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

On 27 January 2016 at 23:07, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> On 27 Jan 2016, at 21:08, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Is it not the case that all of these technolgies contain 2 parts:
>
>  A). the data structure ( eg. blockchain)
>

yes


>  B). the consensus algorithm: which allows a digital medium where
> everything is easy to copy, to come to an agreement on what actually is the
> case ( who paid what to whome, who signed what contract, etc...)
>

yes


>
> There can't be anything magical in A) as that's covered by the semantic
> web [1], which provides the foundation for any possible data structure,
> being based as it is on mathematical logic.
>

yes


>
> All that can be new is the consensus algorithms. And when I say "all" I
> don't mean to minimise the importance of that.
>

not just the algorithm, you need the transport layer and discovery

>
> Henry
>
> [1]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2016Jan/0006.html
>
>
> 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> 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/
>
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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> 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...
>
>
>
>
>
>