know what size block forces the coffees out and keeps the cars in.  What about a TV?  Where do you draw the line?  Why do we need to force out the coffees at all if blocks can be made much bigger and there's many developed nations with good Internet?

Okay - you can say it that way if you like.

But I think you are missing that a "coffee" is not really the same as a "car" (and also that this doesn't benefit the consumer - we are only talking about the seller wanting to get the BTC tx really).

Already all places like Starbucks are dealing with stolen credit cards - they just take that into account and use the information they have available to try and avoid being scammed (that won't change much).

But when you go to buy something more significant then there is generally a waiting period and less trust.

The "buyers" of this world are not asking for BTC txs to buy coffees but of course the sellers would prefer that (it amazes me that so many people on this forum just want to help the sellers and actually don't care about the buyers at all).

so you're saying we can move enough transactions off chain to be handled by a trusted party
and keep the really important transactions on chain...and that would be more decentralized
than a pure main chain because of geographical imbalances in Internet speed? 

I just want to make sure I understand your position correctly.

I think if it comes down to "coffee" txs it really isn't so essential is it?

There are mechanisms with other things that can still give your recourse to your tx but that could be taken care of in a less permanent manner.

If you really want your "coffee tx" to be noted in the blockchain then pay for it (my guess is that most people are not going to demand that).

I'm all for decentralization. 

Maybe you can explain how an off chain solution will support decentralization.
Who would be validating the transactions?

What matters is the "control". If it leads to more centralised control then I think it undermines what we currently have (and yes I do realise we already have SPV mining but I think that fact just actually supports my concerns).

It really depends on SPV mining is handled.

Maybe the pools do the validation while everyone else is allowed to simply mine off the block head without validating it.

If so, would it really matter?

It is a matter of bandwidth so not quite so simple but yes if you keep upping the size of the blocks then more and more countries end up not able to mine.

I think that is not the way we should go forward as that risks the very idea of decentralisation.

I don't know what you mean?  China?  USA?

Actually I heard some places like South Korea have much faster connections than USA
for most retail customers.

Anyway, I don't agree because internet speed isn't the only factor that gives people
a competitive edge in mining.  There's also electricity costs for example, costs of mining gear,
efficiency of operations, etc. 

By your logic, only the place with the cheapest electricity would ever have mining.

In addition, I think there is enough geographical distribution of good internet
that it may not matter.

Also, to my knowledge the SPV mining problem hasn't been solved yet,
so I think knowing the parameters to that would impact how important
internet speed is.

So the consensus is just decided by a few western countries with fast internet (that hardly seems like a "broad consensus" then does it)?

Also if you keep scaling that up (as per BIP101) then it will likely just end up with one country deciding the consensus (no medal for guessing that one).

So far BTC is not useful for buying "coffees" and the like anyway (and won't be even at 100x the current blocksize) - but it is extremely useful for moving money between countries. If you end up centralising the mining then you begin to make its current best use look problematic (i.e. subject to political control).

Personally I'd rather see decentralised Bitcoin mining that doesn't supports coffee purchases over a centralised Bitcoin mining that does.

Well, it would stand to reason that less developed places with slower internet would be using more SPV clients.

A big problem with Gavin's stuff about his home-grade internet is that it is rather superior than most of the developing world (about 10x at least). To make that clear I can't even run Bitcoin Core in China (it never catches up).

So if we only want Bitcoin to be for the "developed world" then I guess we should all just follow Gavin and Mike.

If we want Bitcoin to be for everyone then we actually need to think a bit harder.

It should be noted that Gavin and Mike tell us we need to decide this ASAP and this is not good. I am actually glad to see that XT is failing due to lack of support. There is no such big rush (all the "full blocks" have basically been due to spam attacks).