remember that, if i'm right, and full blocks are indicating additional incremental demand due to currency crises, this is going to be a more regular thing. this is what we've theorized about for years. the network HAS to be ready if you want to Moon.
1MB isn't going to cut it. right now, unconf tx's are now up to 10000 with now >5TPS delays.
To be clear, I agree. Smoothly adjusting fees are another tool in the scaling toolbox, though, and should be ready for use as well. (Where we're going, a 8 or 20x increase all by itself might not cut it.) i'm not sure i get that. if you're saying where we're going is Moon, then how can a 1MB cap (assuming SC or LN take a year) even with wallet fee capability, result in a smoothly adjusting fee increase as we consistently hit the 1MB cap? if anything, it will go parabolic in a chaotic fashion and result in extremely poor user experience and subsequent rejection. |
|
|
|
we are consistently above the 2.3 TPS level that the Tradeblock ppl have defined as the level where the network experiences delays. from Tradeblock: (2): It appears transaction confirmation will begin to experience notable delays at roughly 2.3 TPS – the rate at which average transaction processing time begins to exceed 1 block. |
|
|
|
The only technically knowledgeable people who support this inane system design do so because they see clearly that it will consolidate the infrastructure into a form that is as easily controlled as fiat money is currently. To many many people, this consolidation of control is a good thing. Most people love Big Brother whether they realize it or not and have the reflexes trained to support him.
this is precisely why we disagree on everything. i believe that the internet can allow the ppl to take back control of their money as it should be. don't forget that central banks are still a relatively new concept in the modern age. with that, i mean, going back 100 yrs or so. maybe it's naive, maybe not. but it certainly is worth the effort and risk to try. which is why i support lifting the block limit just to see what happens. i believe we will cope. |
|
|
|
They cannot handle 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions then how will they handle 20 MB blocks with 200 MB uncorfirmed transactions ?
It would be dramatically more expensive to spam the network with 200 MB of transactions. It will be more expensive with 1 MB block. The bigger block the cheaper spam. no,look at the current spam attacks. they are small tx's with the minimum fee. if that spam wants to actually get included in the next block or 2, it has to increase the amount of fees it pays which would cause the attack budget to skyrocket. |
|
|
|
If this is a true demand situation based on the recent price movement, then if we have a real bubble move the network is simply going to not be able to handle demand. Increasing fees is not an option because there isn't enough space for everyone regardless of the fees they offer.
What is happening right now shows that P2P nodes can in fact handle larger blocks, they are processing the transaction volume fine and have enough BW to forward transactions. In fact by not clearing transactions in blocks and causing the memory pool to increase beyond what it should, the 1MB limit is probably more stressful on nodes than simply letting larger blocks get processed....
Fantastic! Some incentive to deal with memory exhaustion (which is hardly an unheard of problem in computer-land.) If I were doing a system from scratch, one would have to do several things (with analogs taken from the real world.) - pay to get in (e.g., a ticket at the festival gate. Some sort of real infrastructure support as opposed to useless SPV wallet 'support'.)
- pay to get in the queue (e.g., to get a _chance_ to buy your cheese-dog.)
- pay at least enough for the raw materials an labor for your cheese-dog when you get through the queue.
- periodically clense the queue of those who, for whatever reason, not making sufficient progress.
Of course if Bitcoin had been designed like that from the get-go, it would not have gotten to first base. It needed a pretty face to attract the following of Utopians such as fap.doc and the multitude of other mouth-breathers that got the system going. Now we are at a point where there can safely be free cheese-dogs for all in the form of sidechains. That means that the backing store can safely eject the welfare bums and they won't starve to death. Very humanitarian. you being a socialist, of course you come up with these bizarre conclusions that disadvantage the masses. the ideal situation would be that there is NO LIMIT. this would give miners the incentive to filter spam based on their own internal analyses that the core devs can't possibly ever factor in, and then construct block sizes accordingly with the assistance of user tx fee feedback. in other words, a free market that gets the core dev apparatchiks out of the way. |
|
|
|
They cannot handle 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions then how will they handle 20 MB blocks with 200 MB uncorfirmed transactions ?
It would be dramatically more expensive to spam the network with 200 MB of transactions. It will be more expensive with 1 MB block. The bigger block the cheaper spam. but also way more expensive for Bitcoin's growth prospects as new users get turned away or fed up. Cripplecoin, in the long run, fails to the benefit of Blockstreams SC project. you keep ignoring the fact that miners can filter spam; if they want. |
|
|
|
They cannot handle 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions then how will they handle 20 MB blocks with 200 MB uncorfirmed transactions ?
