Why Bitcoin's Block Size Debate is a Proxy War

[btcbug]

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-block-size-proxy-war/


So based on the opinion in that article. I have the following question:

Why is there no third scenario where Bitcoin adopts SegWit, plus increases block size limit and then continues to increase the block size limit going forward? Essentially allowing both Lightning Network and the increased block size to both address the issue of scalability? Why can't both solutions work side by side?

[franky1]

what he says is correct..

visa's "authorization network" (the one that doesnt settle transactions but just says ok or not before the funds actually move) can handle a CAPACITY of 42,000 authorizations not settlements.

and blockstream who have consultants as part of PwC who are IBM.. yes the same company who help out VISA and the same company who were writing in the article..

so yes blockstream want bitcoin to turn into a more centralized system like visa's where it has a authorization network(handles tx's in seconds) and days later settles the accounts.

but they fail to debunk one big thing.. bitcoin does not have 900million users. and so any doomsday story that bitcoin cannot scale to visa ONCHAIN is a flawed argument. with the only intention to move the smaller population away from bitcoin and onto less secure, less distributed networks or centralized hubs.

which ultimately will dilute the pool of full nodes if people are playing with sidechains because they realise they dont touch bitcoin onchain and so ignorantly become central hubs/sidechain nodes. which along with pruned mode, no witness mode and everything else also reduces the distribution of real full bitcoin nodes.

so the slow growth ONCHAIN over many years will not disrupt bitcoins security/distribution of nodes as much as diverting people away from bitcoin will.

so yes the debate is not about classic vs core...
its about code simple change or major change.
its about security, everyone concentrating on using the same fundamental protocol rules and same network/same ledger. or different networks different rules, different ledgers.

the last part of blockstreams plan is to make bitcoin not even a ledger(record of account) by bloating each transaction by 250bytes to hide the values of spending(confidential transactions). making it harder for the network to trust that a bug hasnt suddenly created billions of bitcoins. or that a double spend has or hasnt happened. again risking the fundamentals of bitcoin.

all because blockstream has ties to VISA and multiple banks, all via the go-between PwC

[RealBitcoin]

Divide and conquer... It's so old but always new.

[btcbug]

...

so yes the debate is not about classic vs core...
its about code simple change or major change.
its about security, everyone concentrating on using the same fundamental protocol rules and same network/same ledger. or different networks different rules, different ledgers.

...

So with regards to my question, are you saying that both things can't happen? I'm just curious as to why LN can't exist, yet people like yourself could still choose to NOT use it and just do your transactions directly on the blockchain (assuming blocksize limit increases continually going forward)? Maybe this technical, I don't know the technical details too well, but that's why I'm asking.

[arcticlava]

To quote from the article: “In short, we have one group (Bitcoin Classic) that thinks that bitcoin should always be a payment network, aimed at ultimately replacing traditional payment methods. Then we have another group that thinks of bitcoin as more of a settlement network (Bitcoin Core), and that end users should use sidechains, the Lightning network or other future initiatives that could appear in the future as networks for payment.”

+1.

If the modifications needed to accommodate Lightning Network (LN) were implemented now, it would be possible to evaluate its utility for scalable, low fee transactions. Something like LN or sidechains will be needed sooner or later anyway: now, if we stick with core, or in 2 years with classic.

@btcbug - I think that it is a more urgent issue that LN be implemented, as opposed to debating block sizes. 1MB, 2MB - either way you have slow confirmations and malleable fees. LN would really address the actual debate: payment vs settlement, so that it can be evaluated by users for scalability and performance.

[RealBitcoin]

To quote from the article: “In short, we have one group (Bitcoin Classic) that thinks that bitcoin should always be a payment network, aimed at ultimately replacing traditional payment methods. Then we have another group that thinks of bitcoin as more of a settlement network (Bitcoin Core), and that end users should use sidechains, the Lightning network or other future initiatives that could appear in the future as networks for payment.”

+1.

If the modifications needed to accommodate Lightning Network (LN) were implemented now, it would be possible to evaluate its utility for scalable, low fee transactions. Something like LN or sidechains will be needed sooner or later anyway: now, if we stick with core, or in 2 years with classic.

@btcbug - I think that it is a more urgent issue that LN be implemented, as opposed to debating block sizes. 1MB, 2MB - either way you have slow confirmations and malleable fees. LN would really address actually real debate: payment vs settlement, so that it can be evaluated by users for scalability and performance.

Bitcoin is a settlement layer since it's the nr1 currency, and it has intrinsic value as the nr1 crypto currency.

It's also a commodity and as a settlement layer like gold in a vault backing paper money (but one that is actually transparent and 100% backed and not a ponzi scheme)

So yes, bitcoin is more a commodity money like gold, which needs a separate faster payment system, because obviously 10 min confirm time is not meant for it.

