Time to stand up to the XT shills here!

[cjmoles]

i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.

i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

I think that Moore's Law is underestimated by some of the participants in this discussion. Yes, they are considering an evolving technology, but are they considering a technology that is evolving at an exponential rate?
Innovation happens very quickly around digital technology....very quickly!  Some here are too young to even remember how innovative the first Atari Pong game was...loved it...or the 8800 and 8080 chip sets!  We've come a long way very fast since then...very fast....Remember when there was no such thing as a personal computer, a cell phone, or an application specific integrated circuit?  I do!  And I'm still young.

[jwinterm]

we are not even at 1MB on average, you sure there is no place nor time for other effective scaling solution to be investigated?
...

Seems like an immaterial point in the context of SPV mining, everytime an empty block is mined they're going to drag down the average. There were many almost full or full blocks in the recent price rise.

Also, maybe OP's wife told him she would take away all his BTC if he didn't go all out anti-XT:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1086875.0;all

Also also, with regards to OP's recent post, there is a version of XT which only implements the big blocks/BIP101 change, not the rest of XT's changes:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

I'd like to see blocksizes increased, preferably in a dynamic manner like I assume ArticMine supports, but I'm not really invested in or committed to one BIP or another, however the amount of vitriol that gets thrown around here is ridiculous. Maybe all you hardcore "shills" anti-XT or pro-XT should take a deep breath and read this article:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

[Kakmakr]

I am not acctually a supporter of any of these changes now. It seems as though both sides has a bit of a hidden agenda with the BIP they submitted. The people should set aside their agenda and come to the table with BIP's that are needed. You cannot submit a BIP to take control over Bitcoin development or to further your side chains or lightning project, or whatever project you are working on.

The BIP you submit, should benefit the protocol and it's users, not your power trip or your pockets.

[hdbuck]

we are not even at 1MB on average, you sure there is no place nor time for other effective scaling solution to be investigated?
...

Seems like an immaterial point in the context of SPV mining, everytime an empty block is mined they're going to drag down the average. There were many almost full or full blocks in the recent price rise.

Also, maybe OP's wife told him she would take away all his BTC if he didn't go all out anti-XT:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1086875.0;all

Also also, with regards to OP's recent post, there is a version of XT which only implements the big blocks/BIP101 change, not the rest of XT's changes:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

I'd like to see blocksizes increased, preferably in a dynamic manner like I assume ArticMine supports, but I'm not really invested in or committed to one BIP or another, however the amount of vitriol that gets thrown around here is ridiculous. Maybe all you hardcore "shills" anti-XT or pro-XT should take a deep breath and read this article:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

eh, i am no troll sry.

i do understand that bitcoin is not scaling *as is*, and was never meant to in the first place, because you obvioulsy cant keep the record of all the world's transactions on a single layer whilst keeping it decentralized..

hence i do understand that increasing the block size is irrelevant to effectively scaling bitcoin, and more importantly, puts decentralization at risk.

so it is clear by now that the XTers are a minority, else be my guest, run a node, and fork off already because it is futile to complain about this all over the place.

i otoh, am not complaining at all, and am quite happy with bitcoin's current state of affairs.

but if it ultimately comes to splitting the community, the forkers will have it on their conscience from breaking with this fragile consensus mechanism, and chances are that bitcoin experiment will fail.

just saying.

[Zarathustra]

but if it ultimately comes to splitting the community, the forkers will have it on their conscience from breaking with this fragile consensus mechanism, and chances are that bitcoin experiment will fail.

just saying.

Bitcoin will not fail. You will fail if you'll not jump to the >75% train.

[Stringer Bell]

Unfortunately as is once again shown in this topic - the issue of block size is being thought of as the issue of XT (and that was actually the reason behind my creating this topic as opposed to creating a topic about block size).

Quite simply it is not as their are numerous other options for increasing block size that don't involve XT at all and XT includes numerous things that are not to do with block size increasing (some of which are quite contentious).

What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).

So if you are a supporter of XT then you are "not a supporter of big blocks" (as you should support any of the BIPs that will increase the block size) - you are actually a supporter of Mike Hearn becoming effectively the CEO of Bitcoin (and this is the antithesis of what Satoshi had described in his paper).

Exactly. Quoted for Truth.

[spartacusrex]

SQT! .. Serious Question Time..

..

IF some secure and decentralised mechanism is created to transact off the main-chain for low fees, keeping the amount of main-chain TXNs low, who would choose to transact on the main-chain for sky high fees ?

(..since we can't have low TXN count and low fees on the main chain..)

[Lauda]

IF some secure and decentralised mechanism is created to transact off the main-chain for low fees, keeping the amount of main-chain TXNs low, who would choose to transact on the main-chain for sky high fees ?

(..since we can't have low TXN count and low fees on the main chain..)

The Lightning Network should actually be cheaper and faster than transacting on the main chain (that's at least what a developer said - search on reddit or ask on IRC). I don't see a reason for which one should not use it. I'd use the main chain only for a high amount of money. Bloating the main chain just for the sake of transacting on it isn't a valid reason.
People need to cool down. Even BIP101 in Core would be better than XT due to the baggage that it comes with.

