timothyharley (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
|
|
July 07, 2017, 03:47:59 AM Last edit: October 10, 2017, 04:05:59 PM by timothyharley |
|
Nắm bắt được nhu cầu ngày càng cao hiện nay, Ngân hàng thịnh vượng Việt Nam VP Bank đang chạy chương trình hỗ trợ gói vốn vay tín chấp với lãi suất ưu đãi, nhằm mang lại nhiều sự phục vụ hơn cho khách hàng, hỗ trợ họ về mặt tài chính, nhưng do nhu cầu quá cao, nên rất nhiều vấn đề phát sinh. Tuy vay tín chấp có thủ tục đơn giản nhưng cũng có không ít điều cần phải tìm hiểu kí trước khi đi vay. Để làm điều đó, các khách hàng hãy click here để biết thêm chi tiết nhé. Hiện nay, các tổ chức tín dụng lần lượt ra đời, nổi trội lên đó là prudential finance, tổ chức tín dụng chuyên hỗ trợ gói vốn vay tín chấp. Vay tín chấp có cái mặt lợi và mặt hại riêng của nó, khi đi vay, chúng ta sẽ không thế chấp bất kì loại tài sản nào, hơn nữa thủ tục lại đơn giản, gọn lẹ, và thời gian giải ngân nhanh hơn. Tuy nhiên, lãi suất chắc chắn sẽ cao hơn bình thường và thường dao động từ 1.76%-2.95%. Bên cạnh đó số tiền vay tối đa sẽ giảm đi rất nhiều, điều này cũng dễ hiểu, nhằm hạn chế thấp nhất sự rủi ro. Quay trở lại với phần lãi suất, tất cả các tổ chức tín dụng đều có mức lãi suất tương đương nhau, và nhiều khách hàng cho rằng mức đó đang “cao ngất ngưỡng”, điều này dấy lên nhiều làn sóng, thông tin trái chiều nhau, gây ra không ít sự hỗn loạn. Khi đi vay, các khách hàng sẽ được tư vấn một mức lãi suất khá thấp, làm hài lòng không ít người nhưng thực trả lại cao hơn nhiều, gây nhiều phiền phức cho họ. Nhưng không phải tổ chức tín dụng nào cũng vậy, trong số đo vẫn nổi lên rất nhiều tổ chức tín dụng uy tín như: prudential là điển hình, hay fecredit, saigon hd... Vay vốn ngân hàng[/center] Điểm chung của các tổ chức này là đều có mức tư vấn lãi suất gần như ngang bằng với giá thực ra. Nhưng dù sao, để đảm bảo, thì người đi vay phải nắm rõ đầy đủ thông tin về hình thức vay và đặc biệt là lãi suất vay. Để làm được điều đó, các bạn hãy truy cập vào link sau: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vay-tin-chap-ngan-hang-lai-suat-thap-nhat-vay-nhanh. Trong các gói sản phẩm hỗ trợ vay tín chấp, thì vay tiêu dùng luôn là hình thức được nhiều người đón nhận nhất, bởi vì trong cuộc sống ngày càng phát triển, hiện đại, nhu cầu tiêu dùng cá nhân càng tăng cao, nên nhiều người đã tìm đến hình thức vay tiêu dùng cá nhân. Khi hình thức vay tiêu dùng được ngân hàng nhà nước duyệt, thì nhanh chóng các tổ chức tín dụng bùng nổ gói vốn vay này, tuy nhiên các gói vốn vay này đều đồng loạt có lãi suất khá cao, dao động từ 30%-40%, nếu trả chậm, mức phạt sẽ rất cao và đặc biệt là bị nợ xấu, nợ đen, gây ảnh hưởng rất lớn sau này. Vay tín chấp của ngân hàng[/center] Tất cả những lí do này đã gây áp lực nặng nề lên các tổ chức tín dụng và cả những người đi vay. Bên cạnh đó, với hình thức xét duyệt đơn giản, chỉ cần có chứng minh nhân dân, sổ hộ khẩu, ảnh 3x4 và một loại giấy tờ chứng minh thu nhập bản thân là bạn có thể được giải ngân ngay sau đó. Điều này làm thu hút rất nhiều người, những người có thu nhập thấp, những sinh viên mới ra trường, những doanh nghiệp tổ chức nhỏ muốn đầu tư thêm vốn vào công ty mình...điều này gây nhiều hệ lụy, mà đối tượng phải gánh chịu là những người đi vay. Vì vậy, việc nắm rõ và được tư vấn là nhiệm vụ và quyền lợi của người đi vay, do đó khi đi vay, trở thành bên vay, chúng ta cần nắm rõ các hình thức cũng như thủ tục, đặt biệt là vay nhanh. Và chúng ta nên vay ở các tổ chức uy tín như prudential...Để hỗ trợ điều này, các quý khách hãy truy cập vay tín chấp prudential tphcm để tìm hiểu nhé. a
|
|
|
|
jekjekman
|
|
July 07, 2017, 04:51:26 AM |
|
Block size is important and it is the dilemma that bitcoin transactions is having right now and that were the developers is making improvements on, in upgrading for much bigger block size to cope up for faster and cheaper transactions again.
