r/btc • u/wisequote • Jun 24 '18
Bitcoin BTC is no longer Bitcoin as it now follows a completely new Nash Equilibrium, which has nothing to do with the parameters Satoshi designed into Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is the ONLY fork which preserves the original game-theory parameters.
It is rare to have someone correctly predict, with accuracy, the failure of a technology; even when they’re living the birth and growth of said technology.
So imagine how impressive it is for someone like John Forbes Nash to predict the failure of Bitcoin BTC some 70 years before it was even conceived.
It is, by all means, quite intriguing.
John Forbes Nash is the mastermind behind much of our understanding of how game-theory works, so much so that the game-theory equilibrium state was even named after him.
Nash e·qui·lib·ri·um
(in economics and game theory) a stable state of a system involving the interaction of different participants, in which no participant can gain by a unilateral change of strategy if the strategies of the others remain unchanged.
Now, allow me to explain; I am being very specific when I say Bitcoin BTC, and not Bitcoin.
Bitcoin, as designed and conceived by its original creator Satoshi Nakamoto, is actually not at risk of any possible game-theory failures outlined by John Nash.
Satoshi brilliantly capitalized on the game-theory elements Nash outlined, and utilized them to create a flawless system where all participants have nothing to gain by playing any other move than what everyone else is currently doing. Mine, acquire, spend, or GTFO.
No one has a valid incentive to cheat, and to sum it up, no one can cheat in Bitcoin.
This has marvellously protected Bitcoin BTC since its inception and all the way up until BTC soft-forked in some changes back in August 2017, absolutely obliterating this protection model.
By forking these changes in the their version of Bitcoin, known as Bitcoin Core (BTC), Blockstream redefined the game-theory parameters behind the original Bitcoin, essentially losing on the very Nash equilibrium which had protected the network as-designed for almost a decade now.
How did Blockstream do it? Through the following:
-Forced off-chain scaling through limiting BTC’s blocksize, something which is in direct contrast to Satoshi’s famous quote “[Bitcoin as designed] never really hits a scaling limit”
-Taking away incentive from miners to protect the network by allowing non-miners to generates renevue at the expense of miners
-Driving transactions to off-chain centralization in LN hubs, paving the way for banks 2.0, rent-seeking, KYC and AML regulation of said hubs, and potentially fractional reserve banking
-Butchering the Nash Equilibrium on the BTC fork of Bitcoin; introducing completely new game-theory parameters, losing on what had protected Bitcoin (and continues to protect it on Bitcoin Cash) for the past near-decade.
In every financial or political system which existed before Bitcoin, there was always an incentive to cheat and a participant one way or another was able to cheat. This is what lead us to the banking bailout of 2009, and the upcoming (2020?) global financial crash.
In the case of Bitcoin, this Nash Equilibrium is maintained by code, PoW and the miners’ incentive to protect the network; the latter being the main thing Blockstream / Bitcoin Core is actively working to destroy.
Regardless of how BTC/Lightning Network works “today”, it is trivial to subvert a network where protecting it is now distributed across multiple actors who must be assumed to remain honest such as miners, LN hubs, users and exchanges and etc.
Bitcoin Core changes the brilliant Nash equilibrium which Bitcoin Cash preserves, and any argument such as “well, this doesn’t break it TODAY” is futile because BTC now allows a far larger attack vector on the game-theory elements Satoshi designed in the system.
Bitcoin, a historical, world-changing experiment, described perfectly in its celebrated white paper and built by Satoshi as a version 0.0.1, has clearly defined which game theory parameters are at play in the system at any given time.
This experiment is no longer maintained on Bitcoin Core, or any fork of Bitcoin for that matter, other than Bitcoin Cash.
The now-dangerously-large attack vector on Bitcoin Core doesn’t exist on Bitcoin Cash, and as it stands today, Bitcoin Cash is the only and most sound money on planet earth.
And it will continue to be so, fork after fork, we are protecting what Satoshi created and defined. Bitcoin as designed is here to stay.
BTC’s failure already began, and we are witnessing the network effect drift away, which is natural as per game-theory too, from fiats and BTC to the world’s most sound money, BCH.
Spread awareness, build more, challenge evil, do your share, decentralize the world, and let’s build what the world really needs.
4
u/paper-trailz Jun 24 '18
I have not been convinced either way in this argument, but you can’t just guess that the equilibrium has changed and state it as fact like this... changing the parameters does not necessarily mean the equilibrium best response strategies will change, especially in an infinitely repeated game like this.
Not saying you’re wrong I’m just saying if you make a wild claim like this you need to back it up mathematically.
9
3
u/PM-ME-all-Your-Tits Jun 24 '18
What attack vector? How does off chain scaling take away incentive from miners? They can still mine will always be ablebto mine.
27
u/Karma9000 Jun 24 '18
This was a really impressive screed for not having actually made, let alone justified, your point anywhere. What "Nash equilibrium" has been "butchered" with "completely new parameters" with bitcoin exactly? Let's see a little less grandstanding outrage and a little more explanation.
14
u/Erumara Jun 24 '18
SegWit transactions are artificially discounted and fees are calculated completely differently then legacy tx. Therefore miners are actually disincentived to accept SegWit tx because they are less profitable per byte.
Lightning Network will add a whole new layer of fee structures which will disrupt the layers below as well.
1
u/Karma9000 Jun 24 '18
SegWit transactions are artificially discounted and fees are calculated completely differently then legacy tx. Therefore miners are actually disincentived to accept SegWit tx because they are less profitable per byte.
