W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > January 2016

Re: Blockchain, block size and interledger (was: How do bank payments actually work?)

From: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:08:34 -0800
Cc: Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3CEF5B81-71FC-4A6D-B8E7-25DAAE76841C@taoeffect.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
> At the same time Tony Arcieri who is an expert in cryptograph argues that even though this
> may doom the current bitcoin algorithm this does not doom the whole concept. In the second
> part of his article "The Death of Bitcoin" he points to a number of up and coming algorithms
> that could be much more energy efficient
> 
> https://tonyarcieri.com/the-death-of-bitcoin <https://tonyarcieri.com/the-death-of-bitcoin>
Tony is still somewhat new to the world of blockchains, and it’s interesting to watch him explore it as he spent a significant part of his time laughing and those he called “blockchainiacs”. Well, it seems he’s starting to become one himself now. :P

The alternatives he points to are not superior to Bitcoin.

SCP, for example, is completely broken in terms of being usable as a decentralized payment system because it has no way to reconcile forks once they occur.

Tendermint is certainly good, but I don’t think it’s good enough to power a global currency. It’s great for smaller projects though.

Hyperledger is not a cryptocurrency by a consensus algorithm, and while I haven’t looked at in detail I suspect similar issues to either SCP or Tendermint might apply.

The VICE article you linked to was written by someone who doesn’t have a very good understanding of Bitcoin (as you can tell by the various corrects they ended up having to make at the bottom of the article).

Cheers,
Greg

> On Jan 27, 2016, at 10:05 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 27 Jan 2016, at 02:33, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com <mailto:contact@taoeffect.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> What do people here think about the potentially incumbent collapse of bitcoin as a crypto-currency itself and the block-size issue?
>> 
>> I think this BS and you should stop spreading it.
>> 
>> https://fixingtao.com/2016/01/point-by-point-response-to-mike-hearns-final-bitcoin-post/ <https://fixingtao.com/2016/01/point-by-point-response-to-mike-hearns-final-bitcoin-post/>
> Thanks for the article, which does undermine Mike Hearns case.
> But there are other cases that have been made too, especially with regard to the energy consumption
> of the current bitcoin blockchain.
> 
> See this article
>   http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable <http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable>
> 
> At the same time Tony Arcieri who is an expert in cryptograph argues that even though this
> may doom the current bitcoin algorithm this does not doom the whole concept. In the second
> part of his article "The Death of Bitcoin" he points to a number of up and coming algorithms
> that could be much more energy efficient
> 
> https://tonyarcieri.com/the-death-of-bitcoin <https://tonyarcieri.com/the-death-of-bitcoin>
> 
> Clearly this is a huge research project. Add to that the very intruiging possibility of
> having an RDF distributed ledger fusion and I'd say the space is still wide open, and
> very exciting.
> 
> Henry
> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Greg
>> 
>>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com <mailto:holon.earth@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As suggested, I am starting a new thread for this topic.
>>> I apologize if I am coming over as verbose and/or cluttering your inboxes.
>>> 
>>> ****
>>> 
>>> What do people here think about the potentially incumbent collapse of bitcoin as a crypto-currency itself and the block-size issue?
>>> 
>>> The question is related to the blockchain itself, not bitcoin.
>>> Block size is ultimately a "political" decision of the community, and there appears to be a scism because of that.
>>> Not wanting to discuss that in itself (it's probably being discussed elsewhere),
>>> 
>>> but what do you guys think this means for blockchain technology itself?
>>> 
>>> Will we see a proliferation of different blockchains, making ILP even more interesting and important?
>>> 
>>> Could this be a blow to blockchain technology itself (unlikely IMHO), because limitations of this technology are becoming apparent?
>>> 
>>> What developments do you foresee happening in this field, also maybe not underestimating a potential collapse of the global economy this year?
>>> 
>>> On a side note, I like Ethereum's basic tenets but I am worried about a lock-in of some sorts...
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 



Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 21:09:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 January 2016 21:09:21 UTC