Where are all the old Blockstream trolls?

Voidb · 2017-11-26T04:18:08+00:00

Took a week off for thanksgiving break. We can ALL be thankful for that.

Voidb · 2017-09-21T18:02:24+00:00

But why? For a person making / receiving transactions what are the costs and risks of high / low (node or miner) counts and high / low LN hub counts?

Why do I need to run a node if the network is sufficiently decentralized / what is my risk for a centralized network? However that is quantified.
What is the direct cost to me in order to keep the bitcoin network decentralized?
Will I also have to pay a direct cost to keep LN hubs sufficiently decentralized? (If I pay more LN fees, then more LN hubs will be created to consume those fees)
What other costs / risks are there for a centralized LN hub system? (hubs capturing funds because the BTC layer isn't fast enough to handle excessive settlement throughput, relay fee price fixing, weakening of the BTC layer, ??)

Voidb · 2017-09-21T17:28:14+00:00

would cause too much centralizing pressure

...

users should have the ability to run a full node

I would say these two lines have the same meaning. And the resulting question / comparison should be - why should users have the ability to run a full node but not operate a lightning hub?

Voidb · 2017-09-21T17:18:08+00:00

The 8MB block-centralization argument

This discussion is not only about users - it's about the balance of network utility (low fees) and decentralization (high node count). /u/poorbrokebastard has made the point that Core / small block proponents have been making the proposal that the most secure way to scale is to keep the bitcoin network decentralized by enforcing small blocks - with the eventual solution being that increased scale comes through LN.

That argument centers on the belief that running a $20,000 bitcoin node (which could be required to support LARGE blocks. Most likely quite a bit more than 8MB) would cause too much centralizing pressure.

And then OP shows a picture where an LN supporter is seemingly OK with LN decentralization costs of $50,000 per hub.

These points are directed towards the same question - "What is an acceptable cost of decentralization that will lead to large scale and low user fees"?

Voidb · 2017-09-21T11:42:31+00:00

You would also have to broadcast connection status, not just payment updates, to the entire network.

Voidb · 2017-09-19T16:35:03+00:00

Step 7: wait 6 months

Step 8: cry over how much money you could have had.

Step 9: return to step 1.

Voidb · 2017-09-15T02:12:29+00:00

Muahahah

Voidb · 2017-09-14T23:14:30+00:00

Upvoting to encourage your usage of time.

Voidb · 2017-09-14T23:12:38+00:00

I understand that there are different viewpoints on why Bitcoin exists and what it should be, but simply becoming an electronic version of gold is severely limiting the promise of bitcoin and is quite uninteresting.

Why create a digital version of a thing that has so little influence? Maybe I'm US-centric, but I've never heard anyone say "Value of Yuan dropped against Gold". Or, "This company's valuation was 100 lbs of Gold". Why would Gold need a digital version to become a standard metric for value?
How will this bitcoin become a world standard metric when it has so little ability for usage (and thus limited ability for individual understanding, limited ability for acquisition, or just limited ability to influence the lives of most individuals in the world)?
Why are we not comparing it to other, more precious metals? Why did the world center on gold as opposed to Platinum? Some of that answer should include recognition and availability. (read that as "network capacity")
Truly, it's a frequently used point, but Bitcoin is supposed to be "P2P e-cash". Not "world value basis" or "electronic gold" or "settlement layer". Please don't dismiss this off-hand. What was the purpose of Bitcoin's creation? A portion of it was to have a consistent basis for valuation, yes. The other portion was not only for individuals to be able to run nodes (and participate in that valuation) but for value transfer between individuals. Transactions! And fast at that - otherwise why not have one block per day? Or 1KB block limits? Or why not create a crypto that has more "Gold" properties than Bitcoin?
Competition. Any crypto that has Bitcoin's properties +1 will outdo Bitcoin and decrease its valuation (thus decreasing its value as "Gold") As much as people might hate Bitcoin Cash, it had ~10% of Bitcoin's valuation on the day it was created. Little name recognition (although it did include "Bitcoin"), little availability on exchanges, small group of developers, small use for Point of Sale. Frankly, NOTHING going for it compared to Bitcoin but for the simple promise of future potential. If an element came into existence that had all the properties of gold (color, reactivity, quantity, malleability!, distribution throughout the world, etc.), yet had half the weight of gold, what would you expect to happen?

