If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.
Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so. The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive. https://bitseed.orglook at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho) it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be. To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper. http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/at 160$ the cost of the machine is negligible and in most cases 0 because the user already has a computer 5X more powerful. the bandwidth it would use is the costly part. unlimited bandwidth plan would be required. Sure, not a problem if you live in Montreal. If you live in China, India or other third world countries then you're just screwed I guess, too bad for you right  third world countries can suck my big blocks. LOL no. they just need to get >1MBPS or just run there full node on the cloud. But them Chinese boys got more than 50% of the network so THEY are going to orphan you poor occidentals  |
|
|
|
If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.
Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so. The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive. https://bitseed.orglook at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho) it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be. To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper. http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/at 160$ the cost of the machine is negligible and in most cases 0 because the user already has a computer 5X more powerful. the bandwidth it would use is the costly part. unlimited bandwidth plan would be required. Sure, not a problem if you live in Montreal. If you live in China, India or other third world countries then you're just screwed I guess, too bad for you right |
|
|
|
Rationale for "big blocks centralize bitcoin": Bigger blocks will increase costs of running a full node, and make slower connection miners more uncompetitive.
The way I started seeing it, if you don't have a basic enough Internet connection to serve a Bitcoin network, than you don't need to be doing it at all.
Also, isn't the biggest problem of the Internet in China? Haven't they agreed that they can push 8MB blocks anyways? So why not increase blocks in the core right away to 8MB? Questions for devs that don't want a change. You do understand the point of running a nodes is not only to "serve the Bitcoin network" but also avail yourself with its full power. If you don't run a node then you are relying on someone else to process your transactions. |
|
|
|
Julio Faura, Santander : "Micropayments and Internet of Things will be one of the game-changers. The whole thing will change when Central Banks issue currency on distributed ledgers."  |
|
|
|
If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.
Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so. The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive. https://bitseed.orglook at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho) it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be. To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper. http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/ |
|
|
|
Geez, Newbie. It's a trivial matter to turn off the I.P. "blacklisting". It's just a feature for nodes that don't want to deal with slow-ass onion routing. These objections to larger block sizes seem disingenuous. It appears to be just a miner power grab, and a wrong-headed one at that. The real way to create a market for miner fees is to expand adoption, not squeeze the current users. Erhmmm  How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?Give it a rest already. It should have been obvious that I wasn't being literal. Do you has Asperger's Syndrome? Are you sure? So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?
Nope. I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply. If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying?
|
|
|
|
Also: bigger blocks = more transactions = more users = more nodes = more miners = more security in numbers = higher prices = more transactions… More is better. It's not complicated : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6udb4LNcwBitcoin has more users and more transactions than ever and the node count is at its lowest since its early days. This is a PEER-TO-PEER network. A peer in the Bitcoin network is a node. MORE USERS = MORE NODES MORE TRANSACTIONS != MORE USERS |
|
|
|
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/A great majority if Bitcoin users already rely on third parties. Layered networks on top of Bitcoin will provide trustless ways to manage your money without having to directly transact on Bitcoin blockchain To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.
|
|
|
|
If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.
Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so. The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive. https://bitseed.orgDo you imagine these will remain accessible if you get your bloatchain? |
|
|
|
Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making.
Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones.
sure thing, but also, the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node. why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on? It won't be that expensive, You would use the BTC network to store A LOT of value as you know it's security is out of this world. You would use.. dogecoin or something as a spending currency. right users would go to some other coin for day to day TX's day to day they would run the dogecoin full node, if any full node. further centralizing bitcoin nodes. the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin! Using another coin is a stupid idea. People will use payment channels. In fact I am confident enough that in 5 to 10 years mostly every mainstream usage of Bitcoin will be done through payment channels. |
|
|
|
If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.
Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so. |
|
|
|
you trolls are very demanding
1000's of nodes != decentralized
>1MB blocks is to much for a typical user to handle
fees need to increase for miners to make enough to secure the network
all these statement are ivory tower thoughts, and you use this line of reasoning to make good discussions seem ridiculous
how many nodes do we really need?
what can a typical user be expected to handle?
what is the right balance between more centralization and high TPS?
Do you understand what a p2p network is? In Bitcoin if you don't run a node then you are not a peer. If you are not a peer then you need to trust one to use the system. Don't you think that kind of goes against the point of using Bitcoin? In a perfect scenario everyone should have access to a node if they need so. I'm not suggesting they will need it for each and everyone of their transactions but if push comes to shove it is necessary that a user has the opportunity to manage his wealth trusting no one. |
|
|
|
Secure: an ultra conservative block size allows the number of independent nodes in the system to grow infinitely, considerably increasing the strength and decentralization of the network. it enables possibilities like the commoditization of hardware such as the existing Bitnodes ( https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/hardware/) We have a 1MB limit right now. So why is almost nobody running a full node? Maybe nobody wants to run a full node even thought it's possible. Theoretical decentralization doesn't help anyone. Because it's cumbersome and not practical. Maybe you skipped over "commoditization"? Once it becomes trivial to run one then certainly more people will be willing to do so. |
|
|
|
and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic
You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it. I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node). So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound). I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly. Maybe something is wrong with your laptop or maybe great firewall prevents you from syncing? (I presume you live in china) Mine runs fully validating node just all right. MY CPU Usage is at 6% and upload and download usage is mostly under 10kB/s, which is tiny fraction of my bandwidth. I have even relatively slow connection by local standards 50/10Mb. Currently where I live you can get 100/100 Mb for roughly 19,90€/month and I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years that is 1Gb/s. There's millions of people with such home connections and only few thousand need to run full nodes.How did you come up with this number? What if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes then I guess as it stands the rest of the network is in pretty bad shape heh? if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes, i dont care if you had a million nodes or 1000 nodes b4 this event, nodes would drop the same exact level ( i'm guessing there are about 50 crazies willing to run nodes given this sanario ) you do realize other parts of the world can run nodes as well. the point was that "a few thousand" can be attacked if Bitcoin is big enough that it becomes a danger for nation states. |
|
|
|
 another round of..... #REKTPeter R: this is what you get with a lack of peer review, enjoy your broken "implementations" |
|
|
|
and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic
You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it. I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node). So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound). I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly. Maybe something is wrong with your laptop or maybe great firewall prevents you from syncing? (I presume you live in china) Mine runs fully validating node just all right. MY CPU Usage is at 6% and upload and download usage is mostly under 10kB/s, which is tiny fraction of my bandwidth. I have even relatively slow connection by local standards 50/10Mb. Currently where I live you can get 100/100 Mb for roughly 19,90€/month and I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years that is 1Gb/s. There's millions of people with such home connections and only few thousand need to run full nodes.How did you come up with this number? What if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes then I guess as it stands the rest of the network is in pretty bad shape heh? |
|
|
|
Pools are not centralizing Bitcoin, because they compete with each other and miners are free to choose with which pool they want to mine.