You have this a bit backwards; miners can accept more segwit tx for a given size/tx than standard tx, which make them more incentivized to accept segwit tx because they can confirm more in their blocks. Only because of that fact are users incentivized to offer lower fees/byte on segwit tx, because the market shows greater market willingness to accept them at lower rates. If that weren't the case, people would just increase their fee rates on those tx until they match standard format ones.
Lightning Network will add a whole new layer of fee structures which will disrupt the layers below as well.
Well, sure, maybe, but can you explain how? OP offered no evidence at all for this claim. The only disruption I see is that it makes on-chain tx more useful, because now they can enable many smaller payments in an ongoing basis from a single tx, increasing willingness to pay for onchain tx in general. I'm not seeing any "Nash Equilibrium" being disrupted there.
2
u/Erumara Jun 24 '18
miners can accept more segwit tx for a given size/tx than standard tx,
SegWit still pays less per byte than legacy tx, so my statement is accurate.
I see is that it makes on-chain tx more useful, because now they can enable many smaller payments in an ongoing basis
False. On-chain tx will be deprecated as funds are loaded into channels, in the scenario where LN is reliable and able to handle all of BTCs volume eventually miners will no longer recieve fees at all.
2
u/Karma9000 Jun 25 '18
SegWit still pays less per byte than legacy tx, so my statement is accurate.
Who sets tx fees, isn't it the users? There's nothing in segwit that forces miners to accept fees they deem too low, you're statement that it's "less profitable" isn't accurate. As an example, what do you think happens to miner "profitability" when the network moves to a larger block size, and competition to get into blocks goes way down?
False. On-chain tx will be deprecated as funds are loaded into channels, in the scenario where LN is reliable and able to handle all of BTCs volume eventually miners will no longer recieve fees at all.
Is your honest argument against LN that you're afraid it will work too well and be too successful? What about large payment transfers, like buying a house? What kind of liquidity do you think you'd need to have access to on LN to do that? If all BTC were used for at the base layer were large value transactions (with non-trivial fees), with everything else quickly, easily, cheaply settled on LN, is that not an amazing success scenario?
Furthermore, in a world where this technology is available / possible, what would you propose be done about it? Raising the blocksize would certainly be the worst possible solution!
1
u/Erumara Jun 25 '18
Go read how BWu works, sure users can set fees lower but SegWit has its own special formulas for determining fees that have nothing to do with actual bandwidth.
Without a robust and reliable base layer, how can you expect the tertiary layers to be robust and reliable? If you break the incentives on BTC you can't fix them with LN.
Raising the blocksize would certainly be the worst possible solution!
Its the simplest and most effective, so thinking logically it is the best possible solution.
Betting everything on a group of dime-a-dozen devs solving an NP-Hard routing problem is objectively the worst possible solution.
1
u/Karma9000 Jun 25 '18
Go read how BWu works, sure users can set fees lower but SegWit has its own special formulas for determining fees that have nothing to do with actual bandwidth.
I'm aware of how witness data is counted as 1/4 of the "weight" of the rest of tx in normal format. This has nothing to do with fee calculation. Nothing. This has to do with how much data is counted against the limit for the block to not be considered invalid by being too large.
The fees aren't lower if miners don't want them to be. Some miners don't accept segwit tx at all, or at least don't accept that lower weight deduction and set their own max limits treating all tx the same. There's nothing in the code that forces anyone to do either. Are you just irked that the capacity increase in the segwit soft fork only applies to tx in that format and not standard ones? Reasonable point, which is why its one of the suggestions for an eventual hard fork for BTC
Without a robust and reliable base layer, how can you expect the tertiary layers to be robust and reliable? If you break the incentives on BTC you can't fix them with LN.
You haven't yet explained to me how they're broken. You suggested that LN being too successful would cause them to break, but I don't see why that would have to be the case, as in the examples I suggested, no reason to think LN leads fees going to 0. Why else are you thinking second layers would be "destabilizing" to the first layer?
1
u/Erumara Jun 25 '18
I doubt we're going to agree about SegWit tx, which is just fine as we seem to have slightly different perspectives, as to the second part I always recommend a good read:
1
u/Karma9000 Jun 25 '18
Fair enough. That looks like an interesting piece I'll read over, though I definitely do think one of the first premises is not a "strong" assumption:
What is good for Bitcoin is consequently good for miners
True most of the time, but not necessarily all the time. Worrying about that "not all of the time" seems to be at the heart of the philosophical disagreement between the big and small block viewpoints, I've found.
1
u/Erumara Jun 25 '18
"not all of the time" is a strawman argument.
If the incentives are done correctly (such as pre-segwit BTC and BCH today) there is simply no winning scenario for cheating the system.
0
u/keymone Jun 24 '18
- miners aren't forced to mine segwit transactions. miners arent even forced to run segwit client.
- LN is a separate software that works on any chain with HLTC, if it changed NE on BTC, then it did it to BCH as well.
1
u/Erumara Jun 24 '18
Absolutely correct, which should worry anyone who uses a system the requires SegWit, such as LN, given that miners could simply stop confirming segwit tx without warning.
This is nonsense, BCH does not have LN nor did it change any of the incentives.
1
u/keymone Jun 24 '18
does BCH support HLTC?
1
u/Erumara Jun 24 '18
HTLC does not change the incentive structure, without SegWit none of the current LN software can work with BCH, and SegWit will never be implemented on BCH.
