Thanks Hazek. Brilliant post. We, the users, want to be able to run full nodes. That's bitcoin, and that's why we are in.
Good! Now hold bitcoins, enough bitcoins that if exchange rates continue to grow as fast as people want the max block size to grow you'll not find the cost of the stuff you'll need to be a full node "unreasonably" expensive.  -MarkM- +1 The ideas about this are so spread out. Search my posts in the other thread for the full details, but a 10 meg block, miners could still do that today. That's a 10x increase over current limits and sets the TPS in line with Paypal. The average user can easily download a 10 meg block every 10 minutes and verify the chain. That's not a 10 meg block 24/7, that's just at peak when we eventually get there. Unless something crazy happens, that will be several years. 56k modem couldn't keep up with the block chain. It would take them 20-30 minutes to download a full block. Someone on 256k DSL shouldn't have a problem running a full node if every block were jam packed full. They couldn't mine, but they could with 100% certainty verify the block chain. And there would still be NOTHING stopping a group of peers or even just by themselves from renting a VPS for $15 a month, and running a full node and using a light client with bloom filters. In places like Africa, that might be the cheaper way to do it and is still a valid option at 10 meg block sizes. |
|
|
|
I hope this is a joke.
Negative, you can verify that I own the key in your own client by verifying the signature. |
|
|
|
If we want to cap the time of downloading overhead the latest block to say 1%, we need to be able to download the MAX_BLOCKSIZE within 6 seconds on average so that we can spend 99% time hashing.
At 1MB, you would need a ~1.7Mbps connection to keep downloading time to 6s.
At 10MB, 17Mbps
At 100MB, 170Mbps
and you start to see why even 100MB block size would render 90% of the world population unable to participate in mining.
Even at 10MB, it requires investing in a relatively high speed connection.
Thank you for that so much. That is most definitely the clearest explanation I've seen yet. Even if miners sacrificed a few more seconds so the bandwidth requirements weren't as high, you still would only halve the connection speed, making a 10 meg block potentially realistic today. Something to remember too, is that we are not packing every block with a meg currently. Most are a fraction of that. The maximum block size would be needed for peak TPS until a later date when the transactions get slower. Something please check my math though, I'll update it on just the 10 meg block. At 0.0005 minimum transaction fee, on blockchain.info I'm seeing about 0.5 BTC per 250 KB of block size. That would be an additional 20 BTC per block with a fully loaded 10 meg block. Is that not a decent 600USD reason to upgrade your internet connection? And for those like Hazek who simply want to verify the rules of bitcoin, the requirements of bandwidth for a 10 meg block are any first world DSL connection with plenty to spare. |
|
|
|
|
By increasing the limit by 1%, that decreases your ability to have a say and check it. And you're against that... wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand. XMiningPool Inc. mines a block at 600kb. You ignore it. So in your block chain you go from 250,000 to 250,002?
|
|
|
|
I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."
It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.
hazek isn't arguing about 56.6 modems. I think it's about balance. The thing is Bitcoin is billed as a currency that users can own, on their own. They don't have to trust anybody. The minute you start decreasing their ability to have a say (and check) of what goes on with the currency you've moved away from it being a currency they own on their own. That doesn't mean higher end users can't use it, but it pushes some people out. To qualify as "grassroots" access I think you have to look at the typical technical capability of, say, average U.S. consumers. The world follows the U.S. as a benchmark on things (for example, see the Big Mac index). So, you want to grab technical specs from there I think, if it's a goal at all. That's not what hazek is arguing. He doesn't want the block size limit changed PERIOD. Ignore the fact that he can easily confirm 10x the limit today on whatever laptop he's using, it's as is or he's out. |
|
|
|
Oh the irony...doctorate of science from a Theological Seminary   |
|
|
|
|
So let me see if I have the math right according to the scalability article on Bitcoin.
Visa does 2000tps we can do 7. If Bitcoin scaled up to Visa, the wiki says we would need around an 8 megabits/second connection. That would create a block size of approximately 500 megs each. Am I hitting that number right? A home DSL connection would choke up with that and bandwidth caps at home would easily be exceeded. Nothing that serious miners or colocation couldn't handle.
CPU isn't an issue. At 72 GB a day serious pruning would have to be discussed.
At the minimum fee of 0.0005, that's over 600 BTC per block in fees if we increase the limit to 500 megs per block. But the discussion is we shouldn't make big blocks, so the fees increase for the miners? It seems like if you have a million transactions in a block, that there could potentially be more fees. Of course they are smaller fees, but there are much more of them.
