SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Tuesday, a faction of the Bitcoin community launched an audacious experiment: a new version of Bitcoin called Bitcoin Cash that's incompatible with the standard version. As a result, the Bitcoin network split into two mutually incompatible networks that will operate side-by-side.
[...] For over a year, the Bitcoin network has been bumping up against a capacity limit hard-coded into the Bitcoin software. Each block in the Bitcoin blockchain—the network's public, shared transaction ledger—is limited to 1 megabyte. That artificial limit prevents the network from processing more than about seven transactions per second.
Technically speaking, it would be trivial to change that 1 megabyte limit to a higher value. But proposals to do so have faced opposition from traditionalists who argue the limit is actually an important feature of Bitcoin's design that protects the network's democratic character. To participate in the network's peer-to-peer process for clearing transactions, a computer needs a copy of every transaction ever made on the Bitcoin network, which adds up to gigabytes of data per month.
Small-block supporters worry that raising the block limit will raise the storage and bandwidth costs of participating in the network, pricing out ordinary users. That could lead to a Bitcoin network dominated by a few big players, making the network more susceptible to government control and regulation—exactly what Bitcoin was created to avoid.
Big-block supporters say storage and bandwidth costs have fallen so quickly that this isn't a serious concern. And they say Bitcoin is going to need to process a lot more than seven transactions per second to become a mainstream technology with a real shot at changing the world.
This argument has dragged on for more than two years with no resolution. So instead of continuing to bicker, a group of big-block supporters took matters into their own hands. They forked the standard, open-source Bitcoin client to create a rival version of the software.
Also covered at: https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/01/bitcoin-feud-splits-the-cryptocurrency-in-two/
Considering our crypto-currency story from yesterday, Internet's Largest Bitcoin Mixer Shuts Down Realizing Bitcoin is Not Anonymous, do Soylentils think that perhaps Bitcoin might be starting to fray at the seams?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday August 02 2017, @11:54PM (11 children)
Is the competition better?
* Dash
* Zerocoin
* Ethereum
And why not simply increase the block rate instead of the size? Way simpler to deal with in FPGA etc.
How about Gold?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by liberza on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:23AM (6 children)
Monero is one cryptocurrency that's caught my eye during the Bitcoin infighting. It aims to be private by default, making it more fungible than BTC, more like cash.
As for increasing the block rate... well, that will still cause the block chain to bloat. Actually, it would bloat a little bit faster than increasing blocksize for the same amount of transactions, because of the metadata in each block.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:35AM (5 children)
Is the problem inherent with Bitcoin or is it a general cryptocurrency problem? and is there any way to get past the 7 transaction/second limit without cobbling up peoples communication lines or processing capacity?
(Score: 1) by liberza on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:39AM (4 children)
It seems like a problem that all cryptocurrencies will face when they get more heavily adopted. One possible solution is using an abstraction on top of Bitcoin like the lightning network:
(Score: 1) by liberza on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:42AM (3 children)
Can't edit... Here's the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:50AM (2 children)
Competition: Our money is cheaper than your money! Move over today! Save millions of drachmae! No taxes! Babes in bikinis! You can host the Miss Universe Pageant! In Moscow! And no one will know it was you, or that you peed the bed! Bit-coin: What happens in bit-coin, stays in bit-coin. With a permanent record. And, it's not real money.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday August 03 2017, @07:28AM (1 child)
Currencies don't compete on price, they compete on stability. You can get very many Zimbabwean dollars for a single US dollar, that is, Zimbabwean dollars are much cheaper than US dollars. However few people would prefer getting Zimbabwean dollars to getting US dollars.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @01:14PM
Though with Z$s I can claim to give $1000(z) to a friend and be like, "Zing!"
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday August 03 2017, @10:18AM (3 children)
Is it just me, or is this starting to sound like rival religions arguing over who has the best imaginary friend? "My imaginary currency is better than yours!". "No it's not, all the cool kids are using my imaginary currency!". "A jihad on you all, my imaginary currency is the only true one!".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @11:20AM (1 child)
A hammer is good for driving nails but a saw or an axe comes handy cutting a tree trunk. What I mean is how good a tool is depends on what you're trying to do.
Religion is hogwash, agreed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:56PM
Well, religion in the past has proven to be a great tool to make people do what you want them to do.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 04 2017, @03:03AM
If your imaginary friend can be used to get more tangible things and is more reliable. There's an incentive to move.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Justin Case on Thursday August 03 2017, @12:51AM (2 children)
I admit following "digital currency" only from a distance, but I thought what made the whole concept work was the immutability of the blockchain, once transactions had settled and been confirmed by more than 50% of the participants.
Now we have Ether-whatever forking whenever they want to erase a mistake. Whatever happened to "no central authority" and "payments are irrevocable"?
One of the criticisms of Bitcoin is the "built in deflation". But hey if we can just fork it every week (and thereby double the number of coins that exist?) isn't that rather inflationary?
It seems like a lot of promises are turning out to be empty and digital currencies are on the verge of losing whatever credibility they might have had.
Billion dollar bubble bursting time???
"Fray at the seams"? Uh, yeah! Someone has been sanding off the corners of the "1" bits, just like used to happen with gold coins!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by liberza on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:33AM
The number of Bitcoin that will ever exist has not changed. When the block chain forks, the longest branch of that fork is "Bitcoin". The other branch of that fork is not. In this case, that other branch is BCash.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @05:51PM
that's why ethereum classic exists. because you can't go and change history just because you (or other entities) don't like it.
(Score: 1) by dbv on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:19AM (3 children)
Bitcoin (BTC) is trading at $2716 and Bitcoin Cash (BCC, the smaller one) at $488. That said, the block size and time are problems (too small, both of them) but it seems like it will get aleviated, one way or another. I think some really exciting times are ahead of us, in terms of crypto currencies.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:24AM (2 children)
The blockchain growth seems like a devastating bad time for crypto currencies. The more mainstream the payments get, the worse the scaling problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @09:42AM
They should have used MongoDB. It's web scale.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @05:58PM
bitshares handles volume just fine and so will EOS. Bitcoin has been the slowest to adopt needed features because it lacks governance. this is why alt currencies have grown. unfortunately, due to central exchanges and banks, BTC remains the on and off ramp, thus tying alt coins to BTC which means none have truly broken free from BTC's limitations, price and adoption wise. people are working on these limitations and once you can buy any coin from anywhere, without some mole intermediary, things will explode. assuming projects can push the info to the end users, who are too lazy to find anything out themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:08AM (5 children)
It already is, though? The top 5 miners account for more than 50% of all transactions.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:28AM (2 children)
Also, isn't it partially a question of the "traditionalists" (read "early adopters") protecting their own profits for being an early adopter by pushing the deflationary nature of the currency?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:45AM (1 child)
The deflationary nature is mainly to encourage people to save rather than waste their money on stuff they don't really need and pollute the environment, etc.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 03 2017, @10:27PM
That might be what they say the deflationary nature of Bitcoin is supposed to be for, but I have a hunch that a lot of the early adopters liked the idea that it would make the early adopters a bunch of money. Principles are nice and all, but they have a very noticeable tendency to obey self-interest.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @11:24AM (1 child)
How is that not a huge problem? Note that TFA says
Emphasis mine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @06:01PM
i don't understand why some checksum of the blockchain couldn't be used for the client nodes. why does everyone need the actual blockchain just to use the client/coin?