134
135

Jeff Garzik on the "Fidelity Problem": Fidelity Investments is looking at doing Bitcoin experiments but if they flip the switch on their beta program they instantly fill Bitcoin's capacity. [Chicken and Egg] (youtube.com)

aminok が 投稿

全 84 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]ChrisAtWork_HARD 45ポイント46ポイント  (22子コメント)

good, do it, force Bitcoin to adapt or die.

[–]yeeha4 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

This highlights how damaging the 'we can wait for 1mb to be reached is' argument really is.

Miners need to step up and protect bitcoin from becoming an irrelevance. The time to increase network throughput is now.

[–]jwBTC 28ポイント29ポイント  (19子コメント)

Bitcoin has the "network effect" today. As long as we don't fuck it up it should logically be the standard that succeeds.

Satoshi's vision promised me global money transfers with low fees and I'm sorry but small blockers like Luke-Jr trying to keep it dial-up compatible make my blood boil when I hear things like this and think about how we are just neutering ourselves...

[–]ilikebrans 10ポイント11ポイント  (4子コメント)

Hey! Luke-Jr made the first port of Bitcoin to the Tonal System! Don't talk about him like that!

[–]_Mr_E 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

wtf is this toe nail system

[–]_EuroTrash_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Never heard of tonal bitcoin? There was a bit of trouble on the Bitcoin wiki back in the day.

[–]ChrisAtWork_HARD 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

an obscure counting system that is not used anywhere by anyone. if he wanted to be relevant he could have been promoting base 60 sumerian number system at least which is still used on some things like clocks and and circle degrees.

[–]NotHyplon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

if he wanted to be relevant he could have been promoting base 60 sumerian number system at least which is still used on some things like clocks and and circle degrees.

But then he would not have time to practice his Esperanto

[–]trilli0nn 16ポイント17ポイント  (6子コメント)

Satoshi's vision promised me global money transfers with low fees

He delivered - this is a reality.

we are just neutering ourselves

In Europe, contactless payment of small amounts is rapidly becoming the norm. It is fast and free. Just keep your debit card next to the terminal until it beeps and the payment is done. No pin entry, nothing. It takes seconds and did I mention it is free? A quickly increasing number of places do not even accept cash any longer. The only way to pay is by debit card.

Bitcoin is not ready yet to compete in this space. It will not be able to compete if every tiny transaction is stored on the blockchain. It would be cost prohibitive. Systems like the lightning network which settle transactions in bulk can make Bitcoin competitive in the micro payments space.

As Jeff Garzik mentioned, Bitcoin is a settlement system. Unlike the small contactless payments above, a Bitcoin transaction settles within an hour. It is unfair to compare it to a centralized transaction system which settles its transactions once per day - much slower than Bitcoin.

The best way to neuter Bitcoin is to centralize it. The bandwidth and processing power required settle each and every coffee purchase on blockchain would effectively centralize it into a handful of nodes. Then Bitcoin has become nothing but an inefficient centralized payment system that nobody wants. It would simply be the end of Bitcoin.

[–]_supert_ 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's not free for the user. Merchant pays. Bitcoin was meant to be peer to peer cash which is not just a settlement system.

[–]trilli0nn 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's not free for the user. Merchant pays.

True. But a Bitcoin transaction is not free either. User pays, and not just the transaction fee.

Miners are subsidized by the block reward. This is not free money. The amount of BTC currently inflates at a rate of 25 BTC per 10 minutes which is a constant downward pressure on the value of a BTC. Many people do not seem to realize this unfortunately.

[–]Noosterdam 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

One of the points of the inflation is to offset the adoption curve, which is highly deflationary (it certainly has been so far!). On average, a user will not experience having to pay any more than the transaction fee, so your whole line of argument here goes nowhere: large blocks do mean very very low fees.

[–]whitslack 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Miners are subsidized by the block reward. This is not free money. The amount of BTC currently inflates at a rate of 25 BTC per 10 minutes which is a constant downward pressure on the value of a BTC. Many people do not seem to realize this unfortunately.

I think everyone realizes this. The point is that this is not the long-term steady state for Bitcoin, and we have a predetermined and inviolable schedule for reaching the steady state, in which inflation ceases to occur.

