Bitcoin XT code enabling bigger blocks

[tspacepilot]

I'm sure it's been talked about somewhere, but I haven't seen any details on it, but I'm curiuos why no one is pushing some kind of dynamic block size which is calculated based on the transaction volume.  We readjust difficulty to maintain a 10 minute block time.  Why shouldn't block-size be reajusted to maintain an average conf-time for a well-formed transaction with a given fee rate?

You should create a fork to implement that. It's the right thing to do when there's a disagreement, isn't it?

Ha, I know sarcasm is hard to detect on the internet, but I think I got that one.  Anyway, I'm more curious if this has been seriously proposed by someone who got more technical background that me.  It seems like much of the other parameters of the network are adjusted dynamically based on usage so I'm wondering if there's some obvious reason why block-size shouldn't be.

[1714892140]

1714892140

[1714892140]

1714892140

[TierNolan]

8GB is about 1.5 tx per person per day, assuming 250bytes/tx and 7 billion people

I went with 1 byte per transaction.  That's what I get for doing the maths to quickly.

[unamis76]

I've seen dynamic scaling proposed on some places. A quick search reveals this:

http://www.age-of-bitcoin.com/dynamic-block-size-cap-scaling/

I've also seen it on reddit, but I'm not finding it right now...

[sergio]

forking bitcoin on the same blockchain is going to cause many problems.

you will end up with bitcoin and bitcoin xt, confusing many new users of bitcoin and cause the price of bitcoin to drop due to double spends.

a better idea is that bitcoin xt uses its own blockchain like all the other alt-coins, it will end up with a cleaner implementation and it will be more secure than the  plan on putting checks and rejected longer blocks just because they use 1MB blocks.

due to this the bitcoin price will most likely drop since confidence is lost.

The more we centralize bitcoin the closer  it will be to self destruction, we have to do the opposite,  decentralize as much as possible.

at 1MB block the database is over 30GB, at 20MB the database will grow to such huge proportions that it will be centralized, not only that but the idea of miner fees was to secure the network once the block gets reduced by half every 4 years, so in the long run there is no block reward only miners fees, by increasing the cost of maintaining the database, and with the reduction on miners fees the network will be insecure in the long run.

It is best to think of bitcoin as gold, as Andreas once said if the transaction is small there is no need to wait for a transaction confirmation, and it is large then you wait for the added security that the confirmations provide.

Bitcoin as of now works fine, and most likely will work forever, also a fork sends a bad precedent that things can change, politicians change the rules of the game frequently that is why bitcoin is superior to fiat currencies, if that confidence is lost bitcoin will suffer.

In brief:
Centralization --> road to failure.
Decentralization --> road to success.

If the plan is for bitcoin to be used in third world countries, where disk space and bandwidth are very expensive, it is best to stick with 1 MB blocks, and let some other alt currency fill the gap for tiny transactions if confirmations are essential, such as litecoin, or darkcoin (dash).

in the non digital world you have silver and gold, and there is a reason for that, gold is normally used for larger purchases, in a similar analogy bitcoin is like gold as litecoin or dash are like silver.

[BTSE]

forking bitcoin on the same blockchain is going to cause many problems

Not raising the blockchain limit to a reasonable size will also cause many problems. I personally believe the long term effects of 1MB blocks far outweighs any fragmentation risks with a Xt hard fork, assuming 75% miner supermajority.

There is no need to let 'alt coins' take any transactions from bitcoin. The analogy of Bitcoin being gold is misguided, as bitcoin isn't just gold. It can be gold, silver, copper, and diamond, at the same time.

[Carlton Banks]

forking bitcoin on the same blockchain is going to cause many problems

Not raising the blockchain limit to a reasonable size will also cause many problems. I personally believe the long term effects of 1MB blocks far outweighs any fragmentation risks with a Xt hard fork, assuming 75% miner supermajority.

