388 sats \ 6 replies \ @elvismercury 22 May \ on: TPS Counter: help debunk the "7 tps" myth bitcoin
I applaud your effort to put things like this to the test, but I don't consider this FUD. Whether it's 7 or 13, it's broadly the same -- L1 is extremely limited, we should know that, and figure out alternatives.
I don't consider this FUD. Whether it's 7 or 13, it's broadly the same
It is a bit like saying "This swimming pool cannot hold a great white shark because it is only 7 feet deep" even though the deep end of the pool is 13 feet deep. The original point is true (a great white won't fit) but the supporting evidence is false.
If the critics merely said "bitcoin's L1 cannot support 7 billion people" I would agree with them. But when they back up that fundamental truth with the false claim that bitcoin can "only" do 7 tps I think their error is worth highlighting.
reply
Your argument is false too. It's like saying "i didn't stole money! you said I stole 100, but in reality I stole 99, so as your argument is false, I'm innocent!"
The point raised by elvis is clear and the reason L2 exists!
reply
Your argument is...like saying "i didn't stole money! you said I stole 100, but in reality I stole 99, so as your argument is false, I'm innocent!"
Imagine I argued that bitcoin is scalable on L1 because its max tps number is closer to 12 than 7. If that was my argument, your analogy would hold. But that's not my argument. I agree that bitcoin is not scalable on L1, I am just pointing out that the FUDers massively understate its capabilities there.
In service of that point, I am doing something similar to the part that says "you said I stole 100, but in reality I stole 99," except for these very significant differences:
-
(1) my numbers have a more dramatic disparity. Your analogy has a 1% difference where I'm highlighting a more than 40% disparity
-
(2) If a prosecutor accuses you of stealing 100 gold bars when the facts clearly show that fewer than 60 gold bars are missing, that is something you ought to mention to the judge, because overstating the crime might result in overdoing your penalty (or in bitcoin's case, understating its L1 scalability might result in devs not utilizing all of the space they can actually work with)
-
(3) Even if bitcoin's actual max TPS number is low, that does not justify pretending it's over 40% lower than it is in reality
reply
My analogy is correct in that you said "If they back up their argument with the false claim that bitcoin can only do 7 tps, when in reality it can do 13, they are wrong".
I understand the relative proportions but it clearly makes no difference in practical terms and that's the reason L2s exist.
My point is that the entirety of the argument is not worth of discussion regarding the FUD but the FUD itself makes no sense to start, because it's criticizing something that's designed to work the way it does. The FUD criticises big cargo ships for not going at Mach 20 when it clearly haves a distinct function.
reply
it clearly makes no difference in practical terms
I think it makes a difference. When designing systems to work within bitcoin's limits, it is important to know what those limits are. There might be a system design that works as long as most blocks can hold 7000 transactions, but breaks if blocks are limited to 4000 transactions. Therefore, a person with this false 7 tps idea in their head might discard a very useful design simply because of false statistics. That would be bad.
reply
In no way I expect a professional with the technical understanding on how this systems work internally to make a final evaluation at face value alone based on blog made by an illiterate and not by checking the actual doc.
But I share your fear in that sometimes companies leave this delicate selections in the hands of illiterate MBAs... like engine selections for new Boeing models...
reply