I moved about 10% of my total wealth into Bitcoin; wise or stupid is yet to be determined. I went in assuming a significant chance of the whole thing going to zero.
If the transaction rate grows then the current 1MB block size will eventually force higher fees; so? Oh, I know, if the fees get too high then Bitcoin loses one of the advantages it has over other systems. So? ... Oh, I know, Bitcoin fails. So? I knew that was a risk going in. So? I go on less cruises in the future. So? My kids get less inheritance. So? ...
I happen to work in the computer industry. As such the challenge in front of me often is to get systems to handle more and more workload. To this part of me it is obvious we will eventually need a larger block size. Apparently there is a 32MB limit buried in some library. I recommend jumping to that limit as soon as is reasonable; keeping fees low. Moreover we need to get to work on overcoming that limit. Btw, if the workload isn't there then the blocks won't be large; I think some folks miss this point. It seems some folks wrongly fear every block will be huge. Using the block size to resist spam is a case of using the wrong tool. Anyone with a network link that can't keep up; too bad. Anyone with a lack of storage; too bad; although pruning would be just delightful. Anyone with a lack of processing power; too bad.
In between these extreme positions (how can one guy see both sides?) are the fancy approaches. Whatever. Enjoy. I do run a full node and would be interested in having the option for getting paid for the services I provide. Miners get paid; why can't full node operators get paid?
Bottom line; let the debate continue. If no change comes then we will live with higher fees. So? ...
I suggest you consider this proposal by Adam Back if you haven't: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07937.html |
|
|
|
-- ranting and raving--
If Bip101 is such a tiny minority (yet it was endorsed by major companies), why are you spending so much energy on it? Regarding Peter R, what if he's "just a man"? Obviously he has enough intellectual clout to elicit a response from the devs. I think Greg Maxwell is smart enough to filter out who deserves a response worthy of his time and who doesn't, without your help, MKAY?  ...these companies will do whatever Gavin tell him. They just wanna tell their investors Bitcoin's 7 tps "issue" is solved. They'd sign up for a 200mb increase if this was an option. About Greg I think he is mostly concerned that Peter is parading his work around as some sort of conclusive evidence that a block size cap is not necessary. He truly is a mysterious man this Peter R:  I'll be sure to raise my hands for a couple questions then Pete  |
|
|
|
What happen if bitcoin will stick to 1mb blocks?
blocks will start to become filled constantly, fee's will go up, micro transactions will be forced of-chain ( or to complex to really be worth doing ) small transactions (<100$) will be more costly, might get to the point where fees are not competitive ( people start using paypal or the likes to move money more efficiently), suddenly buying everyday things with bitcoins becomes a funny idea, Bitpay will go out of businesses, seeing how a large % of speculation was speculating bitcoin would one day become a use able currency its value will implode, bitcoin will revert to its 2012 state / value, and then its downhill from there as ETH accidentally becomes a better form of currency without silly blocklimit debates stopping there scaling toward world domination.
it was never a great one to begin with. to OP: supply and demand will economically constrain access to direct transactions on the blockchain. users who cannot afford this access will need to consider other services to address their need. this seems like a huge problem right now because there are few if any of these services available but within next few years plenty of such will be developed. these, while not being as trustless as Bitcoin, will provide greater utility at a fraction of the cost while still benefiting from the trust and decentralization emanating out of Bitcoin's protocol layer. |
|
|
|
Right, Ok so my misunderstanding on this scaling debate comes down to one question.
Assuming vast quantities of transactions, and no restrictions on block size. Where is the primary processing/storage bottleneck? Is it in the temporary size of the mempool, (pre processing), or the permanent size of the blockchain? (post processing)
I suppose it would have to be the UTXO stored in the RAM. |
|
|
|
The deadline for me to give out tickets has passed, s o you'll now need to buy a ticket if you want to go.If you can't make it, the whole event will be livestreamed and everyone at the conference will have a computer in front of them connected to an IRC channel that the world will be able to join. (I will be participating via IRC.) Was this the first time the forum sponsored a real world event? I've never seen bitcointalk sponsoring anything tbh.
Yes. (The logo they have on their sponsors page was just something they whipped up -- bitcointalk.org doesn't have a proper logo.) I do believe the event is now sold out. |
|
|
|
meh i don't buy any of that BS hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical argument is that without any limit at all, miners would continue to mine blocks of ~500KB and would make damn sure to not send out block >10MB because there would be a chance that other miners don't think 10MB block are valid since the average block size is only currently 500KB, and risk getting there block/reward rejected, also miners have an incentive to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. the block limit is pretty F'ing useless IMO. i all see is BS arguemtn that make no sense whatsoever to keep in place a limit which was supposed to be lifted long ago.