Each block of bitcoin contains 1MB of data, meaning that the block size of bitcoin is 1 megabyte. This means that there is a limit to how many transactions can fit in Bitcoin's blocks. And with this issue being said I think most of against this change is the small time miners because getting a larger size requires another good hardware to mine upgraded block size.
If we don't embrace the changes that's the only intention is for good then Bitcoin's future is in jeopardy. It's either we change or other will do it for us. Changes is inevitable though.
|
|
|
|
skyline247
|
|
July 07, 2017, 05:04:57 AM |
|
You are correct. While doubling the blocksize, or even quadrupling it for that matter may help in the short run, down the road it will not make a lick of a difference. It is a very temporary solution to a long-term problem. This is why we need to seriously explore the other options rather than put a bandaid on this open wound. Let's just solve it once and for all, so we no longer need to have these discussions.
It looks bad on the community and Bitcoin as a whole when we become divided like this. We must unite, rather than what we are doing now.
|
|
|
|
Rahar02
|
|
July 07, 2017, 05:12:26 AM |
|
Block size is very important as it is relate to confirmation time for every transaction, look at this ( https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions --- https://blockchain.info/charts/transactions-per-second) you will see that 2,11 transaction/sec and how much unconfirmed transaction? over 9,3K right now. Community want faster confirmation time, if there are too many unconfirmed transactions people will add more fee in order to make it confirmed even faster than any other low fees transactions. Because current problems of bitcoin are, people should pay high fees and wait for long time to get it confirmed. So, we need bigger block size to take more transactions, included into blockchain and hopefully we will pay normal fees such as before.
|
|
|
|
CoinCidental
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000
Si vis pacem, para bellum
|
|
July 07, 2017, 05:21:28 AM |
|
You are correct. While doubling the blocksize, or even quadrupling it for that matter may help in the short run, down the road it will not make a lick of a difference. It is a very temporary solution to a long-term problem. This is why we need to seriously explore the other options rather than put a bandaid on this open wound. Let's just solve it once and for all, so we no longer need to have these discussions.
It looks bad on the community and Bitcoin as a whole when we become divided like this. We must unite, rather than what we are doing now.
a dynamic blocksize will be fine ,the arguments against solutions like BU are nonsense no miner will ever attempt to mine a block thats too big for the network to handle but segwit2x comes with a series of progressional hardforks to get to a 16MB blocksize by summer 2019 i personally rather a solution that doesnt have segwit but if 90% of the miners and businesses want segwit2x then we have to go along for the ride
|
|
|
|
ranreichman
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
Snip CEO
|
|
July 07, 2017, 05:49:11 AM |
|
I think people are being disingenuous about this. Bitcoin can't scale to mass usage with a 2MB block or an 8MB block or even larger. An additional network will be needed for Bitcoin to truly scale. The Lightning Network is one option but others could also possibly work.
