1. 3

Note: I edited the title because per the submission guidelines I felt “the original story’s title has no context or is unclear.”

  1.  

  2. 1

    But I do believe that in a decentralized system like Bitcoin that decentralization must be maintained at all costs and it is up to each participant to defend that, any party which is acting to exert influence on the others outside of the consensus rules is in fact attacking the network regardless of hashing power.

    This article assumes that Bitcoin is a decentralized system. The protocol is, and it once was, but it’s currently controlled by the five or so Chinese miners who have 95% of the hashing power. That’s not decentralization, that’s an oligopoly. Bitcoin stability teeters on their reluctance to risk killing the golden goose.

    1. 1

      Just to make sure there are no illusions: Chinese having most of the hash power and the suggestions made by some to raise the block size are two completely different things. Increasing block size is not a solution to the hash rate distribution problem.

    2. 1

      See also this reply to a criticism of the article.

      1. 0

        The reasoning feels very backwards here. The artificial blocksize limit is technically “inaction” in that it’s there already, but it’s very much a centralizing force. And there absolutely is an “external” threat in the form of increased use of the network; the inability to process transactions in time does represent a real threat.

        The fork mechanism is designed to be how bitcoin resolves disputes. It’s built into the protocol.

        1. 3

          Block size limit is not artificial, since there must be some block size limit. Arbitrarily large block takes arbitrarily long time to propagate and can stall the network consensus. I also am not sure how it is a centralizing force.

          “Fork is built into the protocol” is a vacuous statement. It’s like claiming fork is built into IPv4, since when address space runs out, you can switch to IPv6. You can (for some value of “can”), but that’s not the property of IPv4. As a matter of fact, since the internet is a truly decentralized system, you cannot switch from IPv4 to IPV6, flag day style.

          Current hard fork argument is akin to saying if there is a key that gives root access to all routers on the internet, IPv6 upgrade would be much easier and this is desirable. Yes, it would be easier, no, it is not desirable. An easy-to-upgrade system is not a decentralized system.

          1. 1

            Lot of untrue statements there.

            The artificial blocksize limit

            It’s not artificial, it was based on a (fairly good) estimate of what’s needed to prevent a DoS attack on Bitcoin while keeping it decentralized. It’s a necessary component of the system (although yes as bandwidth improves worldwide it can be increased).

            it’s very much a centralizing force

            The exact opposite is true. The block size limit is one of the mechanisms that’s necessary to keep Bitcoin from becoming too centralized.

            And there absolutely is an “external” threat in the form of increased use of the network

            That’s not a threat, it’s the opposite. That would be like saying a popular club is “threatened” by the line outside. Club owner just needs a bit of time to open a new establishment or increase capacity at the existing one without causing major disruption.

            the inability to process transactions in time does represent a real threat

            Bitcoin is processing transactions in time, but you’re right, if you don’t pay a fee at all you might not have your txn accepted by the network. This is something that wallet software will need to get better at (giving you the right fee), and SegWit I hear can help with that.

            The fork mechanism is designed to be how bitcoin resolves disputes. It’s built into the protocol.

            That’s just completely untrue.