I actually was under the impression that we are libertarians here and we should push for any solution that decreases centralization.
No block size limit = free market decides the proper size
You mean the 3 people controlling the pools that have the majority of hashing power control the blocksize. Exactly like these 3 people? So 3 people have been controlling the block size ever since the 1MB limit was introduced. Now it all becomes clear! |
|
|
|
|
wrong link, unfortunately...
|
|
|
|
1 XBT = 100 satoshi is definitely the answer to get Bitcoin supportable by any financial system. It also leaves BTC as the main code. 1 BTC = 1 million XBT. Indeed, it is important, but the standards people have rejected an application in 2012 with the following: "1. The currency code is not linked to any country code. 2. The currency code is considered a 'private currency' and not used for tender in any country. 3. There will be no international payments denominated in Bitcoin therefore an ISO currency code for the Bitcoin is not applicable. 4. The Institution responsible for the Bitcoin does not appear to be recognized internationally or have any official status. Neither Reuters or Bloomberg provides market data related to its use. " https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123600.msg1327579#msg1327579It was necessary to address each point with a constructive rebuttal. This was done, but no reply came back. A petition has also been running. http://www.change.org/petitions/six-interbank-clearing-include-a-symbol-for-bitcoin-in-iso-4217 |
|
|
|
I believe the last objection raised was that a higher block size limit would make it impossible to mine anonymously, but I think that has been debunked with the notion of "read the firehose of transactions non-anonymously, then broadcast just new block header + coinbase + listof(truncated transaction hashes) anonymously."
If this 2nd change works then Bitcoin will be massively scalable and can become the success everyone wants. You are right - if it works, then Tor mining should be easier, though the scaling issues of a home node still remain. Anyway let's at least hope that they will prove the debunking thesis working, before touching the number. Though after learning that they don't consider decentralization as particularly important, I am not so certain about it...  Why don't you want Bitcoin to have this chance to succeed? Because for me Bitcoin has already succeeded and increasing the block size is playing with lethal forces that we don't even understand. So it has succeeded, but if you act irrationally, you can easily screw it up. We might be getting closer to agreement . I was thinking just now that the software changes for scalability might be well advanced even before 1MB blocks are common. That would be a nice outcome. With regard to playing with lethal forces: because for most of Bitcoin's lifespan blocks have been way below the 1MB limit (and only recently approached the soft-limits), then it has operated with no effective block limit. Letting it hit the 1MB actually introduces a lethal force where it didn't really exist before. |
|
|
|
Why you assume that it would need to be Google/Facebook/Baidu Credits?
Why do you think that a bitcoin based payment processor cannot be built upon a P2P inrastructure?
Why do you guys keep repeating that one would be forced to give all his private keys to a bank?
Relying on 3rd-party providers for using BTC makes the above very possible (p2p won't be used by bitcoin-banks as they will want control of their systems). And what blockchain-pruning has to do with making mining available via Tor?
This is the 2nd software change needed, as well as blockchain pruning: I believe the last objection raised was that a higher block size limit would make it impossible to mine anonymously, but I think that has been debunked with the notion of "read the firehose of transactions non-anonymously, then broadcast just new block header + coinbase + listof(truncated transaction hashes) anonymously."
If this 2nd change works then Bitcoin will be massively scalable and can become the success everyone wants. Why don't you want Bitcoin to have this chance to succeed? |
|
|
|
Why would ordinary people even run Bitcoin nodes if it becomes just an infrastructure for Google/Facebook/Baidu Credits? It would make as much sense as running a SWIFT or LCH.Clearnet node (if these systems worked as distributed networks).
Excellent post. People won't run nodes if they are priced away from the blockchain, and the worst-case scenario of centralization would occur: Bitcoin with just major companies running server-farm nodes. Thinking about Tor ....
once the blockchain-pruning solutions are up and running Tor will be usable for a long time, probably indefinitely. |
|
|
|
|
Federal Reserve Study Meeting - All-Day Session
Location: Room 666, Marriner Eccles Bldg
Topic: Payment System Threats
Agenda
1) Paypal
2) Bitcoin
(Meeting commences)
Chair: "Item 1, Paypal as a payment system threat"
Attendee X: "I have been researching this one. Paypal blacklists not only the Axis of Evil, but dozens of other countries with troublesome banking systems. They dropped Wikileaks like a hot potato. When we say jump, they ask 'How high?'"
Chair: "OK, so that's wrapped up. Item 2..."
|
|
|
|
Maaku, instead of whining and complaining about the size of the blockchain, you have stepped up like a man to solve the situation. You've just been sent a grant of 150 Bitcoins by myself, on behalf of SatoshiDICE, for the ongoing growth and development of this amazing technology we call Bitcoin. (Note to SD shareholders, this is a personal contribution, not coming out of SD earnings) Further, if after three months, Alan (whom I respect very highly) recommends further development, I will commit to funding another three months (we'll revisit the btc amount based on the exchange rate then). Please contact me on skype (evoorhees) and we can discuss further. And I agree with Alan that this needs a better name Just saw this post, and want to say that this is an awesome expression of support for the future success of Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
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.
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 ? You are wrong there. Me and all my friends who are running full nodes are already peaking our upload speeds, with maxconnections=16 and 32 kB upload, which is speed almost everyone I know here go for. To increase it to 64 kB I'd need to go for 8 MB download package which not only costs too much but I don't need it for day to day computer use. My upload:download ratio now is 20:1 or more when only Bitcoin client is running on computer. If block size goes up significantly, there is no way me or my friends will run full nodes. So, you lose few of us here, many others elsewhere, and you'll be left with less than 1000 full nodes worldwide. Good luck! Bitcoin Megastore, are you aware of this project for a software solution which goes a good way towards alleviating node bandwidth loading? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=204283.msg2135237#msg2135237 |
|
|
|
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? 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. |
|
|
|
You could have just PMed them if you wanted to ignore any counter-arguments.
