He points out a bug introduced by Core, and shows how it can be fixed, and says that is what causes the scale to be quadratic [instead of exponential].
I think you mean linear, nobody wants code which takes exponential time to solve more data (transactions)
He’s saying that miners just need to buy bigger hard drives and put more transactions in each block. If your machines are underpowered, invest more money.
Hmm this doesn't make sense when you are using proof-of-work which is computationally intensive.
He is saying it makes more sense to increase blocksize in order to reduce transaction fees and process high volume.
I think if you increase blocksize you increase latency which is not very good. Steemit witnesses create a new block every 3 seconds.
I appreciate your input, nutela. I'm not a programmer, so I misinterpreted some of Craig's finer points. I do see that in the big picture, Dan Larimer's proof of stake blockchain is the real answer to a scalable blockchain.
Wright mentioned multi-threading as something Bitcoin should/could do. But, Larimer's EOS is already going there today. Bitcoin is getting left behind because Satoshi did not think of the importance of a method of community governance over the code.
Hey you're welcome, I'm glad you pointed me to this amazing story :) In fact I just read the whole essay of Adrew O'Hagan. I was a bit dissapointed by the ending because it was not so very clear of what happened and why. It must have been exhausting for all of the people involved. If they had made some clear rules all of this would have turned out for the better I'm sure. I think it was a lesson to them.
As for POW vs POS or DPOS, well I don't know! I seemed to get the feeling POW was more tamper resistant, that no government or state actor could overthrow it if there were enough miners. At least that's what Craig Wright underlined in his Future of Bitcoin 2017 presentation which was held in the town I lived several years in! So I'm not sure if @Dan's sollution is better or more robust. It sure is faster but more robust, that's the question. I was wondering if CW would consider other models like DPOS, it is weird he didn't talk about it at all. Just growing the block size adds more latency but maybe @Dan or somebody else could shed some light on this.
So basically yes, if the claims by @Dan and Steemit are correct the question is why isn't Steem worth more? I never got an answer regarding it's privacy! Is it like Zcash or Monero or more like bitcoin?
I don't think any privacy enhancements have been baked into Steemit or BitShares. EOS accounts will be much like Bitcoin - pseudonymous numbered accounts. The best way if you want to keep any blockchain account pseudonymous is to pass your money through ZCash or Monero and then through an exchange into the destination blockchain unit. That is assuming you can find a cryptocurrency exchange that doesn't require identification. It's only a matter of time before we see blockchain exchanges, that run as autonomous agents. Then the govt will have much harder time figuring out who owns which account.
Thanks for the update! But bitshares is supposed to be decentralized? Why would anyone thus need identification?