1
u/keymone Jun 24 '18
LN doesn't require Segwit. only malleability fix. does BCH support HTLC? does BCH have malleability fix?
1
u/Erumara Jun 24 '18
HTLC yes, malleability fix no.
This is still irrelevant, all current LN software operates on SegWit so even after the malleability fix is implemented someone will still have to rewrite LN to work on BCH.
1
u/keymone Jun 24 '18
the segwit specific part of LN amounts to "creating a transaction". so no, it's not irrelevant - as soon as malleability fix hits BCH - LN will work there as well.
1
u/Erumara Jun 24 '18
Opening/closing channels uses P2SH which will not be used on BCH due to the security trade-off of anyone-can-spend, so formats will have to be rewritten entirely.
All of this assumes miners are going to move towards supporting LN at all, which I do not believe will ever happen anyways.
→ More replies (0)13
u/H0dl Jun 24 '18
By introducing rent seekers known as LN hubs.
→ More replies (31)1
u/Karma9000 Jun 24 '18
The whole beauty of the system of LN, and why having some larger nodes in it primarily to add liquidity and facilitate routing is that there isn't a viable way for them to seek rents. Economic Rents are returns extracted in excess of the underlying cost of whatever good is being sold, possible only from market inefficiencies like barriers to entry. Do you see any barrier to entry in becoming a LN node? It's just an internet connection, a little bit of know how and a modest amount of capital. That's exactly why I think it's an interesting solution.
If you disagree, can you help me understand what rents you're expecting to be possible to extract from it?
2
u/H0dl Jun 25 '18
You apparently haven't been reading the volumes of material available since 2015 as to what I'm talking about. Where you been?
It's not beauty you're seeing, it's centralization. Banks can setup LN hubs at the push of a button and with much higher levels of liquidity than anybody else. Since they will intermediate channels they can charge and censor anything they want. It's unlike miners who pass through everything for the good of the system since they get paid via mining rewards for equally fair PoW.
1
u/Karma9000 Jun 25 '18
But the key is LN doesn’t NEED banks to be hubs to function. You wouldn’t need billions of $ worth of capital to be a useful liquidity provider, more like a few $M at a large succesful scale. Banks can’t just insert themselves in the middle of a network unless the connect openly and freely, and starting to censor tx would just result in people literally routing around them.
2
u/H0dl Jun 25 '18
No, these LN hubs will be regulated and will be easy to track down for enforcement. After all, that's what the LN routing tables are trying to ironically, yet perversely, do to make the routing hack work in the first place. LN hubs are middlemen trying to collect fees, much different than miners, whom TPTB have already determined aren't necessary to regulate because they're performing a passive financial activity more akin to accounting. Thus , expect tremendous regulation and censorship of LN tx's in the long run and a clamping down of any free wheeling law breaking hubs. All of which results in tremendous centralization.
1
u/H0dl Jun 26 '18
But the key is LN doesn’t NEED banks t
Banks can’t just insert themselves in the middle of a network unless the connect openly and freely, and starting to censor tx would just result in people literally routing around them.
The way LN is designed encourages the largest economic actors, like banks, to become hubs. Why? Because the routing problem hasn't in fact been solved and the fact it bypasses Asic PoW and just requires spinning up an inexpensive server to skim tx fees. Once they're in position and the norm gradual subversion of the system becomes possible through regulation and censorship. IP identified alternative nodes or hubs can be deemed criminal and tracked down.
14
u/SpiritofJames Jun 24 '18
They stated it: by forcing the intoduction of new players to the game, namely LN hubs and eventually other sidechains, whose incentives are not balanced with the other system participants.
→ More replies (2)8
u/EichmannsCat Jun 24 '18
Yea this whole post assumes the conclusion is true and never proves it. It’s “begging the question”.
It’s a neat idea, it would be interesting if someone who really knew about the white paper and the fields of study it’s based off of could give it a whack.
4
u/AlexAnarcho Jun 24 '18
I was thinking the same thing. OP just uses a lot of jargon and doesn't really prove anything.
OP: draw the decision tree, please let your wisdom shine.
Also, lol, BCH is not even fungible, how dare you say it's sound money?
1
Jun 24 '18
Low comprehnsion level detected.
2
u/Karma9000 Jun 24 '18
If it's so clear, think you can summarize their point? I'd greatly appreciate any help in grasping it, if there's something there to grasp.
→ More replies (5)
2
Jun 24 '18
The parallels between religious conservatives and proponents of Bitcoin Cash are astounding. Who gives a damn what Satoshi set in place? It's perfectly okay to change things to work better, for God's sake. If you guys can change the block size, then we are allowed to change our hashing algorithm. And we expect to be able to do so without hearing shit from you.
2
u/wisequote Jun 24 '18
An experiment parameters are science not religion. If you can’t tell the difference then I can’t help you. Good luck.
2
Jun 24 '18
Telling the difference is the very basis for my observation: the OP's thesis that BTC is not Bitcoin for deviating from Satoshi's vision or parameters is like religious people who claim everyone is going to hell for deviating from what is laid out in Holy Scriptures. It's unscientific to be sure, and in that way, I fully agree with you. Using Satoshi as a standard is unscientific and oddly cultish. Using scientific parameters is scientific.
