Listen here: https://archive.org/details/QR-TheScalingAttack

The principles on which the Bitcoin and BitTorrent networks function are very similar. Both networks rely on methods of sharing (a.k.a seeding) and validating information between multiple parties. Without many people seeding and validating information the primary features that make these networks so valuable would be impossible. Decentralization is the key to the overall function and censorship resistance of both.

BitTorrent has survived a significant amount of government opposition for many years, primarily as a result of the ability for anyone to become a seeder and share things on the network. Many of the websites that store information about what is available on the BitTorrent network, being more centralized points of failure, have been subject to direct and reoccurring attacks. But because the underlying network itself remains decentralized it has continued to grow and function quite well.

One of the more blanket like means of attacking this decentralized network has been to pressure ISPs to go after seeders while ignoring leechers. Increasing the cost and risk of uploading information to the rest of the network while doing little to block people from downloading info causes the network to function more poorly than would otherwise be the case. The network runs on donations, seeders do not get paid to upload things. So working to increase the cost of donating, while allowing leechers to download all they want, naturally harms the network.

In the Bitcoin network, full nodes are the seeders and validators of information that the network needs to function. Everyone’s ability to use bitcoin is dependent on node operators. If you cannot run full node yourself, then you are using a wallet that connects to someone else’s full node. The fewer full nodes there are the less decentralized the network. This means the network is less secure, less censorship resistant, slower, and just generally less robust.

I think we can all agree that bitcoin needs more transaction capacity and that scaling the network is a primary concern. But so long as node sizes are socialized, increasing the block-size is like increasing the minimum allowable seed rate in a file sharing network with no restriction on the number of leechers. What’s worse is that most big block supporters want to increase these minimum costs of donation with the expressed hope of attracting new leechers. While they may mean well, this would be seen as an outright attack on any decentralized file-sharing network.

There are ways to increase the ability for those with more resources to donate to the bitcoin network, and facilitate more transactions, without excluding those who can only donate a little. From what I can tell, this is the main goal of the segwit upgrade. By improving both transaction immutability and an important validation function, among other things, segwit facilitates modularity in the costs and ways in which one can contribute to the network.

This modularity means that more people can contribute in more ways without excluding others, and without allowing a few to impose ever greater costs on the rest. For a network to remain decentralized and retain all of the benefits of such systems, the architecture must allow as many people to participate as directly and securely as possible.

For another look into Bitcoin’s scaling troubles see my previous article: The Tragedy of Bitcoin