Bitcoin Block Size Conflict Ends With Latest Update

[coins101]

Interesting context:



http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ame17/a_payment_network_for_planet_earth_visualizing/

[1715143699]

1715143699

[1715143699]

1715143699

[ebliever]

I'm not sure 8 GB blocks would ever be needed. If Bitcoin became the global currency standard, there is still a finite number of transactions/second that humans would perform. Even with the Internet of Things doing transactions autonomously, I doubt the transaction volume will double every two years.

A quick back-of-the-napkin calculation tells me that the 8 GB blocks would be able to handle several million transactions/second. That is far in excess of even VISA/Mastercard peak volumes right now. (Oddly enough, I have a project I'm brainstorming that if fully successful would actually need that million TX/second today, not in the far future... just wish there was a proven technology that could handle it today.)

[ArticMine]

I'm not sure 8 GB blocks would ever be needed. If Bitcoin became the global currency standard, there is still a finite number of transactions/second that humans would perform. Even with the Internet of Things doing transactions autonomously, I doubt the transaction volume will double every two years.

A quick back-of-the-napkin calculation tells me that the 8 GB blocks would be able to handle several million transactions/second. That is far in excess of even VISA/Mastercard peak volumes right now. (Oddly enough, I have a project I'm brainstorming that if fully successful would actually need that million TX/second today, not in the far future... just wish there was a proven technology that could handle it today.)

This reminds me of the quote attributed to Thomas John Watson Sr. of IBM in 1943. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson

I think there is a world market for maybe five computers

There is also the quote attributed to Bill Gates in the 1980's regarding 640KB of RAM.

640K Ought to be Enough for Anyone

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2534312/operating-systems/the--640k--quote-won-t-go-away----but-did-gates-really-say-it-.html While the Watson and Gates quotes are the subject of much dispute the following one from Digital Equipment Corp. founder Ken Olsen in 1977 is not

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home

Now while IBM and Microsoft are still around where exactly is Digital Equipment Corp.?

My one criticism of this proposal its that the doubling stops after 20 years, thereby keeping a max blocksize limit in Bitcoin.

[DooMAD]

Details of consensus agreement by other Bitcoin devs?

No, but that wouldn't be "consensus" anyway.  People need to shake this misguided notion that all developers have to agree all the time.  That's not what consensus means.  Developers don't have any special rights in that regard, nor should they.  Open source software means anyone, whether a core dev or not, can release a client with modified code.  It's the users who decide whether or not they want to use that code.  Consensus is achieved by those securing the network.  If a majority of those users decides to support a change, that change goes ahead.  I'm pretty sure if there hadn't been any action taken by Gavin and Mike, that someone else would have released a client with the same or similar modifications, because there are enough people who think this change needs to happen. 

[QuestionAuthority]

I don't know why they're worrying about changing it so fast. The transaction volume has been almost flat for two years and the market cap is still dropping and has been for a year and a half. Do the devs have this fantasy that if they change the blocksize magically people are going to start flocking back to Bitcoin and the market cap will jump back up to 14b from its current 3b?

[Seldoon182]

Block increased size is a major issue related to the Bitcoin neutrality.

[johnyj]

Why not core upgrade? XT sounds very altcoin

Nothing can double every 2 years forever, basically the amount of RAM has almost no increase for past 5 years in latest computers, and the average home network bandwidth just stayed at 100MB for several years already

[tvbcof]

I don't know why they're worrying about changing it so fast. The transaction volume has been almost flat for two years and the market cap is still dropping and has been for a year and a half. Do the devs have this fantasy that if they change the blocksize magically people are going to start flocking back to Bitcoin and the market cap will jump back up to 14b from its current 3b?

Here's what I figure is the main sources of panic:

Maxwell and company's 'elements' some of which are already in alpha so it seems.  This has a very real potential to launch Bitcoin to a sphere where it will be most difficult to control and/or dislodge.  This may be the last opportunity to plant seeds of destruction (e.g., exponential growth.)

As I've said before, every time the issue of blocksize comes up (and it seems to be bi-annually for the last 3 years or so) we here the same chorus of imminent disaster and blah, blah, blah.  At the end of the day a natively batch-mode architecture sucks as an exchange currency for buying coffee.  It'll be out-competed by other solutions or modified to something other than what it started out as.  Or both.

