News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by toomim on Thursday January 21, 2021 @01:53PM (#25862532)
That's not entirely accurate. His solution was to increase the block limit [1], and use faster computers [2]. Note that Bitcoin Cash is currently implementing this, and succeeding at scaling to 1,100 tx/sec on testnet. (Bitcoin Core supports 3 to 7 tx/sec.)

[1] "It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete. When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade."

~ Satoshi Nakamoto, on bitcointalk.org, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

[2] "Hi Mike,

I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper. There is only one global chain.

The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size. By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.

I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.

Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that."

~ Satoshi Nakamoto in correspondence with Mike Hearn

Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by gruez on Thursday January 21, 2021 @03:00PM (#25863440)
>That's not entirely accurate. His solution was to increase the block limit [1], and use faster computers [2].

This doesn't address the storage requirement problem. 15M transactions per day * 250 bytes per transaction = 1.369 TB per year. After a year most home users wouldn't be able to run a full node without shelling out for extra hardware. After 10 years you'll need to spend hundreds on hard drives just to get started. Sure, it's still decentralized in the sense that you can still run a node, but it'd be closer to usenet (users connecting to independent server farms) than what we have now.

Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by SkyMarshal on Thursday January 21, 2021 @03:15PM (#25863625)
Yes, and we’re already seeing exactly what happens with bigger blocks from Ethereum. The entire thing is being run on Consensys’s centralized Infura servers on AWS. It’s not even decentralized.

This is an unavoidable physical constraint given Bitcoin’s architecture. You can either prioritize decentralization (and with it, censorship resistance), or you can prioritize TPS or in Ethereum’s case heavy-weigh smart contracts (at the cost of decentralization).

Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by xiphias2 on Thursday January 21, 2021 @04:44PM (#25864734)
While I agree with you on everything, and I'm all in on BTC as a store of value, I love some of the contracts that are built on top of Ethereum. Uniswap is an example system that should be implemented in Bitcoin as well over time, as it brings transparency to trading and asset ownership. It doesn't need turing completeness (so gas is not required), though as it needs state management, I think it's important to be able to account for the cost of UTXO created.
Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by SkyMarshal on Friday January 22, 2021 @01:02AM (#25868834)
Yes Ethereum is useful and interesting as an experimental platform to see what's possible with this new tech, and what better-designed L1 protocols, programming languages, and APIs may be able to support.

But I'm not comfortable with their marketing it as a "world computer" among other things, implying it's more production-ready and robust than it really is.

Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by __blockcipher__ on Thursday January 21, 2021 @04:39PM (#25864657)
Everyone having a copy of the whole blockchain is not needed. What you need is sufficiently distributed hashpower that no actor can perform a 51% attack. That's all.

Small-time users can use thin wallets; mega-power users can download the whole blockchain and spend whatever (in perspective, not super significant) amount of money they need for sufficient storage. Users in between can carry a reduced form of the blockchain that doesn't care so much about a full transaction log but accurately describes the state of every wallet's balance (thereby functioning the same from a "verify that they're not bullshitting me" perspective).

Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by xiphias2 on Thursday January 21, 2021 @04:50PM (#25864849)
You just described a way to decrease the security of Bitcoin. Users already decided collectively that no amount of security should be exchanged for other features inside Bitcoin. Even taproot, which is a relatively small change takes years to get to a point that it's accepted.

It's like Kosher food: if a small percentage of people want food to be kosher, it's often easer to make all food Kosher.

As Michael Saylor says, Bitcoin is good enough to store hundreds of trillions of dollars. Just don't f*ck it up.

Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by dane-pgp on Thursday January 21, 2021 @03:18PM (#25863661)
> After 10 years you'll need to spend hundreds on hard drives just to get started.

Do you think that 10 years from now, a 15 TB hard drive will cost at least $200?

Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by gruez on Thursday January 21, 2021 @03:42PM (#25863973)
Maybe? Hard drive growth speeds have slowed down in the past decade or so. While there's no doubt that storage capacity growth will outpace transaction volume growth, and that eventually it would be feasible for a typical home user to run their full node (at visa's TPS). It remains to be seen whether that's 10 years away or 50+ years away.
Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by xiphias2 on Thursday January 21, 2021 @02:15PM (#25862828)
It's interesting, so he didn't see the limits of the system. Scaling tx/s is easy, scaling it without increasing block verification time and cost is what's impossible.

So Bitcoin is not exactly what Satoshi planned, but for me it changed my life completely.

Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by SkyMarshal on Thursday January 21, 2021 @03:23PM (#25863726)
Satoshi did actually see those limits and discussed them in the early days on Metzdowd and Bitcointalk.org. But he covered his bases and allowed for both big data centers and/or layer 2 architectures to solve that problem. I’m don’t recall if he expressed a strong preference for one over the other, though.
Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by __blockcipher__ on Thursday January 21, 2021 @04:41PM (#25864680)
Could you please point to me where Satoshi discussed using "layer 2 architectures" to handle the scaling problem? To my knowledge he always talked about scaling from the perspective of every transaction being published to the blockchain, because that's how the whole system works.
Re:Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website... by __blockcipher__ on Thursday January 21, 2021 @04:42PM (#25864699)
> It's interesting, so he didn't see the limits of the system. Scaling tx/s is easy, scaling it without increasing block verification time and cost is what's impossible.

Nonsense, he absolutely thought about scaling and in his head it was quite simple...because it was. You just need blocks big enough to allow the transaction throughput the world requires, but they need to be a finite size. That's all.

Not sure what you mean about "block verification time" having a scaling problem. It really doesn't.