etr-strike

Why what? Why does increasing block size increase propagation delay? Here’s the research paper on it: http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23...

Tl,dr: each additional kB after 1mb adds an additional 80ms in propagation delay. It’s not just bandwidth that’s the problem. Nodes need to validate the block, then communicate that block to other nodes who also need to validate. Big blockers are drinking Roger Ver koolaid. The man doesn’t even know how to program, yet has convinced an army of redditors he knows best.

Sure, here you go: http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23...

Tl,dr: each additional kB in blocksize adds approximately 80ms of delay until the majority learns about a block.

According to actual research here: http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23...

Each additional kb results in an additional 80ms of delay until the majority learns about a block. Increasing to 8mb means you’re adding a 9min delay in propagation. That is pretty much guaranteed centralization.

Perhaps you have some research you can point me to that demonstrates otherwise?

Which cryptocurrency supports 60k t/s?

You’re upset the core devs didn’t let Bitcoin become a centralized coin? If you refuse to acknowledge the benefit of SegWit or the other scaling solutions then I can’t help you.

Big blockers have their Jihan and Roger coin now. Stop trying to steal the bitcoin brand. If there was consensus for big blocks then Bitcoin would have activated. Jihan and Roger couldn’t convince the educated people that their proposals would work. Now they’re throwing a tantrum.

SegWit was activated. Lightning is working. Mimble Wimble and Schnorr signatures are in development.

I understand big blockers are upset they didn’t get their way. They need to understand the reason big blocks don’t have consensus is that they increase propagation delays and propagation delays leads to centralization. Core devs are pursuing many alternative and intelligent scaling avenues.

Also, miners don’t determine consensus rules. If PoS works, another UASF initiative will arise and everyone running a node can decide the new PoW scheme. The fact that you don’t understand this leads me to believe you don’t have a good understanding of the technology yet.

I don’t think I ever claimed 20 t/s was sufficient. Just pointing out the throughput has increased by an order of magnitude and there is a tremendous amount of ongoing innovation in this space.

How is allowing two parties to transact off chain, and settle up later on chain, not a decentralized solution?

Yea, no. Lightning network still depends on the bitcoin network. All it means is any two parties can transact off chain and settle up later. Not sure what the problem is.

Strange definition of vaporware you have, considering I just showed you lightning network operating across three different implementations of the protocol on the main bitcoin network.

It shouldn’t increase because simulations of increasing blocksize have demonstrated centralization. If we didn’t care about decentralization we’d just use a database.

Lightning isn’t vaporware. Follow the project on github, they are very active. Better yet, watch the first lightning transaction happen on mainnet which occurred just last week: https://youtu.be/a73Gz3Tvx3k

With regards to blocksize, the only reason it’s not widely embraced is because it’s known to directly impact propagation delay. One side couldn’t care less about centralization, the other side cares dearly. SegWit was activated, which compresses transaction size and doubles transactions per second without impacting propagation delay. Mimble Wimble and Schnorr signatures are coming soon, which are also soft forks and compress transaction size even further. There’s plenty of change happening that are all very intelligent scaling solutions. Big blocks are not intelligent nor difficult to implement.

If proof of stake proves itself to actually work, Bitcoin will adopt it. Migrating a 200 billion dollar network to an untested PoW proposal would be irresponsible.

Arbitrarily increasing blocksize without addressing propagation delay and centralization impacts is also irresponsible.

Bitcoin has been tirelessly working on the scaling problem in a responsible way. SegWit will allow up to 12t/s. Mimble Wimble and Schnorr Signatures will further compress transaction size and increase t/s to roughly 20t/s. All this without increasing propagation delay (increasing blocksize).

Lightning network further reduces the number of onchain transactions necessary.

Rootstock adds ethereum compatible smart contracts to bitcoin as a side chain.

All these technologies responsibly scale Bitcoin. Your comment implies Bitcoin is stagnant which to me implies you don't know what you're talking about.

The consensus rules of bitcoin are supposed to be incredibly difficult to change. That's a feature, not a bug.

Changing consensus rules is only easy if the network is centralized. That's not something I want to have in my money.

If new technology demonstrates it's value beyond doubt, upgrading the network will have vast consensus.

SegWit, Mimble Wimble, Schnorr Signatures, Lightning Network, and Rootstock all prove you're talking out of your ass.

In 2008 the stock market crashed over 50%. Plenty of people would have lost everything had the fed not intervened. Is bitcoin volatile? Of course. But at least the game isn't rigged.

Your "5% APY" option is a prepaid debit card that has a maximum balance of 5000 and the advertised rate is only good for a couple of months.

