I’d prefer a nice, simple, clean solution, but I’m old enough to know that most of the world’s great technologies are built on top of horrifying piles of legacy cruft, and they work just fine pretty much all of the time.
Sirer explains why it’s wrong to say that miners have all the power in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Users, wallets and exchanges have tremendous powers because they are the ones who buy the miners’ services.
Some people, specifically, those who are arguing to raise Bitcoin fees, have been using “developing the fee market” as a euphemism for artificially creating higher fees by restricting the supply of transaction slots (aka the maximum block size).
I think Charlie Lee’s argument for high bitcoin fees is wrong because it assumes that everyone is motivated by money, whereas good distributed system design is all about taking advantage of freely contributed resources whenever possible.
The author introduces a new metric: ratio of hashes computed over all time to hashes computed daily, which interestingly depicts the evolution of the strength of network as mining equipment improves. A growing hashrate doesn’t mean a strengthening of the network!
The SEC has approved a plan from online retailer Overstock.com to issue company stock via the Internet, signaling a significant shift in the way financial securities will be distributed and traded in the years to come.
Segwit allows scaling Bitcoin capacity in a opt-in way. Those who want to take advantage of extra capacity need to expend extra resources, but those who do not want to use the feature (no matter how small that minority is), do not need to expend any extra resources at all.
The goal of the cost metric approach is to tie consensus rules to actual resource requirements. The idea is that cost of a block is a function of certain block properties. As an example, the block cost could be represented by a weighted sum of block size, validation cost and utxo growth.