Bitcoin Forum

Hi all, glad to be aboard   :D

Sorry if this has come up already, i tried a search but no joy.....oh and i should add, i know about BC but im not a tech or anything, just a 'lay person':

If the blockchain keeps growing - and indeed speeds up growth as others adopt BC - it seems the memory needed to run it will be beyond the normal user, and ive read that we may end up with so called 'super nodes'  the size of current data centres etc - but that may lead to them being easier to regulate and what have you, and will take away from the very nature of BC - so im told anyway.

Is there a solution for this?

I wondered myself if its not possible to archive the the blockchain at some point - say with a new fork where everyone agrees on such a such a day and time that here is where all the BC are and now going forwards we shall start a new blockchain with that data etc but it will be smaller again.

Please note, as said, im not a tech so the entire passage above may be total rubbish, but i think its close enough to get my point over (fingers crossed)

All the best

Steve

Well to run a node one requires three things:
1) Processing power (for validation).
2) Storage (for storing the blockchain).
3) Bandwidth (for relaying data).

Currently the block size limit is at 1 MB. Now when you try increasing that to let's say 2 MB, you are essentially increasing the requirements listed above. One could argue that decentralization is Bitcoin's biggest pro. Now if you make the requirements too large, then a decrease in the number of nodes will occur. This is why you've heard of "Bitcoin ending up on super nodes". We can not let this happen.

---

---

So to avoid this, the plan is to be very conservative on the block size increases (only safe limits) to retain decentralization and build a second layer (e.g. Lightning Network). Such a layer enables a much better (efficient way) of scaling.

To be honest I doubt the second layer will be successful at doing that.

I suspect altcoins will effectively be that second layer if the cost of bitcoin transactions gets too high.

This would create a very complex ecosystem. It is not easy to make people use 1 coin. Imagine telling them that they have to use e.g. 10. This problem is also present in those altcoins, thus multiple ones would be needed.

Why?

There's no logical reason to tie the value of what is in my wallet to bitcoin if I am not spending it on the bitcoin blockchain itself.

This incentive to use just one coin is clear, also converting to other altcoins just eat up unnecessary exchange fees. So the likelihood of some altcoin to be as popular in usage as Bitcoin is very small, there is simply no demand for second coin for merchants/services (Im not talking about the silly speculation pump&dump altcoin games where is enought demand though)

Wouldn't need to use 10. Most people would only need one, some might need two. People have wallets full of different credit cards now, tied to different accounts, etc.

I don't see the problem. Alt coins would only be needed when the cost of a transaction is high compared to their cost of living. And for those people, they wouldn't need to use bitcoin at all.

Right now the cost of a transaction is cheap enough that altcoins aren't needed. If the adoption of crypto-currencies increases, we don't necessarily need to make the blocks bigger - let the fees increase and altcoins then will start to be viable.

EDIT -

several viable crypto-currencies may actually be good, because then power grabs over control of bitcoin like what is happening now won't be an issue.

Want something implemented that bitcoin-core doesn't? Get one of the alt-coins to implement it. Then if it really is better, the free market will demonstrate it is better in real world usage. But as long as bitcoin transactions are dirt cheap because of excessive block size, we don't really have that, so instead we have power grabs via hard-fork alternative clients, and that reduces confidence.

There's a thread in the dev forum that discusses how as soon as you increase the resources they are used. So automatically increasing the size in response to use may result in a bigger problem than it solves.

Need to make sure miners in places without good bandwidth can validate the previous block quickly or else the number of empty blocks will increase. So we can't just assume that growth in block size is good for the network.

To run a Lightning Node requires those three things... you can see where I am going with this...

Exactly, but essentially Bitcoin XT and Classic should be considered a 'altcoin' because it's not really using what Bitcoin Core is using at this moment.
BTC was meant to be a decentralized platform yet if these continue, the decentralization is dead.

People at reddit and twitter are calling Core devs. as "fools", if then so, can they do 1) what they did 2) contribute to Core and see if they really accept your PRs and BIPs? (Ofcourse, trolls and idiots should be exempted from this, BIPs and PRs should be accepted if they make sense and the community agrees with the same).

Nah. I think it's reached a point now where clearly good ideas are gonna be rejected if they're not coming from the right parties.

At the moment XT, Classic and Core are all using the same blockchain so you can't actually say which are "Altcoins".

Until one day when they mine their own chains, then they will be "different" coins... Not sure by then which will be the "altcoins"?

Well, yes until now, they are not exactly 'Altcoins' but will be if the different blocksizes crash.
And they have already pushed some patches which are not (yet?) pushed by the Core dev/community so it's not the exact as the real 'bitcoin'.

again with this, the pacing of the technology is moving way faster than bitcoin can even dream to compete to, so it's already self-fixed

and anyway without running a full node there is pruning...

Apples and oranges.

There isn't enough TPS with two coins + Bitcoin because the problem is inherent.

