The expansion of the dispute about bitcoin Nakamoto, how to say?
Bitcoin expansion battle was not from the beginning of last year, more than in 2013 or beginning of 2011. When the expansion of bitcoin was already exists, even in the presence of Nakamoto officially issued currency before this encryption. Since then, the debate has never stopped.
Sometimes the argument can bring progress, and sometimes they cannot. In the bitcoin expansion of the battle, we found the focus of debate over the years has not changed.
Most people know that the bitcoin block capacity dispute is not out of thin air, but few people understand that all this should start in November 2008. At that time, Nakamoto in his cryptography friends in his first public project.
In fact, after Nakamoto put forward the concept of bitcoin, the first response he got from James? Donald (JamesA.Donald), a Canadian Liberal punk and cryptography. He said: “it seems not expansion.”
I understand you this concept in mind, we need such a system, but it seems not in accordance with the demand for expansion…… In order to test and to prevent the flower, a transaction must contain a large number of transactions in the past, so everyone must have the most recent past transactions or proven trading. If millions of people were trading at the same time, it will consume a large amount of bandwidth.
Nakamoto So’s response is now being many chain expansion supporters cited:
Before the network overload, users can use the simple payment verification (SPV, SimplifiedPaymentVerification) examination can ensure the safety of the transaction of Flos lonicerae. In this case, the whole chain requires area size, or every day about extra 12KB.
Only need to run the whole miner nodes, while Nakamoto appeared on large server farms not what views.
First of all, most users will run the network node, but with the expansion of the network, the server field will be more and more professional hardware, joint operation will also give more professionals to complete. A server only need to run a network node, and the rest of the LAN can be connected to this node.
In addition, Nakamoto also believes that the demand for bandwidth and Donald did not think so serious.
The problem of bandwidth as serious as you think. A common market is about 400 bytes (bytes), error correction code (ECC) compact. Each transaction must be broadcast two times, assuming that each transaction size is 1KB. In fiscal year 2008, Visa handled a total of 37 billion transactions, an average of 100 million a day. Such a large volume of transactions in the consumption of 100GB bandwidth, but also can be said to be 12 DVD or two HD film size, or according to the current price of about $18 in bandwidth.
The size of the network to really expand to such a degree, may also need a few years. At that time, the Internet two HD movie isn’t what happened.
Generally speaking, most of the people on the history reference to end here. Many people use these words to prove that Nakamoto is a chain expansion plan, and that he is very confident, after the expansion of bitcoin can reach Visa level. But Donald’s response is very interesting. He fully expounded his views, more importantly, he also foresaw today most chain expansion opponents point of view.
First of all, he explains the relationship between the government and economic entities, and said he was not willing to step out of this relationship to a large server farm to dig bitcoin:
If some enterprises in the issuance of new currency, compared with a single enterprise, this model may not be vulnerable to attack. But the government will usually choose to attack the financial network. As I write these words, the attack is still in progress, a large number of financial enterprises therefore declining.
For Donald, the only viable solution is possible to run mining nodes in small scale:
I think, as the currency, the issue of currency as a small currency, we should try to reduce the data and bandwidth requirements, the protocol description model is a kind of waste. Data storage and bandwidth requirements of the currency system is small, the resistance is stronger, but not easy to attack by the government.
In the view of Donald, bitcoin and bank cards are not comparable:
You have no place to go to the bank card.
At present, file sharing is the essence of binary units sharing…… File sharing is low in cost, per second each client can handle several transactions.
In his opinion, the bitcoin file is only a method of sharing:
…… Bitcoin should have a functional layer, with minimal space support most of the transactions, and provides anonymity. Is based on Anjum (chaumian) currency (digital cash) bookkeeping currency.
Plan proposed by Donald is called payment channel in today. Now, lightning network (LightningNetwork) as bitcoin protocol layer second, constructs a payment channel network, almost real-time send millions of transactions.
Idea of lightning based on network, Donald believes that bitcoin is a settlement system, rather than pay system:
We can based on digital gold coins, coins and currency for bookkeeping Joe to build a layer of privacy. As before the U.S. banking system in 1915 for gold coins and paper bills into account (bank). Indeed, because of bandwidth control, file sharing and non white list communication charges, we need to reduce the transaction cost in this way, support micro transactions.
From the above quotation can be seen between the seed block capacity as early as Nakamoto to Hal? Finney (HalFinney) issued before the first bitcoin transactions have to germinate.
In December 2010, another senior cypherpunks and cryptographers Hal? Finney (HalFinney) bitcoin bank expressed their views:
In fact, bitcoin bank is necessary to exist. The bank can issue its own digital cash currency, bitcoin can be replaced. Because bitcoin itself does not have the advantage of expansion, it can not be broadcast to all the people of the world every financial transaction, as well as the chain block. The second layer must develop a lightweight and efficient payment system. Similarly, bitcoin exchange time was as large value medium of exchange is unrealistic.
HalFinney does not believe that bitcoin is a payment system, but a kind of currency. Like all the money as payment process through an intermediary, the bank is what he said.
