rich1.0npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uhttps://nostr.ae/npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0unjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-27 📝 Original message:I really suggest you look into the layer2 systems Adam pointed to, as you appear to be misinformed about their properties. There are many proposals which really do achieve global consensus using the block chain, just in a delayed (and cached) fashion that is still 100% safe. It is possible to go off-chain without losing the trustlessness and security of the block chain. On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Michael Naber <mickeybob at gmail.com> wrote: > The goal of Bitcoin Core is to meet the demand for global consensus as > effectively as possible. Please let's keep the conversation on how to best > meet that goal. > > The off-chain solutions you enumerate are are useful solutions in their > respective domains, but none of them solves the global consensus problem > with any greater efficiency than Bitcoin does. > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Adam Back <adam at cypherspace.org> wrote: > >> Michael Naber wrote: >> > Bitcoin Core must remain the lowest-fee, highest-capacity, most secure, >> distributed, fastest, overall best solution possible to the global >> consensus problem. >> >> Everyone here is excited about the potential of Bitcoin and would >> aspirationally like it to reach its full potential as fast as >> possible. But the block-size is not a free variable, half those >> parameters you listed are in conflict with each other. We're trying >> to improve both decentralisation and throughput short-term while >> people work on algorithmic improvements mid-term. If you are >> interested you can take a look through the proposals: >> >> >> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008603.html >> >> Note that probably 99% of Bitcoin transactions already happen >> off-chain in exchanges, tipping services, hosted wallets etc. Maybe >> you're already using them, assuming you are a bitcoin user. >> They constitute an early stage layer 2, some of them even have on >> chain netting and scale faster than the block-chain. >> >> You can also read about layer 2, the lightning network paper and the >> duplex micropayment channel paper: >> >> http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf >> >> http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-micropayment-channels.pdf >> >> and read the development list and look at the code: >> >> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/ >> https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning >> >> Adam >> >> >> On 27 June 2015 at 16:39, Michael Naber <mickeybob at gmail.com> wrote: >> > Demand to participate in a low-fee global consensus network will likely >> > continue to rise. Technology already exists to meet that rising demand >> using >> > a blockchain with sufficient block size. Whether that blockchain is >> Bitcoin >> > Core with an increased block size, or whether it is a fork, market >> forces >> > make it almost certain that demand will be met by a blockchain with >> adequate >> > capacity. These forces ensure that not only today’s block size will be >> > increased, but also that future increases will occur should the demand >> > arise. >> > >> > In order to survive, Bitcoin Core must remain the lowest-fee, >> > highest-capacity, most secure, distributed, fastest, overall best >> solution >> > possible to the global consensus problem. Attempting to artificially >> > constrain the block size below the limits of technology for any reason >> is a >> > conflict with this objective and a threat to the survival of Bitcoin >> Core. >> > At the same time, scheduling large future increases or permitting >> unlimited >> > dynamic scaling of the block size limit raises concerns over >> availability of >> > future computing resources. Instead, we should manually increase the >> block >> > size limit as demand occurs, except in the special case that increasing >> the >> > limit would cause an undue burden upon users wishing to validate the >> > integrity of the blockchain. >> > >> > Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB now >> > with a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in >> the >> > special case above is a reasonable path forward? >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list >> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150627/d47f275d/attachment.html>