📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30
📝 Original message:On Thursday 30. July 2015 14.50.46 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > I believe the costs and risks of 8MB blocks are minimal, and that the
> > benefits of supporting more transaction FAR outweigh those costs and
> > risks,
> > but it is hard to have a rational conversation about that when even simple
> > questions like 'what is s reasonable cost to run a full node' are met with
> > silence.
>
> I think the benefit of an 8 MB over a 1 MB in terms of utility is marginal
Like 640kb should be enough for everyone... Unfortunately the world doesn't
like things that can be bigger not getting bigger. ;)
> Bitcoin's advantage over other systems does not lie in scalability.
> Well-designed centralized systems can trivially compete with Bitcoin's
> on-chain transactions in terms of cost, speed, reliability, convenience,
> and scale. Its power lies in transparency, lack of need for trust in
> network peers, miners, and those who influence or control the system.
The real advantage of Bitcoin is simpler; its the first system that is not
owned and possible to subvert that actually works.
All existing attempts before Bitcoin are companies that try to benefit from
being in the middle, to the exclusion of everyone else and to the exclusion of
innovation.
> Wanting to increase the scale of the system is in conflict with all of
> those.
Thats circular arguing. This didn't actually add anything to the
conversation.
The insight you skip over is that that Bitcoin's advantage, and the concept of
distributed computing in general, has is one of ownership and control.
If you want to keep Bitcoin small at 1Mb, do you still reach your goal of
being free from ownership and control? With our excellent growth trends;
transactions have to go somewhere, they will not use Bitcoin if we don't have
space. And that means we loose decentralization, we lose avoidance of
ownership of the network and we introduce control.
All your rhetoric is missing this basic point; is holding Bitcoin at 1Mb
advancing it, or hurting that basic goal of avoiding ownership?
--
Thomas Zander
Thomas Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1du…vyg93
2023-06-07 15:43:48
in reply to nevent1q…nd0u
Author Public Key
npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93Published at
2023-06-07 15:43:48Event JSON
{
"id": "00e944b4266a3a7af8a9a43ba2b51bc6f0335c70c78931fb2254ed2a2754295c",
"pubkey": "6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6",
"created_at": 1686152628,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"78a0486a22513a5dc11dcf66d2407a7e121084a44d2ff4e480cb77dad38c8ddd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"80ceb9659e660e5125790a305c6360712f0ec5c9da8ee2b05d80610710dd785b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30\n📝 Original message:On Thursday 30. July 2015 14.50.46 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I believe the costs and risks of 8MB blocks are minimal, and that the\n\u003e \u003e benefits of supporting more transaction FAR outweigh those costs and\n\u003e \u003e risks,\n\u003e \u003e but it is hard to have a rational conversation about that when even simple\n\u003e \u003e questions like 'what is s reasonable cost to run a full node' are met with\n\u003e \u003e silence.\n\u003e \n\u003e I think the benefit of an 8 MB over a 1 MB in terms of utility is marginal\n\nLike 640kb should be enough for everyone... Unfortunately the world doesn't \nlike things that can be bigger not getting bigger. ;)\n\n\n\u003e Bitcoin's advantage over other systems does not lie in scalability.\n\u003e Well-designed centralized systems can trivially compete with Bitcoin's\n\u003e on-chain transactions in terms of cost, speed, reliability, convenience,\n\u003e and scale. Its power lies in transparency, lack of need for trust in\n\u003e network peers, miners, and those who influence or control the system.\n\nThe real advantage of Bitcoin is simpler; its the first system that is not \nowned and possible to subvert that actually works.\nAll existing attempts before Bitcoin are companies that try to benefit from \nbeing in the middle, to the exclusion of everyone else and to the exclusion of \ninnovation.\n\n\u003e Wanting to increase the scale of the system is in conflict with all of\n\u003e those. \n\nThats circular arguing. This didn't actually add anything to the \nconversation.\n\nThe insight you skip over is that that Bitcoin's advantage, and the concept of \ndistributed computing in general, has is one of ownership and control.\n\nIf you want to keep Bitcoin small at 1Mb, do you still reach your goal of \nbeing free from ownership and control? With our excellent growth trends; \ntransactions have to go somewhere, they will not use Bitcoin if we don't have \nspace. And that means we loose decentralization, we lose avoidance of \nownership of the network and we introduce control.\n\nAll your rhetoric is missing this basic point; is holding Bitcoin at 1Mb \nadvancing it, or hurting that basic goal of avoiding ownership?\n-- \nThomas Zander",
"sig": "b59478ce115f2ef58f3e1636e498e59a77451f5dca3006a5b6a0efe082d12b73c519ba055bf839dcea35abfbe5a43d6762b4f71d628ee9a8fa8bc34e29fb2a0a"
}