|
|
|
|
Kakmakr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3542
Merit: 1965
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
|
|
July 07, 2017, 06:13:36 AM |
|
If it was not important, then Satoshi would not have included it in his code. SegWit with Snorr Signatures are trying to reduce the size of the data being added to the tx's and the Blockchain, so it is not just addressing the larger Block size needed for increased adoption. The Big Blockers are focusing on only increasing the Block size and I think that is a bit short sighted. You have to tackle this issue from more than one angle and also constantly increase the Block size as Satoshi suggested. ^smile^
|
..Stake.com.. | | | ▄████████████████████████████████████▄ ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄████▄ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ▀██▀ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████▄ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████▀ ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ██ ██ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████████████████████████████████████ | | | | | | ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ ▄▀▄ █▀▀█▀▄▄ █ █▀█ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▄██▄ █ ▌ █ █ ▄██████▄ █ ▌ ▐▌ █ ██████████ █ ▐ █ █ ▐██████████▌ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▀▀██████▀▀ █ ▌ █ █ ▄▄▄██▄▄▄ █ ▌▐▌ █ █▐ █ █ █▐▐▌ █ █▐█ ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█ | | | | | | ▄▄█████████▄▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄█▀ ▐█▌ ▀█▄ ██ ▐█▌ ██ ████▄ ▄█████▄ ▄████ ████████▄███████████▄████████ ███▀ █████████████ ▀███ ██ ███████████ ██ ▀█▄ █████████ ▄█▀ ▀█▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄▄▄█▀ ▀███████ ███████▀ ▀█████▄ ▄█████▀ ▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀ | | | ..PLAY NOW.. |
|
|
|
piloder
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1006
|
|
July 07, 2017, 06:14:52 AM |
|
Should I assume 2MB blocks (without other supporting stats and data) will solve every problem bitcoin faces?
There is no way to solve every future problem bitcoin network might have with just one solution or update. Segwit2x is designed to solve current block size issue so that bitcoin will again be cheaper and faster like before.
|
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
|
|
July 07, 2017, 07:15:30 AM |
|
Block size isn't important.
What is important, is how many transactions per second 2MB and larger block sizes can yield.
You couldn't be more right The storage space is the means, not the end. Transactions per second is what's actually important.Storage space is not the only means to increase the transaction rate. It may be the most effective force multiplier, but it's equally effective at persuading users to not run a Bitcoin full node. And the network of Bitcoin full nodes is what makes everyone's BTC valuable, so we depend on getting the balance between transaction space and a decentralised Bitcoin network exactly right. This means the blocksize has to be as close as possible to exactly the right size to reflect that balancing act.
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
Amph
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1070
|
|
July 07, 2017, 07:49:26 AM |
|
you say it it's how many tx per secodn you can sustain, which is the point of having an additional space in the block size, but this isn't a good solution for solving the issue
because if we need more space we then need to fork again to increase it another time, we need a solution that can be conclusive for any numbers of TX we need to sustain
and LN isn't the only one, there was another proposal regarding the block like Extension block
|
|
|
|
dinofelis
|
|
July 07, 2017, 09:31:12 AM |
|
Should I assume 2MB blocks (without other supporting stats and data) will solve every problem bitcoin faces?
