Author: Akiva Lichtner 2015-12-10 03:58:10
Published on: 2015-12-10T03:58:10+00:00
The topic of scaling Bitcoin seems to be a mix of different problems, and Akiva believes people are trying to solve different problems or applying the same solution in different settings which causes endless arguments. He is strictly talking about independent chains. Andrew's post talks about validating transactions without seeing all transactions, which is different from what Akiva is addressing. He views Bitcoin as a timestamp service on all transactions, a total order, which is difficult to scale. Akiva is addressing how to change the system so that blocks can be generated faster if the transaction volume increases and more miners are added. However, Andrew is also talking about transaction verification and making sure that everything doesn't need to be verified. Akiva thinks these are two problems that should have different names. He believes the dream of a virtual currency where everybody is equal and runs the client on their mobile device went out the window long ago. If his organization had to accept bitcoin payments, he would assume they need a small server farm for transaction verification and that they would see all the transactions. He thinks it would be entirely okay for an individual to delegate verification to a trusted party, as long as the trust chain stops there and there is plenty of choice. Akiva believes Bitcoin will only scale when pragmatic considerations take center stage and the academic goals take a lower priority. He thinks companies would make a good living out of running trusted verification services. It doesn't mean there is a bank, but there can be pockets of trust, which is natural because most people trust at least one other person.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T01:56:34.969436+00:00