How the Bitcoin experiment might fail

ivanraszl · 1時間前

I appreciate that the argument was laid out in a fair way even if I disagree with it. However I do not appreciate that no solution was put forward.

To me if the cap isn't increased or lifted altogether it would not only mean that Bitcoin may never go global even with sidechains, but most importantly it also would mean Bitcoin in general is unable to improve and thus will eventually become obsolete compared to new cryptos. This would be very sad because the huge user base of Bitcoin is a great value that I don't want to see eroded by other cryptos for no good reason. We need one serious international decentralized independent currency in the World that everyone can use, and Bitcoin has the potential to become that currency.

We may be risking a hypothetical split of Bitcoin with a hard fork, which is scary for sure (although nobody would lose their coins technically if they wait out which chain wins eventually). However we're almost guaranteeing "the split" of the Bitcoin user base if we don't do it, because Bitcoin won't be competitive. And this would eventually make Bitcoin less valuable and useful for all.

Upgrading to 8MB+ is the less risky option in my view.

KoKansei · 1時間前

the philosophy behind decentralized currencies is fundamentally incompatible with deploying his code in the way that he proposes.

I don't think the author provides enough evidence in the article to support this claim, quite frankly. The changes proposed by Gavin will not go through without a 75% supermajority - that is, the distribution of the code and decision as to whether or not to run it will necessarily be decentralized.

The author also takes a long time explaining why the approach taken by Gavin is wrong without really proposing any alternative vision, unless that alternative vision is "let's just leave the arbitrary 1 MB cap in place until every singe user and contributor to bitcoin agrees on an alternative," which is just plain silly. Personally, I will be running the updated version of Bitcoin core when the time comes and anyone who cares about the network's short term scalability should do the same.

It's clear the rivets on the existing financial system are coming off at an accelerating pace, and bitcoin will need to have a suitable level of transaction volume capacity when the time comes if it is to succeed. That time may not be very far away.

finway · 57分前

FUD, talking like there are any serious business/hodler want to stay at 1MB.

pgrigor · 1時間前

Hmmm, I'm not sure the experiment may fail. However, it's clear that one side of the fork may fail.

nullc · 1時間前

I thought this is was an interesting perspective on some elements of the current discussion that are being under-discussed-- regardless of your views on the acceptable scale/decentralization trade-off there is a broader view that deserves contemplation.

Beyond having an interesting view, the author is an an active contributor to Bitcoin Core who's technical work I respect as well.

Zepowski · 34分前

I think the entire block size debate has been orchestrated by the 'MAN' in an attempt to flush out the real Satoshi Nakamoto.

KarskOhoi · 32分前

Yes. No change to Bitcoin is impossible. I and some people can do a fork of Bitcoin with hyperinflation. Our problem is that people will most likely not migrate to our fork since they would like to keep their purchasing power. I'm pretty sure that the market will prefere BitcoinXT over old Bitcoin. If possible I would try to sell my old bitcoin for more bitcoinXT. The market will choose a winner pretty fast. If you do not want to speculate, just sit still until your coins on one chain are worthless and the coins on the other chain are worth the same as bitcoin pre fork.

chriswilmer · 52分前

Except it's not (just) Gavin's proposal. It's a proposal that has been discussed, tweaked, and reflects the thoughts and wishes of many, many people. Just because some people disagree with the proposal in the end doesn't mean it's not the result of a large number of other people coming to a consensus about it.

nopara73 · 1時間前

"This has nothing to do with what block sizes should be, but instead about Bitcoin’s much greater experiment: in the absence of a central authority, can people come to agreement on what money to use?"

GandalfBitcoin · 39分前

Hard fork is stupid.

jstolfi · 48分前

When the limit was set to 1 MB, it was predicted that it would have to be raised, and everybody was aware that it would require a hard fork.

The community must learn to do hard forks effectively, not avoid them like the plague. If bitcoin cannot ever hard fork, it soon will be dead by obsolescence.

The block size hard fork should have been a non-event. A community consensus for an increase to 8 MB was quicly reached, including approval from a majority of the miners. Once the players realized that the majority approved the increase, amost everyone would surely upgrade to the new version, even those who were against it -- out of self interest. Then the old branch of the blockchain would die immediately after the fork, for lack of miners. Those who upgraded would not even notice the fork. Those few who remained behind would be unable to move their coins, and would then upgrade too, without loss.

pizzaface18 · 27分前

Gavin is asking 75% of miners to switch to a new currency with new and different properties.

Such bullshit. We're basically fixing bitcoin to scale the way it was envisioned by Satoshi, before the decentralization maximalists hijacked a DOS prevention mechanism to turn bitcoin into a settlement network instead of a currency.

BobAlison · 1時間前

This is the most important lens through which we should view Gavin’s proposal. If you have a money that other people accept, under what circumstances should you change it to be a different, new money? That is exactly what a hard fork entails: Gavin is asking 75% of miners to switch to a new currency with new and different properties. If they do so, then they will trigger a permanent change to the consensus rules for those running Gavin’s software. The idea is that if everyone goes along with it and changes their software to match, then we can still call it Bitcoin, and the lack of backwards compatibility is a non-issue (since no one will be around running incompatible code).

This is the part of the story that doesn't get the attention it deserves. A hard fork is uncharted territory. There's only one previous case that even comes close, and it consisted of an utterly boring bug fix that added a checksum a few years ago.

What Gavin is proposing does in fact amount to creating a new coin, incompatible with Bitcoin as we know it. Focusing exclusively on the technical rationale/feasibility of big blocks obscures the much more important issue of governance. This does a disservice to the community by framing the issue as a black and white case of whether to change a constant.

Keep in mind that the 21M money stock cap is also nothing more than a constant. The time may come when we are once again asked to change a constant for all the right reasons.