[–]jwBTC 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

> The best way to neuter Bitcoin is to centralize it. The bandwidth and processing power required settle each and every coffee purchase on blockchain would effectively centralize it into a handful of nodes. Then Bitcoin has become nothing but an inefficient centralized payment system that nobody wants. It would simply be the end of Bitcoin.

So we keep a laughable 3.5TPS network alive for $1Million/day in payments (sorry, rewards to miners)? Yes we need lightning for VISA levels but there currently is just no room to grow today.

1MB today without spam seems sufficient but tomorrow it won't be if bitcoin is to succeed. We don't need the blockchain so lightweight it has to run on a RaspbPi2! China (with the shitty fw) was fine with 8MB blocks, Galvin started at 20. 1MB proponents will relegate Bitcoin to a niche technology. That in my mind is failure.

[–]ToroArrr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This has been the standard in Canada for years now. Only some small convenience stores dont have those

[–]descartablet 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm here for the show. Start it already

[–]pb1x 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ignoring that luke jr's pool is one of only 4 of the top 10 to make a block larger than the soft limit

Even if the limit is removed, it doesn't mean miners will publish large blocks

[–]cereal7802 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That seems to be the complete opposite of what this posting is pointing to.

[–]donotshitme -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

trying to change bitcoin into a payment network is completely different than neutering. bitcoin works as intended. transactions take up physical space, which costs money.

a secure and immutable ledger that will last until the end of time doesn't need your shitty fucking morning coffee transaction on it.

[–]Guy_Tell -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Satoshi's vision promised me global money transfers with low fees

Lightning Network promises this, plus instant payments that Bitcoin today doesn't support, without risking to degrade Bitcoin's security and censorship-resistance.

[–]YourOpSecSrslySucks -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

THEN LEARN TO CODE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT YOURSELF YOU FUCKWIT.

[–]alexgorale -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, because banks should dictate the direction of Bitcoin just because they can afford to fill blocks.

Great Idea. You clearly grasp the point of this Internet Money and Freedom concept.

[–]Chakra_Scientist 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://i.imgur.com/WKcM8dj.gif

[–]cpgilliard78 9ポイント10ポイント  (15子コメント)

I would love to see the use case. They can consolidate the data to a single hash and timestamp very large data sets in every block and only use less than 1kb so I'm guessing they might be able to modify their test to work.

[–]liquidify 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hashing may not be able to adequately store the kind of data in the scale they want?

Regardless, the question shouldn't be whether or not they are properly formatting their data in the best way for bitcoin, it should be; Can bitcoin nodes and miners store the data loads that citi and similar are willing to pay for? I'd say yes, although node compensation should be considered, and obviously the block sizes need to dramatically rise.

[–]cpgilliard78 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Bitcoin is not well suited to general purpose storage of data. That's why it's important to find out what they're trying to do. Bitcoin IS very good at time stamping data (e.g. proof of existence). If they're trying to do something other than storing hashes, they are quite possibly using bitcoin in a way that it's not designed to be used. But we're really just speculating until we understand what they are trying to do.

[–]fangolo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If they are willing to pay for transactions, it shouldn't matter how they use it except to them.

[–]windowkicker 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Case in point was satoshidice before they moved offchain

[–]bitsteiner -4ポイント-3ポイント  (7子コメント)

I don't understand that argument either. If they want to to use Bitcoin seriously, why would they spam it?

[–]ilikebrans 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's not spam

[–]bitsteiner -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fidelity tx is not spam in this case, you are right. But it's said they would overload the network, then it makes no difference if it's useful tx or dust or spam. I don't get it, why they would do it, when they wanna use it.

[–]btcfun 14ポイント15ポイント  (13子コメント)

Solution:

Implement "fidelitycoin", and just clear it on the blockchain once a day.

The whole thing centers around global banking institutions finding a more efficient way to clear they daily account than the current system (SWIFT).

Not every little purchase need to be on the blockchain, just like not every little purchase needs to be known to the clearing houses. All that matters are end of day differences between institutions. The rest can be handled by side chains.

I love BTC but I swear half of you are obtuse for no good reason. Plenty of systems can exist at once and work together.

[–]m-m-m-m 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

if btc price is disconnected and everyone just uses his sidechain, btc will be vulnerable moneywise to all sorts of attacks. something to consider as well...

[–]Political_douche 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

True, but if giants like Fidelity are using it for billion dollar settlements, then they have an incentive to keep it secure through high price and/or mining.

