I've been watching videos from decentralized thought.
The main video that got me was blockstreams involvement in Bitcoincore development, most of the bitcoin core devs work for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BZoKH-hX_o
The other is about LN being a way to centralise bitcoin to regulated entities. i was a bit dubious on this one as i don't fully understand how LN works. i get the basics, utxo is encumbered i.e. loaned to send from alice to bob when relayed via a node. so its an interesting take on why he thinks LN was used instead of 0-conf, something way less complicated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g
The videos are compelling, but also a bit on the tad conspiracy side esp with the LN end goal.
His other videos are quite good bar a few. one of the few crypto youtubers who actually knows how blockchain works.
as to my thoughts on bitcoin core and LN
LN, none of this is necessary, its risky and its complicated. everything can be done on chain with 0-conf. which of course is preaching to the choir to you guys. btc was originally intended to increase the blocksize so 0-conf would work. i think replace by fee should be removed though, you need bigger block sizes of course, which was a highly political issue.
in the LN white paper it says that it would require a 133mb block size if 1 person opened a channel with someone else in the world in the same day. 7 billion was the figure. i think this is a terrible way to think about the adoption of LN as it won't be used this way.
as for segwit seemed like a decent change since 70% of transaction bytes is the locking script. the malleability fix was good as it prevents a denial of service attack.
some questions
-
do you think the corporatization of bitcoin core is true? if so why?
-
what are your thoughts on segwit? does moving the locking script and cramming more transaction in a block good? if not why?
-
ive never been given a good solid answer on why the 1mb block size was not increased on BTC. it seems like a no brainer. why do this? i thought it was just big miners who refused to accept a fork, so they could get more fees. but i was told the miners were accepting of these changes. So why the resistance?
-
ive read that for bitcoin cash to scale to high transaction volumes it would require gigabyte blocks, but that was just based on some comment someone told me in a thread, so it could be bullshit. is this true?
-
If the above is q is true true, why not improve the PoW algo, PoW can scale much faster than 10 min block intervals, btc was just the first, the risk of forming long chains of stale blocks isnt as risky as thought and there have been many ideas to improve PoW efficiency. an example is GHOST in ethereum with 17 second block times. im not saying bitcoin or bitcoin cash should do the same protocol however 10 mins can be improved upon, what do you think?
also if my understanding is wrong in any of how this works, id appreciate the corrections.
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/amzvei/the_corporatisation_of_bitcoin_core_do_you_think/
No comments:
Post a Comment