Bitcoin is facing a problem because its designer didn't know how to solve this problem, and in fact, the very first discussion points with Satoshi were exactly about this: in a system where every user is supposed to be aware of every transaction of every other user (which was the basic core idea of bitcoin), if this system grows, how are you going to cope with the extra demand on network resources, computing resources and storage resources *for every user* ? This is the famous "block chain scaling problem". However, is it really a problem, and is the resource problem the core of the problem ? The answer to both is "no". There is no actual resource problem in scaling, and it is not the true problem at all. There ARE other problems, related to this, though, but the resource problem is a false problem. Why ? First of all, because the scaling is not infinite. There is a finite amount of potential users of bitcoin. Even if this finite amount is big, and is reached, the resource problem is not RIDICULOUSLY large. Satoshi pointed out in 2008, that one can expect, IF EVER BITCOIN IS GOING TO BE A WORLD CURRENCY, to have about 1 GB blocks. 1 GB blocks, even though large, is not ridiculously large. 1 GB every 10 minutes, is of the order of 150 GB a day, or ~1 TB a week. While this is a lot for an average user, this is not ridiculously large, and by the time IF EVER, bitcoin is going to become a world currency, this technical problem will not be significant. Most probably, bitcoin will NOT become a world currency, simply because it has been designed as a speculative gambling token, and NOT as an ideal currency. So we are considering most probably a problem in a case that will not happen ; and if it happens, but sufficiently far in the future (say, 15 years from now), it won't even be a technical problem. In other words, we are right now thinking about something that is a technical non-problem, for an improbable situation (namely, where bitcoin were going to be a world currency, while it is ill-designed for that purpose in any case). The second answer Satoshi provided, which is very true, is that NOT EVERY USER NEEDS A FULL COPY OF THE BLOCK CHAIN. There is no use for that. If there are A FEW servers of the same block chain around, every user only needs a VERY TINY PART of that block chain, namely, what a light wallet uses: the SPV protocol. The whole argument for the need for decentralization to have all Joe's using bitcoin to have a copy of the whole chain in their basement, is bogus, because the only DECIDERS on the block chain are the miners. Joe's server in his basement serves no decentralization purpose. Joe has nothing to say, even if he copies all the Petabytes of the hypothetical mega block chain. So: 1) most probably bitcoin will not NEED TO SCALE to full currency usage scale, because bitcoin is ill defined as a currency (it is a speculative token for speculators, not a currency for buying coffee - it is not ideal money). 2) even if it were to scale, which is improbable, if it does it in the sufficient future (say, 15 years), the technical burden is not gigantic for users that want to copy the block chain. 3) users don't even need to copy the block chain. Only a few servers doing so is enough for SPV wallets to function correctly. There's no power to be had by having a copy of the unique block chain over which one has, in any case, nothing to say if one is not a miner. ==> the whole discussion about decentralization and resources and so on is a FALSE PROBLEM. But what is the REAL PROBLEM ? The real problem is the remuneration of the miners when the block reward runs out, and the game-theoretical aspects that follow from that. Without a block size limit that creates artificial transaction scarcity, miners cannot force users to compete for a scarce resource, and will not get paid enough to secure the block chain with the silly PoW security. Moreover, without fees, the block chain room becomes a resource that will be wasted by spam or many parasitic applications. The problem that Satoshi didn't know how to solve and which has no good game-theoretical solution in the frame of the (silly) economic rules that Satoshi gave to bitcoin, is: how to secure the chain when the block reward runs out ? THIS is the real problem. Nobody knows how to solve it in a satisfactory way with PoW and sound money theory. This is what will kill bitcoin in the end. Not the mumbo jumbo about resources or decentralisation. These are straw man arguments to keep people away from the true problem.
|
|
|
|
Itty Bitty
Member
Offline
Activity: 138
Merit: 14
|
|
July 07, 2017, 10:02:04 AM |
|
Should I assume 2MB blocks (without other supporting stats and data) will solve every problem bitcoin faces?
Bitcoin is facing a problem because its designer didn't know how to solve this problem, and in fact, the very first discussion points with Satoshi were exactly about this: in a system where every user is supposed to be aware of every transaction of every other user (which was the basic core idea of bitcoin), if this system grows, how are you going to cope with the extra demand on network resources, computing resources and storage resources *for every user* ? This is the famous "block chain scaling problem". However, is it really a problem, and is the resource problem the core of the problem ? The answer to both is "no". There is no actual resource problem in scaling, and it is not the true problem at all. There ARE other problems, related to this, though, but the resource problem is a false problem. Why ? First of all, because the scaling is not infinite. There is a finite amount of potential users of bitcoin. Even if this finite amount is big, and is reached, the resource problem is not RIDICULOUSLY large. Satoshi pointed out in 2008, that one can expect, IF EVER BITCOIN IS GOING TO BE A WORLD CURRENCY, to have about 1 GB blocks. 