Unlike your opinion, hardware evolves you know  That's very cute, but it's not an adequate response. Firstly, yes, hardware evolves. At what rate over time, and when does the exponential trend end? We don't know. Moore's Law is an unscientific observation -- a theory -- and one that is breaking down: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/16/intel-quietly-admits-that-its-struggling-with-moores-law/Further, if block size capacity is inadequate, it is linked to growth in transaction volume and thus, network adoption. Why is this [unproven, unscientific] theory regarding growth in processor capacity being used as a basis for predicting bitcoin adoption? It's already quite a leap to say that growth rates in processing capacity are uniformly applicable to all technologies.....But then to try to take it much further even, and apply that logic to a network of people? Very basic logical failures. Those who act like we can plan for all contingencies today in regards to hardware and bandwidth advancements, network security in the case of exponentially increasing block size, any the many problems that will come along whether we have thought of them or not are fooling themselves. It seems many fancy themselves visionaries around here -- but I don't see the foresight to warrant it. if we would have 8GB blocks right now you can have that: - run your own node on a server (eg hetzner 50€/month+300€ traffic) - run electrum-server there - use electrum from home to connect there which basically means it is possible RIGHT NOW. eg even if you think that bandwith doesnt change for the next years at all bitcoin would still be usable. ofc not anybody could afford 350€/monthly. but they might just use spv clients |
|
|
|
Also, the data does get larger if the block size increases. Stratun and GBT both send the miners an array of all of the transactions. If there are more transactions, then the array is larger. This is of course more data to send. Stratum and GBT are designed with transparency in mind, so that the pool members can verify that the pool is above board. Within a mining operation, there is no reason for this double-check. So, no, there's no need for the data size to increase at all. there is a reason: if pools would submit transactions pool-miners would be able to decide which transactions to include in a block. but they dont because its to slow....so only the pool can decide which transactions to put in a block. |
|
|
|
If they move the full node out of China, then how do they mine inside China? If they are concerned about latency, then there will also be latency from their miners inside China to the full node outside of China. Look up pool mining protocols. The data transferred from the miner to the node is miniscule, and it doesn't get even a single byte bigger if the block size increases. The whole discussion of block size impact on China-based mining operations is a red herring. I don't think it is a red herring. Just look at what the Chinese pools have to say about this. Also, the data does get larger if the block size increases. Stratun and GBT both send the miners an array of all of the transactions. If there are more transactions, then the array is larger. This is of course more data to send. stratum is able to send transaction but i am not aware of any pool which uses this feature. |
|
|
|
As you can see, going into China drastically reduces the speed. And the problem is because of the Great Firewall of CHina. Since a lot of miners are Chinese, we need to take into account their network speed to the rest of the world when doing block time calculations. There is nothing that requires a mining operation in China to run its full node inside China. The full hash power of the mining operation can remain inside China, and connect via a node anywhere in the world. The transactional data is absolutely not required for the mining hardware to operate. imho its more likely that other countries will put their mining nodes into china... as china seems to have the most hashrate why should they move? |
|
|
|
War will never be something good no matter how justified it.
it depends for whom: people: war is bad looser: war is bad government of winner: war is good weapon producer of winner: war is good i actually hate war; but that doesnt change that facts |
|
|
|
Murphy's law: What can go wrong will go wrong. History of Bitcoin has proved that: 0day exploit, MtGox collapse, BTCGuild having 50% hashpower, ....
And there are so many way that Bitcoin can go wrong with BIP 100. Giving miner more power to control Bitcoin is horrible idea. Oh wait, Jeff Garzik is working for a mining firm, that why he has this proposal.
Miners should only do that job that they are designated to do: include transactions to blocks.
the same is true when we dont change anything. all the problems you listed where there with 1mb blocks. there are a lot of problems we can get when we stay at 1mb. i cant see the future, do you? if we dont do anything thats not a guarantee that there wont be a new problem... |
|
|
|
-snip-
ten years ago i only had 128kb isdn; now i have 50mbit.