The only reason for which somebody would want to rush mainstream adoption (faster than technologically and safely feasible) is greed. That's about it. Whoever is willing to sacrifice decentralization (which can be considered the most important aspect of Bitcoin) for adoption, should not be here in the first place. Oh, and without those "fools" Bitcoin would have most likely died. That's the thanks that you get for working for everyone.

Agreed.
Decentralization is required and that's why I am personally using bitcoin, otherwise, I'dve long forgot Bitcoin and ripped bitcoin off my head and started using Monero and Neptunium (promising new altcoin) and other superior currencies than Bitcoin (IMO because I want anonymity and decentralization)

You'll have to clarify in what way things are different.

This was my thinking:

A lightning transaction is a bitcoin transaction.

More on chain transactions => greater resource usage for bitcoin nodes
More LN transactions => greater resource usage for LN nodes

If greater resource usage is a centralising force for bitcoin nodes, then i would say the same could be said for LN nodes.

Your thinking is LN transaction size == Bitcoin on chain transaction size. Additionally, your thinking includes: LN transaction resource usage == on-chain transaction usage.

It is crucial for Bitcoin. If Bitcoin loses this aspect then it might as well die as it is not needed. There are better systems that can be used for transacting. Unfortunately, there are people who do not value this decentralization as much as others.

firstly. bitcoin can currently run on a very lowtech raspberry Pi board. which has at most
1.2ghz duel coreprocessor
1gb ram
256gb use memory storage(can be more)

this can handle processing transactions and storing blocks(imagining every block was full) for 5 years

now then
a standard desktop computer (budget price)
3.6ghz quadcore(6x more then a Pi)
8gb ram (8x more then a Pi)
2TB hard drive (8x more than a Pi)

trying not to baffle you with science. but bitcoin does not process 8gb of data in any one second, so ram is not really a problem. this means that a desktop computer, based on actual usage requirements is atleast 6x more then 1mb blocks need.

so the debate about increasing the blocksize limit causing people to use datacentres is false when talking about the proposals for the next 2 years.

so relax. many people dont want bitcoin transaction capabilities to expand. instead they want people to lock funds away and hand control over to central hubs on a lightning network or sidechain.

do not fool for the doomsday scenarios especially when people shout out doom but never quote the science behind their cries

A higher blocksize ceiling will cause extra strain on nodes if it is implemented. Sure, running a node doesn't take up much, but it will still try your hardware more intensely. Why not SegWit? ;D

because if people stop doing normal traditional transactions and instead embrace segwit the real data is actually worse. im not talking about the bat and switch twisting data, im talking about the actual measurements of real data.

also if you continue to embrace blockstreams roadmap and do segwit confidential payment codes(CPC) the real data grows again.
here. a simple image for you
https://i.imgur.com/Ax54Ztv.jpg

basically keeping the hard limit to 1mb(as blockstream wants) and then everyone doing segwit CPC transactions equates to 2.85mb for only 3800 transactions.
but if we had 2mb hard limit and stuck to traditional style transactions we can have 4000transactions per 2mb block.

so although blockstream tries to say that 2mb hardlimit bloats peoples hard drives. it is infact segwit and CPC that will
so although blockstream tries to say that 2mb hardlimit causes extrea processing. its infact segwit and CPC that will (imaging not only handling extra tx's but then trying to validate balances hidden inside a payment code that it needs to process and check)

so having a 2mb limit and sticking to standard transaction types is actually more beneficial. and yes libsecp256k1 can be used on traditional transactions without the need to make Segwit/CPC transactions. so a 2mb hard limit will be faster than people thought last year before libsecp256k1.

so relax. the hard limit is just a buffer that allows REAL capacity growth and controls the real data expansion. unlike blockstream features that can expand uncontrolled
maths is based on a normal transaction being on average 500bytes
maths is based on blockstreams projections of segwit 190% capacity
maths is based on blockstreams estimates of CPC adding 250bytes to a transaction

my personal opinion is to have 2mb+segwit to allow people the freedom to do proper bitcoin transactions OR segwit CPC bloated transactions, without contention, without any corporate control. and hope that people use their brains and do the transaction that suits them personally. rather then being led down a one way street

In all honesty I see it as an ecological waste.

Why does the transaction I made to myself need to be stored on every full node in every country for eternity?

Keep the blocks small and distribute the transactions with altcoins (or LN)

Classic should have just run a different port and started a new genesis block. With all the support from commercial wallets and exchanges, it would have been listed everywhere and then the market could choose which they preferred instead of having the choice made for them.

basically you want blockstream to have 100% corporate control.. ok you made that obvious

maybe if you used statistics, logic and rational judgement you would see a blockstream 3800tx block of segwitCPC is 2.85mb.. vs a proper 2mb hardblocklimit offers 4000tx..

thus increasing the hard limit and sticking with standard transactions is less bloated

lol maybe you should use an altcoin.
its not about classic vs core.. its about bitcoin as a whole economy and how there should be no control and no single path blindly following one corporation

Care to provide a source for that image/calculation? It's intriguing data but I'd like to have the full story.