1 GB blocks, even though large, is not ridiculously large. 1 GB every 10 minutes, is of the order of 150 GB a day, or ~1 TB a week. While this is a lot for an average user, this is not ridiculously large, and by the time IF EVER, bitcoin is going to become a world currency, this technical problem will not be significant. Most probably, bitcoin will NOT become a world currency, simply because it has been designed as a speculative gambling token, and NOT as an ideal currency. So we are considering most probably a problem in a case that will not happen ; and if it happens, but sufficiently far in the future (say, 15 years from now), it won't even be a technical problem. In other words, we are right now thinking about something that is a technical non-problem, for an improbable situation (namely, where bitcoin were going to be a world currency, while it is ill-designed for that purpose in any case). The second answer Satoshi provided, which is very true, is that NOT EVERY USER NEEDS A FULL COPY OF THE BLOCK CHAIN. There is no use for that. If there are A FEW servers of the same block chain around, every user only needs a VERY TINY PART of that block chain, namely, what a light wallet uses: the SPV protocol. The whole argument for the need for decentralization to have all Joe's using bitcoin to have a copy of the whole chain in their basement, is bogus, because the only DECIDERS on the block chain are the miners. Joe's server in his basement serves no decentralization purpose. Joe has nothing to say, even if he copies all the Petabytes of the hypothetical mega block chain. So: 1) most probably bitcoin will not NEED TO SCALE to full currency usage scale, because bitcoin is ill defined as a currency (it is a speculative token for speculators, not a currency for buying coffee - it is not ideal money). 2) even if it were to scale, which is improbable, if it does it in the sufficient future (say, 15 years), the technical burden is not gigantic for users that want to copy the block chain. 3) users don't even need to copy the block chain. Only a few servers doing so is enough for SPV wallets to function correctly. There's no power to be had by having a copy of the unique block chain over which one has, in any case, nothing to say if one is not a miner. ==> the whole discussion about decentralization and resources and so on is a FALSE PROBLEM. But what is the REAL PROBLEM ? The real problem is the remuneration of the miners when the block reward runs out, and the game-theoretical aspects that follow from that. Without a block size limit that creates artificial transaction scarcity, miners cannot force users to compete for a scarce resource, and will not get paid enough to secure the block chain with the silly PoW security. Moreover, without fees, the block chain room becomes a resource that will be wasted by spam or many parasitic applications. The problem that Satoshi didn't know how to solve and which has no good game-theoretical solution in the frame of the (silly) economic rules that Satoshi gave to bitcoin, is: how to secure the chain when the block reward runs out ? THIS is the real problem. Nobody knows how to solve it in a satisfactory way with PoW and sound money theory. This is what will kill bitcoin in the end. Not the mumbo jumbo about resources or decentralisation. These are straw man arguments to keep people away from the true problem. This is the kind of analysis and thinking that would have led to the 1988 version of the internet to scale to about 10,000 users at any one time by the year 2017. Actually, I am wrong. According to your last paragraph, the internet would have scaled to zero users by 2017. Bitcoin needs more Al Gore's, fewer you's.
|
|
|
|
dinofelis
|
|
July 07, 2017, 11:40:45 AM |
|
This is the kind of analysis and thinking that would have led to the 1988 version of the internet to scale to about 10,000 users at any one time by the year 2017.
In fact, it is entirely the opposite. Bitcoin's block chain limit to 1MB is akin to specifying that IP addresses shouldn't be more than 16 bit, because otherwise, poor people with 8-bit processors and 64K ram would have to waste too much memory on IP tables. It is bitcoin's kind of thinking that was also inspiring Bill Gates to claim that 640 KB or RAM address space is more than enough for a home PC, ever. The idea that one should put in small hard limits to avoid the need of computing resources (which is the stance of people wanting small blocks) is what would, indeed, have kept the internet to about 10 000 users. I'm saying exactly the opposite: that there is NO resource problem with bitcoin, and that one is INVENTING a BOGUS resource problem, because EVEN if bitcoin were to go mainstream, by the time it does, the resources needed for that would be available. I'm telling you that bitcoin has OTHER design problems, that 1) most probably will not make it go mainstream and 2) are fundamentally flawed in the economic design (in fact, 1 and 2 are even related). Crippling bitcoin even FURTHER because of a NON-EXISTING resource problem, won't help. Actually, I am wrong. According to your last paragraph, the internet would have scaled to zero users by 2017.
If the internet were designed like bitcoin, with hard usage limits in it, yes. Bitcoin needs more Al Gore's, fewer you's.
