In theory it scales as much as you want it too, but in practice it creates problems. There are tradeoffs for making a trust-less and decentralized system that consumes a lot of bandwidth and disk space to scale.

In anonymous/private coins, the scaling debate was much further ahead because their mixing or zero proof systems create much more bloat that have the potential to render their blockchain DOA - even while having tx volume like 1% of BTC.


There is no bottleneck if you pay a bit more. The fees are pretty decent, even for top priority, for a "crowded" block anyway. If someone wants his dust to move at once though, by paying peanuts, let him wait.

I'm just pointing out that even with not so many transactions, you don't simply "die" - and evidence of that is the marketcap and mobility of gold, because bitcoin is not simply a payment system, but also a store-of-wealth system.

BTC's transaction capacity was always small, and even with 8 or 32mb blocks, it's still small.

If just 10% of the global population used BTC, and they did an average of just 1 transaction per day, we'd need blocks larger than 1 GB.

Suppose we make it 1GB per block, to "scale". What will happen then? Will it "scale", or will it simply become unusable? It's a bullshit argument that "bigger is better" in this case. It isn't.

And what if we take the scenario of the entire population using it, with an avg of 2 tx per day, which requires >20gb per block?

Bitcoin will not scale to the level you want it to and definitely not by simply increasing the block size. It needs smart methods to do so.

The fact that BTC requires a lot of resources to scale, should make it expensive to use those resources. Seeing dust transactions that take up space for minimum fees, is already too painful to watch.


Nobody in the Elite would benefit from abusing network resources back then. However, the situation is different with the blockchain which, if you supply the tools to abuse it, it will be abused and bloated and rendered unusable.

Have you asked potential bitcoin users, whether they are interested in downloading TBs of blockchain before using it?

We'll send all these potential guys to use online wallets or online-based wallets, meaning a centralized ecosystem?

Besides, the cartel in the HDD industry, reminds me of the stagnation in the CPU industry after AMD lost the plot and Intel didn't rush things much in terms of evolution.

I think it was early 2011 when I bought my WD 1TB for like 60 euros, and it still costs nearly the same: I'm not seeing any serious price reduction. So HD prices don't scale as much as we'd like.


Yes he was. There wasn't any urgency or crisis that demonstrated a breakdown of the decision-making process. The dev team acknowledged that scaling improvements can be done, they issued BIPs and were debating what's the best.

Is it some kind of best practices when someone comes along and says, yes, we'll do this, and if we don't, we'll fork it? 

If Hearn's dictatorship plan passes, there will be no core devs remaining to even have a decision process. I doubt any will stay to be ordered by the "dictatorship" of Andersen/Hearn. Who will maintain bitcoin then? Hearn -who isn't very active- and Andersen? That's not going to work and it's extremely bad for the future of Bitcoin.

In the end of the day, if you ask me what Bitcoin-dev-team will do the best for the currency, it's a no brainer that current core-devs are far better, active and responsible than XT's devs.

Speaking of gold: Gold has been demonetized (ie, there are no gold coins in circulation as national currencies), so it's not like millions of gold transactions are happening every day. In terms of transactions per second, it's not very unlike Bitcoin. Yet, the ~5.8bn ounces / ~180 kilotons of gold have a marketcap of 6.5 trillion USD.

BTC is digital gold. It doesn't need to scale its transactions to billions per day for fear of death. You are only looking at the transaction aspect / epayment system aspect, and you are overlooking the store-of-value aspect.

The store-of-value aspect of Bitcoin benefits massively from the ability of any individual to run a full wallet, with the entire blockchain, and the individual being able to be their own banker and have their own bitcoins under their control, while these BTCs appreciate even from their ...non-use and scarcity, relative to the fiat money supply which is inflating and devaluing itself.


Bitcoin, aside from being a coin and payment system, is also code that can be cloned/duplicated in altcoins... so it can scale if you make multiple bitcoin-like coins, use them for fast and cheap transactions and then discard them in the long run when their blockchain is bloated (if they can't be pruned). It's like using silver, copper and nickel for other coins that are traded daily, while you leave your gold coin under the mattress.

Right now we are using our gold for dust transactions of a few thousand satoshis and pretend that we need larger block sizes. This is ridiculous waste of blockchain space - which represents a barrier to entry as it increases in size (not to mention what happens when it increases dramatically, in terms of mining, centralization etc). Let the fees take care of this kind of waste and not multiply this wasteful behavior.


Dogecoin, IIRC has 1mb blocks per minute, so, in that sense, it scales 10x compared to BTC - which is even larger than XT. But it's not like people are saying "hey the dog can scale like crazy, let's all buy the dog and go to the moon"...

I mean why hasn't anyone brought it up as a major selling point for altcoins like LTC (4x), DASH / DRK (4x), DOGE (10x) that they can scale much more than BTC due to their more frequent blocks (of similar size) if that's all it takes to overtake bitcoin, that will supposedly die from not scaling, while these coins have already "solved" that and thus they will scale much better?

If it was such an issue, the money would have already decided in favor of altcoins that are "better" than the "flawed" Bitcoin - which is also "flawed" with its very slow confirmations compared to most alts that are lightening fast when, say, you deposit into an exchange. But the reality is that the parameters of Bitcoin are known for years. People know that btc is more expensive in its tx's, that it's slower, etc etc, yet it is still dominating the crypto-market due to the store-of-value aspect which seems to be (to the market) more important than the transaction aspect.

So why all that "urgency" with the XT crap and the stress tests that were in line with a problem-reaction-solution modus operandi? Who, really believes that bitcoin will ...die, if several dust and faucet transactions which are now conducted for peanuts, are replaced by more valuable transactions?

As for the IOU argument, that's partly correct and that's why, personally, I'm less in favor of such fractional tactics, as I am in favor of altcoins or some embedded system on BTC that does something similar, instead of a third party running a fractional reserve scheme.

A not-so-sophisticated attacker could spam the hell out of the blockchain, while also ensuring that his bloat doesn't have the potential for much pruning.

Bloating the blockchain to DOA levels will disrupt bitcoin, not the banksters.

Besides, 8mb blocks, or even 80mb blocks, aren't enough to scale to such levels. You'd need enormous storage (and bandwidth) per day to compete with the volume of banks and credit cards.

Visa does 2000 tx/s. Bitcoin needs 300-700mb/blocks to do that, not accounting for spam.

If you add mastercard, bank transfers, swift, paypal, and, finally, cash transactions from person to person that could be digitized with btc, not even 1gb blocks would scale.

It was always cool there, for millenia.

Someone asked a while ago, to name one thing that gold has as an advantage over bitcoin. Well, to take a recent incident, nobody can come in and say "you know what, I will fork it" - like the XT fiasco, where suddenly you may have 2 versions of bitcoin and loss of trust in the ecosystem with price going -15% down.

"Politics" can do this to bitcoin, while gold will remain the same in quality no matter what. Nobody can change its properties, unlike bitcoin which is somewhat malleable - being code.

Μπηκε οταν ειδαν οτι χρειαζεται spam protection. Και η ερωτηση μου ειναι απλη. Ποτε το χρειαζεται περισσοτερο το spam protection? Τοτε ή τωρα?


Μπορει να ειχε αλλαξει, αλλα οχι με τοσο δραματικο τροπο.


Δε μιλαω για node, μιλαω για bitcoin-qt wallet. Οσους φιλους εχω που εχουν bitcoins, εχουν το bitcoin-qt και ολο το blockchain στο δισκο τους. Αυτο θελει bandwidth για να κατεβει / ανανεωθει και προφανως θελει χωρο για να αποθηκευτει.


Ξανα-εξηγω οτι στα ανωνυμα coins, που στο θεμα του bloat ειναι πιο μπροστα επειδη ολα τα mixing technologies που χρησιμοποιουν ειναι "βαρια" και παραγουν πολυ μεγαλυτερο footprint στο blockchain, το εχουμε δει το εργο ηδη - δεν ειναι θεωρητικες αυτες οι επιθεσεις. Εδωσα το παραδειγμα του attack στο monero το οποιο παροτι ειχε dynamic limit στο block size, εντουτοις αναγκαστηκε να βαλει υψηλα fees για να αποτρεψει το bloat / spam attack: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8519146#msg8519146

Καλως ή κακως τα cryptocurrencies ειναι ευαλωτα στο συγκεκριμενο attack vector μεχρι να βρεθει καποια λυση. Το να παμε σε 8x block χωρις λυση, σημαινει 8x ευκολοτερη η ζωη των spammers. Μπορει να σπαμαρουν μεχρι και ανευ κοστους (!) αν πχ τα blocks γεμιζουν μεχρι τα 5-6-7mb και τα transactions τους καταληγουν να μπαινουν χωρις fees.

