Coinbase CEO: Core Team is a "Systemic Threat"

[thejaytiesto]

It is a systemic threat because he can't push his own agenda. He's just wasting more time. This does not help anyone.

Disagree. The most influential Core devs want to use the block size limit as a production quota, forcing fees up (and some TXs/users out), partly to focus the minds of devs on other solutions. They have said as much.

The limit was never intended for that and there has never been any discussion or BIP or similar relating to this _completely new policy_. Put another way, there would have been near zero support for a hard limit production quota if they had to introduce it via a BIP.

Also, how is he "wasting more time"? We have to sit around and wait for SegWit anyway, which is at least a month away. We can't do anything about that.

The limit is there because resources are limited, and no limit would lead to massive node centralization. We have data that shows raising the block size now would not be a good idea. SegWit will buy us some time, then we can start considering a blocksize rise, always having in mind that scaling bitcoin worldwide without an additional layer is impossible without mass centralization on the nodes.

[1715449138]

1715449138

[1715449138]

1715449138

[1715449138]

1715449138

[Lauda]

The limit is there because resources are limited, and no limit would lead to massive node centralization. We have data that shows raising the block size now would not be a good idea. SegWit will buy us some time, then we can start considering a blocksize rise, always having in mind that scaling bitcoin worldwide without an additional layer is impossible without mass centralization on the nodes.

Exactly. The other guy does not know what he is talking about. 'The most influential' Core developers can't do anything on their own. This is very important and I don't think that some realize this. For example, if Maxwell was the only one against a feature and everyone else agrees then it would be implemented. The same happened with Gavin, almost everyone was against his proposal and thus it was rejected. Segwit should provide adequate amount of transaction space for now.

[adamstgBit]

The limit is there because resources are limited, and no limit would lead to massive node centralization. We have data that shows raising the block size now would not be a good idea. SegWit will buy us some time, then we can start considering a blocksize rise, always having in mind that scaling bitcoin worldwide without an additional layer is impossible without mass centralization on the nodes.

Exactly. The other guy does not know what he is talking about. 'The most influential' Core developers can't do anything on their own. This is very important and I don't think that some realize this. For example, if Maxwell was the only one against a feature and everyone else agrees then it would be implemented. The same happened with Gavin, almost everyone was against his proposal and thus it was rejected. Segwit should provide adequate amount of transaction space for now.

segwit increases full node requirements just as much as 2MB blocks.
if you believe 2MB blocks will lead to node centralization, then you should come to the same conclusion with segwit.

removing the ability to create a full node on a free AWS server should not be seen as a bad thing.

[Lauda]

segwit increases full node requirements just as much as 2MB blocks.
if you believe 2MB blocks will lead to node centralization, then you should come to the same conclusion with segwit.

'Just as much'? No. The problem with a dangerous TX that could take too long to process is not inherent to Segwit. Additionally, it is worth to say that 2 MB block size limit has positive effects that Segwit does not (i.e. Segwit comes with a few).

removing the ability to create a full node on a free AWS server should not be seen as a bad thing.

It is a paid Sybil attack.

[adamstgBit]

segwit increases full node requirements just as much as 2MB blocks.
if you believe 2MB blocks will lead to node centralization, then you should come to the same conclusion with segwit.

'Just as much'? No. The problem with a dangerous TX that could take too long to process is not inherent to Segwit. Additionally, it is worth to say that 2 MB block size limit has positive effects that Segwit does not (i.e. Segwit comes with a few).

hmm we'd have to confirm that... but notwithstanding this attack
there will be twice as many TX included pre block, requiring nodes to process relay and store twice as many TX, just as if we had simply increased block size.

removing the ability to create a full node on a free AWS server should not be seen as a bad thing.

It is a paid Sybil attack.

but its cheap like dirt! ( is some cases Free ... )
maybe, it would be OK to increase node requirement such that its no longer cheap like dirt to do a Sybil attack.
by keeping requirement low we are opening an attack vector, and allowing the voice of nodes that matter to be downed out by 1000's "fake" nodes.

more is not always better?

IMO way too much emphasis has been placed on keeping node requirement low. and to ill effect, 1000's of classic node flood the network at the click of a button...