What miners would continue to do without the limit is also fairly hypothetical. We only know what they are doing now WITH the limit. So, I suggest we keep the idea intact, but raise the value.
in anycase, i'll agree to anything that means bigger blocks.
Thanks!  Blocks are filled with about 300kb of legitimate p2p users transactions.
You are trying to tell me we need to switch NOW to a 8000kb spam ceiling?
1MB limit 5 years ago seemed like 8MB limit today (if not bigger) and nobody complained. The fact that not all of the blocks are full now means that miners filter out spam txs on their own. And the limit plays a different role. It's not a spam filter, it's a "bandwidth target" for "legitimate transactions", so to speak. I know what it is. I was using your words. I have no interest in your 8mb blocks thank you. |
|
|
|
Was this the first time the forum sponsored a real world event? I've never seen bitcointalk sponsoring anything tbh. Good news! Sadly this post didn't receive much attention.
I'm gonna be there thanks to Theymos !  |
|
|
|
... and really some of the extent of your drama or exaggeration seems to be attempting to cause an effect rather than really talking about the real state of bitcoin today.
That's partially true and I'll be the first to admit it. I want the price to go down IF it leads to cause the core devs to implement a workable scale patch or else leads to some other group replacing them. I want bitcoin to succeed as an electronic peer to peer cash system as it was designed, not as some cloistered settlement network only used by the same assholes who run the current system. Fiat money is debt. It is lent into existence. That makes the entire global financial system a giant pyramid scheme. I don't have to wish for economic Armageddon to see one coming (or more likely a series of disasters eventually having the same effect). I don't have to cause it or contribute to causing it. It's going to happen as a mathematical certainty. If we don't find a way to escape the system, we will go down with it. A network capacity of seven transactions/sec is a life boat with very few seats. All money is debt, bro What do you know about Bitcoin anyway? 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? |
|
|
|
i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether
that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.
It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise. Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods. Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on it and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already, so that's hardly an obstacle for the community. meh i don't buy any of that BS hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical argument is that without any limit at all, miners would continue to mine blocks of ~500KB and would make damn sure to not send out block >10MB because there would be a chance that other miners don't think 10MB block are valid since the average block size is only currently 500KB, and risk getting there block/reward rejected, also miners have an incentive to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. the block limit is pretty F'ing useless IMO. i all see is BS arguemtn that make no sense whatsoever to keep in place a limit which was supposed to be lifted long ago.  I can only leave this here and hope you figure it out https://bitcoindebates.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page Larger blocks create too much risk to Bitcoin's decentralization Bullshit. We need a fee market eventually, so it's good for one to develop now Bullshit. Having high fees now will encourage the development of more scalable solutions sooner Bullshit. alot of Bullshit later Almost all technical experts favor waiting More Bullshit ! this is the best part.... We could raise the block size quickly in an emergency if we needed to. OMFG they're retarded I can only hope you're trolling May I suggest you stay in the speculation forum Adam you don't qualify anymore to participate in these discussion. |
|
|
|
Its also interesting to think about: What happens if the fees are too HIGH (nevermind too low?).
Will users be more willing to wait for longer blocktimes and get lower fees if they think the security is ample?
There are a fair number of people (greater than, say, 'the one-percent') who don't live hand-to-mouth and who are not very sensitive to 'long' wait times. To such people the security of the transaction is the most critical aspect. The same people will tend to consider transaction fees in the $10's, or even $100's per to be fairly negligible. There are enough such people in this world to create a demand for a high security system for transfer and storage of value alone, and to be fair one needs to add in the potential as a foundation upon which more flexible and well tuned systems can be built (e.g., 'sidechains'.) The demands that the aformentioned classes of users makes on the system is conducive to having the system being well hardened against attacks of the type which will be able to complete hamstring a real-time trinket buying solution such as Paypal or XT/BIP101. You people (excluding the shills who know exactly what I am saying) who can only see the latter use-case should understand that the former use-case will exist. If you wish to consider it 'competition' and be actively adversarial to it is your call. I would suggest you do not both because it doesn't make much sense and because it could elicit a response which is problematic for your cause. I hear you, but respectfully disagree. I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible. We're telling you it doesn't, can't and never will. Use VISAchain for that. |
|
|
|
i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether
that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.
It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise. Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods. Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on it and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already, so that's hardly an obstacle for the community. meh i don't buy any of that BS hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical argument is that without any limit at all, miners would continue to mine blocks of ~500KB and would make damn sure to not send out block >10MB because there would be a chance that other miners don't think 10MB block are valid since the average block size is only currently 500KB, and risk getting there block/reward rejected, also miners have an incentive to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. the block limit is pretty F'ing useless IMO. i all see is BS arguemtn that make no sense whatsoever to keep in place a limit which was supposed to be lifted long ago. I can only leave this here and hope you figure it out https://bitcoindebates.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page |
|
|
|
i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether
that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.
