Bitcoin Forum

If you say so. You have that right. I believe you would feel at home with like-minded people in the Bitcoin Cash community.


But reality is different from "in theory". It didn't happen in the way Satoshi designed the network, did it? Specialization always happens, and it has happened. Just because Satoshi said something doesn't mean it's supposed to turn out that way.


It's your right to question, and I agree that developers should try to solve that problem, but not in Bitcoin. It's too risky to be messing with the consensus layer just because there's a minority in the community that believe it's a good idea.

Plus wouldn't it be perfect for Bitcoin Cash to solve it? It will be a breakthrough, and it might even surpass Bitcoin in marketcap.

But currently, the reality is there are externality costs. The costs can be passed around, but there shall always be costs.

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.

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.

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.

While the big blockers believe they can go around the laws of physics. 8)

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.


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.

Oh.. are we talking about block size increase again?  ::)
Isn't that water under the bridge ?


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

https://preview.redd.it/xulc06ckly921.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=dbb8707d982408a5416344435d8b51ddd847d4be


P.s. 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?


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.

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.

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. 8)

Then shards (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109561) 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?

Plus that proposed "solution" is vaporware. Where is the Github repository? Or the testnet? Some people want to say something, just to say something. 8)

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.

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.

::)


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.


Then do it on Ethereum in my opinion.