pull down to refresh

Real Reason for not Increasing Blocksize is Blockstream?
11 sats \ 14 comments \ @LigerLite 6 Dec 2022 bitcoin
So is the real reason for not increasing BTC blocksize -that Blockstream needs to make money with Lightning Network? and making mainchain scaleable would render it near useless?
NOW, i know some ppl are gonna talk about decentralization of the nodes, but i have YET TO SEE any scientific paper, study or concrete evidence that decentralization would significantly drop if blocksize were to be increased. Perhaps in inception hard drive space was more inaccessible and expensive than now, but that argument doesn't hold merit in my eyes.
Only high IQ replies please.
write
preview
related posts
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Neo 6 Dec 2022
You don't need a scientific paper for that. Easy math. Do your homework.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LigerLite OP 8 Dec 2022
Sounds like copium answer
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @ln123 6 Dec 2022
Bigger blocks introduce bigger problems.
The only transactions that truly belong on the Timechain are final / forced settlement transactions.
99.999% of Tx should be happening in sidechains / channels, for reasons of speed , flexibility, and privacy.
"Small blocks" is a feature, not a bug.. It's forced the development of independent L2 scalability solutions and ensured the decentralisation of nodes.
Neither my coffee purchase, nor my daughters bored monkey transfer, belong in an interplanetary ledger designed to last 10,000 years.
reply
1 sat \ 5 replies \ @timechain 6 Dec 2022
Luckily we don't have to guess with scientific papers at what would happen. Take a look at how many full copies of the bsv blockchain there are. Running a home node is not possible, so they all must follow miners. The possibility of UASF (user-activated soft forks, a way users can "veto" decisions of miners) is nonexistant. In the competitive mining industry where mining centralization is more than ideal, the ability to UASF is pretty important.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @LigerLite OP 8 Dec 2022
Were not talking about BSV here.... its totally besides the point.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @timechain 8 Dec 2022
I think forks of Bitcoin that have changed the block size are a great opportunity to see how game theory plays out with blocksize altered.
An interesting thing for you to look into is the tx/seconds of Bitcoin Cash. With a 8MB blocksize, they can get 116 tx/second. Far more than Bitcoin Cash needs, but still nowhere enough for Bitcoin. A second layer would still be necessary.
What I am suggesting is, if a 2nd layer is still needed anyway to scale, why increase costs for running a node? When doubling blocksize was suggested, (a hard fork, which is highly avoided,) they knew that it would be a temporary solution. Not only one hard fork, but multiple? Not worth it, when Lightning would still be necessary.
Btw. LN routing is horrible way at making money. Blockstream doesn't run any of the largest nodes. (They are however involved in mining on the base layer) There are 4 LN implementations. Blockstream's Core Lightning is 7% of Lightning Nodes. 7%. Blockstream has not even put out a wallet that supports Lightning.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @LigerLite OP 16 Dec 2022
Look im not saying it should be 8MB, but even going for 2MB blocks, would be significant way to onboard more users. LN is never going to have same level of security and decentralization akin to the mainnet, in that sense its antithesis of the what bitcoin ought to be according to whitepaper.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @timechain 17 Dec 2022
Read about Segwit. It actually increased the block size to 2 MB (to a theoretical max 4MB) as you suggested.
https://bitcoinmagazine-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/bitcoinmagazine.com/.amp/guides/what-is-the-bitcoin-block-size-limit
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LigerLite OP 20 Dec 2022
broken link,
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @NorthKoreanHostage 6 Dec 2022
You know how you can't run a full Ethereum node (like at all) (but even what they call a full node you can't run).
You need a data center and over $100/mo in new hard drives. Fast ones too. Regular speed drives are so slow you can't ever sync the eth Blockchain.
Contrast this with Bitcoin where you can run a full node on a $30 raspberry pi or even an Android phone these days.
Don't ever listen to shitcoiners. They're all scammers trying to steal your money for their pretend bullshit.
Listening to scammers makes you stupid and misinformed.
Bitcoin is perfect. By which I mean, Bitcoin is the most optimized monetary system possible according to the physical laws of our universe.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LigerLite OP 8 Dec 2022
I asked for citations and studies, not anecdotes.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @cryptocoin 7 Dec 2022
Perhaps in inception hard drive space was more inaccessible and expensive than now,
With a larger block there's also a greater bandwidth required.
that argument doesn't hold merit in my eyes.
Fortunately, whether something does or does not hold merit in your eyes is nothing that matters with bitcoin. What matters is whether or not your transaction is valid, according to my node. So even if you somehow persuaded the lead / maintainer to merge your pull request for bigger blocks and that was what was released, my node will reject those blocks (as I will not update to that flawed release). If there are many of us who do not update, and we run "economic nodes" (i.e., significant amounts of economic activity), then the miners are going to have to decide whether they really want to go with the big blocks side (and possibly end up with coins that are unspendable due to little demand), or do they ignore the big blocks side entirely, even if that's what Core devs had released??
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @LigerLite OP 8 Dec 2022
You're not addressing the main point here.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinJiuJitsu 6 Dec 2022
Blockstream needs to make money with Lightning Network? Try again 😂
reply