Published on: 2015-07-31T15:27:45+00:00
In July 2015, the bitcoin-dev mailing list saw a discussion regarding decentralized systems and their transaction costs and scarcity. Gavin Andresen challenged the idea that decentralized systems inherently have high transaction costs, while Bryan Bishop argued that high transaction costs and scarcity are inherent in any decentralized system. The conversation also touched on internet architecture and the need for better architecture.Mark Friedenbach proposed that a decentralized system like bitcoin can scale through distribution but requires changes to Bitcoin consensus rules. Thomas Zander suggested a solution where miners use a CPU in a well-connected data center and connect to it over RPC to get a "block 000f00" accepted signal. Zander concluded that innovation for making things better for miners should be done in miner-specific software.The email thread from Thomas Zander discussed the potential for decentralized technology to follow a similar path to multi-core CPUs. He compared the initial skepticism towards multi-core CPUs to the current skepticism towards decentralized technology. He noted that libraries and approaches for distributed systems can also be useful for decentralized systems.Gavin Andresen mentioned several successful decentralized systems, including Git and Google's search system, in a discussion about decentralized systems. He explored why the internet succeeded over more efficient centralized systems. Thomas Zander questioned whether Bitcoin would be outcompeted and replaced due to high transaction costs, and Bryan Bishop argued that decentralized systems will always have high transaction costs but also offer replication, redundancy, and cheap expansion of capacity.Gavin Andresen argued that successful decentralized systems like the internet prove that high transaction costs and scarcity are not inherent in decentralized systems. He also questioned the level of decentralization of the internet and its technology. Jorge Timón argued that even if the Lightning Network was never developed, fees in Bitcoin would still be competitive with non-decentralized payment systems.In another email thread, Bryan Bishop stated that any decentralized system will inherently have high transaction costs and scarcity. The email thread dated July 30, 2015, discussed Bitcoin's protocol functions and the implications of scalability and speed. It was agreed that Bitcoin should scale while maintaining decentralization. The addition of "layer 2" protocols like Lightning will allow fast, low-fee bitcoin transactions within two years.The conversation between members of the bitcoin-dev mailing list addressed various aspects of Bitcoin's future, including its role as a high-value settlement network, transaction fees, and the potential for Bitcoin to be outcompeted. There were disagreements on the impact of high transaction fees and the importance of decentralization.Adam Back, Venzen Khaosan, and Raystonn engaged in a recent email thread discussing the future of Bitcoin and its competition with other blockchains. Adam Back argued that Bitcoin's high level of security and the lack of expertise required to maintain it make it difficult for alternative blockchains to compete. Raystonn countered by stating that economic policy will be the distinguishing factor for alternative blockchains, and cheaper fees are essential to attract users towards Bitcoin. Venzen Khaosan questioned the statement about "liquidity moves to the location of least friction" and asked for a reference to modern economic study.The discussion also touched upon the topic of larger blocks potentially hurting decentralization. A server administrator or systems engineer who has been involved with Bitcoin since 2010 argued against this concern. They concluded that small devices can easily run Bitcoin nodes with larger blocks, with minimal operational costs.Gregory Maxwell addressed various points about Bitcoin's future, emphasizing that Bitcoin is more than just a payment system. He listed its attributes, including sound money, censorship resistance, personal control over money, and programmable money. Maxwell also discussed the potential impact of artificially high transaction fees on the Bitcoin network and the issue of alternative blockchains leeching some of Bitcoin's value. He suggested addressing these concerns through focused solutions rather than ignoring them completely.Lastly, Mike Hearn criticized Eric Lombrozo's article on settling the block size debate, disagreeing with the assumption that users are buying space in Bitcoin blocks. He proposed secure hardware attestation as a solution for double spends and called for more focus on upgrading existing wallets.Overall, the discussions revolved around the scalability, decentralization, and transaction costs of Bitcoin, with participants offering different perspectives and proposing various solutions.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T14:41:51.393823+00:00