Το Litecoin ειχε μια λυση για dust txs που πηγε να τη κανει merge: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1536
Το Peercoin εχει καποιες προτασεις βλεποντας τη κατασταση στο btc, αλλα ακομα τιποτα απολυτο https://wiki.peercointalk.org/index.php?title=Preventing_Network_Spam

A determined attacker (let's say a big bank or a credit card company) that has quite a few millions to spend (because there are hundreds of billions at risk), has one attack vector with core and two attack vectors with xt.

With core they can create a queuing of transactions if these don't have a high fee.

With xt, they can do the same, but also bloat the XTcoin to DOA levels.

It'll never become prohibitive though, unless one is trying to move <1$ amounts or dust.

Που τα γραφουν ολα αυτα? Εννοω προσφατες συζητησεις για το XT, οχι παλιες αποψεις του συγκεκριμενου dev...

link?

Σκεφτεσαι ως δυτικος. Οι δυτικοι (δηλαδη εμεις που εχουμε ευρω, δολαρια, κτλ), paypal, ελευθερη δυνατοτητα παγκοσμιων συναλλαγων χωρις συναλλαγματικους περιορισμους (δε λεω για τωρα με τα capital control) εχουμε το bitcoin πολυ λιγοτερο αναγκη απ'οτι το εχουν χωρες με νομισματα που διολισθαινουν, απο πληθυσμους που δεν εχουν προσβαση σε τραπεζικες υπηρεσιες, απο πληθυσμους που η αγορα προϊοντων εξωτερικου ειναι δυσκολη λογω συναλλαγματικων ελεγχων στις χωρες τους κτλ κτλ.

Αυτοι ειναι που εχουν και το μεγαλυτερο προβλημα να πληρωνουν bandwidth, δισκους, CPU 8πυρηνες κτλ κτλ.

Και παλι ομως, ακομα και εμεις, εχουμε θεμα. Δλδ αν κανω update το bitcoin database μου καθε μια βδομαδα, θα καθομαι να κατεβαζω 10 gb για να τα κανει verify? Αυτο θελει μια μερα με το hardware που εχω (q8200 4πυρηνος και 1tb EALX WDC). Εγω ομως θελω να κανω transaction ΤΩΡΑ, οχι μετα απο μια μερα. Αρα? Αρα με αναγκαζει να εχω παρκαρισμενα λεφτα σε καποιο online wallet για να κανω τη δουλεια μου. Ή να αλλαξω το τροπο που δουλευω το bitcoin και να το εχω το client συνεχεια on - κατι που δε θελω να κανω.



Οχι. Δεν υπαρχει γραμμικοτητα / αναλογικοτητα στα bogus transactions και το bloating και το πραγματικο adoption.

Αν καποιος θελει να το πιταρει το συστημα, θα το πιταρει. Αυτο δε σημαινει οτι ανεβαινει το adoption του bitcoin, αντιθετα παρουσιαζει barriers to entry με την "απαιτηση" ο νεοεισερχομενος* να κατεβασει πχ μισο terabyte (τοσο μπορει να φθασει μετα απο ενα χρονο spam) και να περιμενει 2-3 βδομαδες με το pc 24/7 για να γινει verify. Ή, bye bye individual client, πηγαινε κατεβασε καποιο thin client, μπες σε καποιο online wallet, κτλ κτλ, αρα που παμε? Στο "παραδοσιακο" banking οπου τα λεφτα μας τα εχουν τριτοι και εμεις παμε στους τριτους για να κανουμε τις πραξεις μας - απο κει που ειχαμε τη δυνατοτητα να ειμαστε η τραπεζα του εαυτου μας με το δικο μας client που τα κανει ολα.

