Anatomy of the Bitcoin scaling debate, Part II: Bitcoin Core development/develop

[pbleak]

Here is an updated version of this review I did recently. I've added more on sidechains and whatnot. Any info or suggestions are welcome.

https://medium.com/@paulennis/an-analysis-of-the-bitcoin-scaling-debate-part-ii-bitcoin-core-development-developers-e9afa3dca15#.4yll4u6pu

[1713575965]

1713575965

[LCSociety]

Transactions have been fast as lightning lately. Faster than they have ever been actually.

Can any of you developer guys out there confirm whether or not scaling has already taken place?

I used to wait several hours for a transfer to confirm on LocalBitcoins. I specifically remember waiting more than 6 hours back in november.

Over the last month or so all of my transactions have been confirming within 10 minutes

Anyone have any insight into this?

[pedrog]

Transactions have been fast as lightning lately. Faster than they have ever been actually.

Can any of you developer guys out there confirm whether or not scaling has already taken place?

I used to wait several hours for a transfer to confirm on LocalBitcoins. I specifically remember waiting more than 6 hours back in november.

Over the last month or so all of my transactions have been confirming within 10 minutes

Anyone have any insight into this?

No, nothing happened.

https://btc.com/block

Just people making less transactions...

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

First let me focus on the relationship of Core to Blockstream (founded, 2015). Blockstream is a distinct entity from Core in as much as it is a funded venture (see here and here). Core developers such as Jorge Timón and Matt Corallo are amongst a concentration of Core developers under the Blockstream banner. In other words, it’s really Blockstream that funds the highest number of Core developers. Therefore it’s essential to understand what Blockstream is actually attempting to do.

By decreasing the utility of on-chain transacting through artificial scarcity, Blockstream can carve a niche for their products to begin soaking up fees that would otherwise go to miners. They have to earn at least $76 million before their investors from legacy finance see a return. It's not a conspiracy... it's just business.   

[Lauda]

Just people making less transactions...

No. The amount of spam tends to variate at the moment (as opposed to being constant for some time). If you take a closer look, quite a lot of those blocks are nearly full so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

By decreasing the utility of on-chain transacting through artificial scarcity, Blockstream can carve a niche for their products to begin soaking up fees that would otherwise go to miners. They have to earn at least $76 million before their investors from legacy finance see a return. It's not a conspiracy... it's just business.  

Disagree. The Lightning Network is the way forward and LN is not a product of Blockstream as there are multiple groups working on the implementation. They are not creating any kind of artificial scarcity but are choosing not to sacrifice decentralization for some capacity.

[LCSociety]

Transactions have been fast as lightning lately. Faster than they have ever been actually.

Can any of you developer guys out there confirm whether or not scaling has already taken place?

I used to wait several hours for a transfer to confirm on LocalBitcoins. I specifically remember waiting more than 6 hours back in november.

Over the last month or so all of my transactions have been confirming within 10 minutes

Anyone have any insight into this?

No, nothing happened.

https://btc.com/block

Just people making less transactions...

Thanks for confirming

What resources are there that allow us to monitor the amount of transactions being made? Anyone clued up on that?

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

By decreasing the utility of on-chain transacting through artificial scarcity, Blockstream can carve a niche for their products to begin soaking up fees that would otherwise go to miners. They have to earn at least $76 million before their investors from legacy finance see a return. It's not a conspiracy... it's just business.  

Disagree. The Lightning Network is the way forward and LN is not a product of Blockstream as there are multiple groups working on the implementation. They are not creating any kind of artificial scarcity but are choosing not to sacrifice decentralization for some capacity.

So they wanted to protect decentralization from a 2MB maxblocksize by pushing soft fork segwit which allows a 4MB multisig attack surface, makes sense.

Also, you are saying they are not the only ones developing LN, this is true. Can you confirm that Blockstream will not be operating highly connected and well funded LN hubs?

What resources are there that allow us to monitor the amount of transactions being made? Anyone clued up on that?

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/

[Lauda]

So they wanted to protect decentralization from a 2MB maxblocksize by pushing soft fork segwit which allows a 4MB multisig attack surface, makes sense.

Apples and oranges. I'll assume that you got that "attack surface" from either /r/btc or one of the "less popular" forums.

Can you confirm that Blockstream will not be operating highly connected and well funded LN hubs?

No. You can't forbid anyone from creating a hub, else the system would lose its credibility.

[pbleak]

First let me focus on the relationship of Core to Blockstream (founded, 2015). Blockstream is a distinct entity from Core in as much as it is a funded venture (see here and here). Core developers such as Jorge Timón and Matt Corallo are amongst a concentration of Core developers under the Blockstream banner. In other words, it’s really Blockstream that funds the highest number of Core developers. Therefore it’s essential to understand what Blockstream is actually attempting to do.

By decreasing the utility of on-chain transacting through artificial scarcity, Blockstream can carve a niche for their products to begin soaking up fees that would otherwise go to miners. They have to earn at least $76 million before their investors from legacy finance see a return. It's not a conspiracy... it's just business.   

