News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st. Parent comment

Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st by whiskers08xmt on Thursday July 13, 2017 @03:44AM (#14759471)
I think what the miners are afraid of, is that the power of the bitcoin network, leaves their hands and fall into the hands of second layer operators. At the same time, a higher blockchain size would make it less profitable for small miners, to mine bitcoin. Bitfury recently released an analysis, that predicts that 95% of current miners, would find mining to be unprofitable at blocksize of 8MB. This would further centralize profits and power over the protocol, with the big datacenter miners.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st by runeks on Thursday July 13, 2017 @08:50AM (#14760800)
> Bitfury recently released an analysis, that predicts that 95% of current miners, would find mining to be unprofitable at blocksize of 8MB.

I don't understand this. Due to what would 95% of current miners find mining unprofitable at 8MB blocks?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st by whiskers08xmt on Thursday July 13, 2017 @09:06AM (#14760894)
8mb blocks would mean that the bitcoin blockchain, would grow by 35 gigabyte a month. Compare this to the total blockchain size of about 120gb right now. This increases the cost of mining, by requiring miners to keep up on harddisk space. This cost can be amortized, as you can scale your processing independently of your harddisk space, making it even more profitable to mine for big investors, than smaller fish.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st by duckingtest on Thursday July 13, 2017 @12:30PM (#14762682)
There's an old idea that solves the storage issue completely - utxo commitments.

Literally the only real throughput limit is end user's download bandwidth, which means 500MB blocks or so for 10Mbps download. Spv clients are fine for those unfortunate to have monthly limits.

>making it even more profitable to mine for big investors, than smaller fish.

Both storage and bandwidth are utterly insignificant cost items in a mining operation.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st by gruez on Thursday July 13, 2017 @10:39AM (#14761601)
>This increases the cost of mining, by requiring miners to keep up on harddisk space

miners typically mine in pools. so they don't need to download the blockchain because the pool is doing it for them.

[ Parent | on HN ]