* Εχω 3 γνωστους μου που κανεις δε κατεβασε το bitcoin επειδη ο ενας επρεπε να κατεβασει 20gb (τελη '13) και οι αλλοι 2 απο 30+ gb (πιο προσφατα). Θα τους πεισω να κατεβασουν terabytes? Δε παιζει. Αυτο δε βοηθαει σε καμμια περιπτωση το adoption. Ειναι εμποδιο.


Το as intended ειναι 1mb και μετα οποιος βιαζεται, βαζει λιγο υψηλοτερο fee.

Το not as intended ειναι το να εχεις τεραστια blocks, πολυ φθηνα transactions τα οποια ευνοουν το spamming/bloating και που σκοτωνουν το scaling.


Το bloat attack vector εχει δεδομενα χαρακτηριστικα. Εχεις 52.5 gb το χρονο στο max απο 1mb blocks, 0.42tb με 8mb blocks και 1.05tb με 20mb blocks.

Το DOS attack, δλδ να κολανε τα transactions, αυτο ειναι προσπερασιμο οσο DOS και αν ριχνουν. Το οποιο μπορει να γινει ειτε με 1mb ειτε με 8mb blocks (απλως αυτος που κανει τα bogus transactions, κανει τα 8πλασια - το οποιο ειναι ακριβοτερο μεν αλλα για εναν determined attacker δεν ειναι θεμα). Χρειαζεται ενα απλο check του queue για τα ποιοτικα χαρακτηριστικα των συναλλαγων που δεν εχουν γινει ακομα. Εκει θα προτεινει το client το καταλληλο high priority fee για να γινει το tx στο next confirmation και αμα θελει ο χρηστης το πληρωνει ή αμα δε το βιαζεται βαζει κατι πολυ χαμηλοτερο και παιρνει ενα estimation του στυλ "your tx should be confirmed in the next 30-40 blocks based on pending txs". Δεν ειναι αναγκη να γινεται στα κουτουρου το tx χωρις να λαμβανει υπ'οψην το φορτο του δικτυου. Αν και αυτο εχει attack vector στο οτι καποιοι μπορει τεχνητα να ανεβαζουν τα tx fees ωστε το automated algo να προτεινει higher fees και τα lower fee bogus txs να μην διεκπεραιωνονται ποτε αλλα απλα να σπρωχνουν τις τιμες των legit transactions. Ομως αυτο ειναι χαμηλοτερης σοβαροτητας απ'το να κανεις bloat σε τραγικο βαθμο.

Επισης δεν ειναι μονο το θεμα του αποθηκευτικου χωρου αλλα και το θεμα του bandwidth, με διαφορα caps που εχουν ISPs. Αν θες πχ 1tb για να κατεβασεις το blockchain, πολυ κοσμος παγκοσμιως θα βγαινει above monthly limit. Δε μιλαω για nodes, μιλαω για οικιακους χρηστες.

If I were "big banks" / "the Elite" etc and I felt threatened by BTC and wanted to kill it, I would laugh at how naive the Bitcoin XT design is.

8mb blocks = bloat attack vector wide open. Bloat that can make Bitcoin XT => DOA within months. I would simply pay for some bogus transactions, insert tons of bloat (at 8mb blocks, you can get around to 115gb in 100 days and half a terabyte in one year) and then proclaim BTC dead because it's way too bloated for real life adoption.

Even at 40gb people are like "oh man, do I really have to download this?" and many simply don't do it. Why would they be happy with downloading TBs instead of GBs? And the western / developed world, is one thing with all the access in cheap technology that we have. What about countries where they really need bitcoin for online banking and wealth preservation, and where access to cheap hardware (or even cheap bandwidth) is more problematic than the west? Not everything is equal in this planet. In the USA a 2tb drive might be a couple of hours of one's job, while in some part of the planet it could be a month's wage.

Οχι απαραιτητα. Αν ο κοσμος δει οτι το XT chain ανεβαζει 1.2gb τη μερα, συντομα ολοι θα αρχισουν να καταλαβαινουν οτι αυτο απλα δεν εχει μελλον.


