Well I have an average connection for Europe and i could easily support two gigabyte blocks from home, eight megabyte blocks would not be a problem at all. This person in Florida needs to either get a new internet provider or update his client by the sounds of it. lol
Did you read my posts in this thread? I've had to drastically reduce the connectivity of my full node (latest Core release) running on it's own dedicated hardware (modern quad-core CPU, 16GB RAM, SSD) in order to keep the home network functional for other daily use demands. My node will happily eat as much upload speed as I give it and I have top 10% home internet speeds (probably better). It can bring simple web surfing to a standstill if I let it. Nodes don't just accept blocks. Most of my bandwidth use is on the upload side (sharing data with other peers)! Larger blocks will obviously have a direct impact on the amount of data shared. Do you run a node or are you just guessing? should bitcoins traffic limits be based on what 10% of typical home connection can handle? maybe 20% ? maybe 50%? surly anything demanding 20-10% isn't going to impact number of full nodes. in anycase i feel that there can be much improvement as to how data is shared across the network to dramatically decrease bandwidth use for full nodes, which should allow for proportionally bigger blocks. I know someone that turns on his full node like once a week, just to download the lastest blocks and then turns it off again, so that when he makes a TX it doesn't take him long to sync up first. is this node useful? should ALL users be asked to run a full node? Bitcoin traffic should be limited based on capacity of anonymous bandwidth growth. what if new node run with pruned versions of the blockchain? maybe we could have a sort of yearly checkpoint, we no longer ask nodes to download data that is >1year old and base verification of off these yearly checkpoints. which defeats the whole purpose of Bitcoin that you should trust no one to validate the entirety of your coins history |
|
|
|
winner is not clear on this one yet. plus number of votes are way too low.
BIP000 is clearly the winner. , So why our poll shows that BIP101 by Gavin Andresen. in winning by huge margin? People don't know what they are voting for? Honestly I wish we could implement voting system for all bitcoin users (in wallets or other bitcoin software), but I have no idea how to block 1 person for voting multiple times.  Maybe because bitcointalk is not representative of Bitcoin  |
|
|
|
Well I have an average connection for Europe and i could easily support two gigabyte blocks from home, eight megabyte blocks would not be a problem at all. This person in Florida needs to either get a new internet provider or update his client by the sounds of it. lol
Did you read my posts in this thread? I've had to drastically reduce the connectivity of my full node (latest Core release) running on it's own dedicated hardware (modern quad-core CPU, 16GB RAM, SSD) in order to keep the home network functional for other daily use demands. My node will happily eat as much upload speed as I give it and I have top 10% home internet speeds (probably better). It can bring simple web surfing to a standstill if I let it. Nodes don't just accept blocks. Most of my bandwidth use is on the upload side (sharing data with other peers)! Larger blocks will obviously have a direct impact on the amount of data shared. Do you run a node or are you just guessing? should bitcoins traffic limits be based on what 10% of typical home connection can handle? maybe 20% ? maybe 50%? surly anything demanding 20-10% isn't going to impact number of full nodes. in anycase i feel that there can be much improvement as to how data is shared across the network to dramatically decrease bandwidth use for full nodes, which should allow for proportionally bigger blocks. I know someone that turns on his full node like once a week, just to download the lastest blocks and then turns it off again, so that when he makes a TX it doesn't take him long to sync up first. is this node useful? should ALL users be asked to run a full node? Bitcoin traffic should be limited based on capacity of anonymous bandwidth growth. |
|
|
|
Well I have an average connection for Europe and i could easily support two gigabyte blocks from home, eight megabyte blocks would not be a problem at all. This person in Florida needs to either get a new internet provider or update his client by the sounds of it. lol
Did you read my posts in this thread? I've had to drastically reduce the connectivity of my full node (latest Core release) running on it's own dedicated hardware (modern quad-core CPU, 16GB RAM, SSD) in order to keep the home network functional for other daily use demands. My node will happily eat as much upload speed as I give it and I have top 10% home internet speeds (probably better). It can bring simple web surfing to a standstill if I let it. Nodes don't just accept blocks. Most of my bandwidth use is on the upload side (sharing data with other peers)! Larger blocks will obviously have a direct impact on the amount of data shared. Do you run a node or are you just guessing? should bitcoins traffic limits be based on what 10% of typical home connection can handle? maybe 20% ? maybe 50%? surly anything demanding 20-10% isn't going to impact number of full nodes. in anycase i feel that there can be much improvement as to how data is shared across the network to dramatically decrease bandwidth use for full nodes, which should allow for proportionally bigger blocks. I know someone that turns on his full node like once a week, just to download the lastest blocks and then turns it off again, so that when he makes a TX it doesn't take him long to sync up first. is this node useful? should ALL users be asked to run a full node? Why would a user who only wants to send 1 transaction a week want to run a full node? That is useless. That user is better off using a different type of wallet. Yep, transact with bitcoin using other payment methods unless needs to harness the full security of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If 10% doesn't go along with the mempool sync, then they will be mining from an old block and it's a the big win for the big block miner because that is 10% less competition.