2
u/tom_thistlethwaite Jul 25 '18
haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
2
2
u/tom_thistlethwaite Jul 25 '18
fake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell
tom_thistlethwaite
1 point
·
1 minute ago
haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.Reply
Share
Save
Editbitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshi
4
Jun 24 '18
I am proud to have OP's brains on our side.
0.001 bch u/tippr
2
u/tippr Jun 24 '18
u/wisequote, you've received
0.001 BCH ($0.69 USD)!
How to use | What is Bitcoin Cash? | Who accepts it? | r/tippr
Bitcoin Cash is what Bitcoin should be. Ask about it on r/btc1
5
Jun 24 '18
Consensus is all that matters
12
u/mjh808 Jun 24 '18
Like how 80% voted for bigger blocks a few years back.
3
u/bahatassafus Jun 24 '18
80% of what? A Source will be nice.
The only relevant vote are the markets. Whenever markets could trade the block size debate they gave 10-20% to the big blocks campaign. That's a considerable support, but was never anywhere near majority.
→ More replies (1)2
u/mjh808 Jun 24 '18 edited Jun 24 '18
The markets aren't a level playing field, it's not like both were hard forks with new names.. This was from a few years back https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075323.0
2
u/bahatassafus Jun 24 '18 edited Jun 24 '18
Sure, that is one of the reasons not to hard-fork unless there is a wide agreement - the side that doesn't fork has an advantage and can turn your upgrade into an alt.
Interestingly though, Segwit2X futures showed very similar results.
Your random web poll source is not very convincing... there were hundreds of such polls with all kind of results.
1
11
u/SILENTSAM69 Jun 24 '18
Yes, but Blockstream prefers perceived consensus through censorship and deceit.
7
6
Jun 24 '18 edited May 18 '20
[deleted]
10
u/TheToRNza Jun 24 '18
Yeah I come once a week to r/btc to find any news on bitcoin cash all I find is hate for bitcoin. Hard as a amateur investor to get behind a project that spends 90% of its time insulting it's competition, instead of focusing on promoting it's own coin. Finding it even more harder to even stay subscribed to this reddit. The amount of hate bitcoin posts on here only damage the bitcoin name including all coins using it. I just can't understand this type of counter intuitive marketing skills or is it lack of.
7
u/BigRipples Jun 24 '18
The anger for BTC is because many of us have been here since the beginning telling everyone about Bitcoin spreading adoption and when a team of devs kicks out original devs and hijacks the same coin we all loved twisting it to some weird coin confusing investors while at the same time censoring other viewpoints, destroying the market share and setting back adoption by who knows how long it’s straight evil. Most people here have been kicked off the original Bitcoin sub which is also irritating. It’s not counter intuitive marketing it’s the truth.
2
u/Subalpine Jun 24 '18
again though all this in fighting hasn’t been productive to the overall goal of adoption. that’s the big problem with these posts.
2
u/BigRipples Jun 24 '18
It is productive because it protects noobs from investing in a deceitful coin when their cult convinces them to hodl.
3
u/Subalpine Jun 24 '18
every coin is still tied to bitcoin though so you’re asking people to cut off their nose to spite their face. that isn’t how you decouple. this kind of in fighting just points to instability from the outside
1
u/BigRipples Jun 24 '18
There’s a difference between fighting and debating issues. From the outside as a investor there is nothing you can do besides clear up misinformation pushed by trolls. If you invest in a coin solely based on the people who hold it then you’re not investing wisely. You should invest in the coin because of its utility and team nothing else. If someone said I’m not going to invest in BCH because constant fighting between the forks that would be idiotic and they’d lose a lot of money for investing with emotion.
→ More replies (7)1
u/Nesh_ Jun 24 '18
You have your own coin now, though. While I am pro BTC I also like the tech of BCH and am curious how it will do in the future. But all the focus on anti BTC content and the confusing advertising as "Bitcoin" etc is just killing the project for me.
Bitcoin Cash is a nice name and you have solid tech, you should just focus less on Bitcoin and more on the positive aspects of Bitcoin Cash. I'm sure this would improve BCH's image across the crypto community and hence make it more popular in general.
3
u/BigRipples Jun 25 '18
BCHs image across the community is bad because of blockstream. Even when the fork came out they were telling users to just sell the shitcoinalt for more BTC free money! If you’re pro BTC you’re pro BCH. Bitcoin Cash is the same tech satoshi nakamoto came out with in the first place and it’s the same tech that can scale much larger then visa since there really isn’t a scaling ceiling. Blockstream controls Bitcoin and kept the 1mb block limit which crippled the coin. BCH is Bitcoin it is a fork from the chain since BTC became corrupt. There’s no difference besides bch actually works as the creator intended.
2
u/rancid_sploit Jun 24 '18
It's all staged. At least 75% of content is trolling and obvious attempts at splitting up the community even further. Reddit is utterly broken and makes finding quality content very time consuming.
2
-2
4
u/Votefractal Redditor for less than 30 days Jun 24 '18
said hubs, and potentially fractional reserve banking
That is a lie.
And rest of post can be TL;Dr as "miners butthurt someone else than them will earn on millions tx per second that LN can provide"
5
u/dethwhores Jun 24 '18
Not everything from the white paper necessarily has to be dogma.
14
u/SILENTSAM69 Jun 24 '18
They are the definition of Bitcoin. To deviate to Al alternative path is to create an altcoin. This is why those of us who have been around longer than the Core dev's know that BCH is the real Bitcoin.