If bitcoin needs Al Gore's, then that can only confirm my position that it is ill defined
|
|
|
|
NeuroticFish
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3864
Merit: 6591
Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!
|
|
July 07, 2017, 12:04:02 PM |
|
1) most probably bitcoin will not NEED TO SCALE to full currency usage scale, because bitcoin is ill defined as a currency (it is a speculative token for speculators, not a currency for buying coffee - it is not ideal money).
Bitcoin is ill defined? Maybe. But for a starter it's not so bad. Unfortunately at this point there's too much money in the game and the changes are made slowly and with extra care, and even so the resistance is huge. But you are right. Bitcoin is far from perfect (see? it sounds much better than "ill defined") and it still needs to evolve. Dogecoin may have been designed as "coffee money", something small and inflationary enough to allow everybody have it. Bitcoin is closer to assets and gold than "coffee money", but since we have so many altcoins it's okay. Really. At least for now. You can buy online goods with Bitcoin, you can pay bills, even paying for hotel rooms is okay, as long as there are no spam attacks. Block size isn't important.
From what I've read here and there bigger blocks open a door for more problems in Bitcoin, that's why core devs tried to avoid it. Maybe smarter people can tell on better words. That's why actually and technically block size is important. What is important, is how many transactions per second 2MB and larger block sizes can yield.
Yes, Bitcoin has to support more transactions. Or at least support the real transactions (yeah, I know, how to decide that?). Back to coffee money. Even if tomorrow Bitcoin blocksize will not be limited (keep only the technical limitation, 1GB?) it will still not become coffee money. And that's because nobody will wait an average of 20 minutes until a transaction is confirmed. For that another step of evolution is needed. If Bitcoin does that in time, fine. If it doesn't, still fine, there are plenty of altcoins that want to fill the gap.
|
|
|
|
fitty
|
|
July 07, 2017, 12:06:45 PM |
|
Both are important i think sir,block size is just the main problem here because it cant hold up more and more transactions at the same time causing confirmatiojs to get delayed,they need larger block size for transactions to move freely
|
|
|
|
dinofelis
|
|
July 07, 2017, 12:36:45 PM |
|
Bitcoin is ill defined? Maybe. But for a starter it's not so bad.
Bitcoin's monetary model is based upon a bogus application of sound money doctrine, but has no value regulation mechanism in it that tries to make bitcoin keep constant economic value (or slightly and predictably increasing or decreasing value). In other words, bitcoin has no deflation/inflation control AT ALL, and has fallen into a speculative deflationary spiral. At the same time, it has suffered HUGE seigniorage. That's about the worst thing one can have as a "currency". It is very remote from Nash's "ideal money" that keeps constant economic value, and is hence a risk-less fluidifier of economic transactions, which is what a currency is supposed to be. It is this SAME sound money doctrine that forces the block rewards to go down, and forces a fee market to emerge, which it only can if transactions are scarce enough so that people pay enough fees to do a lot of PoW by miners. THIS is the problem that Satoshi didn't solve (and is, as far as I know, not solvable game-theoretically). There is no way to have a sufficiently lucrative fee market without at the same time having block size limits that make transactions scarce and difficult, but what's worse, there's no known mechanism that can regulate that automatically and is robust against being gamed by the miners, pushing the fees to whatever the market can bear. Both these aspects make bitcoin into a highly speculative asset that is only good for large transactions where the market can accept huge fees. But that's reserved for a relatively small set of people, is not going to go mainstream as the world's means of payment, and hence there IS no scaling problem because it won't need to scale to world currency levels of transactions (and, as I said, even if it were, that's not a technical problem if it is a decade or so away ; and even then, it is not a problem because not all users need to run full nodes - only miners and big users like exchanges need to).
|
|
|
|
dinofelis
|
|
July 07, 2017, 12:40:31 PM |
|
From what I've read here and there bigger blocks open a door for more problems in Bitcoin, that's why core devs tried to avoid it. Maybe smarter people can tell on better words.