Bitcoin bank can solve these problems. Before the currency nationalization, they function like all other banks. Different banks can adopt different policies: some more radical, some are more conservative; some can have reserves, while others are 100% based on bitcoin; interest rates also have some changes; the bank’s capital can even low-cost trading.
This is confirmed in the bitcoin miners block chain trading network can become all bitcoin bank anchor:
I think this is the ultimate fate of bitcoin is the bank deposit reserve, digital cash reserve currency. Most of the bitcoin transactions by the bank, network transfer and settlement. Private bitcoin transactions will become very scarce, as today’s bitcoin purchases.
HalFinney got the idea to respond very little, but also very sharp. A bitcointalk user comments:
It sounds like a part of the reserve system, bitcoin is not claiming to be able to avoid this tender trap?
But at that time people would never think of this topic will lead to endless debate today.
2013: GavinAndresen, PeterTodd, MikeHearn, GregoryMaxwell
At the end of January 2013, the expansion issue became a hot topic on bitcointalk. At that time, some people think that will block capacity constraints in 1MB is a problem, and suggested by hard bifurcation to achieve expansion.
It is suggested that as soon as possible to increase the capacity of the block:
Before the block capacity exceeds the limit, we must carefully consider the expansion of the problem. At present, most of the block capacity has more than 300KB. Bitcoin development is very rapid, it is beyond doubt, will soon break the 1MB limit.
1MB block Limited is a more practical problem involving users of bitcoin’s expectations and vision: in the 1MB block in the capacity, can only handle 7 transactions per second (in most cases only three or four pen). This has nothing to do with the bitcoin “world currency” title.
However, the expansion of the post just made out there was intense opposition. The user da2ce7 that increase the block capacity through hard bifurcation touches on one of the nature of the problem:
This topic has been discussed many times. 1MB is strictly upper protocol settings, change the upper limit to modify the currency amount as difficult…… That is to say, basically is not possible.
Part of the bitcoin investors actually do not accept this agreement to set the upper limit.
Even if the majority of people agree to amend the limit, including me, a part of the user certainly will not admit this chain.
The expansion of the opposition leader Gregory thought? Maxwell (GregoryMaxwell) also expressed an opinion on this topic. First, he believes that 1MB can limit long-term to provide economic incentives for miners:
From the current situation, increase the block capacity is not reasonable. Because once the block capacity increased, the miners subsidies may be reduced, the bitcoin system might not be safe.
Bitcoin’s value lies in its scarcity. Bitcoin scarcity is one of the important performance of limited supply, the other is a block of limited capacity; only block capacity is limited, there are transaction fees, fees as subsidies to ensure mining safety chain blocks. At present, in addition to the miners, no other ways to ensure the long-term development of the bitcoin, unless we accept monopoly or regulatory intervention (both of which are not feasible, because they do not pay attention to the center of the bitcoin).
But in addition, he has other concerns:
After the block capacity to expand indefinitely, bitcoin may not guarantee it to the center of the large banks: only a small part of voluntary transactions have the ability to verify.
Since the beginning of 2013, the community has been the big block will endanger the bitcoin to center of the important characteristics of the argument.
That year, bitcoin is a kind of soft capacity limit. The miners can improve specific restrictions by soft bifurcation. When bitcoin transactions are rising, developers were also discussed in the soft branch.
At that time, Gavin? Andreason (GavinAndresen) began to consider how to solve the problem of long-term limit block capacity. He suggested a floating block strategy, to ensure that the block size changes with the demand. Peter? Todd (PeterTodd) after listening to the advice of his opposition:
Block expansion is a hot topic recently. But there are few people to consider block increase future incentive policy for miners is likely to lead to the abuse of network center.
Once the block capacity increases indefinitely, the miners will continue to increase the block capacity, weak node elimination. This is the main reason why many people today claim against BitcoinUnlimited.
In any case, miners, especially large miners were able to profit in the large block.
Like Todd said, the end of the story is “the center of the mining industry”.
At this time, Andresen also participated in the debate. His point of view can be said that both sides win:
I strongly recommend that we should not be bitcoin as a “high strength currency” system, after the current bitcoin can only handle 7 transactions per second.
I support StephenPair (BitPay CEO) view is likely to become a highly centralized system.
A party concerned the center node and the miners, the other side is worried about trading center. This Andresen explains his own point of view:
I think we should put the user in the first place, what is the user want? They are low fees and rapid confirmation. We will move in this respect. After all, the user is bitcoin value.
Next we all already know everything. One side is Andresen, Mike Hearn? (MikeHearn) et al., and the other side is Todd, Maxwell et al. As with many other users, Peter? Woolley (PieterWuille) seems to remain neutral. Most users seem to support the expansion of the block, but the specific scheme, size and time are not unified.
Perhaps this is the essence of the expansion of users to say the dispute:
The dispute is the expansion of payment network or hedge for bitcoin is.
This is an old, long, and not the end of the story: which one is the most important? Is a hedge to the center? Is designed for the user’s payment system? The node or whether the transaction should be kept to the center?
In this article, the expansion of the topic only lasted just a few pages. But the debate is not the end; within the community there have been problems, will not stop, will be more and more.