The problems created by excessive block sizes are far more serious, because this leads to a reduction in the number of all full nodes, not just miners. This would reduce the overall security of the network and make surveillance / blocking of nodes much easier.
ya.ya.yo!
let's say there are 0 full nodes only minners, how does this impact security? only total hashing power determines the level of security no? aside from the sybil attack there are no other problem about security if there are zero full node, miners are more important it's probably the reason why there are zero incentive for them, to run one No problem about security other than arbitrarily double spending, issuing 100,000,000 coins for themselves, etc, etc. You realise ONE node has the ability to totally rewrite the protocol. Mining is without doubt second to nodes in terms of importance: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/wut? you're talking about an hypothetical scenario of a 51% attack, i'm talking about miners as a many pool and farm, not a single entity that dictate everything your scenario will not happen unless bitcoin is already dead, miners have no reason to double spend at all, and no, nodes are not more important than miners, without miners no more coins will be issued, and we will not have bitcoin at all 1 thing, it's not the decentralization aspect that keeps the bitcoin network safe, is the reward itself, that prevent it from being unsecure I'm not sure what you are talking about either but we were considering a scenario with 1 node in which case that one node is free to change the protocol rules at will. And yes, anyone with a brain will understand nodes are more important than miners: they're the one who run the P2P protocol. Security is pretty much useless without a big enough distribution of nodes so that the rules of the game can't be modified. If there's only two nodes running the system it doesn't matter if there's a quadrillion miners "securing" it, the rules can be changed at will which makes the whole system worthless. |
|
|
|
well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS
Why on earth would they? Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee? I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that). most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease i sure as hell am not asking everyone on earth to run a full bitcoin node. i'm asking for ~10,000nodes. THE TX HASH IS ONLY USED TO COMMUNICATE BLOCK INFORMATION BETWEEN MINERS. ALL TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE TRANSMITTED BY THE NODES (BANDWIDTH), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO PROCESS (GPU), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO STORE (HD) GODDAMNIT YOU ARE STUPID YES I'M MAD  yes i know, stop yelling, 1MBPS allows for streaming a max of ~4,000 TPS processing and storage is just as easy. if you can't store 1MB of data pre second your HD sucks balls if you can't process 1MB of TX pre second your GPU sucks balls. point is a 1000$ computer with a home connection can deal with 4,000 TPS did you expect bitcoin full nodes to run on embedded devices? It's not 1MB you retard, it's the full block. THERE IS NO COMPRESSION!!! you're not getting what i'm saying... you can expect a home computer to stream 600MB in 10mins easy, yes or no? I'm done with you. |
|
|
|
well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS
Why on earth would they? Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee? I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that). most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease i sure as hell am not asking everyone on earth to run a full bitcoin node. i'm asking for ~10,000nodes. THE TX HASH IS ONLY USED TO COMMUNICATE BLOCK INFORMATION BETWEEN MINERS. ALL TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE TRANSMITTED BY THE NODES (BANDWIDTH), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO PROCESS (GPU), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO STORE (HD) GODDAMNIT YOU ARE STUPID YES I'M MAD yes i know, stop yelling, 1MBPS allows for streaming a max of ~4,000 TPS processing and storage is just as easy. if you can't store 1MB of data pre second your HD sucks balls if you can't process 1MB of TX pre second your GPU sucks balls. point is a 1000$ computer with a home connection can deal with 4,000 TPS did you expect bitcoin full nodes to run on embedded devices? It's not 1MB you retard, it's the full block. THERE IS NO COMPRESSION!!! |
|
|
|
most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease
That actually depends upon your bandwidth (a point I was trying to make before about China which seemingly you missed). Again even Satoshi did not think that home nodes would be needed so I don't know why you think they are (provided we have enough miners we should have enough decentralisation).If you really want a network of just CPUs from home computers or the like then you don't want to use PoW (maybe you should look into PoS or PoC or the like). Also please make sure you have read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem to understand why Bitcoin can never be as efficient as a centralised service. Please think about the fact that Bitcoin has *failed* to gain any significant hold in the remittance market - as all logic and economics says it should have (and I do know major players in this area). If it can't succeed in that then I think hoping that it has any chance against the major payment systems is actually just fantasy. That was a mistake. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