Just raising the block size limit without including measures to mitigate unwanted effects will also cause problems.

This problem needs bigger blocks AND redesign of the incentives to create a block of a given size. Even Gavin's more simplistic proposal does not simply change one line of code from "MAXBLOCKSIZE=1MB" to "MAXBLOCKSIZE=8MB", yet everyone who argues in favour of it implies that the block size is all that matters.

[DumbFruit]

Not raising the blockchain limit to a reasonable size will also cause many problems.

Like what? I used to think raising the block size was a good idea, and that it would be continually done to accommodate a wider user base, but over time I've learned that keeping blocks too small is much less dangerous than making blocks too big, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that blocks are too big today.
I've also realized that Bitcoin is not, cannot, and should not, be designed to compete with centralized payment processors either now or at any time in the future. Given that the biggest argument for increasing block sizes is to do just that, I've become very skeptical about not only this change, but of the general ideology of a small proportion of core developers and a large proportion of the community.

[Crestington]

Seems as though Gavin is always the one proposing ideas and then have all the armchair idealists bitching about it.

Fork the Bitcoin and give it larger Blocks, this solution for doubling of the Block sizes every couple years will be just fine and will give the breathing room to make further changes. To those that believe that Bitcoin should remain the same as it was originally designed need to pull their head out of the sand, tech should never remain the same and should ALWAYS be changing. It does not make Bitcoin more centralized by forking it, centralization is a natural tendency of decentralized systems because people are lazy and want everyone else to make the decisions for them and then bitch about whatever the solution is going to be without coming up with a better one.

Bitcoin is at breaking point and if it does not atleast get larger Block sizes within 1 year it will not function.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
To those that believe that Bitcoin should remain the same as it was originally designed need to pull their head out of the sand, tech should never remain the same and should ALWAYS be changing.
- snip -

I wonder how many people realize that "originally" the maximum block size was approximately 32 MB.  It was reduced to 1 MB in July 2010.

Anyone that wants bitcoin to "remain the same as it was originally designed" should be demanding a 32 MB limit on the size of a block.

[Crestington]

- snip -
To those that believe that Bitcoin should remain the same as it was originally designed need to pull their head out of the sand, tech should never remain the same and should ALWAYS be changing.
- snip -

I wonder how many people realize that "originally" the maximum block size was approximately 32 MB.  It was reduced to 1 MB in July 2010.

Anyone that wants bitcoin to "remain the same as it was originally designed" should be demanding a 32 MB limit on the size of a block.

Actually I did not know this but I do like the idea of doubling the Block sizes every couple years because it will give lots of leg room to make improvements and possibly other changes. I think they should start with 4mb instead of 8mb, seems like a bit much to begin with and allow for the caps to be tested as it begins to hit capacity every couple years although I can also see why they would start with 8mb Blocks because with 8 MB doubling every 2 years you would never be hitting capacity.

[DumbFruit]

Seems as though Gavin is always the one proposing ideas and then have all the armchair idealists bitching about it.

If by "armchair idealists" you mean "core developer pragmatists" then yes, otherwise no.

Fork the Bitcoin and give it larger Blocks, this solution for doubling of the Block sizes every couple years will be just fine and will give the breathing room to make further changes.

You make it sound like you never want blocks to be full, if that's the case what are you suggesting is going to fund the network when inflation stops?

To those that believe that Bitcoin should remain the same as it was originally designed need to pull their head out of the sand, tech should never remain the same and should ALWAYS be changing.

Who ever argued that they don't want to see Bitcoin change just because they don't like change or because Bitcoin is perfect? I haven't seen that argument anywhere. I also disagree that "tech" should "always" be "changing", without some heavy qualifiers.

It does not make Bitcoin more centralized by forking it, centralization is a natural tendency of decentralized systems because people are lazy and want everyone else to make the decisions for them and then bitch about whatever the solution is going to be without coming up with a better one.