[franky1]

So with regards to my question, are you saying that both things can't happen? I'm just curious as to why LN can't exist, yet people like yourself could still choose to NOT use it and just do your transactions directly on the blockchain (assuming blocksize limit increases continually going forward)? Maybe this technical, I don't know the technical details too well, but that's why I'm asking.

both can happen. but as a choice of secure transactions that can settle onchain in 10 minutes like the oldent days..( like in 2009-2013).. or happily choose to lock funds into a riskier network to do fast transactions for a week, knowing ull be using it more then 2 times a week for it to be an advantage.

rather than forcing people into LN by keeping the onchain capacity low.

so basically both will and should work together. not by contention or force but from user preference of how they want to transact

[steeev]

and the propaganda war continues...

trying to control the narrative of the project using the media, after failure to seize control of the code with Classic/XT/whatever

some amusingly deranged, and fake comments on this thread, too - albeit from some of the usual suspects

[btcbug]

So with regards to my question, are you saying that both things can't happen? I'm just curious as to why LN can't exist, yet people like yourself could still choose to NOT use it and just do your transactions directly on the blockchain (assuming blocksize limit increases continually going forward)? Maybe this technical, I don't know the technical details too well, but that's why I'm asking.

both can happen. but as a choice of secure transactions that can settle onchain in 10 minutes like the oldent days..( like in 2009-2013).. or happily choose to lock funds into a riskier network to do fast transactions for a week, knowing ull be using it more then 2 times a week for it to be an advantage.

rather than forcing people into LN by keeping the onchain capacity low.

so basically both will and should work together. not by contention or force but from user preference of how they want to transact

I agree forcing LN by keeping on-chain capacity low would be a be deceitful. Has Core / Blockstream explicitly stated that as their intention though?

I can see the conflict of interest where core would have incentive to do that because of the fact that members from both parties overlap, but isn't the fact that Bitcoin Classic or some other competing implementation exists enough to keep them in line? If in 3 - 4 years time it becomes clear that they choose to drive users to the LN, couldn't Classic gain support and a block size increase be made at that time?

[Lauda]

This is what happens when you are lead by greed and politics come into play. It's quite surprising that a good number of people do not see what is truly going on.

To quote from the article: “In short, we have one group (Bitcoin Classic) that thinks that bitcoin should always be a payment network, aimed at ultimately replacing traditional payment methods. Then we have another group that thinks of bitcoin as more of a settlement network (Bitcoin Core), and that end users should use sidechains, the Lightning network or other future initiatives that could appear in the future as networks for payment.”
+1.

The real question is whether it can replace traditional payment methods via mostly on-chain transactions or not. The answer to that question is leaning to 'no' if you want to keep the decentralization.

Divide and conquer...

Trying to 'Divide et Impera', since Hearn.

[classicsucks]

But, the interesting thing about Classic’s approach is that they proposed it very openly to the community and they achieved within two months, in my opinion, a significant change to bitcoin.

They changed a constant from 1MB to 2MB - so innovative!

I don't know why people would believe an IBM shill who says he will keep bitcoin decentralized? A mega-corporation such as IBM is diametrically opposed to decentralization!

[Kakmakr]

I think what he is asking, is if for instance if LN is a third party service added to the protocol to add more scalability and faster transactions, but normal transactions that needs no speed, could still be done with Core or Classic, and if these two implementations can be handled separately, correct me if I am wrong? It would essentially be a "service" added, like Xapo's off-chain solution for speed, without having to change the Core protocol, and if this can be done.. if this could ran together? Am I right...?   

[btcbug]

I think what he is asking, is if for instance if LN is a third party service added to the protocol to add more scalability and faster transactions, but normal transactions that needs no speed, could still be done with Core or Classic, and if these two implementations can be handled separately, correct me if I am wrong?

Yes essentially

It would essentially be a "service" added, like Xapo's off-chain solution for speed, without having to change the Core protocol, and if this can be done.. if this could ran together? Am I right...?   

From what I understand the protocol changes need to be made for LN to work. I have no opinion on that.



My view of this debate is this:

Big Block advocates are worried about Blockstream/Core limiting the block size in order to push their solution (Lightning). I can see their argument (profits for Blockstream). I'm just not totally convinced that it is that significant (yet). To my knowledge they are NOT proposing the Blocksize to stay small forever. Please inform me if I'm wrong here.

I'm just thinking 5 years down the road, IF Blockstream is making a focused effort to keep blocks small then I'd be willing to question their intentions. At the moment Bitcoin will continue to work fine for both sides of the debate correct?

