By Bitcoin Časopis - pred 7 mesiacmi - Čas na čítanie: 8 minúty
Vyrovnanie sa s ekonomickou realitou škálovania
The blocksize war marked a pivotal chapter in Bitcoin's nascent history, illuminating the ability of node operators to withstand systemic changes that could undermine the network's foundational principles of decentralization and censorship resistance. At the crux of the controversy was the issue of scaling Bitcoin to accommodate growing transaction volumes. While one camp advocated sacrificing a degree of decentralization through a block size increase, their opponents maintained that the cost to Bitcoin's core ethos was untenable. The ensuing deadlock culminated in a contentious change, Segregated Witness (SegWit). By restructuring how transactions are stored, SegWit offered a moderate capacity increase while also fixing the transaction malleability issue that had hindered advanced functionality. SegWit underscores the resilience of Bitcoin’s governance model in upholding its core values amidst internal strife. The deliberations remain highly relevant as the debate continues on how to scale Bitcoin while respecting the decentralization and censorship resistance properties that empower its users.
“Malleability is a problem for developers and users who want to reference a previous transaction in a new spending transaction before the previous transaction has been confirmed on the blockchain. This problem arises because, in order to spend bitcoin created by a previous transaction, the spending transaction must reference the txid of the previous transaction. If this txid can change, the reference will fail, and the spending transaction will be rendered invalid.
Specifically, transaction malleability was a problem preventing the adoption of the Lightning Network, which relies on the exchange of unconfirmed Bitcoin transakcie.”
The activation of SegWit was a pivotal precursor to the development of the Lightning Network, a layered protocol solution that enables rapid Bitcoin payments. By settling transactions off-chain and only broadcasting opening/closing balances to the Bitcoin base layer, the Lightning Network aims to bolster Bitcoin's scalability and transaction capacity without compromising its core security model. Since its inception, Lightning has witnessed remarkable growth as a payment rail, allowing for instant micropayments that highlight Bitcoin's viability as an efficient medium of exchange. As Lightning continues to mature, it provides a real-world test case for layered scaling solutions that may shape Bitcoin's technological roadmap in reconciling its goals of censorship resistance, decentralized security, and mainstream payment utility.
A key lesson that emerged from Bitcoin's early scaling debates is the understanding that "Bitcoin scales in layers." This design philosophy recognizes that Bitcoin's base layer serves as a secure, decentralized foundation for supporting higher-layer protocols that expand functionality and transaction capacity. By leveraging the base layer as a trust anchor, innovative solutions can be developed to improve Bitcoin's scalability and usage without compromising its core values of decentralization and censorship resistance. As Bitcoin matures, the layered scaling model aims to satisfy the goals of mainstream utility and payment efficiency while respecting the consensus-driven governance and security assurances afforded by its permissionless architecture. With continued technical progress, layer-two innovations may provide a pathway for Bitcoin to reach a global scale while upholding its foundational principles.
While the "Bitcoin scales in layers" paradigm was a constructive conceptual step, some have interpreted it dogmatically as an excuse for the total ossification of Bitcoin's base layer. Driven by an overzealous desire to minimize risk and preserve Bitcoin as a pristine ukladanie hodnoty, they argue that no changes should ever again be made to the underlying protocol. However, this extreme position overlooks nuances and unintended consequences. Strictly confining functionality expansions to higher layers may eventually undermine Bitcoin's self-sovereignty and censorship resistance - qualities deeply valued by its users today. As transaction fees and congestion on the base layer increase over time, only wealthier entities may be able to afford directly interfacing with the base layer, centralizing everyday users onto custodial solutions. While caution and conservative progress are prudent, mindlessly rejecting any base layer enhancement out of paranoia risks inadvertently centralizing Bitcoin over the long term and disempowering regular users. Tradeoffs exist between scaling ambition and technical stability, but reflexive ossification fails to engage in nuanced cost-benefit analysis of proposals that may judiciously improve user experience without sacrificing decentralization.
Bitcoin's core value proposition stems from its ability to offer users true self-sovereignty and censorship resistance. By design, Bitcoin empowers users with independent control of their funds, eliminating reliance on external third parties like banks or governments for transaction validation or custodianship. Users can truly own their bitcoin, holding private keys that make payments irreversible and impervious to interference. This establishes Bitcoin as the first permissionless and politically neutral monetary system, upholding financial autonomy regardless of nationality or institutional status. In contrast to traditional finance, no centralized authority can easily freeze, seize, or block payments on the Bitcoin network. These interlinked attributes foster decentralization and mitigate systemic risks, as Bitcoin has no single point of failure and is resilient even in adversarial environments. No longer must users place absolute trust in external institutions to engage in finance - Bitcoin enables direct peer-to-peer electronic cash on a global scale. The oft-cited refrain "Not your keys, not your coins" neatly encapsulates Bitcoin's provision of self-sovereignty, censorship resistance, and escape from permissioned systems.
As Bitcoin gains wider adoption, there arises economic constraints around scaling capacity to meet increasing transactional demand. Bitcoin's block space is inherently limited, greater usage creates more competition for this scarce resource. Basic supply-demand dynamics indicate that fees would unpredictably appreciate as global utilization grows, pricing out smaller transactions. While initially absorbable, sustained fee growth has externality effects that impact Bitcoin's accessibility and ethos. Exorbitant fees make on-chain transactions unviable for regular users, forcing migration to custodial services contrary to Bitcoin's premise of self-sovereignty.
