Satoshi did not intend the 1MB block size to be final at all and it was not even in the paper or in the original code. He envisioned a much larger dynamic block size.
So what? Thinking about Tor and the current 1MB limit, still seems like a reasonable number to stop at. So just stop, take a breath, look around and see how the market responded... and then try to improve it further, if needed. By increasing the block size limit now, you are not improving anything - you are only making transactions cheaper for satoshidice, which is especially stupid when you consider the fact that the transactions are essentially free ATM. As kjj has nicely phrased it, currently the transactions are being added to the chain on a charity basis - why would anyone aim to make them even cheaper, at the cost of an exponential growth in the price of infrastructure required to run a node, or a miner? IMO the 1MB limit is the best moment to stop this madness, let the fee market work, and just think about the best way to go from there. If the best solution to the scaling problem the developers have is magnifying the scaling problem, then I am honestly disappointed.  |
|
|
|
So you are OK with like 70% of the haspower going to a fork that did not accept your change?
No, absolutely not. The process for a hard fork looks like: + Get rough consensus that the change is necessary. + Write the code. + Get it reviewed and thoroughly tested. + Release software that will support it when X% of hashing power agrees ... where X is a super-majority (like 75% or more). If 70% of hashing power disagrees, then it doesn't happen. Miners will express support by producing block.version=3 blocks (just like they are now producing block.version=2 blocks that MUST include the chain height in the coinbase transaction). It is possible the X% threshold will never happen if 1MB is plenty big enough. It is possible it will only happen when transaction fees start going up and pressure increases on pools to make their blocks bigger (or maybe merchants tired of paying high fees figure out they'll save money by mining or operating pools themselves, will get X% of hashing power, and will increase the block size). Again, I spent a lot of time at the conference talking with people about the block size issue, and there is definitely consensus that 1MB just won't be big enough eventually. That has nothing to do with microtransactions, normal growth in "macrotransactions" will bump up against the limit in a year or three. sounds like a good idea, thanks for explaining. I'm gonna vote NO, at least for the next 12 months. however I do have some mining shares and I wish you did too |
|
|
|
And second, even if it did, there are bigger powers out there that you need to convince - how are you planing to do that, when obviously there already are people who are convincing them otherwise?
Which "bigger powers" and which "people" ? Is there some secret cabal out there I don't know about? If you mean "Peter Todd has convinced some big mining pool operators not to increase the size of the blocks they create" -- then great! That's the free market at work, big mining pools should be free to create blocks that are as large or as small as they like, and to accept or reject other's blocks for whatever reason they like. So you are OK with like 70% of the haspower going to a fork that did not accept your change? I mean, you do not seem to be concerned about it at all. Like you just assumed "whatever I decide, will be the right choice". People may just not agree with you. Especially people who run mining pools and basically only their vote counts. But not disagree with you because they are mean - maybe, like me, they disagree with you from good reasons. Do you even have any proofs that increasing this number is necessary? |
|
|
|
exactly. you cannot really say what is a cost of a transaction until you let the fee system to work and set it at some level. then you can try to optimize it, with the block size and current house technology. but not before. it's just crazy - mad scientist is less crazy than it |
|
|
|
Do you actually understand that PEOPLE, not only banks will be able to run full nodes in their basements even if block size is 50MB, right ? So what the hell are you talking about ? Yeah, I got that part. 5 years from now you will have cluster of i7 something machines, with very performing A/C and everything, just to be so cool. But I'd rather prefer to be able to verify this fine chain on my laptop EDIT: And about the religion, when you said "freedom", it sounded like a religion, thus my answer. |
|
|
|
|
Gavin, with all the respect, but you just said: the limit will be raised.
So the problem is not anymore, whether you guys (whoever you are) will decide to raise the limit - the problem is now: what will happen next?
I personally find it offensive, and a bit awkward, that developers of this project could make some decision with an argument like: "we are the people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services, so it needs to happen"
Seriously?
You know that all the mining pools have actual incentive in keeping it at 1MB - don't you?
At least the current mining pools - after you increase the limit the balance might change.
So first of all, I don't think a developers voice counts more than a non-developers voice. Or a merchant's..
And second, even if it did, there are bigger powers out there that you need to convince - how are you planing to do that, when obviously there already are people who are convincing them otherwise?
So once again with a respect, I admire your self confidence, but just cannot wait to see it happen. I will surely follow the flow, though I hope that the wold of bitcoin is not going to like a system where developers along with corporations setup the protocol, without even asking anyone else.