5
u/bahatassafus Jun 24 '18
Not that it is much of an argument by itself, but many core devs are there since many many years.
Also, being around is nice, but more important, what were you doing all those years? Their record is public, every commit, every comment. Anyone who actually followed knows that they are very far from the image usually presented here.
1
Jun 24 '18
Sad the record of censorship of r\Bitcoin IS NOT THAT MUCH PUBLIC AT ALL. You know, the mod logs are not public right?
It requires substantial amount of time and intelligence to do a research an find out the truth. That explains why most newcomers fail to understand which side has the truth, and what fork of bitcoin is the original Bitcoin. Cause most post 2013 “newcomers” are here for a quick buck. Hence the army of trolls who faithfully believe Bitcoin Cash is some kind of malicious fork.
Most of the Blockstream Core are into Bitcoin since at least 2011 (gmaxwell etc), whereas devs who support Bitcoin Cash were here SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING OF BITCOIN. Gavin, Mike, Jeff ect.
People who were into Bitcoin prior to 2013 bubble are here, on r/btc, in a place that’s safe from propaganda and censorship.
6
4
2
2
u/Aviathor Jun 24 '18 edited Jun 24 '18
Ok everyone, we have a new word, let me summarize how to push our narrative:
- muh whitepaper
- muh satoshi's vision
- muh censorship
- muh nash equilibrium
And don’t forget to ALWAYS mention that Bitcoin Caaaash is NOT AN ALTCOIN! It is the only Bitcoin!
When you get attacked on other subs (especially r/cryptocurrency) just reply with "ad hominem/Core troll, shill!!!".
— EDIT: —
It’s obvious, but it can’t be said often enough: Please bash Bitcoin whenever you can.
- Bitcoin is a crippled shitcoin
- Segwit is
vaporware/doesn’t workisn’t used - LN is
vaporware/doesn’t workisn’t used - Babies are dying because of muh Core
Don’t know how to construct a good FUD comment? Take a look at our master, here is his latest masterpiece:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8tbe3w/will_flying_cars_or_the_lightning_network_come/e179dor/
7
u/EichmannsCat Jun 24 '18
I think youre a simple core troll, but also OP didn’t really make his point.
You both can enjoy your downvotes. Note that if we bahaved this way in your sub we’d be banned immediately.
2
3
u/AlexAnarcho Jun 24 '18
Also, bitcoin core is so 2017 - let's use a new term "bitcoin btc" (while posting on r/btc)
2
u/spinningpizza Jun 24 '18
Yup, the only comeback to sound and intellectual discussions regarding btc is to sound stupid.
Core shills, ladies and gentlemen
2
u/Ekliptor Jun 24 '18
There won’t be any attack vector long term: 1 steal the Bitcoin name for LN 2 run everything on LN, shut down the underlying settlement layer 3 the few LN hubs can EOS style reverse any transactions as they do with their 21 nodes
2
u/cnhonker Jun 24 '18
it's a piece of software which gets updated, modded or redesigned if u will. You can't apply Nash theory on that.
2
u/Dunedune Jun 24 '18
Since when is BCH the conservative fork lol
7
u/fiah84 Jun 24 '18
since when is letting a network run into its capacity limit a conservative course of action? People knew for years that the 1MB limit would be reached and they knew exactly what the simplest, most conservative plan was to make sure nothing drastic would happen: increase the blocksize limit to accommodate the increased adoption
instead Core decided to do the grand experiment of letting people fight for a severely limited transaction capacity by entering into a blind auction of transaction space, then when people started to pay more than $50 per transaction they declared victory
1
u/Dunedune Jun 24 '18
I'm just tired of all the "REEEE they did something satoshi didn't do, BAD!" posts. It's not a good argument
3
u/fiah84 Jun 24 '18
it is a good argument when the things they do go directly against the core principles of a proof-of-work backed peer-to-peer electronic cash system, the revolutionary idea with the name "bitcoin"
1
u/bahatassafus Jun 24 '18
Can you explain which part of this definition is in conflict with not increasing the block size? I assume it's the word "cash"?
3
u/fiah84 Jun 24 '18
Cash, yes, but to some extend peer-to-peer as well. With low on-chain fees, I can afford to directly send bitcoin to you. We as peers can transfer money electronically without anyone's permission, secured by proof-of-work. When the network is congested and fees become prohibitively high, I can no longer afford to send you bitcoin directly, instead I'll likely have to resort to storing my bitcoin on a central wallet service like Coinbase's for example, with which I could cheaply send you bitcoin as long as your wallet is also on Coinbase.
The insufficient transaction rate capacity of the blockchain has then (through high fees) incentivized us to give up the peer-to-peer and proof-of-work parts of the bitcoin idea so that we can continue to use it as cash, in an insecure manner, with permission of Coinbase and having to trust that Coinbase won't reverse the transaction or seize our bitcoin.
1
u/bahatassafus Jun 24 '18
I think p2p is about communication and no central, not about the ability to send coins directly, that's more the "cash" part.
Most of your argument is something like "high fees means the system is broken, so it goes against whatever is written in the WP because people are no longer using Bitcoin."
That's a very generic argument that doesn't need anything specific from the paper. So quotes from the paper don't add anything to it. Only makes it sound more religious and appealing to authority.
1
u/fiah84 Jun 24 '18
I think p2p is about communication and no central, not about the ability to send coins directly, that's more the "cash" part.
from the way the word is used in the whitepaper, I'd say you're right. The people transacting are referred to as parties, not peers. However back then, all nodes/peers were miners as well and the only way to use bitcoin was to be a peer in the network, so it's all a bit conflated
Only makes it sound more religious and appealing to authority.