A hard fork will prove, once and for all, that no change to Bitcoin is impossible. It's a demonstration that those who believe in Bitcoin as the "best form of money" may come to regret.

RubenSomsen · 9分前

the majority might employ some game theory of their own, and reason that if there are enough of them, then perhaps the minority will feel coerced into going along with a change

If the goal is to create a single digital currency for everyone, there will always be an unhappy minority. The current choice is: do we make the majority unhappy or the minority?

if Bitcoin’s network can split because there exists some person or people who are able to change the currency against the wishes of others, then perhaps it’s incorrect to think of it as lacking a central authority.

A bit hyperbolic in my opinion. A majority does not equal a central authority.

Pieter Wuille brought up this topic on the bitcoin-development mailing list and pointed out that any trigger using miner voting as a component should have a 100% threshold for the vote

I find it hard to believe 100% consensus will be reached on issues that are not clear bugs. This essentially means giving the minority what they want.

The issue boils down to this: we currently have a system where either the minority or the majority is unhappy. This shows exactly why we need side chains. A single asset (bitcoin) with the freedom to choose which chain to place the asset in. Both the minority and majority can coexist.

However we do not have side chains at the moment, and there is no guarantee it will ever make its way into bitcoin (although I am optimistic). This means there is currently NO solution. So until then, what do we do? Do we give the majority what they want, or the minority? The choice is not ideal, but it is the only choice we currently have.

TonesNotes · 6分前

Scalability and security are two areas in which I have always expected bitcoin to continue to evolve. Progress in these areas does not change the idea or identify of bitcoin anymore than going through puberty changes the identity of our children.

Satoshi made it clear in his earliest writing about bitcoin that the idea of bitcoin was intended to scale as far as our ingenuity and the technology of the day could take it. The attempt to redefine it as a limited settlement system is something that came later.

Every dollar I've traded for bitcoin has been a vote for the usefulness of Satoshi's bitcoin idea. Not one trade was motivated in the smallest measure by the promise of a 1 MB block size.

I think the author needs to take a step back to reconsider exactly what bitcoin is.

harda · 5分前

I think this was a very well-written and informative article. Thanks, sdaftuar!

imaginary_username · 20分前

"Your proposal is bad because we don't like it. It'll in fact always be bad as long as someone don't like it" - pretty much what this piece says.

A 100% consensus is impossible given a sufficiently large crowd. It's plainly, obviously absurd except to the most naive of observers. Heck, give me a million people, I'll guarantee you there are a couple of them who think murder shouldn't be a crime.

So... What he suggests is, therefore, is that there will be no change until the end of time, or until bitcoin fails?

The piece also seems to be based on the absurd belief that an (incompatible) fork of supermajority vs minority will create massive confusion. This, despite what everyone knows already: the minority fork will become an altcoin, basically worthless monopoly money in no time if all the exchanges and payment processors jump. I do not see how a hard fork with a supermajority of miners, supermajority of nodes, all payment processors and all exchanges can fail. There won't be confusion, there won't even be a confidence crisis, it'll just be old-fork loyalists quietly and begrudgingly joining the new fork for their coins to remain useful.

contractmine · 19分前

There are more important things to debate about when it comes to bitcoin now. But for all you 1024KB'ers I hear litecoin has a 1MB blocksize... hint hint nudge nudge...

BusyBeaverHP · 18分前

All I read was a bunch of words and slippery slope musing without a single quantitative backing... the author seem to imply that if a hard fork can occur to raise the blocksize, a hard fork can also occur to do anything and destroy Bitcoin.

Once again, like the rest of the hard fork opposition, he spends his entire article on subjective opinions without providing a single counter proposal to solving the incoming flux of adoption that would surely overwhelm the 1MB limit. Nobody cares about philosophical musings about some vague ideology, put up the numbers!

SpontaneousDream · 4分前

FUD article

laisee · 41分前

If the proposed change goes ahead and is successful, will those opposed give up their roles as core devs and their commit rights? Or else come up with improvements in the process that might lead to hard forks in future to avoid all this contention?

It seems that usually when people don't agree with a policy decision in an organisation they resign or try to change the process so the policy "mistake", in their view, cannot be repeated.

move or improve, don't just complain.

d4d5c4e5 · 21分前

It's really disturbing that the situation has come down to making extreme claims of existential threat simply because a small number of developers in charge of the specific Github project considered to be the current reference client may not end up getting their way in radically changing how Bitcoin operates over the long-term, by pulling a bait-and-switch on a mundane capacity limit that was always understood would eventually be relaxed.

latetot · 1時間前

'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.' - what this author is proposing is that no changes be made to Bitcoin unless 100% of miner/users/core devs agree. Unless he agrees, no changes can be made. This doesn't seem realistic. Majority rules.

goonsack · 36分前

But we also don’t have a great way of knowing what code users want to be running

...

Still, miners shouldn’t want to trigger a hard fork unless there is obviously no meaningful dissent

This got me thinking... is there a possible mechanism by which a continuous 'straw polling' could be built into bitcoin mining? A period of straw polling could be an easy and safe way to signal the intent of miners before any possible hard fork was considered. I understand that custom data can be placed in block headers, so perhaps this could be developed into a polling mechanism for bitcoin miners.

webdisplay · 18分前

if Bitcoin’s network can split because there exists some person or people who are able to change the currency against the wishes of others, then perhaps it’s incorrect to think of it as lacking a central authority.

if Bitcoin’s network couldn't be fixed because there exists some person or people who oppose to change the currency against the wishes of others, then perhaps it’s incorrect to think of it as lacking a central authority.

Bitcoin

Community guidelines

Related communities

Non-Bitcoin communities

Join us on IRC

Other Bitcoin sites

Download Bitcoin Core

Style sheet credits

調停者