read: other chains are centralized databases that have no business being blockchains in the first place and can be replaced by single mysql instance.
the trick is not to have high TPS, bitcoin could have unlimited TPS too, it's just a single line of code change. the trick is to have a decentralized system that functions at saturation on commodity hardware.
the conservative minds prevailed during scaling debate in 2015-2017, creating selection pressure for scaling solutions that optimize limited resource - chain space, rather than populist simplistic "solutions" pushed by cheap propaganda slogans like "we can do this much TPS!".
This, too, has been a thought of mine, but I'm not exactly sure how I would block diagram the 'locking' mechanism for the MySQL instance.
I've come to believe the locking mechanism is the nonce produced to sufficient solution parameters that appears to use the difficulty of finding said solution as its defensibility.
So how do you get the 'strength' of the miners throwing ExaHashes at a solution with a single instance? We could easily snapshot the DB and sign them, however, the point of failure is no longer in a 50% attack, but in losing said key... which intuitively feels far less secure?
Curious to hear your thoughts
blockchain and miners only make sense if you need and actually maintain decentralization. if you don't and/or can't - miners (and validators in PoS systems) are useless overhead.
To build on the discussion, I'm more amazed at blockchain's capabilities as a cooperation engine outside of the normal channels. To that end, I'm really surprised we haven't seen significant attrition in the current legal system to smart contract systems. I guess the lack of adoption more highlights just how 'customized' a 'standard' contract or dispute is in the real world.
i don't believe the hype of using blockchains to track some logistical or supply chain data will prove useful simply because all these international corporations already have a system to resolve conflicts and enforce contracts - law.
And thinking out loud, it sounds like if blockchain were used to run financial operations for a company, we could make the infamous audits for Luckin Coffee's and GSX's a thing of the past. Or at least after one mistake (the LC coupon issue was an interesting hack to avoid detection), update the contract, then all future instances are robust to the same issues.
GAAP Rules and Arm's Length Transactions could be factually monitored too... interesting
We have easy to use wallets [2], easy ways to run lightning nodes [3].
And if you look at the average transaction value, you can see that the blockchain itself is acting more of a settlement layer rather than "coffee transactions" as it should [4].
4: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionvalue-btc-xr...
That is a sign of failure.
Many of the cryptos that claim to scale to thousands of tps on layer 1 are all sacrificing decentralization to achieve it, at which point, I might as well use Paypal/Visa. There's no point in being able to scale to those levels in theory if in practice no one uses them.
it is, if the original goal was to be something else.
If you start a marathon and stop to eat the greatest hot dog ever made, it wouldn't be considered a successful run, although you can say "but it was the best!" and be happy about it.
There's nothing wrong, though, with someone taking the open source code and creating LightningCoin from it, though. That would be the equivalent of a pivot.
[0] http://satoshinakamoto.me/2008/11/02/re-bitcoin-p2p-e-cash-p...
Payment channels aren't in the white paper but they were in the first public release and had dedicated opcodes. That first implementation wasn't very practical nor was it secure.
The fact that modern payment channels are implemented with other opcodes may be a pivot in implementation but not in concept.
Bitcoin was supposed to be much more than it currently is, and the "success" of it is a product of continuous goalpost shifting.
I just checked https://mempool.space
A low-priority transaction cost $2.36; medium is $4.39 and high is $7.48.
To put this into context: you can send $10,000 worth of BTC anywhere in the world in an hour for $2.36 right now.
A bank wire transfer for $10,000 is going to be at least $35; often it's more, depending on which country you're sending to and if you have to use an intermediate bank to get to the bank you're ultimately are attempting to reach.
Bank holidays, weekends, etc. don't apply to bitcoin.
Check rates quoted on the final statement versus those prevailing at that time.
For a few limited cases of going USD -> USD (in foreign jurisdiction), and the USD is not converted to anything else ever, there may be a net win.
In all other cases (the majority), you, or the receiver will at some point be paying far more than the wire fee for any transfer over a grand or so.
Schwab operates these retail banking services as a loss-leader for their investment products.
I've never experienced a bank that hasn't silently gouged on forex, and this is the first I've even heard of one that didn't.
Definitely good to continue to be vigilant about such claims.
As for BTC, I wouldn't use it for anything other than a store of value - there are far better crypto options for transferring value. Some cost fractions of cent and take seconds.
Others cost single-digit dollars, but are fiat-pegged so there's no volatility risk at all.
You cannot send $10,000 anywhere in the world via Bitcoin for $2-7, you have to first convert the $10,000 to BTC at a local exchange, wait 3 days, pay 1-2%, suffer slippage, pay $2-7, wait an hour, pay 1-2% at the remote exchange and wait for the money to deposit into a bank account. This is true because you can't spend Bitcoin for goods and services - generally speaking anyways. Bitcoin in this context is just the intermediary unit which is elided in a wire.
Re: wires, domestic US wires are offered free of charge by many institutions, and are instant during regular business hours. Obviously delays apply outside. For reference, an ACH transaction costs banks $0.002 in bulk to the depository institution. A FedWire costs $0.033 in bulk to the depository institution. [1]
Transfers outside the US cost more and take longer because of AML and KYC.
Not to mention that the move in the US from ACH to RTP makes ~free and instant domestic transfers 24/7. No blockchain needed. Because of course there isn't, the current system was based on policy not technical limitations of MySQL. [2]
[1] https://www.frbservices.org/resources/fees/wires-2021.html
[2] https://www.jpmorgan.com/solutions/treasury-payments/insight...
>> you can send $10,000 worth of BTC anywhere in the world
> You cannot send $10,000 anywhere in the world via Bitcoin
You are citing currency exchange costs that would also be applicable to EUR/JPY/GBP/...This is why the post you responded to said "worth of BTC".
There have been periods where the prevailing feerate has remained over 150 sat/vB ($12 - $24) for 24 hours.
And unless you're already in $10K of BTC, you will lose exchange fees and are subject to the forex (equivalent) rate. Your receiver will have the same burdens.
Wire transfers/SWIFT/FedWire etc are effectively instantaneous, the fees are 100% predictable, and they are accepted everywhere worldwide for all legitimate business. As you note, they can be inconvenient or impossible on overnights, holidays, and weekends.
I'm not disagreeing with you -- just noting that the quoted Bitcoin fees at any point in time are not reliable, and that the whole process is more complicated than it might appear.
[0] (background for other readers) Bitcoin fees are a function of the transaction size in (virtual) bytes (minimally either ~140 vB or ~240 vB, depending on the type of addresses used), multiplied by the feerate in satoshis per virtual byte. Converting to USD, you have to consider the BTC-USD exchange rate which has been bouncing around $55K lately. So, e.g.:
240 vB * 250 sat/vB == 60_000 sat
60_000 sat == 0.0006 BTC (100_000_000 satoshis per BTC)
0.0006 BTC == 33.00 USD (at $55_000 USD per BTC)Most payments– imagine hiring a contractor or buying a Starbucks gift card– don't need to go through instantly.