5 ms·

No, that's not the argument. That argument is that the global bitcoin network is slow as shit, and it would take 5 entire months just to process 140 million US

by burade 6y ago

No, that's not the argument. That argument is that the global bitcoin network is slow as shit, and it would take 5 entire months just to process 140 million US citizens' taxes. Meaning that it's not really viable, unless some technological breakthrough happens.

googlryas 6y ago
It needs a social/political breakthrough, not technological. You could just make block sizes 1000x larger and be done with it. Literally just a configuration variable if everyone would get on board.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > Literally just a configuration variable if everyone would get on board. If.
  - googlryas 6y ago
    Right. Almost an impossible task based on precedent. But my point was that it isn't like the system as designed can't handle way more transactions than it currently does. If you have a sports car that is limited to do 15mph, but can actually do 215mph if you remove the artificial limiter, then you don't need a technological breakthrough to get the car to go to 215mph.
- mr_woozy 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNEQS80-h4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNEQS80-h4 - Luke Dashjr "Briefly, Why Block Sizes Shouldn't Be Too Big" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92AYj_9W7x0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92AYj_9W7x0 - Why is Block Size 1MB Andreas Antonopoulos There's simple trade-off between decentralized and bandwidth requirements. If you raise the limit you reduce the pool of those that run full nodes thereby centralizing the network at which point you're undermining the point of a decentralized ledger.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  So many problems are like this though and they don't get solved. I doubt bitcoin will be any different.
bhupy 6y ago
But that's sort of a straw-man representation of what (most) Bitcoin adherents see as the future of Bitcoin / crypto. I don't think anyone serious expects the raw blockchain to power every single transaction in real time, rather it's seen as a mechanism to supplant clearing houses. Consider that every night, banks submit batch files to a network of clearing houses in order to electronically transact US dollars (credit cards, Venmo, etc are all just abstractions on top of this ultimate step). The slow, asynchronous blockchain transaction is meant to be a replacement for that step. The steel-man version of the Bitcoin/crypto future is that most people would use trust-based institutions to perform instant transactions (like credit cards and Venmo), just that the ultimate step involves an hour long blockchain transaction rather than a days-long ACH batch file. The fact that the Blockchain also enables individual point-to-point payments (albeit slowly) in a trust-less way is more of a replacement to having to mail somebody an envelope/briefcase full of cash, which is currently the only way one can transact if one is blacklisted by the centralized institutions. And depending on your political leanings, you might still prefer to use centralized payments on top of Bitcoin/crypto instead of on top of USD because with the former, there's little room for funny business by central bank reserve messing with the supply of money.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  > rather than a days-long ACH batch file Same-day ACH exists today. Even for international transactions. Most ACH batch files can be processed in as little as an hour. To the extent there's anything preventing "instant transactions" its (1) AML regulations and (2) internal/contractual (Visa, etc.) fraud prevention, not the ACH process.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    That's not the point though, the point is that Bitcoin is not comparable to the entire financial system, rather it's comparable to raw cash. Just like it's pretty infeasible for everyone to always use cash all the time, it would be pretty infeasible for everyone to always use Bitcoin-on-the-blockchain to buy a cup of coffee. What Bitcoin allows you to do is build a financial system comprised of products that look like Venmo, credit cards, banks, etc on top of a currency system that's 1) censorship resistant (unlike ACH), and 2) independent of central bank monetary policy (unlike most fiat currencies). The degree to which you care about (2) is obviously based on your political leanings, but (1) basically turns paper-money in-person transactions into something that can happen between strangers over the Internet unencumbered. Most crypto bulls hope that the vast majority of people use instant bank-driven payments, just based on the blockchain at the lowest layer, rather than USD-over-ACH. And to be clear, I'm not really a crypto bull and I don't really have a horse in the race. But this is the steel-man argument for crypto.
reidjs 6y ago
Why would the US Gov want people to pay their taxes in BTC instead of USD?

by burade 6y ago

googlryas 6y ago

It needs a social/political breakthrough, not technological. You could just make block sizes 1000x larger and be done with it. Literally just a configuration variable if everyone would get on board.

throw0101a 6y ago
> Literally just a configuration variable if everyone would get on board. If.
- googlryas 6y ago
  Right. Almost an impossible task based on precedent. But my point was that it isn't like the system as designed can't handle way more transactions than it currently does. If you have a sports car that is limited to do 15mph, but can actually do 215mph if you remove the artificial limiter, then you don't need a technological breakthrough to get the car to go to 215mph.
mr_woozy 6y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNEQS80-h4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNEQS80-h4 - Luke Dashjr "Briefly, Why Block Sizes Shouldn't Be Too Big" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92AYj_9W7x0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92AYj_9W7x0 - Why is Block Size 1MB Andreas Antonopoulos There's simple trade-off between decentralized and bandwidth requirements. If you raise the limit you reduce the pool of those that run full nodes thereby centralizing the network at which point you're undermining the point of a decentralized ledger.
jeffreyrogers 6y ago
So many problems are like this though and they don't get solved. I doubt bitcoin will be any different.

bhupy 6y ago

But that's sort of a straw-man representation of what (most) Bitcoin adherents see as the future of Bitcoin / crypto. I don't think anyone serious expects the raw blockchain to power every single transaction in real time, rather it's seen as a mechanism to supplant clearing houses. Consider that every night, banks submit batch files to a network of clearing houses in order to electronically transact US dollars (credit cards, Venmo, etc are all just abstractions on top of this ultimate step). The slow, asynchronous blockchain transaction is meant to be a replacement for that step. The steel-man version of the Bitcoin/crypto future is that most people would use trust-based institutions to perform instant transactions (like credit cards and Venmo), just that the ultimate step involves an hour long blockchain transaction rather than a days-long ACH batch file. The fact that the Blockchain also enables individual point-to-point payments (albeit slowly) in a trust-less way is more of a replacement to having to mail somebody an envelope/briefcase full of cash, which is currently the only way one can transact if one is blacklisted by the centralized institutions. And depending on your political leanings, you might still prefer to use centralized payments on top of Bitcoin/crypto instead of on top of USD because with the former, there's little room for funny business by central bank reserve messing with the supply of money.

elliekelly 6y ago
> rather than a days-long ACH batch file Same-day ACH exists today. Even for international transactions. Most ACH batch files can be processed in as little as an hour. To the extent there's anything preventing "instant transactions" its (1) AML regulations and (2) internal/contractual (Visa, etc.) fraud prevention, not the ACH process.
- bhupy 6y ago
  That's not the point though, the point is that Bitcoin is not comparable to the entire financial system, rather it's comparable to raw cash. Just like it's pretty infeasible for everyone to always use cash all the time, it would be pretty infeasible for everyone to always use Bitcoin-on-the-blockchain to buy a cup of coffee. What Bitcoin allows you to do is build a financial system comprised of products that look like Venmo, credit cards, banks, etc on top of a currency system that's 1) censorship resistant (unlike ACH), and 2) independent of central bank monetary policy (unlike most fiat currencies). The degree to which you care about (2) is obviously based on your political leanings, but (1) basically turns paper-money in-person transactions into something that can happen between strangers over the Internet unencumbered. Most crypto bulls hope that the vast majority of people use instant bank-driven payments, just based on the blockchain at the lowest layer, rather than USD-over-ACH. And to be clear, I'm not really a crypto bull and I don't really have a horse in the race. But this is the steel-man argument for crypto.

reidjs 6y ago

Why would the US Gov want people to pay their taxes in BTC instead of USD?