📅 Original date posted:2014-03-25
📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:40:40PM +0000, Ricardo Filipe wrote:
> 2014-03-25 13:49 GMT+00:00 Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org>:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:45:00AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Bitcoin doesn't scale. There's a lot of issues at hand here, but the
> >> > most fundemental of them is that to create a block you need to update
> >> > the state of the UTXO set, and the way Bitcoin is designed means that
> >> > updating that state requires bandwidth equal to all the transaction
> >> > volume to keep up with the changes to what set. Long story short, we get
> >> > O(n^2) scaling, which is just plain infeasible.
> >> >
> >>
> >> We have a fundamental disagreement here.
> >>
> >> If you go back and read Satoshi's original thoughts on scaling, it is clear
> >> that he imagined tens of thousands of mining nodes and hundreds of millions
> >> of lightweight SPV users.
> >
> > Yeah, about that...
> >
> > https://blockchain.info/pools
> >
>
> On-topic:
> This argument is quite the fallacy. The only reason we have that few
> pools is because each of their miners doesn't find it feasible to mine
> "on their own". if you count the individual miners on those pools you
> will get to the scale Gavin was trying to point out.
>
> Nevertheless i think that is just a minor disagreement, since tree
> chains help decentralization.
I think is actually a major fundamental disagreement, and opinions
tend to correlate strongly with salary considerations.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair
Let us either agree to disagree, or get on with moderating this list
so that only sensible salaried discussions can take place.
Troy Benjegerdes [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m6…rdjn5
2023-06-07 17:16:07
in reply to nevent1q…wul2
Author Public Key
npub1m6p5kgcd428x6pxyfege98zjmlwrdhp0gyz6pdnsvrvalscddnxqurdjn5Published at
2023-06-07 17:16:07Event JSON
{
"id": "e10b2db10290e363b4b2cc858d1421782f035c1b382c60d418f622dffbea1444",
"pubkey": "de834b230daa8e6d04c44e51929c52dfdc36dc2f4105a0b67060d9dfc30d6ccc",
"created_at": 1686150967,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3c27da6ff5bdba86528ff06c79ba5af5a9623e7dac4323d83ba5af42e6338871",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d656e81cc43030136442b055027fdd2c1fb3c9bb2b37314cc926d0051f7fa56f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"aa5cd512f153f77aa335d71793f2cd219569188aedabd7d0239386b17f7728d8"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-03-25\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:40:40PM +0000, Ricardo Filipe wrote:\n\u003e 2014-03-25 13:49 GMT+00:00 Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e:\n\u003e \u003e On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:45:00AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e Bitcoin doesn't scale. There's a lot of issues at hand here, but the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e most fundemental of them is that to create a block you need to update\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e the state of the UTXO set, and the way Bitcoin is designed means that\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e updating that state requires bandwidth equal to all the transaction\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e volume to keep up with the changes to what set. Long story short, we get\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e O(n^2) scaling, which is just plain infeasible.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e We have a fundamental disagreement here.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e If you go back and read Satoshi's original thoughts on scaling, it is clear\n\u003e \u003e\u003e that he imagined tens of thousands of mining nodes and hundreds of millions\n\u003e \u003e\u003e of lightweight SPV users.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Yeah, about that...\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e https://blockchain.info/pools\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e On-topic:\n\u003e This argument is quite the fallacy. The only reason we have that few\n\u003e pools is because each of their miners doesn't find it feasible to mine\n\u003e \"on their own\". if you count the individual miners on those pools you\n\u003e will get to the scale Gavin was trying to point out.\n\u003e \n\u003e Nevertheless i think that is just a minor disagreement, since tree\n\u003e chains help decentralization.\n\nI think is actually a major fundamental disagreement, and opinions\ntend to correlate strongly with salary considerations.\n\n\"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary\ndepends upon his not understanding it!\" -- Upton Sinclair\n\nLet us either agree to disagree, or get on with moderating this list \nso that only sensible salaried discussions can take place.",
"sig": "e839d51d24b5e9e39e5475a118357976b05fc3cbb9be117200f46b82311efec4de73772b4a5d1d96e2efc6eacfc1d8e3775de74e5f7d33a17a98bbb707f8b66c"
}