nivexous

6 ms·

1.
How do you solve a problem like Bitcoin scaling(cityam.com)
2 points by nivexous 5y ago|0 comments
2.
by nivexous 5y ago
There are folks in crypto who both consider most of the industry to be a scam while at the same time are working to fix it because there's something good here. We get hated on by almost everyone - both those in crypto for criticizing
3.
by nivexous 5y ago
Users forced miners to activate Segwit in 2017 Honestly, you don't know this. Users != nodes. A single individual could have spun up tons of nodes to vote for Segwit. Given the stakes and how manipulated social media was at the time,
4.
by nivexous 5y ago
They recently rewrote Bitcoin history due to government action. This never happened. You are spreading lies.
5.
by nivexous 5y ago
Even granting that, it's still not user nodes that matter. We've seen from history (BCH/BSV/BCHA) that applications and exchanges decide which fork gets the ticker.
6.
by nivexous 5y ago
So many reputations and projects in blockchain rest on this flawed idea that users need to run nodes. Users do nothing to extend the chain! If a group of miners wants to change the protocol, it takes another group of miners to counter it.
7.
by nivexous 5y ago
No. In this design users don't trust miners. Users trust Bitcoin . This is important. Banks can censor. Banks can go down. Banks can be forced to confiscate your money by a single court. But if one miner were to act up, other miners a
8.
by nivexous 5y ago
Almost all IP traffic goes through an Internet backbone router which can process 100Gbps+. It's no problem. I suggest people think of Bitcoin miners like this in the future. These would be big operations, yes, but they are economically
9.
by nivexous 5y ago
The reason UTXOs parallelize better is because when you look at a transaction on a UTXO-based blockchain like Bitcoin, you can deterministically and often immediately know from it exactly how the state of the system will change, and which s
10.
by nivexous 5y ago
It's worse. How do people think this will work? You will keep your money in institutions. Transfers will be settled in databases. There will be management fees, insurance requirements, dispute costs, censorship, and surveillance. Read
11.
by nivexous 5y ago
By that argument, we should have capped Internet bandwidth at 56kbps.
12.
by nivexous 5y ago
There's no problem - the word farm is being used differently in different contexts. In the quote you posted, farm is in reference to hashpower. You can have many smaller miners (zombie farms, in your quote) that know nothing about the
13.
by nivexous 5y ago
Mike Hearn, Gavin Andreson, Roger Ver, and countless names I interact with on a regular basis support big blocks and were involved since the beginning. Folks, this what BTC does. Eventually the lies runs out.
14.
by nivexous 5y ago
"Non-authoritative" ... this is why BTC people just suck to talk to. Everyone DYOR. It is indisputable that Satoshi wanted big blocks. Here are a couple quotes: The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Int
15.
by nivexous 5y ago
Bitcoin.com has the Satoshi Archive ( https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/ ) with all his emails and forum posts. Satoshi wanted big blocks, and so BTC largely ignores him or says "We are all satoshi", but
16.
by nivexous 5y ago
If I send you a stolen iPod in the mail, do I forever taint your home address? Are you forced to accept it? No, of course not. You can return it to the police, throw it out, or return it to the sender. If you keep it and use it, then it b
17.
by nivexous 7y ago
CGI scripts sound like a very simple idea when described here, but I avoided learning about them at the time because the name was so arcane. Is there a good reason why these weren’t simply called “executable pages”, or “response programs”,
18.
by nivexous 7y ago
I guess that's true if you think good == popular, but I don't.
19.
by nivexous 7y ago
I'm reminded of a question Peter Thiel asks founders: What is one thing you believe that nearly everybody else disagrees with you on? Having a good answer means you might be onto something big. Everyone building on BSV has a pretty g
20.
by nivexous 8y ago
The new syntax for #private vars is truly terrible and the arguments for it are not compelling enough - some flavor of soft private would be OK. Please, if anyone from TC39 is reading, take the criticism seriously.
21.
by nivexous 8y ago
In Bitcoin SV, there is a saying "devs gotta dev" to refer to the mass of crypto developers that add unnecessary complexity to their coins to solve minor or even nonexistant problems while not seeing the bigger (usually economic)
22.
by nivexous 8y ago
Network effects are too powerful. If they’re smart, they’ll make small changes over a long time, only ever upsetting a minority at once, and so the users stay. That’s Facebook to me, other things to other people.
23.
by nivexous 8y ago
A buyer requires a seller. Who's to say they would?
24.
by nivexous 8y ago
> You could do a hard-fork and slash their stake. In PoW, you can't do this. So ... theft?
25.
by nivexous 8y ago
You're making a different point. Yeah miners can get screwed in a PoW change, but the chain's fundamental properties are not at risk. Users have assets on both chains in a fork and if one chain does something terrible (or even jus
26.
by nivexous 8y ago
Proof-of-stake will ultimatumly fail. The majority stakeholders can change the protocol at will to their benefit, and there’s no defense (without mob theft). With proof-of-work, at least miners can defend or fork. Best of luck to them thoug
27.
by nivexous 8y ago
And yet they don't support Bitcoin SV, the only coin that's still Bitcoin (the idea) at this point, and gives their company its name. How ironic.
28.
by nivexous 8y ago
BCH fees would stay this low even with 30x Bitcoins transaction volume.
29.
by nivexous 8y ago
Because it's not a good argument. The fees are low because usage is low, but as soon as usage rises, the fees will rise again too. That's a broken system. Also, fees on BTC today are still not negligible. Average is 30-50 cents US
30.
by nivexous 8y ago
I have studied the early discussions, and on-chain scaling was always intended to be primary. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to rewrite history. Payment channels are certainly useful for some cases (high volume, low amounts) but they a

More ›