|
So here I am sitting in McDonalds looking at blockchain info and the core debug page, and a guy asks me what I am doing. I started to explain about Bitcoin, and he says he already knows about it. He doesn't trust on-line wallets because of Silk Road, Mt Gox and the like ( his comment). He would use a Bitcoin core wallet, but the page I showed him ( the standard core one) is too complex, and he didn't want to learn that much about Bitcoin before he used it. He asked why there isn't a GUI to simplify things for non-computer literate users.
So, is that a good question? and is it likely that someone will create an open source GUI for core users?
|
|
|
|
That is not how it works. If over a period of 2016 blocks the average block time is more than 10 minutes then the difficulty will be adjusted to bring the average back to 10 minutes. The protocol does not think "oh, those 6 blocks were a bit slow, we'd better speed up for a few hours" instead it adjusts in quite long periods. Natural variation means that some blocks will be slower and some will be shorter - adjusting difficulty every 2016 blocks means that a lot of that variability is ironed out naturally.
Even if you changed to 5 minute blocks you would still get variability and some blocks would still be more than 10 minutes - what would you want to do then?
I understand all that. My point was that the current difficulty is set to generate blocks at an average of 10 minute intervals. Because it is an average, some 10 minute "slots" will be barren, and some will have more than one block relayed. I think I saw one interval that had 4 blocks generated within the 10 minutes. My point was that if the current system can cope with a 2.5 minute generation interval as part of its normal operation, then a change to a 5 minute interval can't be as difficult as some people suggest. |
|
|
|
First, a block-size limit might be needed to avoid centralization of the Bitcoin network, and, in particular, further centralization of mining. Perhaps most importantly, bigger blocks would take longer to propagate to other miners when first found. A longer propagation time should lead to a higher orphan rate, as more miners would be mining on older blocks, while newer blocks are still finding their way through the network. That would, in turn, incentivize miners to join larger miner pools, as they find blocks more often, and therefore don’t need to wait for the propagation of new blocks as often. Here is a quote by Aaron van Wirdum in the Bitcoin magazine https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/everything-need-know-proposed-changes-bitcoin-block-size-cap-1440204699It seems that the 10 minute interval was chosen based on the computing and bandwidth resources available when Satoshi proposed Bitcoin. (rather like the blocksize). Now that technology has moved on, isn't it time to review the block interval? |
|
|
|
This is what happens when people with zero understanding of the protocol starts talking about it. If you half block generation time, u'll increase the orphan rate, reduce block halving time and ultimately end up with an alt coin.
Well lets step back and look at that statement. I don't have zero understanding of the protocol, but I do have a limited understand I'll admit. It seems that most users, and posters on this forum, are in the same position. We are here to learn, and I hope that I will get some explanations as to why I am wrong, if I am wrong. Looking at Bitcoin from a commercial point of view, an average block interval of 10 minutes is way to long. This is regarless of any technical issues. Now lets look at the technical point you made. Block generation averages a ten minute interval. That means sometimes it is a lot longer than 10 minutes, as in the two hour period I mentioned. Now the system will need to catch up on a period when generation had a 20 minute interval. That means it will need to run with 5 minute intervals for a while. This is the current system that will have to cope with that, and it doesn't seem to create more orphans. Of course halving the block generation time will create more blocks, so you would have to adjust the miners reward to compensate for this. I don't see why this would create an alt coin. It's still Bitcoin, and it is still using the current blockchain without any alterations. |
|
|
|
yes, the transaction is real slow. the size of the block should be increased ASAP
Did you read my post? I'm not talking about transactions, I'm talking about blocks. Increasing the block size will just make matters worse, and probably create more orphan blocks. |
|
|
|
|
Never mind the rubbish about blocksize. I've just been looking at blockchain.info and the block at height 404043 took 31 minutes to find. In the last 2 hours only 6 blocks have been relayed. With time intervals like this, Bitcoin has got no chance of mainstream adoption in the modern electronic age.
I assume that blockchain.info is reporting acurately.
|
|
|
|
|
One way to reduce traffic congestion is to speed up the traffic. Making cars larger so they can carry more people, means they take up more space, and may not increase the occupancy rate anyway.
|
|
|
|
Gotta remember though. This would make bitcoin a lot easier to attack, as the proof of work required to double spend/withhold/censor would be much less. I don't think we necessarily want to sacrifice security from miner attacks if we don't have to. A strong fee incentive would (hopefully) keep miners in line, doing nothing more than they are paid for = ordering transactions into blocks.
But if block generation times were down to one every minute, wouldn't this mean that these abuses would be detected and rectified fairly quickly. |
|
|
|
|
There are a number of things that Bitcoin users can do to help in the short term. Try to keep transaction sizes low for example. Faucets, sig sponsors and gambling sites could increase their minimum payment levels to try to reduce long chain transactions. I'm sure you can think of many other things. All of these are in our interests, as they will help to keep fees lower.
|
|
|
|
|
Once we get rid of ( or reduce) the direct payment for finding blocks, we can see a shift towards transaction fees to cover mining costs. This will make the large mining farms uneconomic, and we can see mining becoming a more distributed function as nodes start to mine, and the service providers join in to mine blocks. This will make Bitcoin stronger, and should cut out all the damaging actions like the blocksize power grab.
|
|
|
|
|
Please be clear - the issue is not about blocksize. It is about transaction confirmation speed and scalability. Blocksize is just one of the temporary suggestions ( and not the most significant imho ) that may offer a partial improvement.
|
|
|
|
You've never used a credit card in your life, and have no clue about protection CC offer, correct?
I've probably used a wider variety of payment options than you have even heard of. If you think any bank payment system offers total protection, you need to read the small print ( and some of the horror stories reported on the net). I've even owned a shop that accepted credit cards, and helped to close down a credit card theft ring. It took me a month to get my money back from the fraudulent use of cards that I had accepted with the knowledge of the cc company to help in this. |
|
|
|
|
Well I'm still relatively new to Bitcoin, but my understanding is that larger blocksizes increase the orphan rate, and block generation can be effective and efficient at a rate of one block every 33 seconds. I'll try to find the statistical paper that contains those calculations. This seems to be especially true as transaction volumes increase.
|
|
|
|
the only way you can lose money from your credit card is if you withdraw at an atm and someone jumps you with a gun and takes the cash out of your hands.
How about a guy with a NFC reader standing next to you in a queue. You wouldn't know he'd taken the money from you until you looked at your statement. |
|
|
|
|
Contactless cards have got to be the stupidest invention of the banks. I've sent all mine back, and I refuse to use them. They must be the least safe method of making payment. Well I guess walking around with a load of banknotes sticking out of your back pocket is marginally worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Can we be clear about one thing. The real demand is not for larger blocks, but for faster transactions. Increasing the blocksize is just one trivial and easy to understand temporary solution. I believe that true growth in the mainstream will require far more than that. I also believe that the blocksize should be halved to speed up block generatiion and confirmation.
|
|
|
|
Reported by what site? How is hash power data collected/calculated?
I saw the table on coin dance - no idea how they calculated it, and a quick look doesn't reveal the table. I ran a google search, and it seems some sites are reporting classic hash rates as ovewr 60%, which is clearly not the case. I guess obfuscation still rules.  |
|
|
|
Number of blocks is reported as 6%. Hash power is reported as under 4%. I guess it is dead now that it is considered to be an altcoin. |
|
|
|
|
They seem to have under 4% of the hash power though.
|
|
|
|
|
Only 3 miners seem to be supporting Classic. One of those is Slush - they seem to be mining several blocks that are under 512k, and some are under 100k. Why would they want 2Mb blocks?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