|
|
|
|
you could establish a relationship of trust with your chaum bank with out either party revealing its identity by creating a risk fund utilizing multisignature transactions on the bitoin blockchain. The idea is both parties risk bitcoins in a transaction on the blockchain that requires both parties to sign off on the transaction at some point in the future otherwise both parties coins will be destroyed. If you and i are trusting each other with a $5 transaction and we have both risked 20 dollars and neither party knows who the other party is it becomes in neither parties interest to behave dishonestly. with the scripting language that bitcoin has, you can think of all kind of decentralized P2P payment systems that would utilize the thin chain to do thousands of sub-transactions in one go, without even requiring more time to mine it out. end even more, if you add those that we have not though of yet... leave the incentive there, and they will bloom, and you will be no less of a creator in this process. anyone can change a value of a constant - but it's not an invention, so most likely it just wont improve anything, though has a potential to make things worse. |
|
|
|
And even if you are a developer who wants to develop bitcoin further. Wouldn't you just enjoy it more, knowing that from now on, you are only developing a client app, and not the core? So whatever you screw up is not going to affect the chain, nor the economy.. I think it's much more pleasant to develop a code without such a burden. So once again: please do not touch the core! Otherwise, if you break it, your grandchildren might never forgive you |
|
|
|
Making the 1 MB block size limit permanent to push transaction fees to $30 would put Bitcoin in the hands of banks. I disagree. IMO, making the 100 MB block size limit - this would put Bitcoin in the hands of banks. Satoshi believed running a node would eventually require a lot of bandwidth and hard disk space, and would only be done by specialists. Did he tell you that during a dinner? It doesn't matter what he believed 4 years ago. The only thing that matters now, is: what should we do to keep this experiment successful? And I'm saying: the right thing to do is do not touch MAX_BLOCK_SIZEIn fact, I would not touch the protocol at all - ever again. I understand that there are many talented developers who would like to use their talents to improve the bitcoin protocol, but I surely hope that they can channel their skills into developing block-chain client apps, so the chain itself could just stay as it has been invented and tested for the last 2-4 years. Whether it was Satoshi himself, of whoever else that set the A variable to the X value, N years ago - it shouldn't matter, the bitcoin core should just stick to it. It is the chain's client apps that should be changing/developing, from now on, and there is a lot of room for such. Just freeze the code and let it go - you will see. |
|
|
|
tell me if i have this right!
yes, I think you have it right. and once again I'd like to recall what kjj had mentioned before; that we have an option to just wait and see what happens after the block reached its limit. and then we should only act upon it, if we find it still necessary. I don't think it will be necessary though, since the tx fees in the main chain will intensify the bitcoin support infrastructure to quickly built itself up, not only allowing cheap transactions, but also making them faster and more reliable than they are today. I'm willing to bet on it, if you want |
|
|
|
That is also compatibile with definition of freedom.
People are free to buy more powerful hardware and internet connections.
But freedom does not mean that everybody has to afford it. You are free to work hard & earn money to buy a more powerful computer and more bandwidth.
I don't care about your freedom, man, neither about your definition of it. I am not a religious person and as you said yourself, you are not even my friend. All I care about is for Bitcoin to succeed in a long term - you put USD requirements over running a node and you are giving the power back, to the very same people that Satoshi was trying to escape from with his great invention. |
|
|
|
The less centralization, the better. Let the market decide. I think we can easily agree on this. The problem though, is that for me the market is a transactions fee market - expressed in BTC... While for you it is obviously a hardware & bandwidth market - expressed in USD. |
|
|
|
I saw that, but then it seems that I understood it wrong. Proof of work means for me that it checks if the target is smaller than the last hash given. If I have a higher difficulty (and more leading zeroes) then it should be smaller than the last hash, or did I miss something?
Well in such case I think you probably only missed the lesson of C programming, where they were explaining the magic behind != symbol  |
|
|
|
Were in AcceptBlock? It seems I can't find a check against it.
It's kind of hard to miss it, but well.. // Check proof of work
if (nBits != GetNextWorkRequired(pindexPrev, this))
return state.DoS(100, error("AcceptBlock() : incorrect proof of work"));
|
|
|
|
I'm not upset, just now satisfied that you have not brought any new arguments to the table to further what was discussed in the many prior threads on this subject.
And will be discussed repeatedly, more and more often in the future, as the block size gets to its limit, so better prepare to be even more unsatisfied. Unless the decision is made only among developers and it happens somehow secretly, but surely I hope not... |
|
|
|
Piotr - did you even bother to try to talk to Gavin about what you think is a huge threat to Bitcoin? Do you think that Gavin doesn't read this forum? Plus, if the number will change, it surely won't be by Gavin's decision only, so taking about it with him only would be just stupid and counterproductive. At the other hand: what's your problem with me opening this topic? Why are you so upset? |
|
|
|
You could have just PMed them if you wanted to ignore any counter-arguments.
Yeah, like you could have PMed me with this message. Why didn't you? Your friend did not bring any arguments that would not have been addressed on the previous pages of this topic. Though he repeated them with a significant dose of arrogance, so he just doesn't deserve my answer. |
|
|
|
Why did you even post this discussion if you intend to ignore anyone has a different opinion on the issue? Why? Isn't it obvious? To ask the devs to not increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. I definitely did not post this discussion to keep repeating myself, over and over again, on the 9th page already. I'm not the kind of an empty talker person, as your friend here |
|
|
|
Yes - let's just assume you have no arguments and that you are wrong.
And then we can stop.
No, my friend, I'm not going to admit that I am wrong, since I'm right, but feel free to keep talking to yourself, if that makes you feel superior |
|
|
|
It's the bandwidth and the computing power - keeping only the UTXO does not change much here.
Bandwidth ? Like 150 Mbit down / 10Mbit up you can already get in most developed countries ? Computing power ? Like Beowulf cluster you can build at home ? Like Core-I7 ? Dedicated FPGA's ? Extremely powerful Graphics cards ? I don't see ANY PROBLEM AT ALL here. You don't - I do. Lets just stop here, then. Obviously, soon not everybody will be able to run a full node. It will be a job for geeks, academies, non-profit fundations and companies. And that is completely normal. Yeah, you wish, non-profit my ass You should have put governments and corporations at the top of this list. No - it is not normal. It would be a huge threat to the network, and thus to the currency itself. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