It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise. Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods. Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on it and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already, so that's hardly an obstacle for the community. Blocks are filled with about 300kb of legitimate p2p users transactions. You are trying to tell me we need to switch NOW to a 8000kb spam ceiling? |
|
|
|
No worries. Hearn says that miners whose bandwidth is too limited can create their own altcoin and leave bitcoin.
why don't they just join a pool? better yet they can keep mining that wtv pool they are currently mining at. do you realize what this entails? these guys have more than 50% of the hashing power! of course that is what they are going to do: centralize. centralize to improve their connectivity and abuse larger blocks by pushing the biggest ones they can make down the throat of other miners. |
|
|
|
Wow. That's a pretty dramatic change of tone from your prior post. It's almost as though I described your views in a way that would sound unappealing to a large number of people and you suddenly felt the need to adopt a more diplomatic approach to compensate. I doubt anyone's going to buy it, though.A "one-percenter blockchain" is the only rational vision for Bitcoin, whether you like it or not. Fortunately for the first time ever you will be allowed a seat at their table. It will cost you some if you wanna trade with them but you will have other options to enjoy the security of your wealth.
Realised I better quote that bit for posterity in case you feel the need to edit it out, like when you admitted miners want larger blocks. Looking forward to the fork. It's going to be glorious. They don't need to, the "one-percenter" will. The herd, they follow. Yes, I can't wait for you to get all excited over a 1 mb increase, if so.  But frankly, have a look at Adam's proposal again and tell me this is not what we are both looking for. |
|
|
|
The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions. For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'. But which chain is 'the'.
Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block. The terms and definitions are trivially simple. It's not simple at all of the blockchain forks because different groups consider different blocks to be 'valid.' This is a very real possibility and within this timeframe. Regardless of anyone's definition of validity, one chain will be longer than the rest (it will contain more cumulative work). I am betting that this (longest) chain will contain a block greater than 1 MB in size by this time next year. There is no ambiguity in that definition. If there is 'no ambiguity' in your mind that is because your mind is not very flexible. (You a tech writer? If so, just on contract or genuine interest?) If one burns a lot of cycles mining an invalid block it does not count toward 'cumulative work' by any definition. I would not even take your bet if I got to define 'longest'. I, like every other '1MBer' I can think of except perhaps MP, would be delighted to see larger blocks as long as they are safe _and_ needed. It's possible that that could happen within the next year and that could be great news. I think it more unlikely than not though. I think we all know what he means. The "main" chain of Bitcoin. If Bitcoin forks, then whichever main chain of a fork has more work done in the blocks. Its irrelevant since brg doesnt want to bet. Because he know he we will lose. Obviously. a bunch of sheeps I can't imagine how bored you must be to hang around spreading such platitudes. you go on ignore |
|
|
|
If you can't understand that a 1MB chain favors the entire network and not only "a small minority" you are either being intentionally dishonest or outright ignorant. Let me spell it out for you: a 1MB block size guarantees access to the most open, private and secure chain. Open: every users has an ability to trivially run a node and store their wealth on that chain Private: relying on SPV means relying on a third-party to relay your transactions, there are considerable privacy risks. 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/) Now your obvious complain is that not everyone will get to transact on this chain since it might be considerably pricier. If we're being honest, that's not a problem. A strong & decentralized protocol layer will work as a guarantee that third-parties involved in superficial layers are being kept honest provided that their actions can be checked against the one absolute truth layer. That's the role you should expect Bitcoin to play in the future: So you freely admit your ultimate goal is to make it as easy as possible for everyone to run a full node to support a chain they can't afford to transact on? Yeah, I guess I'll have to admit I don't understand how that benefits everyone. Because it doesn't benefit everyone, it benefits whoever has the most coins. Sure, let's disrupt the fiat monetary system, where everyone supports the system to provide tremendous benefit to a small, wealthy minority, with Bitcoin, where everyone supports the system to provide tremendous benefit to a small, wealthy minority? Oh wait, that's the same outcome, why are we bothering to disrupt it at all? You're done taking ME seriously? It's simply not going to play out like that. There are too many factors you don't have control over to dictate that particular direction. Many of the people who are involved with bitcoin right now don't run a full node due to resource constraints, so it's not like new users are going to start running full nodes en-masse just so that they can be shunted off to less secure chains whenever they want to transact. The pressure will never go away for a larger blocksize and there's nothing you can do to prevent it happening. Keep dreaming. Are you under the