Can you explain this further? Are you suggesting that the 10% would be forked off the network even though they are producing valid blocks? They would be forked off by not being able to compete with the 90% of hashing power of rest of the network to propagate their block. So you mean they would go out of business (which is different than being forked off). Anyways, I think a hypothetical network configuration like this is far-fetched (but the fee market would still hold, nonetheless). But still you ignore Jerome's point. Bitcoin's objective is not to maximize miners profit using a free market approach but set security limits to maintain its decentralized core. |
|
|
|
it would not make sense to use the worst possible examples as our baseline.
That baseline doesn't make sense if your goal is to optimize tx per second. But why bother, when Visa/Paypal/Square can do that already very well. OTOH, if you GAF about survivability of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, you plan for the worst (and hope for the best). Gavin wants to plan according to some rosy vision of the future, where the economy is all fine and dandy thanks to Helicopter Ben printing endless FunBux. I want Bitcoin to survive World War Three (working subtitle 'Requiem for the Petrodollar'). That's not going to happen if Bitcoin lives in first strike targets like Google.mil datacenters. World War Three? Are you dreaming? Einstein knew a long time ago that a World War Three would be the last one. World War Three is a perpetual state of war. Much of the world is already there and has been for some time. Well put. A worldwide cold war fought with weapons of financial destruction. |
|
|
|
If 10% doesn't go along with the mempool sync, then they will be mining from an old block and it's a the big win for the big block miner because that is 10% less competition.
Can you explain this further? Are you suggesting that the 10% would be forked off the network even though they are producing valid blocks? They would be forked off by not being able to compete with the 90% of hashing power of rest of the network to propagate their block. |
|
|
|
To put it simply Peter insists that the shouts of the poor economic minority begging for cheaper transactions someone is representative of "the market".
iCEBREAKER aptly points out that Bitcoin being an economy, the distribution of its power (or wealth) answers to Pareto's law. Bitcoin being the most capitalist thing on this face of the earth acknowledges and exists to give the wealthy complete exercise over their power.
I still don't think you're answering the question asked in the OP. Even if you disagree, assume for a moment that Q* is to the right of Qmax as shown below. By definition then, this means that market wants more block space than is permitted by the quota. What I'm asking is-- assuming the picture does in fact look like this--what can be done to enforce the quota? How can the market impose a quota that the market itself does not want? Now you're just being dense. How many time does it need to be told? The consensus rules enforce the quota. Unless the market the peers can agree to change it nothing will happen. No, the market is not representative of the peers. |
|
|
|
"will of the market" != "most of us"
Perhaps true. But now you're talking about wealth inequality, which Bitcoin never claimed to fix to begin with.
I think that's irrelevant to Peter's question about the economic majority even though he did use that phrase (most of us). Precisely. Then you understand how that applies to Bitcoin right? You realize how the "economic majority" is reflected in the distribution of power? Please explain your point better because I don't know what you mean. To put it simply Peter insists that the shouts of the poor economic minority begging for cheaper transactions somehow is representative of "the market". This likely hails from the broken American ideology that "the consumer is always right" or, as Mircea puts it well, that "people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is.". iCEBREAKER aptly points out that Bitcoin being an economy, the distribution of its power (or wealth) answers to Pareto's law. Bitcoin being the most capitalist thing on this face of the earth acknowledges and exists to give the wealthy complete exercise over their power. This is also true of the actual economic majority in the current fiat economy. It is not so much after "cheap" transaction alternatives but seeks to escape political friction. Therefore the construction that all the monies of the fiat economy will be deterred to enter Bitcoin because of its financial cost is either economical incompetence or outright lies and fabrications. |
|
|
|
Let's say ITBL technology gets implemented, which means basically that blocks don't need to be broadcasted anymore. Then the market equilibrium shifts completely to the right of your graph and now miners are incentivised to confirm as many transactions as possible (with fees>0) to max their revenue…
Thanks for the comment, JeromeL. Coding schemes like IBLT are exactly what we need to reduce the propagation impedance to permit miners to produce large blocks for a reasonable price. I believe Rusty Russell said that IBLTs were achieving a coding gain of around 30. This means that if all miners used this scheme, they could produce 30 MB blocks for the same cost that they are presently producing 1 MB for. Win Win. However, note that if even 10% of the hash power doesn't go along with the mempool sync, that this has a very large affect on the propagation impedance. It will not be easy for miners to affordably produce 100 MB blocks, for example.
