Bitcoin's Success Leading to Doom?

[S_D]

Bitcoin's Success Leading to Doom?

So there's huge discussion still in progress about the scalability of Bitcoin and how it could be managed.

From what I understand IMO bitcoin will fail because it will get widely accepted and then no matter what fork is made, the blockchain will get huge in size to the extent of mismanagement eventually. (We cannot maintain a ledger for centuries... or can we?)

Soon there will be a cost to run node & nodes aren't being rewarded enough.

Huge Blockchain -> Stressed Nodes -> Lack of motivation to run node -> Fewer Nodes -> Centralization of voting power -> Purpose defeated

I would like to hear what other member have to say in this context.

P.S:
The curve in this chart will only keep getting steeper:
https://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all


Update:
Some valid arguments made by members here:

• Moore's law reduces costs. It will get cheaper to manage this ecosystem.
• Maintaining a node is far less expensive but will probably get costly or cheaper (referring the clash with Moore's law here)
• Many aren't aware of how serious this issue is!
• https://medium.com/@spair/the-bitcoin-fee-market-4df1857d12b7#.9h4fc04nr

 ^{Disclaimer: This topic is opinion driven we are only trying to get close to a good speculation.}

[European Central Bank]

nodes already cost. they'll eat your entire data allowance and then some if you allow it.

and of course people will maintain a ledger if it has value.

I think it'll come to a crunch where hobbyists can't do it any more. question is whether there are richer hobbyists to continue or whether commercial entities will actively try to maintain decentralisation.

I think we'll be offered an illusion of it like Chinese mining but it would take a crisis to properly reassert it.

[bravehearth0319]

nodes already cost. they'll eat your entire data allowance and then some if you allow it.

and of course people will maintain a ledger if it has value.

I think it'll come to a crunch where hobbyists can't do it any more. question is whether there are richer hobbyists to continue or whether commercial entities will actively try to maintain decentralisation.

I think we'll be offered an illusion of it like Chinese mining but it would take a crisis to properly reassert it.

Yes that's true, nodes function is acting like a boss this is just an illustration example. And I don't think that bitcoin success leading to doom. As long as we will keep and protect the ledger or maintain due to the value it has the decentralization will continue to be apply.

[dothebeats]

nodes already cost. they'll eat your entire data allowance and then some if you allow it.

and of course people will maintain a ledger if it has value.

I think it'll come to a crunch where hobbyists can't do it any more. question is whether there are richer hobbyists to continue or whether commercial entities will actively try to maintain decentralisation.

I think we'll be offered an illusion of it like Chinese mining but it would take a crisis to properly reassert it.

Afaik it's not only hobbyists who maintain and run nodes to help the network. Miners profit very largely from bitcoins so they can create their own nodes if they want to continue earning $$$. Since miners are already running machines that consumes a lot of power 24/7/365, why won't they create their own nodes to aid there mining operations too, right? It's just a small fraction of $$$ compared to what they are earning anyways.

[Hydrogen]

From what I understand IMO bitcoin will fail because it will get widely accepted and then no matter what fork is made, the blockchain will get huge in size to the extent of mismanagement eventually. (We cannot maintain a ledger for centuries... or can we?)

I wonder sometimes if Moore's Law dictates transistors, network bandwidth and file space storage could grow at a faster rate than the blockchain.

If not maybe we'll have people in the future calling for optimization or compression of the blockchain similar to how people are calling for different block sizes now.

Hardware upgrades over time could solve some of these concerns.

[European Central Bank]

I wonder sometimes if Moore's Law dictates transistors, network bandwidth and file space storage could grow at a faster rate than the blockchain.

transistors and space are easy. bandwidth is out of the user's hands. that depends on your local telecom company deciding to spend a few million upgrading.

[Vaccinus]

yeah the limit tot he block is really hurting bitcoin on the long run, do you think that average people will pay almost $1 to send $10 to their friend no way lol, there will be a day when no one will use bitcoin anymore, and just hoarding because the fee will be too expensive, how core and miners think this is good, what they are waiting to reach their consensus?

[Hydrogen]

transistors and space are easy. bandwidth is out of the user's hands. that depends on your local telecom company deciding to spend a few million upgrading.

In the united states, there is something called a "telecommunications tax" which in theory, is spent towards maintaining and upgrading internet infrastructure.

Past politicians have likely spent telecom taxes on wars, submarine aircraft carriers or something other than its intended purpose.

Perhaps Donald Trump can get things back on track & have those taxes spent on upgrading & maintaining american internet.

Which in turn, could put pressure on foreign countries to follow suit and do the same.

Eventually everything could be fiber and FIOS.

At the moment asian countries have the best average internet speeds but maybe there's no reason the rest of the world won't catch up to them?

Which could in turn make bitcoin operations more manageable and viable?