To quote Anthony Towns in his piece: PUTTING THE B IN BTC
„Tamná rezerva nie je neobmedzená – očakávajte, že sa to prejaví ako tlak na poplatky a nevybavené veci a menšia schopnosť rýchlo vyriešiť búrky transakcií. A to zase sťaží a predraží ľudí s malými balíkmi, aby pokračovali v samospráve na hlavnom reťazci. Akvizícia nových používateľov s vysokou hodnotou v tomto bode znamená oceňovanie existujúcich používateľov s nízkou hodnotou.“
To quote James O'Beirne in his piece: Thoughts on scaling and consensus changes
“The quiet part out loud here is that by the time 1 billion people want to use bitcoin, the main chain is very expensive to transact on. Note that I say “very expensive” and not “impossibly expensive,” because if users lose the ability to take some form of layer 1 physical custody, bitcoin is just gold with less friction: a paper market will develop and all the nice properties of bitcoin will diminish”
Lastly, the immortal Hal Finney said this back in 2010
“Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-podporované banky, aby existovali, vydávajúce svoju vlastnú digitálnu hotovostnú menu, splatiteľnú za bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.
Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.
George Selgin podrobne rozpracoval teóriu konkurenčného slobodného bankovníctva a tvrdí, že takýto systém by bol stabilný, odolný voči inflácii a samoregulačný.
I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin medzi bankami sa uskutočnia transakcie na vyrovnanie čistých prevodov. Bitcoin transakcie súkromných osôb budú také zriedkavé ako... no ako Bitcoin based purchases are today.”
Riešenie tejto naliehavej ekonomickej dilemy zostáva zahalené neistotou. Aj keď môžeme objaviť inovatívne technické inžinierske riešenia, je rovnako pravdepodobné, že táto ťažká situácia je zakorenená v základnom a nevyhnutnom ekonomickom obmedzení – skutočnej konštante, ktorá si vyžaduje uznanie a prispôsobenie na všetkých úrovniach. Je nevyhnutné, aby sme sa pripravili na vyhliadku, že určité ekonomické kompromisy a obmedzenia sú neodmysliteľne votkané do štruktúry nášho zavedeného systému. Ak máme prijať opatrovníctvo ako nevyhnutnosť, našou prvoradou povinnosťou je usilovne ukladať správcovi prísne obmedzenia, účinne obmedzovať riziká a zároveň podporovať ekosystém zrelý pozitívnymi ekonomickými stimulmi voľného trhu. Okrem toho sa musia obrniť proti zásahom štátnej moci a zachovať si svoju autonómiu, aby si zabezpečili neobmedzenú účasť na bezuzdnom voľnom trhu.
Irrespective of one's stance on the scalability of self-custody or the inevitability of custodianship, it is paramount to ardently oppose the phenomenon of ossification for as protracted a period as possible. The paramount lesson gleaned from the crucible of the blocksize war is that the expansion of Bitcoin necessitates enhancements at its foundational level. The advent of the Lightning Network, a transformative development, would have remained a pipe dream had it not been for the vital upgrade to Segregated Witness (SegWit). This underscores a crucial correlation: the efficacy of secondary layers is inextricably tied to the efficacy of the bedrock base layer protocol. Bitcoin's evolution must persist if we aspire to achieve the scalability of self-custody and the imposition of constraints upon custodians, with a steadfast commitment to free-market incentives and the fortitude to withstand state coercion through robust censorship resistance.
Dovoľte mi objasniť, že môj postoj neobhajuje podporu bezohľadného správania ani nerozvážne vykonávanie každej navrhovanej zmeny. Skôr by sme mali zaujať postoj maximálnej opatrnosti a dôsledne preskúmať každý návrh s dôkladnou kontrolou. Naše zastrešujúce myslenie by sa malo točiť okolo otázky, ako upraviť prvky, ktoré možno váhame zmeniť, ale považujeme ich za nevyhnutné. Základom tohto prístupu je podpora prostredia úprimného a konštruktívneho diskurzu v rámci našej komunity. Žiaľ, prítomnosť aktérov so zlými úmyslami, sprevádzaná ich klamlivými marketingovými stratégiami, predstavuje podstatnú prekážku nášho rozvojového úsilia. Nielenže spotrebúvajú náš drahocenný čas, ale odvádzajú aj pozornosť tých, ktorí skutočne hľadajú poznanie. Je našou povinnosťou aktívne prispievať k vytváraniu autentických priestorov, kde sa môžu rozvíjať zmysluplné diskusie a kde sa jednotlivci môžu neustále vzdelávať.
It's possible that my argument for the necessity of change in Bitcoin has not yet persuaded you. You may hold the belief that the current state of affairs is satisfactory and that any challenges encountered during the scaling process are outweighed by the potential risks associated with unknown uncertainties. Your perspective is valid, for if a critical mass shares your viewpoint, we may indeed have already arrived at a point of protocol ossification, and we must adapt to this reality accordingly.
The ongoing narrative of Bitcoin remains an unfolding tale. As this groundbreaking economic innovation continues to mature, its precise trajectory remains an enigma, shaped by a multitude of unpredictable and diverse influences. While Bitcoin's decentralized structure precludes any single entity from wielding absolute control, the individuals operating nodes wield significant sway over its course. Their values, philosophies, and visions for Bitcoin's future will inevitably leave their mark on the protocols and systems they choose to embrace. What lies ahead for Bitcoin is a narrative yet to be written, and only time will reveal the direction it ultimately takes.
Originálny zdroj: Bitcoin časopis