The lesser rates have similar terms - only earn 3.5% on balances up to 10k, you must make 12 purchases from your debit card per month. You must spend more than 1k from your debit card per month. You must log in to your account at least once or month. If you skip any of these things, your interest rate is 0.01%.

This is your suggestion for storing wealth safely?

All of those "high interest" savings accounts are below 2%. Official CPI is 2.5% for 2017 -- and CPI underweights essentials such as housing and healthcare, all of which have gone up much more than 2.5%.

Your savings accounts are all effectively negative yield. Why would I store my wealth there?

If I sold my bitcoin, I wouldn’t feel any better storing it in any of the asset classes you mentioned. Everytime I honestly evaluate what central banks have done around the world, I always arrive back at bitcoin. It’s my safehaven asset.

I wish you well with wherever you’ve chosen to store your wealth.

Cash is guaranteed to depreciate at least 2% per year. Real estate is incredibly expensive and only supported by the cheap debt that has flooded our economy. Bonds are just barely above 0%... they have no place to go but down unless you think negative rates are possible. Stocks are incredibly expensive using every metric available. The rules of bitcoin are well understood and no one can manipulate them. I’ll take my chances, thanks.

If it’s all speculation, where do you suggest I store my wealth? The underlying characteristics of bitcoin lead me to believe it’s the safest asset in existence. It’s volatility is a result of people slowly discovering this.

Bitcoin is under perpetual innovation:

Here it is yesterday performing a lightning transaction on mainnet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a73Gz3Tvx3k

Here's an implementation of Ethereum smart contracts running as a bitcoin sidechain on mainnet: https://www.rsk.co/

Here's Greg Maxwell discussing scaling while keeping the network decentralized: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHIuuKCm53o

Bitcoin has been taken as a joke for 9 years by anyone unwilling to actually learn about it. It's come a long ways since Mt Gox and is arguably the freest market in existence. There are online exchanges in every major country that run 24/7. You can trade without an exchange at all using localbitcoins.com. Anyone is allowed to participate and no one can manipulate the fundamental rules of the currency.

Keep living in denial.

No one can answer your question as no one knows what the next recession will look like. In the scenarios I described, bitcoin is an obvious safe haven. In which case, I'd expect the price to go higher.

Bitcoin has never lived through a recession yet. No one knows how it'll behave. It was born in the flames of the great financial crisis. Hopefully it solved the problems that it was created to solve.

Ok, how about this: It's the most difficult asset to confiscate in existence. In the worst case scenario, as long as I can memorize 12 words I can take my wealth with me anywhere.

Is bitcoin volatile? Absolutely...but how do you expect a completely new asset type to behave? At this point bitcoin is a populist movement just as unexpected as Trump or Brexit. It's a populist revolt against monetary policy which people have no control over. Of course this trustless and decentralized asset type forcing it's way into the world financial system is going to experience volatility.

When the overall bubble pops, where are you going to go? Will you trust the dollar? What if bonds are defaulting and no one is paying their debts, will you stay in the dollar? What if there's significant inflation? Your life savings are subject to the whims of unelected central bankers who are deciding the winners and losers.

An article claiming bitcoin's a bubble? Wow, hadn't considered that before!

Just yesterday it came to light that the ECB was purchasing fraudulent bonds that are now worthless. The Bank of Japan is directly buying ETFs. The Federal Reserve increased the money supply to levels never seen before using QE, and has yet to reduce its balance sheet even slightly. Housing is more expensive than it's ever been. Stock markets are more expensive than they've ever been. Everyone knows the official rate of inflation is well below the real rate. Our savings accounts have effectively negatively interest rates. But bitcoin is the bubble.

Bitcoin is the only safe haven asset available for purchase right now. It's the only asset that doesn't require me to trust an institution or an individual. It can't be confiscated. It's rules are known.

I'll trust in Bitcoin, thanks.

Bitcoin Cash is the brute force solution to scaling. Increasing block size results in longer validation times as well as slower block propagation. Both of these things lead to centralization. The entire purpose of bitcoin is to be as decentralized as possible.

Anyways, here's a video released today of a lightning transaction happening on mainnet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a73Gz3Tvx3k

Here's a video of Greg Maxwell explaining how slight propagation delays can lead to drastic increases in centralization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHIuuKCm53o

And here's rootstock, an ethereum compatible solution for smart contracts: https://www.rsk.co/

Bitcoin Cash is like trying to solve traffic congestion by adding more lanes.

There’s no evidence Proof of Stake is a viable replacement for Proof of Work.

No, it's currently running on mainnet: https://media.rsk.co/getting-started-with-bamboo-rsk-mainnet...