|
|
|
|
|
|
by mike_hearn
3834 days ago
|
|
|
> It's not credibly possible for bitcoin to exist in its current form while also being able to make a $0.0001 payment. Of course it is. I've made such payments many times over the years. The only reason it's not currently possible is because the Bitcoin Core developers have deliberately forced the network to run out of capacity instead of doing what the community wanted and raising the block size limit. So now the fees are huge, payments are flaky and users are rightly complaining that the system they rather liked appears to be losing any advantages it had over the competition. Saying "it isn't feasible" or "not credibly possible" when it was repeatedly done right up until very recently is ... not great. The proposed Lightning Network has received some very strong technical criticism, such as Chris Pacia's article. I wrote a similar one months ago that touched on different issues. I have not seen much in the way of answers to these criticisms. |
|
|
The Bitcoin developers suspect that there is nearly unlimited demand for $0.000000000000000000001 bitcoin transactions (micropayments). "Unlimited demand" is another way of saying "denial-of-service vulnerability".
I think that "forced the network" is tiresome allegation-making. The developers did not force the network to have an asymmetric bandwidth graph, but they definitely have an interest in countering centralization pressure (such as the increase in resource requirements derived from increasing transaction rate directly through the block size parameter). ....
I know you have long-standing disagreements with Bitcoin Core developers, but this does not seem like good reason to gloss over their reasoning.
> Saying "it isn't feasible" or "not credibly possible" when it was repeatedly done right up until very recently is ... not great.
"What they call a 'centralization pressure' was working fine right up until some limitations on that 'centralization pressure' were implemented!"
> instead of doing what the community wanted and raising the block size limit
Btw "what the community wants" is irrelevant when trying to determine feasibility; sum of community-desire-weight does not make community-desired options more/less feasible.