It would be dramatically more expensive to spam the network with 200 MB of transactions. plus, miners have the power to choose to process the spam or not. process it, make lotsa fee income thus strengthening themselves (which is the last thing a spammer wants), but also risk getting orphaned with given today's connectivity rates. or choose not to, protecting themselves from an orphan, and continue processing small efficient blocks for maximum propagation. |
|
|
|
dammit. here we go again upon just checking. unconf tx's over 7000:
any chances of an on going stress test ? i doubt it as yesterday's scheduled test didn't conform to it's stated plan. and really, does it matter? how can you tell in most circumstances unless spam tx's are coming from a single address? and if the tx's are paying the regular fees, which they are, who cares? the miners will make hay and be more profitable. actually, i do care b/c that means ordinary users that might square the network effect (Metcalfe) wanting in from places like Greece might not be able to get in. yes, the 1MB'ers will say that they're just coming in thru places like Coinbase, which they are, but i'd counter argue that in the medium to long run Coinbase has to buy supply from the mainchain to keep their reserves high. so it does feed through. I agree, I've asked only because I know you're active on reddit, that usually is a better source for this kind of events. that said I was wondering if another thing we could do is limiting max tx size. Did you rember that no more than a one or two months ago Peter Todd said that chain someone put an entire book on the blockchain? maybe not an absolute limit but a progressive fee per kb... just a thougth. at least those books aren't getting into the UTXO set. simply a blockchain storage problem which is easily addressed with storage growth. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes/release-notes-0.9.0.md |
|
|
|
what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays. that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays. so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network. so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?
what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined. maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary. that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner. and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means. I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined. As of 12:03pm eastern time blockchain.info is reporting 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions and 1.95BTC in fees (mostly from minimum fees). Is there another stress test going on? Or did a bunch of guys decide to flood the network to push for larger blocks... Not sure but as I understand it an increase in value is new information and new information results is market players adjusting and I imagine that means moving their BTC around as a result of changes in behavior. I'm not expecting a pop just yet but I don't think maintaining as we are with relatively full blocks is an indication that we'll cope with an increase of tx's if we see the growth the market is anticipating. If this is a true demand situation based on the recent price movement, then if we have a real bubble move the network is simply going to not be able to handle demand. Increasing fees is not an option because there isn't enough space for everyone regardless of the fees they offer. What is happening right now shows that P2P nodes can in fact handle larger blocks, they are processing the transaction volume fine and have enough BW to forward transactions. In fact by not clearing transactions in blocks and causing the memory pool to increase beyond what it should, the 1MB limit is probably more stressful on nodes than simply letting larger blocks get processed....[/b] absolutely. look here. guys reporting their bitcoind shut down from memory overload. that sucks: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bmb5r/stress_test_in_full_effect/csniofb |
|
|
|
that said I was wondering if another thing we could do is limiting max tx size. Did you rember that no more than a one or two months ago Peter Todd said that chain someone put an entire book on the blockchain?
maybe not an absolute limit but a progressive fee per kb... just a thougth.
can you explain the technicalities of that attack? was it only possible b/c of p2sh? also, did it only involve a non standard tx? if so, isn't that only something that a miner could include into a block he self generates? and why haven't we seen widespread usage of that attack if it's so effective that we have to worry about it? |
|
|
|
|
remember that, if i'm right, and full blocks are indicating additional incremental demand due to currency crises, this is going to be a more regular thing. this is what we've theorized about for years. the network HAS to be ready if you want to Moon.
1MB isn't going to cut it. right now, unconf tx's are now up to 10000 with now >5TPS delays.
also, gold can't possibly act fast enough to compete with Bitcoin.
Dow gone negative, uh oh.
|
|
|
|
what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays. that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays. so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network. so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?
what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined. maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary. that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner. and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means. I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined. As of 12:03pm eastern time blockchain.info is reporting 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions and 1.95BTC in fees (mostly from minimum fees). Is there another stress test going on? Or did a bunch of guys decide to flood the network to push for larger blocks... or maybe Greeks, Europeans, gold, & stock mkt investors are running to Bitcoin? we don't know. |
|
|
|
I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.
Indeed. Theory is theory, lips will flap endlessly while they can. First sign of pain, opinion will go way lopsided. what pain? the BS guys have withstood an onslaught of adverse community opinion and afaic they aren't backing down. they have a fiduciary responsibility to make either or both of their products, SC's or LN, work. and with gmax at the helm issuing orders, i don't see how any of the other guys break away. |
|
|
|
what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays. that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays. so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network. so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?
what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined. maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary. that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner. and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means. I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined. well, let's hope so. i believe the confliction runs deep with those guys. i mean, their careers are on the line if they ever want any more investment money. that's just the way these things work. |
|
|
|
what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays. that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays. so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network. so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?
what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined. maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary. that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner. and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means. |
|
|
|
blocks full again with TPS unacceptably high --> unconf tx set ~ 3000, more than double normal. pools taking defensive action. when will Blockstream devs do something?:  Why do you call this "defensive" action? when Chinese pools face a series of what they consider to be "large blocks", which in this case means full blocks as you can see from the data, they automatically switch to mining "header" blocks with 0 tx's during the time it takes to process all the tx's in the preceding large block. this is b/c large blocks take a bit more time to process and check all the signatures so the argument goes that they can't afford to waste that precious time so for defensive purposed they just go ahead and start hashing the next block with only the "header" that in this case contain no tx's that might have included an invalid input from the preceding large block. So they switch back to working on a full block if they aren't able to solve the block header in the time it takes to fully process everything? yep. and that makes sense b/c they want not only the reward but the fees if they can get them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