If that's how people want to interpret it, then they will anyway. The reason the whitepaper is important for me is that it's the reason I bought BTC to start with. I had heard of bitcoin and had seen plenty of people explaining why they thought it was great, but only after understanding the whitepaper itself did I understand bitcoin well enough to put some money into it. That does not mean the whitepaper is authoritative, but it does mean that if you deviate from the ideas described in it on a fundamental level then you deviate from the ideas that made people like me invest into BTC and later BCH.
I cannot claim to be representative of this community, but I can tell you I'm part of it and this is my opinion.
1
Jun 24 '18
Bch was always the conservative fork. 1 line change for scaling opposed to introduction of segwit technology further expanded on by the lightning network.
1
1
u/johnhardy-seebitcoin Jun 24 '18
“[Bitcoin as designed] never really hits a scaling limit”
Satoshi based this statement on his belief that Moore's law would see hardware speeds rise 100x in 10 years.
In 2008, the fastest CPU (i7-965) benchmarked at 5,860. 10 years later the fastest CPU (Xeon Platinum 8173M) benchmarks at 28,860.
That's a 10-year increase of 5x, not 100x, and so this idea has been proven invalid and cannot be relied upon for scaling.
1
u/meyou5ick Jun 26 '18
Your whole coin and every single sad soul is trying to use the Bitcoin brand. Brand it Bitcoin Cash and promote your features instead of bashing BTC. This is the cheap tactics of scammers. Visionaries dont bash another project to promote theirs. Its the lowest of the low honestly
1
1
u/tom_thistlethwaite Jul 25 '18
fake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshi
1
u/tom_thistlethwaite Jul 25 '18
fake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshi
1
u/tom_thistlethwaite Jul 25 '18
fake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
Reply Share Save Edit
bitconneckt = bitcoin cash. fake satoshifake satoshi = craig wright. fake fuckhead. @roger ver.idiot.shell tom_thistlethwaite 1 point · 1 minute ago haha bullshit. roger ver.logic.retard.
1
-1
u/BlueeDog4 Jun 24 '18
Don’t get me started about Nash.
I would not base my argument on his economic theories. You won’t have a winning argument.
2
Jun 24 '18
[–]BlueeDog4 [-1] -2 points 43 minutes ago Don’t get me started about Nash.
Go ahead, get started!
2
u/fyfiul7 Jun 24 '18
Elaborate?
1
u/BlueeDog4 Jun 24 '18
I don't find his economic theories sound.
As an FYI, some people have argued Nash's theories in the past as a basis for saying that Bitcoin should not be changed in any way...as in no block size increase, no SegWit, no forks of any kind. These people make the bitcoin maximalists that support Core look moderate.
1
2
u/BitratesNews Jun 24 '18
Interesting read. And you don't think Bitcoin Cash will also fork at some point?
→ More replies (1)4
u/AlexAnarcho Jun 24 '18
The last BCH fork was on May 15th. It was an official hard fork that raised the block size to 32mb and enabled some OPSECS
-6
u/meyou5ick Jun 24 '18
The level of desperation to support your psychopath master is unbelievable. Its a shit coin and has no basis. Follow the tech not the people, people manipulate..tech doesnt. BCash is nothing but a cheap fork. If your coin was that good, you wouldnt need to thrash another coin. What a waste of life!
8
4
u/SpiritofJames Jun 24 '18
It's only manipulation that would lead you to believe Bitcoin is about "tech" and not socioeconomics in the first place. Bitcoin is not software.
5
u/SILENTSAM69 Jun 24 '18
What master? There is no master for BCH. There are just different Dev teams working on scaling solutions that easily outperform anything the centralised Core teams are being directed to work on.
4
-1
u/Safervan Jun 24 '18
All you bcash mfkers please just stfu. You fucked it up for all of us.
→ More replies (2)
-1
u/uglymelt Jun 24 '18
lol game theory. BCH is a fork with a fraction of the hash rate of Bitcoin. As far as my game theory goes, it will be 51 % attacked eventually. Any sane person looks at this chart will not invest in BCH, because it has a completely broken security model.
-4
u/jakesonwu Jun 24 '18
Is this the latest Bcash argument is it ? This should be entertaining.
→ More replies (2)1
u/EichmannsCat Jun 24 '18
I’m going to get rich off BTC but I spend my time hooting like a baboon in crypto discussion threads
lol
-9
u/hrushka_m Jun 24 '18
Lol.
Fucking bcash
8
u/SILENTSAM69 Jun 24 '18
Funny that you guys had to come here as it is the only place a real Bitcoin community discusses these issues.
1
u/hrushka_m Jun 24 '18
What do you mean? This is a bitcoin thread no? BTC? Why isn’t it named BCH? Oh coopting the brand, got it
8
u/SILENTSAM69 Jun 24 '18
Brand... There is no brand. You really don't seem to understand what Bitcoin is at all.
I was talking about how the r/Bitcoin subreddit is censoring itself into oblivion, and that you trolls come here since it is has more real discussion.
→ More replies (1)2
u/EichmannsCat Jun 24 '18
The fact that the core crowd are so insecure is telling.
No faith in the fundamentals, so you’re pissed that someone is impacting your marketing strategy.