[spartacusrex]

The Lightning Network should actually be cheaper and faster than transacting on the main chain (that's at least what a developer said - search on reddit or ask on IRC). I don't see a reason for which one should not use it. I'd use the main chain only for a high amount of money. Bloating the main chain just for the sake of transacting on it isn't a valid reason.

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

[Lauda]

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

..essentially it works like this – If all bitcoin transactions are being discussed in an open forum, its public ledger, the lightning network allows parties to enter into a closed room for a period of time, conduct transactions during that period, and at the end of the agreed time, broadcast these transactions to the network.

XT Shills are complaining about sidechains. Sidechains are not the proposed solution to scalability - Luke Jr (IIRC).
I never said "as secure and decentralised".

[CIYAM]

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

You do understand that the Lightning Network *depends* upon Bitcoin?

It is comments like yours that simply cloud any attempt at serious discussion.

[spartacusrex]

You do understand that the Lightning Network *depends* upon Bitcoin?

err.. Yes.

It is comments like yours that simply cloud any attempt at serious discussion.

Is that your attempt at serious discussion ?
..

The question is genuine.

..essentially it works like this – If all bitcoin transactions are being discussed in an open forum, its public ledger, the lightning network allows parties to enter into a closed room for a period of time, conduct transactions during that period, and at the end of the agreed time, broadcast these transactions to the network.

If it is the case, that you always have to revert (send out the final BTC totals) to the main-chain, to 'collect', after a lightning session, won't people with small amounts get stuck off chain, as the fees to re-join the main-chain will be destructively expensive?

I can assure you many people are not seeing this as clearly as you obviously are.

[CIYAM]

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?

Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.

Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf

(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)

[Soros Shorts]

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

I think it would be analogous to deciding whether to take a bus or driving your own car when you need to get crosstown through crowded city streets.

[DooMAD]

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?

Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.

Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf

(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)

It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain?  It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right.  Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.


Also, they should probably fix that typo in the summary.pdf:

Transactions confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain take up to one hour before they are irrevesible.

[spartacusrex]

1) At some point, at the end of a lightning session in a 'closed room', someone has to collect on the main chain. Do we agree on that ?

2) If I have acquired £10, 'lightning-around' (let's say I have just  won a penny poker tournament with 1000 players in our closed room), how will I collect that when the fee for a single TXN on the main chain is more than £10 ?

3) My original question was concerned with the fact that in the end, someone is left standing holding the secure IOU's (or whatever) that need to be broadcast to the main chain (probably in a single TXN) to collect, and who would want that un-enviable position.. ? Ergo - I'll try and stay on the lightning side as long as possible.

For LARGE amounts these arguments are mute, but if you only allow large TXN's there's no need to scale up anyway..

..

aannndddd .. just as I finished rambling ..DooMAD 'cuts to the chase'..

..but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain?  It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right.  Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.

[BillyBobZorton]

i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.

i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

I think that Moore's Law is underestimated by some of the participants in this discussion. Yes, they are considering an evolving technology, but are they considering a technology that is evolving at an exponential rate?
Innovation happens very quickly around digital technology....very quickly!  Some here are too young to even remember how innovative the first Atari Pong game was...loved it...or the 8800 and 8080 chip sets!  We've come a long way very fast since then...very fast....Remember when there was no such thing as a personal computer, a cell phone, or an application specific integrated circuit?  I do!  And I'm still young.

Moore's Law doesn't really work in real life. Sure first world countries may be able to benefit but the people in countries like Venezuela, Greece, Argentina etc that go from bill to bill always benefit from technology decades later. We must guarantee that nodes can be run over there too.

[brg444]

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?

Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.

Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf

(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)

It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain?  It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right.  Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.


Also, they should probably fix that typo in the summary.pdf:

Transactions confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain take up to one hour before they are irrevesible.

I don't see how that is a problem.

There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements.

In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost.

[Lauda]

It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain?  It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right.  Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.

Conclusion: No solution is perfect. I thought everybody knew this by now? If we were to worry about every single aspect in X amount of time in the future, then we'd probably rarely implement anything. By examining pros and cons of various solution, one must make a decision on which is the 'best'. LN is much better than bloating the network, although I wouldn't mind dynamic blocks up to a certain limit. 

2) If I have acquired £10, 'lightning-around' (let's say I have just  won a penny poker tournament with 1000 players in our closed room), how will I collect that when the fee for a single TXN on the main chain is more than £10 ?
-snip-

Exactly why would there be fees so high if there was not a huge backlog on the main chain?

[DooMAD]

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?

Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.

Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf

(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)

It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain?  It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right.  Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.

I don't see how that is a problem.

There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements.

In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost.

I respect your optimism, but I'm not quite ready for all of us to bet the farm on "likely".  We need to tread carefully on this.  What's the plan if miner fees start to drop?  Politely ask providers of the off-chain services to stop taking a cut?  Somehow I don't see that working.  The first major off-chain solution launched is Liquid, which is designed precisely for large scale settlements.  Have we not got this a little backwards if "settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain"?