[pereira4]

what he says is correct..

visa's "authorization network" (the one that doesnt settle transactions but just says ok or not before the funds actually move) can handle a CAPACITY of 42,000 authorizations not settlements.

and blockstream who have consultants as part of PwC who are IBM.. yes the same company who help out VISA and the same company who were writing in the article..

so yes blockstream want bitcoin to turn into a more centralized system like visa's where it has a authorization network(handles tx's in seconds) and days later settles the accounts.

but they fail to debunk one big thing.. bitcoin does not have 900million users. and so any doomsday story that bitcoin cannot scale to visa ONCHAIN is a flawed argument. with the only intention to move the smaller population away from bitcoin and onto less secure, less distributed networks or centralized hubs.

which ultimately will dilute the pool of full nodes if people are playing with sidechains because they realise they dont touch bitcoin onchain and so ignorantly become central hubs/sidechain nodes. which along with pruned mode, no witness mode and everything else also reduces the distribution of real full bitcoin nodes.

so the slow growth ONCHAIN over many years will not disrupt bitcoins security/distribution of nodes as much as diverting people away from bitcoin will.

so yes the debate is not about classic vs core...
its about code simple change or major change.
its about security, everyone concentrating on using the same fundamental protocol rules and same network/same ledger. or different networks different rules, different ledgers.

the last part of blockstreams plan is to make bitcoin not even a ledger(record of account) by bloating each transaction by 250bytes to hide the values of spending(confidential transactions). making it harder for the network to trust that a bug hasnt suddenly created billions of bitcoins. or that a double spend has or hasnt happened. again risking the fundamentals of bitcoin.

all because blockstream has ties to VISA and multiple banks, all via the go-between PwC

"Blockstream wants to centralize Bitcoin" FUD has been proven wrong a million times.
It has also been proven with data that increasing the blocksize too soon will centralize nodes. Running a node is a pain in the ass now, imagine if you make the blockchain grow twise as fast.

You are just playing the stupid conspiracy theory. "all because blockstream has ties to VISA and multiple banks, all via the go-between PwC"
Oh so guess who has ties to CIA, Gavin, guess who has ties to Google and directly works for banks, Mike Hearn... see, we all can play that game.

At the end of the day, the best devs are the Core devs, and the only devs that came up with a solution for the problem (Lightning Network) without centralizing the core of Bitcoin (the only thing that makes Bitcoin valuable is that its decentralized, if you lose this then it's worthless).
Bitcoin will never scale to global levels all on-chain without massive centralization, so LN is the best solution.

[RealBitcoin]

I dont like to grab the conspiracy card on this issue, it might just be a question of arrogance and incompetence.

But it is obvious that bitcoin has to be in the hands of specialists, and luckily capital can distinguish the dumb person from the bright.

That is the single biggest feature capitalism has.

[btcbug]

I dont like to grab the conspiracy card on this issue, it might just be a question of arrogance and incompetence.

But it is obvious that bitcoin has to be in the hands of specialists, and luckily capital can distinguish the dumb person from the bright.

That is the single biggest feature capitalism has.

Seems for a lot of people this does come down to a conspiracy argument and the more I read about this I find it's quite ridiculous.

For example:

However, the Lightning Network is an open-source project. And, as opposed to Bitcoin itself, it's not even an open-source project that requires consensus among all Bitcoin users over the protocol rules. This means that anyone can fork the Lightning Network any time they want, potentially adjust the code in any way they want, and deploy their own version whenever they want. It might even be possible for users of different types of Lightning Networks to transact with each other, as long as there are nodes connecting the two.

So where is the greed and desire to profit that so many people are accusing Blockstream of?


https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/debunking-the-most-stubborn-lightning-network-myths-1444837807

[Lauda]

Seems for a lot of people this does come down to a conspiracy argument and the more I read about this I find it's quite ridiculous.

So where is the greed and desire to profit that so many people are accusing Blockstream of?

Actually it is even worse if you look at it more closely:
1) Blockstream has only 1 developer working on LN. Why would they only put 1 on the project if that was their major plan for profit? Does not make sense.
2) There are multiple groups working on independent implementations of LN.
3) Blockstream never advertised LN as their solution.
If you add it all up, you can see that the propaganda from the 'forkers' is foolish at best. LN is a wonder (as far as current solutions go) and one should learn to embrace it.

[RealBitcoin]

I just realized that some conspiracy theorists (not all of them, there are real ones too) are for dumb people, that cannot comprehend 1 issue, and this is how they explain it between themselves, by invoking FUD.

It's a fear instinct, it's like you put a bunch of sheep together in a pen and they start to scare eachother with wolf conspiracy theories.

[classicsucks]

It would essentially be a "service" added, like Xapo's off-chain solution for speed, without having to change the Core protocol, and if this can be done.. if this could ran together? Am I right...?   

From what I understand the protocol changes need to be made for LN to work. I have no opinion on that.

It should be quite easy to run a sidechain without any bitcoin protocol changes. In fact, one could argue that that's exactly what altcoins are, given the current levels of trading and the number of exchanges facilitating free movement in and out of BTC to hundreds of alts.

The question is merely one of TRUST. If Lightning is hooked into bitcoin at a protocol level and allows the creation and destructions of sidechains in a trustworthy manner that settles to the main chain, traders won't ever have to trust another crappy 4000+ page [ANN] premined shitcoin thread again!

Or, people could just quietly use Litecoin or Dash, and not stress out about any of this. Notice I didn't say Ethereum...

[mikewirth]

this is how they explain it between themselves, by invoking FUD.

Everything you don't agree with is 'FUD'.