This chart explains how propagation impedance affects the total cost of producing various sizes of blocks. Oh but I beg to differ. All it takes is some good ol cooperation. |
|
|
|
"will of the market" != "most of us"
Perhaps true. But now you're talking about wealth inequality, which Bitcoin never claimed to fix to begin with. I think that's irrelevant to Peter's question about the economic majority even though he did use that phrase (most of us). It is true that the will of the market does not necessarily mean most of us. But the will of the market wants to be at Q*. The production quota is forcing it to be at Qmax. He does the market enforce a production quota against itself?I'm sure the will of the market also wants Ferraris to be at Q* but it ain't happening. Some will have to settle for the back of the bus. |
|
|
|
"will of the market" != "most of us" Why? Because resources are distributed by Pareto power law, not imaginary one-mouth-one-cow Rawlsian social justice. All of your considerations of spherical blockchains fail to account for the fact Bitcoin's economic majority is composed of a very small number of very rich, very smart, and very stubborn individuals. They don't GAF how Reddit wants to redesign their coin for the greater glory of populism (and Goldman Sachs). I'm not surprised you lacked to the class to resist trolling the scaling workshop. Don't be shocked when you don't get invited to speak at the next one.  The area under the line represents lulz proportional to the degree of Peter R's failure to convince anyone important that XT/101 was a good idea. So funny. They are still fighting their proxy war against XT while they are realising that the market will raise the limit. Are you not tired fucking this strawman ? |
|
|
|
... MPfag crud .... Bingo!  Listen. 7 transactions per second. Repeat that to yourself a few times until it sinks in. 7 transactions per secondGlobal reserve currency? @ 7tps, for who exactly? What a joke. Fedwire & TARGET2 run at 4 TPS  We will see in due time if we can scale this a bit. For now, we need to decruft the turd of its inefficiencies and build the eco-system it will support. |
|
|
|
"will of the market" != "most of us"
Perhaps true. But now you're talking about wealth inequality, which Bitcoin never claimed to fix to begin with.
I think that's irrelevant to Peter's question about the economic majority even though he did use that phrase (most of us). Precisely. Then you understand how that applies to Bitcoin right? You realize how the "economic majority" is reflected in the distribution of power? |
|
|
|
"will of the market" != "most of us" Why? Because resources are distributed by Pareto power law, not imaginary one-mouth-one-cow Rawlsian social justice.
All of your considerations of spherical blockchains fail to account for the fact Bitcoin's economic majority is composed of a very small number of very rich, very smart, and very stubborn individuals. They don't GAF how Reddit wants to redesign their coin for the greater glory of populism (and Goldman Sachs). I'm not surprised you lacked to the class to resist trolling the scaling workshop. Don't be shocked when you don't get invited to speak at the next one. The area under the line represents lulz proportional to the degree of Peter R's failure to convince anyone important that XT/101 was a good idea. Bingo! |
|
|
|
its not forked so easily. The consensus rules based on the core repository are entrenched.
True. I meant that someone could create a forking implementation very easily; the difficulty in getting it adopted is what I'm wondering. Can the consensus rules differ from the will of the market over the long term? Who, if not the market itself, defines consensus?  Peter, Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer network. The consensus is between the peers. Without them it doesn't exist. The "market" has nothing to do with this. The demand for Bitcoin is as a store of value and a means of exchange. Transacting on Bitcoin's blockchain is certainly not the only way to transact value as it stands and as it will be in the future. Therefore if it cannot pay for the security and the decentralization of the network this demand should find supply for transactions through a different mean of exchange. Fortunately "the market" for transactions includes many variable and you would be surprised to know one sector of such market is very interested in the unique properties of Bitcoin and they are absolutely not deterred by transaction costs. |
|
|
|
More about this "free market": if it cannot pay for decentralization then it cannot afford more utility. THIS is the negative externality that gets hand waved away by Peter.