There are lots of causes for centralization, and even different types of centralization. "Laziness" is typically a driver of decentralization, actually.

Bitcoin is at breaking point and if it does not atleast get larger Block sizes within 1 year it will not function.

I'm hearing the sirens, but I'm not seeing the threat.

[Crestington]

Seems as though Gavin is always the one proposing ideas and then have all the armchair idealists bitching about it.

If by "armchair idealists" you mean "core developer pragmatists" then yes, otherwise no.

Fork the Bitcoin and give it larger Blocks, this solution for doubling of the Block sizes every couple years will be just fine and will give the breathing room to make further changes.

You make it sound like you never want blocks to be full, if that's the case what are you suggesting is going to fund the network when inflation stops?

To those that believe that Bitcoin should remain the same as it was originally designed need to pull their head out of the sand, tech should never remain the same and should ALWAYS be changing.

Who ever argued that they don't want to see Bitcoin change just because they don't like change or because Bitcoin is perfect? I haven't seen that argument anywhere. I also disagree that "tech" should "always" be "changing", without some heavy qualifiers.

It does not make Bitcoin more centralized by forking it, centralization is a natural tendency of decentralized systems because people are lazy and want everyone else to make the decisions for them and then bitch about whatever the solution is going to be without coming up with a better one.

There are lots of causes for centralization, and even different types of centralization. "Laziness" is typically a driver of decentralization, actually.

Bitcoin is at breaking point and if it does not atleast get larger Block sizes within 1 year it will not function.

I'm hearing the sirens, but I'm not seeing the threat.

Right but you basically just disagreed without any real points as to what you would change about it to make it better which is by my definition of an armchair idealist. You disagree without providing any alternative solution thus your arguement has no merit.

[DumbFruit]

Right but you basically just disagreed without any real points as to what you would change about it to make it better which is by my definition of an armchair idealist. You disagree without providing any alternative solution thus your arguement has no merit.

This is entertaining. Are you saying that any march is necessarily forward?

Henry Drummond: Can't you understand? That if you take a law like evolution and you make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it. And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we'll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!

Emphasis mine.

When you say you want a "solution", what is the problem you're referring to?

[Carlton Banks]

Right but you basically just disagreed without any real points as to what you would change about it to make it better which is by my definition of an armchair idealist. You disagree without providing any alternative solution thus your arguement has no merit.

All the recent transaction volume has been stress testing, not real volume. And all it proved was that the network functions fine under that load. More expensively, or slower, but it functions fine.

So the onus is, in fact, on you to prove your predicate that the system really is about to disintegrate under strain, as that's what your actual argument depends on. Reality disagrees, bitcoin is still running, and the impact was small.

[Crestington]

Right but you basically just disagreed without any real points as to what you would change about it to make it better which is by my definition of an armchair idealist. You disagree without providing any alternative solution thus your arguement has no merit.

All the recent transaction volume has been stress testing, not real volume. And all it proved was that the network functions fine under that load. More expensively, or slower, but it functions fine.

So the onus is, in fact, on you to prove your predicate that the system really is about to disintegrate under strain, as that's what your actual argument depends on. Reality disagrees, bitcoin is still running, and the impact was small.

I wasn't talking about the stress testing but I think it has been quite positive in that miners shifted pools when the simulated attack was happening. Sure it would be ok for now but another year or so most all transactions would hit the limit so the network needs atleast a larger sized Blocksize in the near term to be able to kick the can down the road and not be forced to make hasty moves and have people shut out for hours and hours over not knowing what the appropriate fee would be. You said the network performed just fine, I disagree because there were many many people who had their transactions delayed by hours during that time.

[Carlton Banks]

Right but you basically just disagreed without any real points as to what you would change about it to make it better which is by my definition of an armchair idealist. You disagree without providing any alternative solution thus your arguement has no merit.

All the recent transaction volume has been stress testing, not real volume. And all it proved was that the network functions fine under that load. More expensively, or slower, but it functions fine.