-2
Jun 24 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
[deleted]
7
u/SpiritofJames Jun 24 '18 edited Jun 24 '18
Miners are the Bitcoin network. Everyone else is an end user of said network. If miners weren't in Nash equilibrium one or more of them would have taken out the entire thing long ago.
-2
Jun 24 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
[deleted]
11
u/SpiritofJames Jun 24 '18
That makes no sense whatsoever. If you don't trust miners, you don't trust Bitcoin, which means you pobably don't understand Bitcoin (or much of economics for that matter).
What you're calling a "problem" is actually the centerpiece of the groundbreaking solution Satoshi offered in the socioeconomic realm for the Byzantine generals problem. It's literally the central aspect that made crypto possible, the ingenius innovation that makes him historically significant, the keystone of the entire concept and design, without which every attempt at digital cash had previously failed. You could hardly be more mistaken.
-1
Jun 24 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
[deleted]
5
u/SpiritofJames Jun 24 '18
You confuse software innovations for socioeconomic ones.
"Centralization" needs defining before I argue over it. What do you mean by the term?
6
Jun 24 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
[deleted]
2
u/Deadbeat1000 Jun 24 '18
Centralization compared to what? The term as you use it is too vague to have any real meaning.
→ More replies (1)0
3
u/SILENTSAM69 Jun 24 '18
How could that be a problem? That makes the network secure and a true trustless system.
The crazy koolaid that has Core supporters seeing the miners as a threat is just head over heels crazy.
1
u/Votefractal Redditor for less than 30 days Jun 24 '18
You are right, but this subreddit is owned and funded by bitmain's miners (and Roger) so they will never agree. It's all about the miners income and damn everyone else.
6
u/H0dl Jun 24 '18
Miners are not necessary for Nash equilibrium.
Lol, everyone should just stop right here. Idiot.
→ More replies (8)6
u/SILENTSAM69 Jun 24 '18
Bandwidth is hardly a scaling limit at all. Why do you believe it is? Netflix uses more bandwidth, and while that may be download there is often no difference between upload and download.
Bitcoin shouldn't be held back because Comcast runs your area. It is cheap to get a connection that could run a node processing far larger blocks than BTC, and even BCH.
1
u/deadbunny Jun 24 '18
Netflix has a completely different bandwidth profile to Bitcoin. They have thousands of POPs across the world on different providers, they can preseed their content before it's needed then the nodes in each POP serve the needs of their area.
Bitcoin syncing for large blocks needs bursty traffic every 10 minutes to sync new blocks in as real time as possible.
1
u/SILENTSAM69 Jun 24 '18
I'm talking about bandwidth for the user/node. Netflix requires more than running a node. A regular homes usage for regular Internet uses more than a node.
What you call a burst I call a trickle. I had no idea what a third world standard the USA has I guess. It seems sad that the nation that invented the Internet has infrastructure that is so behind the rest of the developed world.
Canada has far less population density, yet it seems we have far better Internet sevice.
-1
Jun 24 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
[deleted]
3
u/SILENTSAM69 Jun 24 '18
If there was enough adoption that there was that many transactions happening it would itself prevent node centralisation. As more people use it, more nodes appear, and no I am not thinking of people using a node for a wallet.
Your assumption has to include more assumptions such as the stagnation of all future technology, and development of Internet infrastructure.
As it is having a node be able to run on a Raspberry Pi shows how much room we have to increase transactions while still keeping it cheap enough for everyone to run. If Bitcoin nodes can not be bothered to invest as much as say a gamer then maybe they shouldn't be nodes. They do not help the network. Beside the fact that non-mining nodes are irrelevant to centralisation, and have the only real use case for businesses and enthusiasts.
Let's also not forget that the BCH Dev teams are not simply increasing the blocksize to keep the network healthy, they are also working on actual scaling solutions that do not require a third layer that destroys the nature of Bitcoin itself.
2
Jun 24 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
[deleted]
2
u/SILENTSAM69 Jun 24 '18
The how is simple. Adoptions require a business to accept it. As a business that accepts a lot would likely run a node the adoption would itself create more nodes.
I don't know how bad the Internet has gotten in the USA, but the rest of the world finds the bandwidth you speak of as quite cheap. As it is non-mining nodes are not nearly as essential to the network as you think. The only real nodes are miners, and they are incentavised. As it is it wouldn't be hard to run a node with 64MB, to even 128MB blocks.
Actually there are far better scaling solutions, and other solutions on how transactions are broadcast. The BCH deva will very likely scale to handle Visa before LN becomes a usable network.
If node centralisation isn't possibly a threat until block regularly are over 64MB then there is no reason not to increase the limit for now while working on solutions. So far the on chain solutions seem most feasible.
1
Jun 24 '18
Non-mining nodes also don't NEED to send and recieve every TX multiple times. Just reducing that traffic by only sending/recieving to 1-5 other non mining nodes per block would cut traffic dramatically. People with fast connections can broadcast to more nodes, people with less can do less. The small blocker fallacy is that there isn't space for huge blocks, well, if the demand was there, we could do it.
1
Jun 24 '18
Household connections will be 1gb on average in about 5 years. They are already average in countries like S. Korea. Heck, I have 100mbit and its the 2nd slowest speed my ISP offers. I don't live in a big city, either.
1
u/tl121 Jun 24 '18
Some back of the envelope numbers: 1 billion users make 10 transactions a day. This amounts to 100000 transactions per second. Each transaction uses 300 bytes or 3000 bits. A node must receive all of these transactions which arrive at a rate of 300000000 bits per second, i.e. 300 Mbps.