No - I had misconceptions about what SegWit would do and I don't like that. It too should be done as a hard fork.


Bitcoin as a whole economy needs competition it doesn't currently have.

Classic could have provided that by being an alt-coin. They chose note to because if they did, then success of classic would mean a drop in value of the bitcoins they already hold and they are too greedy for that. So instead they chose to try and hijack Bitcoin.

green column: maths is based on a normal transaction being on average 500bytes
sources: (average transactions per block based on blocks over 950k) https://blockchain.info/blocks


yellow column: maths is based on blockstreams projections of segwit 190% capacity
source: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012248.html
source: (lauda blockstream faboy) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg13973783#msg13973783
i used the higher 190% instead of the lower 170% so that i could be has unbiased as possible and rewarding segwit with a potential 3800 instead of 3400..so they can atleast appear to offer similar(close enough) capacity growth compared to a real hard limit buffer rise


red column: maths is based on blockstreams estimates of CPC adding 250bytes to a transaction
sources: (quotes 344bytes):http://voxelsoft.com/dev/cct.pdf

other sources quote differing amouts but i averaged it as 250bytes. again i tried to be generous rather than doomsday

nah blockstream should be the competitive altcoin.. wait.. , they are already trying that with LN and sidechains and liquid..

Segwit will also require more bandwidth IIRC.

That opinion does not matter much right now though as they've reached consensus and decided a while ago to do it via a soft fork. From what I understand, the plan is to clean up some things in a hard fork in the future (I have no idea what exactly and when).

I'm certain that it would not be seen as such a bad thing if they choose a proper grace period and consensus threshold. Even Gavin's partner, Garzik, does not agree with him.

I understand your point and it's a problem IMO too, Currently a user needs days to fully download the chain and that would limit the number of normal nodes, and with that the specialized nodes can actually impact the network in a way.

Your statement does not make sense to me. A user does not need days to fully download nor synchronize the chain. This is a faulty generalization. This is very dependent on the setup that the users are running. Currently with libsecp256k1 it is possible to synchronize from scratch within a few hours (IIRC). Additionally, the average user does not need to and should not bother with running a node. However, I'd argue that this option should exist (relatively cheaply and easily), but it is up to the individual. I'm positive that many do not have the desire to run a node especially since there is no incentive to do so.

Although this is a serious  issue in BitCoin, but this does not mean that due to this bitcoin will lose its popularity.
BTC has and will always find its way through difficulties and this time also Bitcoins miners will find a solution to this very
soon.

Bitcoin can not grow much larger with a 1 MB block size limit and no secondary layer. We are slowly reaching the maximum capacity at this size. Obviously, it doesn't mean that everyone is going to jump ship (why would they?), but it means that growth would be limited/impaired.

The miners aren't the one who solve problems, the developers are.

Bitcoin is also the first implementation of the idea.

It may be time for a better implementation of the idea. Multiple implementations.

The problem is greed, too many people are holding a lot of coins hoping to retire in luxury one day and that won't happen if Bitcoin takes the back seat to better implementations.

I don't think this is the case. This "flaw" (if you can call it like that) is inherent in all implementations that use Bitcoin's code. Unless something is completely re-engineered from scratch, it can't really be better/much better as Bitcoin could always add features (hence open source).

Correct. This is why people want to rush the block size limit because they're hoping that as many people as possible jump on the ship (regardless of the size being safe or not).

Bitcoin can't always add features because attempts to do so result in massive division in the community.

That's why alternatives that compete with bitcoin should implement the features.

Exactly what potential features have resulted in the community dividing itself? I don't recall that happening. Anyhow, this is could also be a signal that the feature is not really useful/desired. Keep in mind that a block size increase is not a feature (in case that some try to assume this).

You will never get a well recognized coin when you start over from start everytime large part of comunity disagrees with some feature and preffer new altcoin over compromise and continue with just Bitcoin.

There can be competing Bitcoin implementations with diferent features or even hardfork proposals, and free market decides what defines Bitcoin. This way you know you can trust Bitcoin evolves and stay as #1 cryptocurrency choice and not fragment to many altcoins or become obsolete, so whoever can compromise and respect others as well can continue using just Bitcoin, others can just switch to tens/hundreds of altcoins.

There is high incentive to just use Bitcoin and dont confuse regular users with tens/hundreds of different altcoins. The incentive is it is much easier to use just Bitcoin for most people.

Exactly. It seems that some people tend to think that if Bitcoin "fails" for whatever reason that an altcoin is going to take over. However, this is most likely going to end bad for everyone. If Bitcoin collapses, it is likely that everyone will jump ship.

If there was a standard for those hard fork proposals, then that would make sense. However, if you start wanting to fragment the community with randomly set percentages and grace periods, then it will end badly.

Thanks, I'll obviously have to do some reading on SegWit to catch up.