I don't consider it a conspiracy but precisely business as you put it.

[Kprawn]

I suppose the fake stress tests has also decreased and SegWit has something to do with the faster confirmation times lately. I cannot wait for the full implementation to see what the difference will

be. The network is slowly but surely becoming a work of art... let's just hope LN will be the cherry on the cake. I think the Core developers followed the correct path in being over cautious with their

roadmap. Kicking the can down the road, seemed to be the best option for now... well... at least it is the safest option. 

[AgentofCoin]

Here is an updated version of this review I did recently. I've added more on sidechains and whatnot. Any info or suggestions are welcome.

https://medium.com/@paulennis/an-analysis-of-the-bitcoin-scaling-debate-part-ii-bitcoin-core-development-developers-e9afa3dca15#.4yll4u6pu

Another good article.
I was expecting to read about the Chinese miners, but it is more appropriate that you wrote
about Core since your last one was mainly on Classic and XT.

Keep up the good work. These short detailed articles provide more information and understanding
then from trying to read through dozens of threads on this forum and other sites.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

So they wanted to protect decentralization from a 2MB maxblocksize by pushing soft fork segwit which allows a 4MB multisig attack surface, makes sense.

Apples and oranges. I'll assume that you got that "attack surface" from either /r/btc or one of the "less popular" forums.

You're making declarative statements without supporting arguments again. How exactly is it apples to oranges? Will full nodes not have to transmit and store the up to 4MB that is allowed by segwit? Don't call non-segwit nodes full nodes either, because they aren't validating all tx on the Bitcoin network, like a full node would. The term "attack surface" was actually taken from the 1MB4EVA crowd very early in this debate. Back when they argued that having 2MB blocks provided a larger attack surface for tx "spammers". They stopped calling it that, or indeed arguing for 1MB4EVA once we found out that segwit would be up to 4MB for 1.7X the amount of tx's. 

Can you confirm that Blockstream will not be operating highly connected and well funded LN hubs?

No. You can't forbid anyone from creating a hub, else the system would lose its credibility.

I wasn't talking about "forbidding" them, that's silly. More wondering if a statement from Blockstream had been made that they wouldn't be directly profiting (at the expense of miners) from the network topology they are steering us toward.

[Cuidler]

I suppose the fake stress tests has also decreased and SegWit has something to do with the faster confirmation times lately. I cannot wait for the full implementation to see what the difference will

SegWit has no effect whatsoever because it is not activated yet. Thats why you cant send publictly SegWit transaction today, because anybody who is watching for transactions not requiring signature could spend it right away.

I wasn't talking about "forbidding" them, that's silly. More wondering if a statement from Blockstream had been made that they wouldn't be directly profiting (at the expense of miners) from the network topology they are steering us toward.

They expect the onchain fees to be much higher, so miners having enought fees. Thats pretty risky plan though, as highly regulated markets tends to work terribly, if at all.

[pbleak]

Here is an updated version of this review I did recently. I've added more on sidechains and whatnot. Any info or suggestions are welcome.

https://medium.com/@paulennis/an-analysis-of-the-bitcoin-scaling-debate-part-ii-bitcoin-core-development-developers-e9afa3dca15#.4yll4u6pu

Another good article.
I was expecting to read about the Chinese miners, but it is more appropriate that you wrote
about Core since your last one was mainly on Classic and XT.

Keep up the good work. These short detailed articles provide more information and understanding
then from trying to read through dozens of threads on this forum and other sites.

I got distracted by Core, but am currently working on the miners now. Just a little slower due to the Chinese language barrier!

[2c0de]

The scaling debate is the single most significant issue Bitcoin as an organization faces.

If the Bitcoin organization fails to deliver a solution, that satisfies the needs of all the people on the earth, this means Bitcoin as a project has failed.

A currency that only allows 3 transactions to be send per second, cannot fully satisfy the needs of the population.


This is the single most important issue Bitcoin faces. If Bitcoin cannot solve this, it means that for all intents and purposes the Bitcoin project is dead.

[pbleak]

The scaling debate is the single most significant issue Bitcoin as an organization faces.

If the Bitcoin organization fails to deliver a solution, that satisfies the needs of all the people on the earth, this means Bitcoin as a project has failed.

A currency that only allows 3 transactions to be send per second, cannot fully satisfy the needs of the population.


This is the single most important issue Bitcoin faces. If Bitcoin cannot solve this, it means that for all intents and purposes the Bitcoin project is dead.

I think at this point the debate is considered more or less over with agreement to try out SegWit.

[gmaxwell]

Transactions have been fast as lightning lately. Faster than they have ever been actually.

Can any of you developer guys out there confirm whether or not scaling has already taken place?

I used to wait several hours for a transfer to confirm on LocalBitcoins. I specifically remember waiting more than 6 hours back in november.