[Lauda]

hmm we'd have to confirm that... but notwithstanding this attack

You don't need to confirm anything. Segwit makes validation time linear and prevents this attack (at current sizes).

there will be twice as many TX included pre block, requiring nodes to process relay and store twice as many TX, just as if we had simply increased block size.

Technically not twice, but yes that's right.

more is not always better?

It isn't. If it was, then we'd all run our nodes at the same locations and end up with a centralized network that could be easily shut down.

[chrisvl]

segwit increases full node requirements just as much as 2MB blocks.
if you believe 2MB blocks will lead to node centralization, then you should come to the same conclusion with segwit.

'Just as much'? No. The problem with a dangerous TX that could take too long to process is not inherent to Segwit. Additionally, it is worth to say that 2 MB block size limit has positive effects that Segwit does not (i.e. Segwit comes with a few).

removing the ability to create a full node on a free AWS server should not be seen as a bad thing.

It is a paid Sybil attack.

proof ?

[Lauda]

proof ?

Proof of what? That it is a paid attack? Read this: A date with Sybil.

808 nodes for a maximum of 213 supporters

[adamstgBit]

proof ?

Proof of what? That it is a paid attack? Read this: A date with Sybil.

808 nodes for a maximum of 213 supporters

this is a fairly big problem.

created by the ill conceived notion that running a full node should be accessible to everyone and anyone at a low low cost.

transacting on the blockchain should be accessible to everyone and anyone at a low low cost, not running its infrastructure..

i can't Believe i have to make this case. 

[Bit_Happy]

Sad to see how Bitcoin is shooting itself in the foot with all of this nonsense.

Very sad, any ideas on how we can repair the mess before another 3 months (or more) fly by?

[mikewirth]

Sad to see how Bitcoin is shooting itself in the foot with all of this nonsense.

Very sad, any ideas on how we can repair the mess before another 3 months (or more) fly by?

It's been more than a year.  Prolly gonna be more than 3 more months

[exstasie]

Sad to see how Bitcoin is shooting itself in the foot with all of this nonsense.

Very sad, any ideas on how we can repair the mess before another 3 months (or more) fly by?

We just need Classic to fizzle out. Segwit rollout and continuation of Core roadmap = 

[DeathAngel]

This Coinbase guy, Armstrong is becoming a real pain in the ass & a genuine threat to the future of bitcoin.

[adamstgBit]

This Coinbase guy, Armstrong is becoming a real pain in the ass & a genuine threat to the future of bitcoin.

which future?

[DeathAngel]

This Coinbase guy, Armstrong is becoming a real pain in the ass & a genuine threat to the future of bitcoin.

which future?

Decentralized future, the future of proper devs at Core & Blockstream. Armstrong can't be trusted, he is in bed with government officials & doesn't give a shit about the fundamentals of bitcoin.

[adamstgBit]

This Coinbase guy, Armstrong is becoming a real pain in the ass & a genuine threat to the future of bitcoin.

which future?

Decentralized future, the future of proper devs at Core & Blockstream. Armstrong can't be trusted, he is in bed with government officials & doesn't give a shit about the fundamentals of bitcoin.

dont worry Armstrong is just 1 person, he can kick and scream all he wants as long as the majority disagree with him its going to be fine.

it must suck having to comply with US law. not sure obeying the law to the letter = in bed with government officials... probably means he doesn't want to get fucked by government officials.

[Lauda]

this is a fairly big problem.

Even though it is, people like Armstrong promote this service. Quite strange isn't it?

created by the ill conceived notion that running a full node should be accessible to everyone and anyone at a low low cost.

This ain't some 'ill conceived notion'. If you want Bitcoin to succeed then it has to be as decentralized as possible, and in order for it to remain as decentralized as possible you have to keep the cost of running a node as low as possible. Bitcoin is about individual sovereignty.

transacting on the blockchain should be accessible to everyone and anyone at a low low cost, not running its infrastructure..

Transacting on any layer should be accessible at a relatively low cost. Whether you transact on the main chain, side chain or LN it doesn't matter.

i can't Believe i have to make this case. 

A very strange case.