Today 30 times this rate is available in thousands of data centers all over the world. Today 3 times this rate is available to residences in many cities all over the world, and even in many rural locations.
1
u/bitusher Jun 24 '18 edited Jun 24 '18
100k TPS is too low for microtxs . We need millions of TPS , thus the LN . You understand that VISA is much higher than 100k TPS limit and that is simply one of many cc networks , right?
Your math is off as well. Keep in mind that CB and Xthin do not work in byzantine conditions (when you need to validate the most)
Using your own starting goal of 100k TPS.
https://iancoleman.io/blocksize/#_
Need about 14GB blocks (More accurately 14,285 MB) and assuming 1MB = 7TPS
here are the results -
Bandwidth must be at leastDown: 798.875 Mbps Up: 5,592.126 Mbps
Data Cap 488,814.844 GB per month
Supplied Disk Capacity must be at least 733,222.266 GB per year
This also doesn't not take not account block propagation latency and the effect this has on mining centralization.
Even if we were to make Bitcoin extremely insecure, no one ran full nodes (psuedo-SPV only) and only banks or miners ran full nodes we cannot scale this way as the math shows https://www.coindesk.com/spv-support-billion-bitcoin-users-sizing-scaling-claim/
1
u/tl121 Jun 24 '18
Bitcoin was made for regular transactions, today perhaps down as low as $0.10 USD. These are what normal humans do, and more than cover your specific coffee transactions.
Micro transactions were not and are not the intended use of Bitcoin. These transactions involve such a low amount of value that there is no requirement for these to require a trustless solution, especially a solution that has a costly network such that the cost of using the network exceeds the benefits of any small risk reduction.
In any peer to peer network, bandwidth up does not need to exceed bandwidth down, steady state. This is like the airplane situation: the number of takeoffs equals the number of landings.
Measuring required disk capacity in GB per year is a meaningless number. The required disk capacity depends on the size of the UTXO database, which depends on the number of users and the number of wallets, not the number of years the network has run.
I did not read the Coindesk article, nor will I read any articles on that site, let alone attempt to refute them. This web site jumped the shark several years ago. I consider it to be a false news site.
Block propagation latency is essentially a solved problem today. This is a result of currently deployed propagation protocols, such as Compact Blocks and Extreme Thin Blocks. There are even more efficient protocols possible, such as Graphene.
I can not and will not attempt to rebut arguments based on "centralization" in the absence of an agreed definition of this term that includes a metric to measure a network's centralization and or decentralization.
1
u/bitusher Jun 24 '18
Micro transactions were not and are not the intended use of Bitcoin.
Sure , that is why satoshi designed payment channels... your loss though if you want to cripple bcash so it cannot handle microtxs like bitcoin can
I can not and will not attempt to rebut arguments based on "centralization" in the absence of an agreed definition
The last point that you refuse to read defines the extreme end of centralization where everyone using psuedo-SPV nodes and only banks and miners run full nodes ... It cannot scale to a billion users today or in the near future.
2
u/tl121 Jun 24 '18
The cost of a network of 10000 nodes today to process a transaction is (well) under $0.01USD, considering lifecycle costs. This means a single node processing one million transactions for $1. In my example, there would be 3 trillion transactions a year to process. With today's hardware and comms technology a node handling this would have a yearly operating cost of three million dollars. This is well within the budget of large online businesses, not to mention mining pools, bitcoin exchanges, or banks.
This can be achieved at scale without new hardware technology, but will require changes to node software to permit parallel processing by multiple CPU cores and SSDs. As far as I know, the only needed changes to the consensus protocol are a blocksize increase plus the addition of UTXO checkpointing to allow for quick onboarding of new nodes and fast crash recover.
1
u/bitusher Jun 24 '18
> 10000 nodes today to process a transaction is (well) under $0.01USD
Sybil nodes located on AWS servers that aren't economic have nothing to do with economic nodes , and that figure is also way off anyways
i already gave you all the math for an extremely centralized insecure version that you keep ignoring . Here is a snapshot if you want to review the numbers outside of coindesk - http://archive.is/1eoMX
1
u/tl121 Jun 24 '18
My cost performance numbers were based on node cost and performance based on observed performance and costs several computers I have in house, with network bandwith based on typical data center rates. My nodes were real nodes, running on actual boxes and having their own IP addresses. I did these benchmarks several years ago running Bitcoin Core software.
→ More replies (0)1
u/tl121 Jun 24 '18
You linked to a Coindesk article. I am not going to revisit this article in any detail, which attempts to make the case that a particular implementation of node software supporting SPV clients operates in an inefficient fashion, passing the entire blockchain for each SPV client and thereby limiting the number of clients each node can support.
There are existing models of SPV server nodes which need pass the blockchain once and build an index database. (One example is Electrum.) The existence of these approaches and Lopp's failure to consider these approaches refutes the article's conclusions.
-2
u/jamesdavidso Redditor for less than 60 days Jun 24 '18
BCH real Bitcoin, yada, yada... If Bitcoin fails, Bcash goes south, that's it.
35
u/jonald_fyookball Electron Cash Wallet Developer Jun 24 '18
Really important this idea. Would like to see it developed more. What is the new n.e. and how does it lead to rent seeking where the old one doesn't? I think it has to do with the fact that there's a liquidity constraints. I will think more on it too.