OK, let's assume for a second that a negative externality exists (although I disagree). What can be done about it? It requires force to keep the production quota below Q*. How could a group do this over the long term if the code can so easily be forked? It requires consensus that's all. Nodes run the consensus rules. If some market for transactions cannot subsist under those rules he is free to find an alternative. You do know Bitcoin is not unique? We are talking about a market for monetary transactions. If it cannot pay for Bitcoin security there will forever exist other means of exchange fit to serve it. |
|
|
|
Your premise: Bitcoin consensus operates as a free market. Why this is wrong: Bitcoin is ruled by a protocol enforced by a consensus of the nodes on the network. The block size limit is not unlike like other consensus rules in the protocol: block interval time, 21M cap. It is indeed a security rule that carefully gages the incentives of the actor in the system and helps to align them toward an equilibrium. It served as an anti-spam measure and still does. The reason it is so is because the true cost of the spam is not bore by the miners but by the nodes. The block space is not a commodity produced by the miners but the effect of a limit on the costs of resources for the system. "There's only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to visible effects; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." Frédéric Bastiat This is the total economic activity:  Any of you seeing a "dead weight loss" Clearly the "will of the market" is not clamoring for more block size at present. Especially considering surely 20% of that space is filled with spam. More about this "free market": if it cannot pay for decentralization then it cannot afford more utility. THIS is the negative externality that gets hand waved away by Peter. While he seemingly is very able at drawing lines on charts his ability to discern game theory dynamics are poor at best. What he is campaigning and openly support is a tragedy of the commons that would create a disproportional and ultimately tragic rise of the resources costs of becoming a peer in the network. It should be clear then that the anti spam limit should represent a measure of the cost of running a node. http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/ |
|
|
|
Do you know what a third-party is?
Yes I do, and you quoted what I said out of context. I said that some SPV wallets can connect to full nodes which can be put up by anyone in a decentralized fashion. I also argued that relying on layer two protocols would translate into much greater reliance on third parties especially with increased adoption and limited blocksize space. SPV wallets connecting to full nodes = third party risk. no amount of spinning can get you out of this. Layer two protocols like Lightning rely on no third-party custody therefore you don't have to trust anyone with you money to use them. Layer two protocols are third parties as well. Not being able to practically transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly because of it becoming prohibitively expensive after increased adoption would translate into a much greater reliance on third parties, compared to SPV wallets. I am not spinning anything since I never claimed that SPV wallets do not rely on third parties at all, even if it is decentralized in its execution. Using a SPV wallet does not necessarily mean relying on a third party since some SPV wallets can connect to full nodes
 You realize you are doing it again right, you are quoting me out of context. Since in the next sentence I clearly say that: "Having to use a layer two protocol however would translate into much greater reliance on third parties especially with increased adoption and limited blocksize space." The emboldened part of the text implies the acknolegement that SPV wallets do also partially relly on third parties, in the same way that a layer two protocol would as well. Unfortunately that is wrong. Forcing SPV dependence by making full nodes too expensive for regular people to run is much worst than having them use an open payment protocol that cannot steal or censor their funds for casual transactions Another straw man argument, I have never said that people will be forced to use SPV wallets because full nodes will become to expensive, actually I have stated the opposite of this. People will still be able to run full nodes from home even with eight megabyte blocks. Do you have scientific data to prove this? Consider this from Patrick Stateman this weekend: Assuming yearly 20% increase blockchain size & 10% reduction in bandwidth costs, after 15-20 years no new nodes can enter system except maybe huge datacenter operations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=7331Wouldn't have guessed this heh? Hilarious another straw man argument lol. In this case I have not been arguing for a 20% increase per year. I was just saying that I can run a full node with eight megabytes today, and that most people within the developed world could also do so on their home desktop computers without that causing any major problems in terms of decentralization. yo, I can't be bothered with your simple ass anymore. who do you think you fooling trying to politic your way out of every discussions. are you running for president of the free shit army or something? you really are coming at me with this stupid "most people within the developed world" bullshit after I just presented you with hard data that this would break Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