impression that Bitcoin is some sort of wealth redistribution scheme Running full nodes benefits everyone because it is the only way to make sure any party you are involved with in a transaction respect the rules of the game. If the governance of the system is concentrated in a few datacenters all over the world it becomes trivial to screw with the protocol and rewrite the books. True it benefits directly mostly those who are rich yes since they can chose to transact directly on the Bitcoin blockchain without thinking twice about the price of doing so. Indeed, transactions fees are not a problem for a certain percentage of the world's riches. These select fews are most interested in the censorship-free aspects of Bitcoin. Multi-billion dollars international bank settlements. Aggregated remittances worth millions of dollars. Darkmarket actors supporting trillion dollar economy. These entities have NEVER been deterred by bank fees, hell they are used to BRIBE everyone around. That's much more expensive than any number Bitcoin fees ever promise to be. These benefits are, by the way, already available to the highest bidders under the current fiat economy. What Bitcoin stands to do, is not necessarily make it easier for them, although it will, but to descend this ability down to the most common man, should he care enough to pay for it. If he can't then yes he is likely be "shunted-off" to less secure options but ones that will be binded to a digital contract so as to respect the rules of consensus enforced by Bitcoin's sovereignty. Now whether or not he transacts with the Bitcoin blockchain does not mean he can't park his wealth there. The block increase pressure you speak of will disintegrate as soon as these additional layers can be made available. One should not forget the pace of development we have witnessed in the past 2 years. I fully expect payment channels of different sort to be fully integrated to Bitcoin within the next two. That is how Bitcoin will scale. This is what I refer to when speaking of building an economy, and not a worthless, centralized payment system. This should absolutely liberate the Bitcoin chain from any pressure to grow anymore or at least do so while staying in bound with the most conservative hardware and network development. Again, doing so will allow us to commoditize access to full nodes and make them trivial to run. Under this design the smallest Bitcoin users have the power to interfere if someone attempts to change the rules for the worst. That is a much more important liberty than the one to freely transact on any arbitrary chain. The powerful idea behind this is that while not everyone will have the money or care to make direct interaction with the Bitcoin blockchain, they will all benefit by the trust it will shine on its economy. |
|
|
|
The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions. For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'. But which chain is 'the'.
Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block. The terms and definitions are trivially simple. It's not simple at all of the blockchain forks because different groups consider different blocks to be 'valid.' This is a very real possibility and within this timeframe. Regardless of anyone's definition of validity, one chain will be longer than the rest (it will contain more cumulative work). I am betting that this (longest) chain will contain a block greater than 1 MB in size by this time next year. There is no ambiguity in that definition. Yes you can all stop bickering about it I'm never going to spend a satoshi on such a worthless endeavour. "Let's bet" Seriously?! |
|
|
|
Don't you have your XT circlejerk forum now? Why don't you stay over there?
It's not about XT. XT is only one of several new proposals to remove the limit. Yep, and not of them is any relevant until they get into core Blocksize will be increased.Like or not.Laugh as much as you. We will see bigger Blocks!!It's inevitable. The majority of the community wants it.The big BTC companies want it.Big part of the Miners are in as well.So no doubt. The "community" you speak of, ie. general redditards and bitcointalk users, are not representative of the bitcoin holders. As such, their opinion is as irrelevant to those of "big BTC companies" (corporate bankers shills trying to capture Bitcoin) and the other power hungry miners who don't know better.
And that was not just about bigger block but about XT. Is says a lot. Oh I see. Very sharp indeed. I stand corrected |
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't put it past Bitcoin to surprise us all here.
I personally haven't experienced a sentiment this low since I've been on this forum.
It seems almost everyone is confident we will see no significant movement anytime soon and of course the dark cloud of a fork roams over our head.
I like to think it's when you least expect it that it comes.
"wishing upon a sTAr" !
|
|
|
|
Don't you have your XT circlejerk forum now? Why don't you stay over there?
It's not about XT. XT is only one of several new proposals to remove the limit. Yep, and not of them is any relevant until they get into core Blocksize will be increased.Like or not.Laugh as much as you. We will see bigger Blocks!!It's inevitable. The majority of the community wants it.The big BTC companies want it.Big part of the Miners are in as well.So no doubt. The "community" you speak of, ie. general redditards and bitcointalk users, are not representative of the bitcoin holders. As such, their opinion is as irrelevant to those of "big BTC companies" (corporate bankers shills trying to capture Bitcoin) and the other power hungry miners who don't know better.
You might get a block increase, but you will be sorely disappointed by its scale and its results.
I'm fine with this. How can you tell? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