Core is saying that because their agenda is to push people off-chain onto their LN. Gavin was right on that one. There is NO technical problem with big blocks, but there is a huge economic problem with it if the block rewards run out. But the LN is dangerous on block-limited systems, because for the LN to be inherently safe, ALL channels must *at any time* be able to settle. If settlement is limited (by limited blocks), then the LN becomes unsafe. So it is somehow ironic that Core is pushing for a LARGE LN on a SMALL chain, because that constellation is what makes LN unsafe. LN would be perfectly safe on UNLIMITED block chains - but then, nobody would use it apart for specific applications like your link to your exchange, but where "multi-hop" links are not needed.
|
|
|
|
thejaytiesto
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
|
|
July 07, 2017, 12:43:22 PM |
|
First of all, because the scaling is not infinite. There is a finite amount of potential users of bitcoin. Even if this finite amount is big, and is reached, the resource problem is not RIDICULOUSLY large. Satoshi pointed out in 2008, that one can expect, IF EVER BITCOIN IS GOING TO BE A WORLD CURRENCY, to have about 1 GB blocks.
How are you supposed to keep the bitcoin network decentralized if we are having 1GB blocks every 10 minutes? who is the custodial of the network if not a couple of deep pocket corporations and how is that decentralized at that point?
|
|
|
|
dinofelis
|
|
July 07, 2017, 12:47:26 PM |
|
How are you supposed to keep the bitcoin network decentralized if we are having 1GB blocks every 10 minutes? who is the custodial of the network if not a couple of deep pocket corporations and how is that decentralize at that point?
The possession of non-mining nodes doesn't contribute to the decentralization of bitcoin's consensus mechanism, which is SOLELY decided by miners and doesn't need Joe's full node in his basement. So whether Joe has invested in a node in his basement or not, the ONLY THING Joe's node can do, is to copy the sole chain on which miners came to consensus - whatever that chain is, according to whatever protocol - or NOT copy that chain, at which point his full node stopped, and has the same effect as being removed or switched off, which will affect nobody. But by the time that bitcoin NEEDS 1 GB blocks, if ever, most Joe's will be prefectly capable of affording such a node in their basement, even though it doesn't serve much of a purpose (it does serve some privacy purpose to Joe but that's about it). At this point in time, only about 20 entities make all the consensus decisions in bitcoin ; half of them by only 5 entities (which may even be related). That's the true state of "decentralisation" of bitcoin. All the people that can only copy those data and serve as a proxy for it are not part of the decision power, and hence are not part of the decentralisation of the consensus.
|
|
|
|
NeuroticFish
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3864
Merit: 6591
Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!
|
|
July 07, 2017, 12:50:09 PM |
|
Bitcoin is based upon a bogus application of sound money doctrine, but has no value regulation mechanism in it that tries to make bitcoin keep constant economic value (or slightly and predictably increasing or decreasing value). In other words, bitcoin has no deflation/inflation control AT ALL, and has fallen into a speculative deflationary spiral.
Imho it was designed to be deflationary. Just think: 21M cap from start, the real chance that some money will be lost (pk lost, tx sent to wrong address or simply burned..), this doesn't look like a mistake. Since Bitcoin was an anti-banking system, I think that it was designed to be deflationary as opposite to the inflationary every day fiat. Dogecoin was designed to be inflationary and the markets were not happy about that... Both these aspects make bitcoin into a highly speculative asset that is only good for large transactions where the market can accept huge fees.
The fees were huge because of the spam attacks. This was a mistake caused by Bitcoin development falling a bit behind (imho), although "development" is not the best word here, getting the development live would be more correct. Normally only the careless faucet-dependent newbies (or similar) get to pay too big fees. You know, tons of small inputs. Both these aspects make bitcoin into a highly speculative asset
Money attracts speculators, that's caused by it's success, not by the design. Even poorly designed (or scammy) ICOs attract speculators, so Bitcoin becoming a speculative asset is .. normal and expected. Edit: From what I've read here and there bigger blocks open a door for more problems in Bitcoin, that's why core devs tried to avoid it. Maybe smarter people can tell on better words.
Core is saying that because their agenda is to push people off-chain onto their LN. Gavin was right on that one. There is NO technical problem with big blocks, but there is a huge economic problem with it if the block rewards run out. Did it occur to you that maybe Core has one agenda and Gavin has another? It makes no difference between them. LN may give Bitcoin the chance to become coffee money. Unlimited is just another dead end.
|
|
|
|
|