Attack ειναι. Spam/DOS. Εφοσον το δικτυο επιτρεπει το ιδιο να γινεται abuse, καποιος abuser θα βρεθει να το κανει abuse. Το χω δει το εργο στα ανωνυμα coin που, λογω της λειτουργιας τους, τα περισσοτερα παραγουν πολυ περισσοτερο bloat απ'το bitcoin - και αρα βλεπεις το effect πολυ πιο τονισμενο. Ειναι σα να πηγαινεις το χρονο fast forward και να εκτιμας το καθε kb και να εκτιμας το γιατι πρεπει να πληρωνεις το fee για το space που καταναλωνεις κτλ κτλ.

Πχ το bytecoin και το monero, αμα τους βαλεις υψηλο βαθμο mixin, κανεις το blockchain τοσο bloated που απλα το αχρηστευεις. Πριν αρκετο καιρο, ακομα και με dynamically adjusted block size στο monero, οταν αρχισαν καποιοι απ'το bytecoin (ετσι λεγεται) να σπαμαρουν το blockchain του monero (εχουν αντιπαλοτητα αυτα τα 2 altcoins), ειδαν οι devs του monero οτι πρεπει να παρουν μετρα, και αρχισαν να αυξανουν δραματικα τα fees για να αυτοπροστατευθουν.

Τα φθηνα transactions ειναι ουτοπια σε ενα κοσμο οπου υπαρχουν καλοθελητες προθυμοι να σου διαλυσουν ενα blockchain απ'το bloat. Η λογικη οτι υπαρχει αφθονια χωρου και ας παμε και στα 80mb block ειναι εντελως λαθος. Προκειται για κενο ασφαλειας που κανει το btc ευαλωτο σε μεσοπροθεσμη αυτοαχρηστευση του.


Δεν ειναι αμελητεο αμα θες μισο 1.2gb τη μερα. Και, οχι μονο αυτο, αλλα οι χωρες που χρειαζονται περισσοτερο το bitcoin δεν ειναι οι δυτικες, αλλα οι αναπτυσσομενες οικονομιες που δεν εχουν λεφτα να τους τρεχουν απ'τα μπατζακια για νεο hardware.

Εστω οτι εχεις εναν bitcoin dev ή bitcoin whale με τουλαχιστον 20k btc και θελει να βιασει το blockchain του XT for the lulz με τα BTC XT που εχει και δεν τον ενδιαφερουν.

Βαζει να κανει bogus transactions 8mb σε καθε block πληρωνοντας κανονικα fees. Μεσα σε λιγες μερες το blockchain του XT θα ειναι ηδη διπλασιο απ'του BTC και με αμφιβολλιες ως προς το scaling που μπορει να εχει μια δομη που ανεβαζει μεγεθος ετσι σα φουτανα και που παλι ειναι τιγκαρισμενα τα μπλοκς μεχρι εκει που παιρνει.

The worst case scenario is that someone starts spamming the blockchain with the 8mb blocks. Then, next thing you know, people will say "ohh these 8mb blocks are full, we need bigger blocks". Then you get 20mb blocks and ~3gb/day of bloat / >1 tb per year. And who is to stop them spamming the 20mb blocks and getting them full too? What's next? We'll be asking for 100mb blocks? This is madness.

Personally I don't believe that even the 750k/1mb blocks are full by legitimate transactions and not bogus transactions. I believe these bogus transactions are created to stir a "debate" about "ohh we need bigger blocks" and stuff so that we can then go on and shoot ourselves in the foot by "accepting" larger blocks as the "natural evolution".

We have to deal with a reality here: Big banks, credit cards, swift etc, don't want BTC to succeed. Bloating it is a very cheap way they can use to kill it. It's much cheaper than a 51% and cheaper than manipulating the BTC market. And it will be FAAAAAAAAAR cheaper to enable that attack vector with 8mb or 20mb blocks.

Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:

XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte. Is this "futureproofing" or ensuring that the future of bitcoin is one where it dies out of bloat and where no-one wants to download it?

Increasing the fees within the 1mb limit is a far more acceptable strategy. If that means bitcoin not doing microtransactions (at least in the traditional / on-chain way), so be it. Gold coins weren't used for microtransactions either, they had silver and copper coins for that.

Η αυξηση του block, οπως το βλεπω, απλα δινει τη δυνατοτητα του να γινει DOS το bitcoin απο ισχυρα entities.