So the onus is, in fact, on you to prove your predicate that the system really is about to disintegrate under strain, as that's what your actual argument depends on. Reality disagrees, bitcoin is still running, and the impact was small.

I wasn't talking about the stress testing but I think it has been quite positive in that miners shifted pools when the simulated attack was happening. Sure it would be ok for now but another year or so most all transactions would hit the limit so the network needs atleast a larger sized Blocksize in the near term to be able to kick the can down the road and not be forced to make hasty moves and have people shut out for hours and hours over not knowing what the appropriate fee would be.

Well, there was no evidence of "breaking" as you put it, either before, during or after any of the stress tests, so you're going to have to attribute this supposed malfunction to some event or time period.

You said the network performed just fine, I disagree because there were many many people who had their transactions delayed by hours during that time.

Wrong, it's supposed to create a market for transaction clearing times. So much else also needs changing to make that work better, but it's like someone said above: what do you think happens when the miners are mining nothing but fees? What happened in that stress test is what normal everyday fee pricing decisions will feel like in a mature bitcoin system.

[Crestington]

Right but you basically just disagreed without any real points as to what you would change about it to make it better which is by my definition of an armchair idealist. You disagree without providing any alternative solution thus your arguement has no merit.

All the recent transaction volume has been stress testing, not real volume. And all it proved was that the network functions fine under that load. More expensively, or slower, but it functions fine.

So the onus is, in fact, on you to prove your predicate that the system really is about to disintegrate under strain, as that's what your actual argument depends on. Reality disagrees, bitcoin is still running, and the impact was small.

I wasn't talking about the stress testing but I think it has been quite positive in that miners shifted pools when the simulated attack was happening. Sure it would be ok for now but another year or so most all transactions would hit the limit so the network needs atleast a larger sized Blocksize in the near term to be able to kick the can down the road and not be forced to make hasty moves and have people shut out for hours and hours over not knowing what the appropriate fee would be.

Well, there was no evidence of "breaking" as you put it, either before, during or after any of the stress tests, so you're going to have to attribute this supposed malfunction to some event or time period.

You said the network performed just fine, I disagree because there were many many people who had their transactions delayed by hours during that time.

Wrong, it's supposed to create a market for transaction clearing times. So much else also needs changing to make that work better, but it's like someone said above: what do you think happens when the miners are mining nothing but fees? What happened in that stress test is what normal everyday fee pricing decisions will feel like in a mature bitcoin system.

Right, so that means at peak times it would cost a few dollars to send a transaction in order for it to be queued for delivery in a short enough period of time in which case the price of bitcoin could not move higher because transaction fees would be too high so people would use other Coins instead and so Bitcoin does not get used.

Still not getting proposed solutions, just more people talking problems.

Here's a solution, reset the chain (pruning) with the same balances at regular intervals (Clams style) so that way the Blocksize is never a problem, same with the size of the Blockchain, which is what people are ultimately worried about.

[Carlton Banks]

Which altcoin took over from bitcoin this week when the average transaction fee went up?

[Crestington]

Which altcoin took over from bitcoin this week when the average transaction fee went up?

Litecoin

[tspacepilot]

Of course Litecoin might have received a bit more traffic this week, but I think it would be hard to show that that was due to an increased avg transaction fee for bitcoin.  I mean consider that that's only really going to happen for people who have both litecoin and bitcoin wallets and some sort exchange account.  Sure, there are such people, but it's hard to believe that the majority of bitcoin users have an exchange account with bitcoin already deposited that they can withdrawal into litecoin so that they can send someone a transaction and that the person on the other end of the transaction is in the same situation (ready to receive what would have been a bitcoin payment in litecoin).

That said, I could believe that in a future where cryptocurrencies were the norm and Litecoin was nearly as popular as Bitcoin that such a usage swing based on transaction fees could occur.  But I don't think that day is here yet.