[Kprawn]

A lot of businesses run nodes, because their business is run on top of Bitcoin, so it makes sense to support the network. In some countries that

might be deducted from tax as a business expense.  How many other businesses work in their capital invested into IT into their tax returns. 

The scaling problems is only temporary and will not go on forever... be patient. 

[nikona]

A lot of businesses run nodes, because their business is run on top of Bitcoin, so it makes sense to support the network. In some countries that

might be deducted from tax as a business expense.  How many other businesses work in their capital invested into IT into their tax returns. 

The scaling problems is only temporary and will not go on forever... be patient. 

I agree, as long as it is profitable or some company is dependent or related to BTC, they will try their best to support the network because if it fails, they will lose money. I think scaling would be a problem for a month or two. Some decision has to be taken by then and I'm sure it will all be alright. Just hang in tight.

[Lauda]

False exaggeration due to lack of understanding.

Soon there will be a cost to run node & nodes aren't being rewarded.

There is already a cost to run a node and the reward for running nodes are self incentivized, privacy and security. 

Huge Blockchain > Stressed Nodes > Lack of motivation to run node > Fewer Nodes > Centralization of voting power > Purpose defeated

More users -> More wealthy users -> More smarter users who want to reap those benefits.

-snip-
I think scaling would be a problem for a month or two. Some decision has to be taken by then and I'm sure it will all be alright. Just hang in tight.

You don't know how Bitcoin works, please stop posting rubbish.

[Morbid]

im sorry, but really getting tired here of doom threads indirectly promoting other forks..

[jak3]

i fully agree that bitcoin is moving towards the slow death and i see no way to solve this blockchain problem except of any miracle in midway or if one one pops out with a brand new mining strategy  and techniques which can extend its lifetime a bit or two, after all if it dies i have seen a great time observing what can humans do if  they get a perfect situations and a good technology

[HaXX0R1337]

The said things might be true and it is possible it could happen and what if Satoshi envisioned all these .Let me explain he does hold a lot of coins in his arsenal and he never touched a lot of it and when a time comes he has to invest to maintain a node he might re appear again and he will make an announcement that he will be using those coins for maintaining it.

[Lauda]

im sorry, but really getting tired here of doom threads indirectly promoting other forks..

Ironically, the 'other forks' solve nothing. Neither do the shitcoins that are being promoted for pumping and dumping. In fact, a lot of them have worse scalability issues.

i fully agree that bitcoin is moving towards the slow death and i see no way to solve this blockchain problem
-snip-

There is no problem. If you understood Bitcoin, you'd run a node yourself.

The said things might be true and it is possible it could happen and what if Satoshi envisioned all these .Let me explain he does hold a lot of coins in his arsenal and he never touched a lot of it and when a time comes he has to invest to maintain a node he might re appear again and he will make an announcement that he will be using those coins for maintaining it.

Stop making up bullshit.

[york780]

bitcoin succes leading to doom for banks and other safe heavens.

[squatz1]

There is going to be a reason in order for people to run nodes if people would really like to see the mass adoption of bitcoin in the future. It's something that people do in order to help the cause of bitcoin but at this point the entire ledger is around 100GB and they don't really see a reason to waste 1/10th of a TB on my pc in order to run a node.

Some people, may want to do it out of the goodwill of their hearts, but most are going to want some sort of incentive in order to run a node so they feel like they'r at least getting something out of it in exchange for their hardware.

I feel this is the biggest issue with bitcoin today and it must be addressed.

[cellard]

nodes already cost. they'll eat your entire data allowance and then some if you allow it.

and of course people will maintain a ledger if it has value.

I think it'll come to a crunch where hobbyists can't do it any more. question is whether there are richer hobbyists to continue or whether commercial entities will actively try to maintain decentralisation.

I think we'll be offered an illusion of it like Chinese mining but it would take a crisis to properly reassert it.

If nodes become centralized run by specialist bitcoin will be dead, so its better to leave the blocksize small and have virtual gold that is expensive and slow to move rather than a centralized digital token which is valueless.

We can always have segwit + LN if stupid Jihan wants of course.

[Hazir]

the blockchain will get huge in size to the extent of mismanagement eventually. (We cannot maintain a ledger for centuries... or can we?)

If the size of the blockchain is your main concern then you are worrying to much.

1. Moore's law reduces storage costs. Blockchain size is now 113GB. By the time it will be terabytes, terabytes won't be expensive at all.
2. Maintaining a node is far, far less expensive that run any forum of banking database and it will forever be that way.
3. Vast majority of users don't need to run a full node. We have SPV wallets easily accessible for anyone.

[valta4065]

Agreed.

There is indeed a huge problem. BTC price and adoption can't just continue to rise.
Not with the current structure of btc network.
I already pay 50cents fee for every transaction, I'm not going to pay 2 fuckng dollars for that ><