5 Chinese mining pools propose 8MB block size

[Lauda]

After watching the video by Gmaxwell where he explains the blockstream technology along with the features of sidechains etc, I think im a proposal for that now. But I still think the blocksize will need an eventual upgrade from 1MB.

How about we focus on things that actually exist and are working? Don't get me wrong, I also favor sidechains even with their cons, however I don't think that there is enough time to ready them.
This is why the 8 MB blocks should just be buying time and leaving headroom for the network.

Will they please stop trying to blame the great firewall of china?

15 MBit = 11 seconds to transfer a 20 MB block.  Additionally, for every block mined outside of China that needs to traverse this "bottleneck", there's one mined inside China that needs to migrate out.  With over 50% of blocks now mined inside China, a larger block size stands to benefit them on average, albeit by a tiny amount.

Connecting to a server in China isn't the same as making a connection from China.

[trinaldao]

English version
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a0n4m/why_upgrade_to_8mb_but_not_20mb/

sound like good and interesting

[turvarya]

I recently stumbled over this:
http://hashingit.com/analysis/39-the-myth-of-the-megabyte-bitcoin-block

TL;DR
The miners make their own limit anyways. If they it is a max. 8 MB block, it is a 8 MB block.

[cryptojumper]

They sound reasonable, a jump to 20MB may be too big and if major players say so - those XT guys should listen to them or at least discuss it with them. The worst thing would be if nothing happened at all or if there is a war over block size and community gets divided..

[Amph]

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Currently 37% of the hashrate is labeled as 'unknown'. How would you know if this is a single entity or not? You could always look at the IP addresses that are solving the unknown blocks, but that doesn't tell us too much. The first one is in Iceland and is solving quite a good number of blocks.

it could also be that because all good places in china are occupied, some chinese miners are building their facility in other part of the world, with still cheap electricity, none is saying that chinese miners can mine in china only

it does not really matter honestly, if they are contributing to bitcoin success, and not hinder its path

[TransaDox]

Why is 8M rather than other size?
We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.

Oh, this. This x1000. This x1,000,000

I keep hearing about these bodges in the protocol. It's like listening to the ECB kicking the can down the road for Greece. This coupled with some mining groups clearly achieving enough hashing power to subvert the network when, only a year or two ago, it was being poo, poo'd that it was possible; means these issues need to be put to bed once and for all - sooner rather than later.

[ranochigo]

Will they please stop trying to blame the great firewall of china?

15 MBit = 11 seconds to transfer a 20 MB block.  Additionally, for every block mined outside of China that needs to traverse this "bottleneck", there's one mined inside China that needs to migrate out.  With over 50% of blocks now mined inside China, a larger block size stands to benefit them on average, albeit by a tiny amount.

Connecting to a server in China isn't the same as making a connection from China.

Just to reiterate, the mining farm can connect to a pool near China to mine, one with faster internet. It shouldn't matter much. Also, you are just testing one server from the entire country not to say that you are testing from US. I'm sure it would be better at the mining farms but again, stratum requires little bandwidth and speed.

[Lauda]

Just to reiterate, the mining farm can connect to a pool near China to mine, one with faster internet. It shouldn't matter much. Also, you are just testing one server from the entire country not to say that you are testing from US. I'm sure it would be better at the mining farms but again, stratum requires little bandwidth and speed.

Besides, speedtest.net is going to try and pick the best server available for you. I'm not sure that his results are accurate though. I've just tested Bejing myself and the results aren't good.

The ping was around 300. My usual download speed is above 20 Mbps and upload around 3-4.

Why is 8M rather than other size?
We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.

Obviously you don't see the picture clearly. The debate isn't really about 8 or 20 MB blocks, it is actually about how the problem of transactions is going to be solved. Increasing the block size can't be the final solution as I've argued in another thread.

If that was the case then Gavin should enable "infinite" block size and problem solved.  

[turvarya]

Just to reiterate, the mining farm can connect to a pool near China to mine, one with faster internet. It shouldn't matter much. Also, you are just testing one server from the entire country not to say that you are testing from US. I'm sure it would be better at the mining farms but again, stratum requires little bandwidth and speed.

Besides, speedtest.net is going to try and pick the best server available for you. I'm not sure that his results are accurate though. I've just tested Bejing myself and the results aren't good.

The ping was around 300. My usual download speed is above 20 Mbps and upload around 3-4.

Why is 8M rather than other size?
We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.

Obviously you don't see the picture clearly. The debate isn't really about 8 or 20 MB blocks, it is actually about how the problem of transactions is going to be solved. Increasing the block size can't be the final solution as I've argued in another thread.

If that was the case then Gavin should enable "infinite" block size and problem solved.  