8 mb per block x 144 blocks τη μερα = 1.15gb/μερα, αν καποιος θελει να το σπαμαρει με transactions. Δηλαδη σε 100 μερες μεσα το bitcoin θα εχει παρει 115 giga εφοσον υπαρχει καποιος που απλα θελει να το "σκοτωσει" μεσω bloating. Και θα το κανει και σχετικα ανεξοδα γιατι με 8mb block, το σπαμ θα χωραει για πλακα - μπορει να γινονται και spam transactions με 0 fees ή σχεδον μηδεν.

Κατι τετοιο θα στειλει το bitcoin στον ταφο

Not really. You have to see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUr2E4dfs0Y to understand the culture, how they buy gold and not intend to sell it, how they see the ever-increasing price of gold, how even the poorest of the poor go out to buy 1g gold bars etc, how they dump fiat to buy gold and do not even consider that they have "spent" money because gold IS money for them, etc etc.

Bitcoin is not a real rival to gold in cultures like these (which, incidentally, has a population that EU+N.America can't match). Bitcoin is more like a facilitator of online transactions and something that gives you access to p2p banking services, without banks. If it can also be a great store of value, or even give multiple % gains, that's great.

Gold is your "savings" while bitcoin is more like your online banking.


It is already used as a currency but we don't think in that way. Citizens of india often think prices or salaries in terms of gold weight, which we don't. The fiat they get is just the vehicle to acquire more gold. And they don't even plan on selling, because they know that gold (as measured in terms of their national currency and always in the long-term) is always going up, so why sell?

What we as westerners consider a given, isn't really a given for the rest of the planet, and to populations outnumbering us, and populations that have a large effect on the gold market (India and China imports are something like 2000 tons per year, when global production is like 2500 tons). Here we see a gold/silver stacker and we are like "huh?". There it's much different as to the reasons why they are buying, how they are selling and if they are selling, how they view gold in their societies etc etc. We can't really get a proper sense of the gold market if we project our own rationale into the global population, without that rationale actually being true for all.

I tend to view money in two forms:

Sound money and scam money.

Precious metals and bitcoin would definitely go in the sound money category (with the current parameters being intact - that is if a btc flaw isn't discovered tomorrow that renders it useless), while fiat goes in the scam category because it's just cotton and paper that they are printing "value" on it. They can print as much as they like - making "wealth" appear out of nowhere.

In that sense, gold and btc are complimentary and not pitted against one another. Many western gold bugs or silver bugs (which are in essence fiat bugs that have a rationale of buying low / selling high, to maximize their fiat holdings, and not the india-attitude of HODLing forever) hate btc for reasons like "if you don't have it in your hand, it's vapor", or believing there is fiat dilution in BTC that should be going only to PMs and raising PM prices, but there is an increasing number of them that realize btc can indeed be a profit hedge. If gold/silver price is manipulated and the gains aren't forthcoming, why not hedge with a little crypto that can give explosive gains? Even some shit-hit-the-fan preppers have started to realize that btc is useful for online or global transactions when the banks fail them or prevent access to banking services, while gold/silver exchange is for a more local scenario.

Eventually the role of btc will be seen for what it is and not draw the same amount of hostility from both PM crowd and fiat crowd.


His observation isn't inaccurate per se although what causes what can be debatable in some cases.

You have to understand that there are economies where the national currency is devalued at a rate that makes gold a much better prospect than holding the national currency for the long-term. India has a tradition of gold-buying and, not only that, but they actually consider gold as money and fiat as something useless to be dumped to get gold.

Some western economies with strong currencies do not see the issue of gold in the same light, but, then again, western economies are not suffering from rampant inflation or rampant currency devaluation etc.

In the end of the day, gold is priced by fiat. And if fiat money supply is increasing rapidly, then the ratio of fiat supply:gold supply favors an increase in the price of gold. So it's not a foregone conclusion that gold is a sinking ship etc etc. In fact, maths point to the exact opposite happening as fiat supplies increase.

The fact that gold/silver prices are suppressed by virtual supply, is one more element we have to consider. If one man can make a campaign like "crash jp morgan, buy silver" and take silver from <10$ to 50$ for the lolz, then that doesn't really provide much confidence for the fiat scam.