Over the last month or so all of my transactions have been confirming within 10 minutes

Anyone have any insight into this?

There aren't any fewer transactions, but six months ago the service you were using likely didn't implement fee estimation.  Without sane fee handling flood attacks can create big delays for otherwise ordinary transactions.

[Lauda]

You're making declarative statements without supporting arguments again. How exactly is it apples to oranges? Will full nodes not have to transmit and store the up to 4MB that is allowed by segwit?

Because your argument does not make sense. The answer to that question is yes.

Don't call non-segwit nodes full nodes either, because they aren't validating all tx on the Bitcoin network, like a full node would.

Correct.

The term "attack surface" was actually taken from the 1MB4EVA crowd very early in this debate. Back when they argued that having 2MB blocks provided a larger attack surface for tx "spammers". They stopped calling it that, or indeed arguing for 1MB4EVA once we found out that segwit would be up to 4MB for 1.7X the amount of tx's. 

Okay things that are wrong here: Nobody defined what this "attack surface is". Just because 4 MB of data can be transmitted that does not mean that it is an attack vector. Additionally, if there were a total of 4 MB of data transmitted (everything was multisig), the "1.7x" doesn't apply as that goes only for standard PSH transactions. There would be much more capacity in that single block.

I wasn't talking about "forbidding" them, that's silly. More wondering if a statement from Blockstream had been made that they wouldn't be directly profiting (at the expense of miners) from the network topology they are steering us toward.

Anyone who decides to run a Lightning Hub will directly receive the TX fees from within LN.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

So they wanted to protect decentralization from a 2MB maxblocksize by pushing soft fork segwit which allows a 4MB multisig attack surface, makes sense.

Apples and oranges. I'll assume that you got that "attack surface" from either /r/btc or one of the "less popular" forums.

You're making declarative statements without supporting arguments again. How exactly is it apples to oranges? Will full nodes not have to transmit and store the up to 4MB that is allowed by segwit? Don't call non-segwit nodes full nodes either, because they aren't validating all tx on the Bitcoin network, like a full node would. The term "attack surface" was actually taken from the 1MB4EVA crowd very early in this debate. Back when they argued that having 2MB blocks provided a larger attack surface for tx "spammers". They stopped calling it that, or indeed arguing for 1MB4EVA once we found out that segwit would be up to 4MB for 1.7X the amount of tx's. 

Because your argument does not make sense. The answer to that question is yes.

Sooo, it is comparably more burden on precious rasb pi full economic nodes to allow 4MB in an adversarial attack by a dastardly spammer. This is oranges to oranges, 2MB vs 4MB, and your argument had fallen apart from the very beginning. Unfortunate you didn't notice.

The term "attack surface" was actually taken from the 1MB4EVA crowd very early in this debate. Back when they argued that having 2MB blocks provided a larger attack surface for tx "spammers". They stopped calling it that, or indeed arguing for 1MB4EVA once we found out that segwit would be up to 4MB for 1.7X the amount of tx's. 

Okay things that are wrong here: Nobody defined what this "attack surface is". Just because 4 MB of data can be transmitted that does not mean that it is an attack vector. Additionally, if there were a total of 4 MB of data transmitted (everything was multisig), the "1.7x" doesn't apply as that goes only for standard PSH transactions. There would be much more capacity in that single block.

Wrong things here:

1. I just told you who used that term first, and in which context, please try to keep up. If blocks are mostly full of spam (citation: Luke-Jr), a bigger blocksize, or effectively bigger blocksize with segwit allows a bigger attack surface for the dastardly spammer.

2. Segwit adds space by removing signatures from segwit tx and placing them somewhere else, segwit multi-sig tx would have big signatures. In a sense I was being generous, you could fill 4MB with much less than 1.7x the amount of raw transactions from A to B.

There would be much more capacity in that single block.

This part doesn't really even make sense. Remember, regular tx data would still be trying to pile into the hardcoded 1MB. And multi-sig signatures can now be used to bloat up the rest of the "attack surface" to 4MB.

Can you confirm that Blockstream will not be operating highly connected and well funded LN hubs?

No. You can't forbid anyone from creating a hub, else the system would lose its credibility.

I wasn't talking about "forbidding" them, that's silly. More wondering if a statement from Blockstream had been made that they wouldn't be directly profiting (at the expense of miners) from the network topology they are steering us toward.

Anyone who decides to run a Lightning Hub will directly receive the TX fees from within LN.

Ah, more declarative statements. This is orthogonal to the issue I raised. Yes, if Blockstream runs highly connected and well funded LN hubs, they will get the fee revenue, not miners. This is why some believe Blockstream has a conflict of interest to hamper on-chain growth in a quest to actually become a profitable company vs just a VC and legacy finance slush fund for buying off key developers.

[gmaxwell]

There aren't 'hubs' in lightning, especially not any form of it I support. Blockstream has no business plans to collect bitcoin fee income from lightning, never has, and the claim otherwise is just whole cloth fabrication.