He could have asked Gavin in person at the conference! It would be a huge threat to the network, and thus to the currency itself.
Piotr - did you even bother to try to talk to Gavin about what you think is a huge threat to Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
I think everyone who is shouting today that we should just increase blocks size, or even allow micro transactions, should commit himself to run a full bitcoin node continuously, for the next 10 years, paying all the costs of it by himself.
People who run a non-mining Bitcoin node are (usually) not out of pocket. Consider that many have a long-term Bitcoin holding, and how well that holding has done in the last year. Isn't it reasonable for owners of full nodes to spend a few bitcoins on upgrades and hardware? If the value of bitcoin continues like it has then anyone with a small holding will be able to afford vast amounts of disk space and bandwidth well before 10 years are up. It's the bandwidth and the computing power - keeping only the UTXO does not change much here.
Bandwidth is really the only important limitation. That's why the block header change is also proposed. Also, computing power (average CPU speed) is already well above what is required. |
|
|
|
The first two batches were given away without a single hitch. Already people are reporting back claiming that they're able to sell PC 4X mores than it was worth prior to its creation.
I was taken aback when it was brought to my attention that a PCeX was created to facilitate trade.
The PCF was formed to make sure that nobody will ever get scammed by using PC.
Follow the link to get your free Phantom Coin. PC-Facet_3.0 is currently flowing.
How dare you make a shameless clone-coin of Adam's abstract coin? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=219602.msg2313019#msg2313019Prove that your coin is better by having a snazzier logo! |
|
|
|
If 99% of the transactions I want to do are priced away from the blockchain by high fees, then I certainly will be switching off my node rather than leaving it running to support fat-cat banksters who are monopolizing the blockchain.
I suggest that if it was 700tps running a full node would be prohibitively expensive, and commonly, only fat-cat banksters would run them. Not if the lightweight nodes and block header propagation software changes are done. These are difficult changes, for sure. But if achievable, then all the off-chain, blockchain as backbone solutions become optional. They can succeed on their own merits, not because Bitcoin is crippled to 7tps. |
|
|
|
The solution is the Bitcoin blockchain.
All of these off blockchain ideas are all trying to solve the problem that Bitcoin solves, without using the amount of resources that a solution requires. It's never going to work out that way. If somebody does find a way to solve the decentralized transaction ordering problem in a way that's better than Bitcoin that technology isn't going to be an add-on to Bitcoin - it's going to be a new currency that replaces Bitcoin.
All of this effort around designing alternatives to the blockchain would be more effectively employed making the blockchain work. It's not going to be any easier to scale an off chain transaction processing system to huge rates and keep the same level of security and censorship resistance than it would be to scale the blockchain to the same level.
Fully agree. So the way forward seems to lie in two separate but significant Bitcoin enhancement projects: 1. Lightweight nodes with a pruned blockchain consisting of unspent transaction outputs (utxo) as described by etotheipi, which maaku is working to prototype. This benefits all non-mining nodes. 2. Block header propagation, perhaps requiring a pool of verification nodes. This benefits miners, reducing the need for mining pools and large block propagation. A major technical problem exists in how this model of block-sharing copes with reorganizations. Is this solvable?? If these were implemented in a future release then Bitcoin would be well on the path for large-scale capacity while still retaining significant decentralization and low-bandwidth nodes. This would mean that it would be easy for everyone to audit the high powered money. (we would know what the bankers are doing with our cash).
If 99% of the transactions I want to do are priced away from the blockchain by high fees, then I certainly will be switching off my node rather than leaving it running to support fat-cat banksters who are monopolizing the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Nothing's impossible. Bitcoin could be trading for $10, $50, $100 or even higher over the next few months.
That's wrong. Everything's impossible, except the one and only possible past and future. There is only one world. Possibilities are existing in our brains only. With so much investment into Bitcoin recently, I seriously doubt it will crash. What investment? Any proofs , besides what people say? Actual numbers? There was a major scandal in the oil industry about African Petroleum , they didn't find any oil but reported a huge find , just to raise their stocks and sell them away? Why could it be different in the bitcoin world? People fail to raise the funds for their project , but go blabering around to keep the price up while they sell. Look at this graph? Does this look like a growing economy? http://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?daysAverageString=7This graph is meaningless because it includes this audience of speculators. If you want to gauge the bitcoin economy you would need to filter for only of non-speculative transactions. Those are the ones with a lower-case "e" through "k" appearing in the address. |
|
|
|
Let's assume the transaction fees go up to $20 and Wordpress, Mega, Silkroad and all BitPay's clients sod off to LiteCoin or some other coin without this restriction, as they obviously would, so you were no longer able to actually buy anything with your Bitcoins.
Do you think the value of your Bitcoins would go up or down?
I'm thinking it would go down, and more than marginally.
Exactly. It is wishful thinking that Bitcoin can be parked in a state of suspended animation with "just the right amount" of market-share until the blockchain becomes a replacement for Fedwire, and off-chain solutions of the "just the right type" for all non-bank users mushroom around it. Market forces mean it will either soar and succeed or crash and burn. There is no safe middle-ground. |
|
|
|
|
Implementation of a more flexible block size than the 1MB block hard limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