It keeps going until it reaches 8 GB. The idea is that technology will continue to grow and we will be able to support such large blocks. So? Ten years ago I had 4 mbps at my old house and now it has 20mbps. According to Gavin my speed should be much higher now (it is not; at that house). Gavin's proposal might only keep track of the development in 1st world countries. Everything else won't keep up with doubling every two years. you only need 110mbit to be able to use 8GB blocks (if any block is full) at home you can use a SPV wallet if you want (eg electrum-server on a vps and electrum at home) edit: this does NOT include transaction and block relay: so it is more... but it is enough for a parasitic listening node |
|
|
|
BIP 101 is the proposal to increase the block size limit to 8 mb and doubling every 2 years. It is implemented within the XT client but is not XT itself and XT is not necessarily BIP 101. BIP 101 can be implemented elsewhere without all of the other stuff that is included inside XT.
Well BIP 101 is still not a great solution, doubling every two years gives a huge block size that could come under a spam attack easily. Seriously in 10 years 256mb blocks? That seems like a pretty huge jump and then we start getting in trouble 4 years later 1gb blocks? I know technology moves fast but that seems to be a bit too quick. [/quote] ten years ago i only had 128kb isdn; now i have 50mbit. |
|
|
|
All the BIPs are a pathetic attempt at reproducing the lame presidential elections soup we all get served.
You think you have a choice? You dont.
To believe that voting is going to help the situation, is the same as forking will improve bitcoin. But it just wont.
And big corps, banksters et al. will win again. and again.. and friggin again.
that just sounds like you are fear driven and frustrated. i dont see ANY argument in this. And what do you propose? As long as Bitcoin remains open source and decentralized (and to remain decentralized we need the nodes to be able to be run under normal computers and normal bandwith) the alternative to the status quo will remain. My fear is that eventually the devs sell themselves and give way too much to regulations and so on. The original idea of Bitcoin by Satoshi was uncompromised and anarchic and didn't gave a fuck about being accepted by governments or not, it was a revolution. Let's see how things turn out. this is what i support and love about bitcoin. satoshis vision also included that anybody can use bitcoin (with SPV wallets). he did not want a blocksize limit: it was just added as a TEMPORARY solution to prevent spam in the EARLY days when bitcoin was worth nothing (usd-wise). i support bigger blocks. i dont see the risk of gov control because of this (many people regularly downloads gigabytes of movies - and you are afraid the government can stop bitcoin? - they'll go after shops, exchanges and pools if they REALLY want to. they can do that in any case). i support any proposal which reasonably increases blocksize and does scale over time. it may be dynamic or a static regular increase i dont really care. blocksize and centralization: i dont think this is a real problem nowadays. we have an overlay-network which is used by miners to submit block-headers first and transactions are submitted out of band. imho: its better if the protocol allows too-big-blocks instead of the opposite. miners do want to make money and they heavily rely on a working bitcoin system (otherwise there initial investment is gone). they wont harm too much... |
|
|
|
The spam attack is worrying for me because BIP101 can do nothing about it as the Jan date is hard coded.
It's hard coded that way in XT, not BIP101 itself. BIP101 could be implemented in Core overnight. Or am I mistaken? The Jan date can just be changed, it is just code. The BIP101 can be added to the Core with just a different date. does anyone of you know some details of how it is implemented? eg. (to take your example) BIP101 would get implemented in core right now but no pool would produce a bigger block until january. in january one pool mines a bigger block: would core and xt be compatible in this case? (the answer of this interests me also for all different kind of blocksize-bips) |
|
|
|
Are you serious ? A war is never serious . If a war occurs, countries get 10 years back economically .
americans in WW2? they have taken our scientists and gold...and they are still controlling us. so they won  |
|
|
|
All the BIPs are a pathetic attempt at reproducing the lame presidential elections soup we all get served.
You think you have a choice? You dont.
To believe that voting is going to help the situation, is the same as forking will improve bitcoin. But it just wont.
And big corps, banksters et al. will win again. and again.. and friggin again.
that just sounds like you are fear driven and frustrated. i dont see ANY argument in this. |
|
|
|
Lol you wish. Hows that ad hom extrapolations from some date to élude the fact you are a frustrated poor little kiddo, that does not have bitcoins best valuation at heart and would rather see its fall in the hands of big corporations that want to centraliaze It by forking it. You statist derp.
why cant you accept that some people (like me) thinks that bigger blocks are needed to raise bitcoins value? i do respect that you think thats not the case. but as long as you dont accept my stance you cant change my mind (or anybody elses for that matter). imho i dont understand that hole drama. just wait and see whats happen: - if bitcoin forks: so be it. we have both coins then - if it doesnt fork: who cares all that forum drama and rhetorics (imho mostly started from mpex himself; but i maybe wrong about that) are the reason why it has dropped so hard. not that i really care: i am here for the long term. and long term hasnt change anything. |
|
|
|
Says the guy who got involved buying miners when bitcoin was about $1100 a coin... How did that work out for ya, champ? You started out so positive, so hopeful. I guess bitcoin hasn't been too good a ride for you, n'est-ce pas ?  seems like a very good deal to buy a miner when bitcoin was at 1100$? ofc this is assuming he already owned that btc (which is likely considering is accont age) |
|
|
|
Ah thèse guys are all in for +100k$/btc. You seem not. So pardon me for suggesting to go fork yourself.
i did... and my child is wonderful; thanks for the tip  edit: do you know whats really funny? in case of a fork she will own some of your (expected) 100k$ btc AND some biggerblock-btc (which i consider real btc too; but anyway) but most probably you'll only own "real" "original" btc... i'd say we win in any case. |
|
|
|
If Fork is issued by Bitcoin XT, it becomes another Altcoin. The Bitcoin Core is the only one Original BTC.
true, but who would care about an original bitcoin with hours between new blocks? a transaction backlog that huge that even servers cant store the UTXO? no one (btw this is true for *any* fork of the bitcoin blockchain) Who cares about free transactions? Im holding anyway and by then wont be annoyed paying a little to transfer big money when ever, where ever, to who ever. the point is you cant... because none of your beloved elitist-mpex-lovers would ever touch mining hardware. where did i wrote anything about free transactions? even with 1TB blocks miners are not forced to put free transactions in a block (and they would be dumb if they do as soon as the block reward is too low ofc) |
|
|
|
If Fork is issued by Bitcoin XT, it becomes another Altcoin. The Bitcoin Core is the only one Original BTC.
true, but who would care about an original bitcoin with hours between new blocks? a transaction backlog that huge that even servers cant store the UTXO? no one (btw this is true for *any* fork of the bitcoin blockchain) |
|
|
|
Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong? not sure Hearn invented LN and implemented it in bitcoinj. ofc blockstream can still develop it further. This is NOT right. Hearn invented Lighthouse. Not Lightning network. You're mixing things up. Lightning network --> Joseph Poon, Thaddeus Dryja Lighthouse --> Mike Hearn you are right, sorry btw: here is the lightning paper: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf |
|
|
|
It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen, thank god. It's also clear tho that alot of people want a bigger blocksize, but not arbitrary increases of the blocksize which all it does is exposing the network to all kind of attacks and things we don't even know because we would be in unknown territory. Yes for blocksize increase and yes for scaling up Bitcoin globally to beat VISA etc, but do it with common sense.
Thanks God that people are giving this BIP100 their full support. I was already worried for a second before this proposal didn't come out. Yes for the block size increase, I was for it from the first day but not the XT fork. This is where Gavin went wrong. If he got XT out only with bigger blocks and none of that other crap, this discussion would already be over. He wanted too much. consensus rules vs client code vs private keys three complete different things if you dont like "the other crap" just use a XT-fork which ONLY includes blocksize increase and nothing else. imho: xt did the only thing how any protocol change can get through after years of talking. just release code and wait what miners/users/economy do. No. XT includes many other things other than BIP 101. And no, they wanted to enforce BIP 101 rather than just bigger block size limit. as i said: go and use another client which ONLY uses BIP101. guess what: it is compatible with XT... because consensus rules and client code are two different things (and yes: such a fork does exist. just forgot the link as i dont think it is necessary at all). |
|
|
|
It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen, thank god. It's also clear tho that alot of people want a bigger blocksize, but not arbitrary increases of the blocksize which all it does is exposing the network to all kind of attacks and things we don't even know because we would be in unknown territory. Yes for blocksize increase and yes for scaling up Bitcoin globally to beat VISA etc, but do it with common sense.
Thanks God that people are giving this BIP100 their full support. I was already worried for a second before this proposal didn't come out. Yes for the block size increase, I was for it from the first day but not the XT fork. This is where Gavin went wrong. If he got XT out only with bigger blocks and none of that other crap, this discussion would already be over. He wanted too much. consensus rules vs client code vs private keys three complete different things if you dont like "the other crap" just use a XT-fork which ONLY includes blocksize increase and nothing else. imho: xt did the only thing how any protocol change can get through after years of talking. just release code and wait what miners/users/economy do. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