[–]m-m-m-m 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

then why settle on btc? capitalize your own blockchain, will trim your costs in the long run...

[–]Political_douche 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

For equivalent level of security, you'd have to replace all miners. Far ceaper to utilize btc.

[–]btcfun 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually if it is used as the main chain there would be even more of a reason to keep it secure than there is now, and its value would go even higher.

Regular users could still use it the way they use it now, but large institutions, who would otherwise be wanting to push a large amount of transactions would use their own sidechains and just clear on the blockchain periodically.

[–]v4vijayakumar 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Implement "fidelitycoin", and just clear it on the blockchain once a day.

Or, clear with every block..

[–]btcfun 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That would work too. Depending on the needs.

[–]BitUSD_StableInstant -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well said.

[–]TokeyWakenbaker -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

obtuse

What did you call me?

[–]djangocoin 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Some kinda triangle thing.. either that or slow to understand :]

[–]TokeyWakenbaker -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hmm Was it deliberate? Because if I got out of here, I wouldn't tell anyone what goes on in here. I would be just as indictable as you for laundering that money.....

[–]zero_interest_rates -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

upvote for SR reference

[–]TokeyWakenbaker 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Hey, fatass. Don't listen to them nitwits over there, you hear me?"

[–]DucatiMatrix 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is really interesting for someone like me who's company is attempting some BTC entrepreneurship. Is it possible that all the work we are doing now could soon be for nothing and we will have to start over. I see so many articles about new launches and lots of hype, but try to visit the site and it's already gone.

[–]dangero 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

The weird thing about this comment is that Jeff also mentions in his talk that "Bitcoin can never scale to allow everyone to use it to pay for a cup of coffee."

Then he is saying we should amp up the block-size to allow Fidelity to pump megabytes every 10 minutes of dust?

[–]phieziu 13ポイント14ポイント  (6子コメント)

If they are paying adequate fees, why not.

[–]bitsteiner 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

If they are paying adequate fees, why not.

Why would Fidelity pump megabytes if they have to pay big fees?

[–]dangero 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Why not? Because the current transaction fees don't support miners the coinbase does.

[–]phieziu 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are missing the point. Coinbase doesn't invalidate fees. Obviously we have had some success at a fee market lately. The point is to have transaction fees be competitive with other transactions. That's a market.

[–]mabd 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually, they both do. More transaction fees = more support, regardless of the current ratio.

[–]gubatron 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

so if you had a bigger block you'd have more transactions, meaning more fees. currently the block is so tiny the only thing supporting miners is the coinbase subsidy. you want bigger blocks however you look at it.

[–]dellintelbitcoin 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

They should just do it. The bigger the blocksize is, the more the limit is reached, the faster it will be expanded. This is just how markets work.

[–]Suonkim -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

It's just not that simple. Increasing the blocksize is a linear solution to an exponential problem.

[–]dellintelbitcoin 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

what?

[–]Suonkim 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I said that increasing the blocksize is a linear solution to an exponential problem. In other words, it's not nearly enough to scale bitcoin by itself.

[–]flibbrMarketplace 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Increasing the blocksize is a linear solution to an exponential problem.

What did you not get ?

[–]i_wolf 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

We do not need central regulators, Bitcoin capacity is controlled by miners, they charge fees and limit blocks if someone fills them too fast.

[–]kcfnrybak 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

a well known fact. Thats what Coinwallet's Stress Test proved. Fidelitycoin, Citicoin, Chasecoin, whats next???

[–]SoCo_cpp -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

The malicious attack proved that bigger blocks wouldn't exactly fix the problem of DDoS attacks.

[–]ToroArrr 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can anyone reference me to an altcoin that uses big blocks and how it fairs if it would have the same hash rate as bitcoin? I am not technical enough for that myself. Would be appreciated.

[–]bittydude4 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Bitcoin devs better do something before someone makes a blockchain that can.

[–]mjkeating 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm sure there are already such alternate blockchains. It's really a matter of somebody using them.

[–]Noosterdam 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If they use Bitcoin's ledger, of course I wouldn't mind using them. If they start with a new ledger, there is no reason for any bitcoin holder to switch to them rather than a clone that does use Bitcoin's ledger.

[–]finway 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

Bitcoin Core is killing Bitcoin.

[–]donotshitme 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

yes. use the bitcoin foundation 0.5.3 maintained version