As of today, there should be no reason that we could not move the maximum block size to 10x what it currently is and we would probably good for a very long time being able to process more than paypal can. When that wall is approaching we can discuss it again like Satoshi suggested.
|
|
|
|
Halving the block reward could lead to issues. Simply having it based on time is a totally arbitrary decision. That's right, and there is already a discussion of the issue that the block subsidy schedule might cause. Specifically, if the transaction fees and/or the value of Bitcoin do not rise to maintain the profitability of mining, the network hash rate will permanently decrease instead of increase. misterbigg, if I've offended you, I'm sorry. Your posts in here have been about the best ones that I really have enjoyed of those tilting towards not increasing it. That's a very poor way of explaining your arguments, but I am greatful for your input on everything. It was actually your posts that I was reading where I found the Ms. Lawrence. Seemed like an excellent response to someone coming in and saying leave it alone with no explanation. Not too far off from what I feel like Havock is saying. Leave bitcoin alone or I'm leaving. That's hardly constructive. Regardless of the outcome, there will surely be people upset and probably some that will abandon bitcoin based on the decision. |
|
|
|
I don't like that solution either. It's not linked to actual usage in any way and could lead to issues. Simply doubling it based on time is a totally arbitrary decision.
Halving the block reward could lead to issues. Simply having it based on time is a totally arbitrary decision. |
|
|
|
And if I can't get that from Bitcoin, I'm out.
 |
|
|
|
I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."
It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.
That's not what havock is arguing for although he uses that argument for his argument. He wants bitcoin exactly the way it is no ifs and or buts about it. |
|
|
|
How about a simple as Satohshi's reward-halving method?
Simply double the block size when you halve the block-reward size.
Voila, all done for the next 136 years, nice and predictable, plenty of time to prepare for etc etc etc.
-MarkM-
Bingo. And we should double it in the next 12 months for the first one because we missed the first half. Dynamic, not open ended, and completely predictable. Probably not what yays or nays want but simple middle ground. |
|
|
|
Centralized services handling a larger amount of payments has another drawback that hasn't been discussed much, it's the fact that using a fractional reserve would become much easier. As long as the blockchain itself is the dominant transaction platform, widespread use of fractional reserve is impossible. This is one more reason to do everything possible to keep as much of the transactions in the blockchain as reasonably possible.
With this I mean the exact same thing as Gavin meant. Subcent transactions should be disregarded as not viable. Transactions worth more than $0.01 should be something that Bitcoin can handle. There really is no reason why it can't, only a whole truckload of FUD.
I'd go as far as to saying greater than a dollar with 1/10th cent precision. It reminds me of that 1010220 commercial. Can't buy much for less than a buck these days. That doesn't mean you don't receive change still down to the penny. |
|
|
|
are there any cheat codes to this game
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA Icarus Fights Medusas Angels |
|
|
|
I'm still confused on your argument. Why do you want Bitcoin not to change? You even started your post of confirming the fact that Bitcoin has already changed in the past. Shouldn't you just leave Bitcoin and make your own currency? One that can't change? If it has already changed in the past, why are you fighting so hard that it would never change again?
Especially a change that has been anticipated and talked about since the very beginning: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347Raising the max block size was always part of the plan That may well be but me not being able to validate the rules I consented to are being followed most certainly wasn't. I don't care how Bitcoin works, as long as principles I consented to are adhered to and one of those principles is that I can validate that the rules are being followed. I said in the OP I'm not opposed to rule changes per se, but I am opposed to rule change that would change that or the effects of which would inevitably change that. ?? Is what mark is saying accurate? I suspect it is more about exactly how much to increase the block size, including how many years the increase will give us before we end up relenting to yet another increase, then another, then another, then another, as the privileged and entitled and elite continue their normal expectable gameplan of disenfranchising everyone else.
Oh and maybe also forcing the footprint of a full node to such a scale that they can easily sniff out all resistance cells and free speech movements and dissidents and so on.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
Notice the if and the emphasis on need...
Let's get him on the phone and see what he says. |
|
|
|
care to create a constructive response on that?
Cross post to one of the three threads going about this From the mouth of satoshi himself!! Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.
+1 theymos. Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment. We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it. It wasn't needed then, but we are getting closer. Hmmm..... long live satoshi. |
|
|
|
... Nice job polluting a wonderful thread with great technical insights with your Jennifer Lawrence spam. My prediction is we see a dip to $4-$7 with a rebound to $9, back to $7.50, then $10......or all hell breaks loose and pirate crashes the price to $0.01  |
|
|
|
From the mouth of satoshi himself!! Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.
+1 theymos. Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment. We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it. It wasn't needed then, but we are getting closer. Hmmm..... long live satoshi. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
