Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@nickodell
Last active August 29, 2015 14:23
  • Star 0 You must be signed in to star a gist
  • Fork 0 You must be signed in to fork a gist
Star You must be signed in to star a gist
Save nickodell/aea66afc9a56e6035285 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Bitcoin Scaling
Your post advocates a
( ) sidechains ( ) block-size increase ( ) anti-spam ( ) lightning-network ( ) off-chain
approach to scaling Bitcoin. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws.)
( ) There is no explanation of how Bitcoins on the sidechain will get back onto the mainchain.
( ) This will make it more difficult to run a full node, when node counts are already dropping.
( ) The idea of "spam transactions" is not well defined, and every proposed filtering method impedes legitimate use cases.
( ) Your approach allows unrelated nodes to defraud each other, and there is no arbitration process other than "complain on reddit."
( ) The NSA will start operating some of the trusted intermediaries.
( ) Free wallet providers will steal the Bitcoins entrusted to them.
( ) It will be expensive to operate off-chain solutions, because of regulatory barriers and hackers; therefore, there will be very few of them.
( ) It requires both parties to be online.
Specifically, your plan fails to account for:
( ) SPV wallets.
( ) It requires trusted infrastructure, and there is no plan about how to pay for it.
( ) Your plan requires everyone to upgrade to an incompatible system, which is impossible unless there's a crisis.
( ) Payments will mysteriously go missing or never arrive.
( ) There is one or more trusted server, and the failure of any one trusted server will compromise the privacy or security of multiple users.
( ) It makes coins non-fungible.
( ) It makes a consensus-critical part of Bitcoin an order of magnitude more complicated.
( ) It allows anyone who can mine a hundred blocks to steal money.
( ) Memory exhaustion from too many mempool transactions will start crashing Bitcoin nodes.
( ) Your solution will actually create more traffic unless it's used a minimum amount.
( ) Wallets will be much harder to create, leading to fewer, buggier, options.
( ) People will lose money if their nodes go offline, so using this with mobile will be impossible.
( ) Having a trusted off-chain provider is no better than a trusted block-verifier.
( ) If a node goes down, your money will be unspendable for months.
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) If we implement your proposal, we'll be debating the same thing two years down the line.
( ) Fee-based approaches exclude small users and encourage large banks.
( ) People should not need to set up a crusty configuration file before accepting payments.
( ) Your proposal is vague, and contains no actual code or implementation details.
( ) There should be no formal barrier to entry to processing transactions.
( ) You're arguing against centralization, without coherently explaining what kind of centralization you're trying to prevent, or why it's a problem.
( ) It depends on complicated software packages independent of bitcoin, whose developers will have to be trusted
( ) You have used math to show that one part of your system will scale to the entire world, while ignoring the part that is much harder to scale.
( ) You say that the free market will solve the problem, without explaining how.
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) You almost got me, JTRIG.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment