41
42

Satoshi, the enemy of decentralisation (i.reddituploads.com)

drwasho が 投稿

全 24 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

[–]drwasho[S] 25ポイント26ポイント  (8子コメント)

Decentralisation concern trolling by Core is a recent phenomenon. Satoshi had the full expectation that blocks would get larger and the burden of running full nodes would be handled by businesses, institutions, server farms etc.

Furthermore we can expect the cost of running a full node to be more or less bell-shaped, where hardware and bandwidth improvements (not to mention protocol improvements like IBLT, Bitcoin-NG or ByzCoin) offset and overtake the cost.

Edit: the title is sarcasm btw

[–]coin-master 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

Don't forget that according to BlockstreamCore a real 2 MB block limit would totally kill decentralization, but 4 MB SegWit blocks that can be filled with spam only is of course helping decentralization.

They are hiding their toxic agenda in plain sight, so nobody believes that it is really toxic.

[–]helpergodd 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Greg Maxwell u/nullc (current CTO of Blockstream): "Even a year ago I said I thought we could probably survive 2MB" - /u/nullc https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43mond/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/

[–]nullc -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, and segwit is a blocksize increase to 2MB... and?

[–]r2d2_21 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Such a convoluted way to increase a constant.

[–]r2d2_21 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I keep seeing this 4 MB spam thing. How does it work?

[–]Dekker3D 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

The maximum size of a SegWit block is 4 MB. That would require witness data (mostly signatures, I think) to be 3 times as large as the rest of the transaction, which doesn't usually happen. That why SegWit is effectively just an increase to 1.7 MB blocks. People who want to DDOS or spam the network can easily generate blocks that would fill the whole 4 MB though, at the same cost in fees that you'd currently pay for 1 MB because you only pay for the non-witness data. In that way, SegWit kind of favours those who want to make large transactions, which is mostly the Lightning Network and DDOSers/spammers.

I may not be entirely accurate here. It could be that witness data only gets a discount rather than being free. The last point about favouring certain groups still stands though.

A plain 4 MB blocksize increase would benefit everyone equally, while SegWit mostly benefits those with large (in data, not bitcoins) transactions.

[–]CosmicHemorroid -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Decentralisation concern trolling by Core is a recent phenomenon.

Total BS, fake Dr.

and Satoshi was wrong in his thinking. Or is that impossible to imagine?

[–]drwasho[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh you must be new to Bitcoin, welcome.

[–]blockstreamcoin 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

/u/jstolfi Still think satoshi failed? Looks like he had a clear plan.

[–]jstolfiJorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less. It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in. The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.

-- Satoshi 2010-07-14 09:10:52 PM

If he wrote "100K, probably less", it seems unlikely that he was thinking of "20".

Whatever Satoshi thought or wrote, with the current hashrate distribution bitcoin is neither "decentralized" nor "trustless". For that and several other reasons, bitcoin failed to achieve its goal -- it reason to exist.

[–]blockstreamcoin 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Nobody knows what he meant with the 100k when in the same sentence in another source he also wrote full network nodes will be exclusive of specialist server farms, and said "few nodes" repeated times. But the OP screenshot is clear.

If we had only some full nodes/full copies of the blockchain per country around all the world it would be decentralized enough. If bitcoin was to get that big too fast not only those who profit from nodes like businesses and miners would keep full nodes. A full node would be of public interest, a social matter and universities and other institutions would also run full nodes. Just like the distributed network Usenet, in the end it was mostly maintained by big internet businesses that had commercial interest, universities, technology companies and other institutions that do not profit from it. Any user would still be able to run pruned bitcoin nodes.

[–]jstolfiJorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

universities and other institutions would also run full nodes. Just like the distributed network Usenet, in the end it was mostly maintained by internet businesses who had commercial interest, universities, technology companies and other institutions.

Indeed, that is probably what he expected. There are ~50'000 universities in the world. With some companies and other institutions, 100K would be in the right ballpark.

But he expected traffic to grow less than 50-60% per year (Moore's law), If traffic is roughly proportional to the square of the number of users, he must have expected users to grow 25-30% per year. At that speed it would take decades to get to 100K users...

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

And that would be a no issue. I would not expect on chain bitcoin to get that big before some decades from now, maybe it will walk along with moore's law and any middle class user will be able to run a full node.

[–]jstolfiJorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

But that is one prediction that Satoshi got wrong. As long as the value of the block reward and fees (currently 1 M USD/day) remains significant, there will be people mining for profit. They will use specialized equipment and will be concentrated in China. Then having 100K non-profit miners outside China will not help, because they will have a negligible fraction of the hashpower.

After Satoshi left, and mining started to become concentrated in China and a few other faraway places, the developers and gurus invented the concept of "full but non-mining" relay nodes sitting between miners and clients, and pretended to believe that those nodes would be the Protectors of the True Protocol, defending it from eventual "51% attacks" by the evil Chinese miners. But that is bullshit: since they don't mine, those relay nodes cannot stand up to a mining majority. On the contrary, they pose a huge risk themselves, and break the bitcoin security model.

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

100K

You are talking about something you can't be completely sure, he was not clear in that one. Without further explanation he was contradictory. Assuming you are completely right it is still too soon to say he failed or anything, bitcoin is still in its infancy. Nobody knows what will be the outcome of mining in 5, 10 or 30 years. We may go thru' several transition stages.

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

lol at the headline. Sticky it.

[–]DarkEmi 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I love how in one single post he detrosyed two bullshit at once, that not every user needs to be a full node (SPV works juste fine and are secure) and that 0 conf is important and can work well when fees are predictible

[–]helpergodd 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

/u/theymos 1/31/2013: "I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the 'Bitcoin currency guarantees'. Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system" https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4qopcw/utheymos_1312013_i_strongly_disagree_with_the/

[–]helpergodd 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Greg Maxwell u/nullc (current CTO of Blockstream): "Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - /u/nullc https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43mond/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/

[–]nullc -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, and segwit is a blocksize increase to 2MB... and?

[–]r2d2_21 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would copy and paste my response here as well, but that's one thing I hate.

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

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]insette -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Greg Maxwell has conned Satoshi Nakamoto into no longer believing in his own intuitions over how to scale Bitcoin.

If you're of the belief that Satoshi is still around, like I am, then you must admit Satoshi has tacitly endorsed Greg Maxwell by not speaking out against his actions.