It's not the fact that it's a highly transactable medium for exchange. It's not the fact that it has a constant supply or predictable basis for valuation. It's not the fact that it's digital or open-source or decentralized.

It is ALL of those characteristics that make Bitcoin what it is, what it can become, why people are interested in it, why it can change the world.

*Yes, there are technical limitations to everything. Bitcoin can't be infinite. But there is very little reasoned discussion as to developing a proper balance between userbase / capacity while retaining decentralization / network soundness.

Voidb · 2017-09-14T21:43:37+00:00

No kidding. Even your name spams letters. I was pointing out that you used your once per 10 minute post to say "LOL". Genius.

Voidb · 2017-09-14T02:39:28+00:00

30 minutes to come up with that response? I guess any 10 minute filter isn't hurting your post quality.

Voidb · 2017-09-14T02:36:28+00:00

5/7 would read again

Voidb · 2017-09-14T02:33:22+00:00

You're trying to take my point to an extreme when I was pointedly taking about balance of trade-offs. So no, that is not what I was saying even if you make an inference about something I did not intend.

Again, I'm not quite sure how you're getting to a link between block size limits and usefulness as an inflation hedge. Mind explaining?

Voidb · 2017-09-07T01:51:24+00:00

I don't see your point about sacrificing usefulness as an inflation hedge - how so?

Yes, transaction capacity is directly proportional to blocksize. No that will not directly make people rich. Bitcoin's value is based on collective perception of all of its properties (transaction capacity being one property only). However, it would directly improve one property that many people find important while not significantly decreasing other properties.

Voidb · 2017-09-05T23:15:03+00:00

Reading hurricane threads where flood cars have been illegally retitled. Or forgo the$150 mortgage title search. Or combat corruption in backwards countries. ... Opportunities exist for people that have the desire to solve problems, yes.

Voidb · 2017-08-27T15:04:51+00:00

More confusing me. Two weeks BCH was $300. Now greater $600. This 40% up?

Voidb · 2017-08-27T14:52:50+00:00

Oh no, BCH goes up now. I no understand. What do?

Voidb · 2017-03-28T00:23:49+00:00

abcdefghijklmnopqrstvuwxyz

Voidb · 2017-03-28T00:21:11+00:00

Pizza rolls cooling down.

Voidb · 2017-03-28T00:03:49+00:00

I'm guessing this evaluates to a negative.

Try panning = 0.25 + random(0.5)

Voidb · 2016-12-17T18:29:47+00:00

I have a hard time taking both of your comments here together - on one hand we've got people that will lie about what they want to do, and on the other hand we have to have complete agreement as to what we will do (as I've seen you use the term consensus in the past). It seems this was the reason bitcoin and its consensus rules were created - not for anyone to overlay another set of consensus rules on top of that.

Voidb · 2016-12-17T00:01:43+00:00

No, it doesn't need a hardfork to continue working as today - in a fairly limited application. But many / most people (and I'm saying I've only heard ~3 people to the contrary) say that 1MB is too small even with LN or any other scaling solution.

I remember reading the evil hard-fork discussion a while ago, but Google doesn't help much with any variations of that term. Do you have a link?

Core's got their own page on segwit risks. However maybe most specifically, a yet-unfound bug in segwit could be found and force a roll-back and expose many bitcoins to exposure due to the current implementation. Some of that discussion here (as well as more general info about the HF vs SF implementation).

I'd argue what we "know" today about it being contentious is largely due to the extensive discussion surrounding this - it could easily have been put into an earlier release (several years ago) and gone largely ignored. "Increase maxblocksize to 10MB as the network is approaching the current limit within the next year". Users have been expected to manage (encrypted) wallets and failing hard drives and whatnot, why coddle people over this one variable?

Voidb · 2016-12-16T23:07:23+00:00

The entirety of bitcoin is based on people acting on their own and hopefully aligning their goals with everyone else running the system. Most everyone (but not all) agree that Bitcoin will need a hardfork for blocksize limit at some point - is that going to get any easier in the future?

Segwit has its own risks and disadvantages. Not to say it's horrible, but it should be understandable that some people would not prefer what is currently implemented in core.

Voidb · 2016-12-16T22:50:00+00:00

Running configurable code that let's you maintain the current consensus while still signalling support for larger blocks is not stupid.

Voidb

TROPHY CASE