I think nobody is really arguing, that it is the final solution, besides some people, who might not really have looked into the whole discussion.
But I also don't think, the increase is just to buy us time. Even with other solutions already ready(which is currently not the case) the 1 MB-limit wouldn't be enough, once we reach mainstream(unless you do nearly everything off-blockchain, which destroys the whole purpose of Bitcoin)

[Lauda]

I think nobody is really arguing, that it is the final solution, besides some people, who might not really have looked into the whole discussion.
But I also don't think, the increase is just to buy us time. Even with other solutions already ready(which is currently not the case) the 1 MB-limit wouldn't be enough, once we reach mainstream(unless you do nearly everything off-blockchain, which destroys the whole purpose of Bitcoin)

Actually you'd be surprised how many people think that this could be a final solution.
I already had stated this in the thread that I was referring too. 1MB blocks won't be enough even for bigger transactions only (in case we are using side chains). At some point it is just not going to be enough.

Take a look here:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size
We've had a huge spike in the size, which I believe isn't natural at all. We shouldn't be concerned yet, however if the price keeps up a positive trend we might have a backlog of transactions pretty soon.

[NUFCrichard]

Are the peoplw who suggest that we solve this once and for all not being a bit over the top here?
America doesn't start printing $1mill bills because at some point in the future they might be required.  The also raise the debt ceiling little by little, rather than just getting rid or maiking it $9999 trillion to get rid of the problem forever!

I think a practical response for the next 10 years or so would be the 8mb block size.  That is doable at the moment, if a bit big for downloading, but it will become ever more manageable over time.

[iram66680]

Why is 8M rather than other size?
We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.

The current price of storage is extremely expensive if you are thinking of changing to a 20mb block. It is done to allow the technology to improve and possibly allow everyone to be able to have a copy of blockchain on their computer without too much cost. Besides, the current transaction volume would make this permanent solution redundant.

[spazzdla]

Why is 8M rather than other size?
We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.

Oh, this. This x1000. This x1,000,000

I keep hearing about these bodges in the protocol. It's like listening to the ECB kicking the can down the road for Greece. This coupled with some mining groups clearly achieving enough hashing power to subvert the network when, only a year or two ago, it was being poo, poo'd that it was possible; means these issues need to be put to bed once and for all - sooner rather than later.

Sidechains could be the answer, perhaps we should stick to 1MB blocks and start other solutions asap.

[QuestionAuthority]

Finally we have a resolution. The bosses of Bitcoin have spoken.

[Klestin]

Besides, speedtest.net is going to try and pick the best server available for you. I'm not sure that his results are accurate though. I've just tested Bejing myself and the results aren't good.

No, speedtest will test with whichever server you select, if you select one.  As I did.

Connecting to a server in China isn't the same as making a connection from China.

It is, in fact, a proper test of bandwidth - upload and download.  HTTP connections are two-way streets.  If you're speaking about connection latency, there may be a significant difference.  However, bandwidth is bandwidth.

[Klestin]

Sidechains could be the answer, perhaps we should stick to 1MB blocks and start other solutions asap.

Even those arguing against the 20MB change freely admit that 1MB is not enough.  Yes, even with sidechains/the lightning network/etc.  They're only questioning whether we need it sooner rather than later.

[Klestin]

The current price of storage is extremely expensive if you are thinking of changing to a 20mb block.

Let's set aside the fact that switching to a max of 20MB does not mean that every (or even ANY) block will be 20MB.  Let's jump straight into the 20MB per block, every single block.  It's still cheap.  6TB drives are $250 today.  Six solid years of 20MB blocks will fit on that single drive.  Following current trends, when you run out of space in six years, that next 6TB will cost you about $40.  Anyone spouting off that the storage is "extremely expensive" hasn't done the math.

There are real issues to discuss, but storage cost isn't one of them.

[bitnanigans]

Increasing the block size is good for increasing the volume of bitcoin, however everyone's bitcoin program may grow by more than 1GB per day (8MB*144 blocks/day=1152MB/day) because of this, which is a waste of storage (and that's why I don't install the bitcoin core on my computer).

Dude - you can buy a 2TB drive for almost nothing.  By the time the blockchain gets to 2TB - you'll be able to buy a 200TB for next to nothing.  Drive space isn't the problem.

You have to store the data in a ordinary hard disk, not SSD.

Bandwidth is a problem though. Where I'm from, there are usually data caps and the reasonably priced plans on my provider are up to about 40 to 50GB. Going for anything higher is just unreasonable.

I don't have any problem with the block size increase though. It would be much nicer if there was no hard limit on the block size, with a configurable soft limit.

[cryptworld]

I think this is a mandatory change that must be done soon, It is creating many problems in blocks and why is this creating so much controversia?

[RoadStress]

We all agree on 8MB. Let's do it already!