Published on: 2015-05-28T10:30:55+00:00
The article discusses the concept of assurance contracts for paying miners in Bitcoin. The current system pays miners regardless of whether they support or oppose the user's interests, but assurance contracts propose to pay miners based on their actions. However, the article notes that transaction fees already exist as a mechanism for paying for security and may be more effective than assurance contracts. The author also acknowledges that the success of assurance contracts is uncertain and that funding development through crowdfunding is still an experimental plan. Additionally, the author mentions that existing crowdfunding platforms do not typically incorporate ongoing costs into binary contracts.Mike Hearn, a developer involved in the creation of Bitcoin, explains the concept of hashing assurance contracts. He argues that transaction fees, which already exist in Bitcoin, serve as a mechanism for paying for security and can solve the common action problem of people waiting for others to pay for security. However, he questions the workability of assurance contracts, particularly for ongoing costs like security. Hearn also points out that many crowdfunding platforms do not use binary contracts for ongoing costs. He reminds readers that mining per-contract poses an existential risk to Bitcoin.In a recently written article, the hashing assurance contract concept is explained in detail. While the article does not provide an in-depth protocol description, it offers valuable insights into the concept. The article can be useful for those interested in understanding hashing assurance contracts.In an email exchange, Thomas expresses his agreement with Gavin that long-term planning for Bitcoin's future is ambitious and cannot justify decisions made today. Thomas believes that opposition to block size increases stems from concerns about increased centralization and long-term fee pressure needs. He supports the proposed block size increase but acknowledges the issue of long-term mining incentives. He suggests solutions such as ending the original block halving schedule or allowing miners to redeem lost coins. Thomas emphasizes the importance of adopting proven solutions rather than relying on untested methods.The lack of vision in the Bitcoin community is discussed in an email exchange. Gavin expresses concerns about planning for 20 years ahead given the uncertainty surrounding the longevity of Bitcoin. The author suggests that an elevated level of hashing is crucial for maintaining decentralization and autonomy in the network. They argue that the current system of incentivizing through inflation should be replaced with minimum fees for transactions. The author emphasizes the importance of letting network users express their preferences for security and willingness to pay for it.In another email conversation, the sender suggests alternatives such as sidechains and off-chain solutions that still use Bitcoin as a unit of value. However, the recipient argues that the only options currently available are of the centralized custody variety. The sender explains that when the block size limit is reached, transactions at the margins will experience unpredictable failure. They suggest slowing blockchain growth by increasing fees alone. The recipient compares the cost of using gold to Bitcoin, but the sender counters by pointing out the costs associated with using gold and how people shifted to fiat currency over time.The debate over increasing the block size as a solution to scalability is ongoing in the Bitcoin community. Some argue that there are plenty of options to increase fees and incentivize users to economize on block space. Others believe that payment channels are a more viable solution than increasing the block size. Concerns are raised about the future of Bitcoin's security when the block subsidy becomes insignificant. The community is encouraged to focus on the debate over hardforks rather than the block size debate, and a clear criterion for acceptable hardforks is suggested.In May 2015, Thomas Voegtlin initiated a discussion about the long-term mining incentives of Bitcoin. He questions whether a steady-state regime can exist in the future and what conditions are necessary for its existence. Proponents of a block size increase argue that if the block size is not raised soon, Bitcoin may enter a harmful regime. However, opponents argue that increasing the block size limit could lead to unknown consequences. expressing skepticism about the feasibility and sustainability of relying solely on fees to support mining incentives. They argue that without a block size increase, there will not be enough transaction fees to incentivize miners in the long term. They also mention potential issues with scaling and the need for a clear vision from both proponents and opponents of a block size increase. Additionally, they highlight the importance of considering alternative solutions such as payment channels for scalability instead of solely focusing on increasing the block size. The individual further emphasizes the experimental nature of Bitcoin and cautions against rushing into decisions regarding the block size limit. They advocate for a cautious approach as the Bitcoin infrastructure continues to grow rapidly.Gavin Andresen, a core developer of Bitcoin, acknowledges the importance of proof-of-work (PoW) in securing the chain but believes that alternatives might be necessary in the future. He suggests that new innovations or methods could be developed that do not compromise Bitcoin's security model. Andresen also proposes payment channels as a potential solution to scalability challenges, rather than increasing the block size.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T12:40:09.453657+00:00