[QuestionAuthority]

I don't know why they're worrying about changing it so fast. The transaction volume has been almost flat for two years and the market cap is still dropping and has been for a year and a half. Do the devs have this fantasy that if they change the blocksize magically people are going to start flocking back to Bitcoin and the market cap will jump back up to 14b from its current 3b?

Here's what I figure is the main sources of panic:

Maxwell and company's 'elements' some of which are already in alpha so it seems.  This has a very real potential to launch Bitcoin to a sphere where it will be most difficult to control and/or dislodge.  This may be the last opportunity to plant seeds of destruction (e.g., exponential growth.)

As I've said before, every time the issue of blocksize comes up (and it seems to be bi-annually for the last 3 years or so) we here the same chorus of imminent disaster and blah, blah, blah.  At the end of the day a natively batch-mode architecture sucks as an exchange currency for buying coffee.  It'll be out-competed by other solutions or modified to something other than what it started out as.  Or both.

I think that modification and the associated profit is what their after. Bitcoin is moving completely away from a libertarian Wall Street destroyer to a mainstream NASDAQ regulated blacklisting tool for government tracking. 

[p2pbucks]

I don't know why they're worrying about changing it so fast. The transaction volume has been almost flat for two years and the market cap is still dropping and has been for a year and a half. Do the devs have this fantasy that if they change the blocksize magically people are going to start flocking back to Bitcoin and the market cap will jump back up to 14b from its current 3b?

I have the same doubt . gavin is  too hurry for the xt hard fork . And it seems he is performing even more irrational from the "Latest Update" . there must be something wrong 

[ajareselde]

Well i for one am glad there is positive progress being made, and the idea of doubling with time seams like a adequate solution.
I believe that the progress of technology will swallow that size and bandwidth w/o any issues, judging how far we're getting each year on.

cheers

[tss]

if this goes through, in the long run, bitcoin will be doomed. 

increasing tps when there is no need and allowing foreign data on the blockchain for programmers to play with will destroy bitcoin value and your investment.

allowing mass amounts of data in the blockchain for little to no fee will make your bitcoin blockchain worthless.

for bitcoin to continue a market based fee structure needs to exist, if there is too much demand, fees must be higher.  if you do not value your single btc send/recieve transaction then the whole network is worthless.

[Lauda]

Bitcoin should never ever be forked like this unless there was a crisis. There is no imminent danger of hitting the block limit: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

I bet 100 Bitcoins that if this Bitcoin XT fork was ever implemented it would cause huge problems and more forks would be needed to try and stabilize the blockchain. Worst case scenario is Bitcoin becomes unusable and loses all of its value.

Forking is a nuclear option when the blockchain is no longer functioning right, the only time a fork was needed was to fix a fork that Bitcoin QT developers accidentally created by releasing a faulty wallet.

Bitcoin is not like windows or an iphone, it doesn't need constant updates or any forks. If it's stable then it should never be changed again.

The chart does tell us that a certain group tried to manipulate some numbers recently. However I do not believe that Bitcoin XT will cause "huge problems". It is essentially the same as Bitcoin Core but with just a few additional patches done by Gavin. I don't think that it will cause huge problems.
Forking is necessary. I'm not talking about the current situation. Your last part is incorrect. It should update whenever possible, including bugfixes and improvements. However we should only do forks if we reach consensus (not that easy).

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin should never ever be forked like this unless there was a crisis. There is no imminent danger of hitting the block limit: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

I bet 100 Bitcoins that if this Bitcoin XT fork was ever implemented it would cause huge problems and more forks would be needed to try and stabilize the blockchain. Worst case scenario is Bitcoin becomes unusable and loses all of its value.

Forking is a nuclear option when the blockchain is no longer functioning right, the only time a fork was needed was to fix a fork that Bitcoin QT developers accidentally created by releasing a faulty wallet.

Bitcoin is not like windows or an iphone, it doesn't need constant updates or any forks. If it's stable then it should never be changed again.

The chart does tell us that a certain group tried to manipulate some numbers recently. However I do not believe that Bitcoin XT will cause "huge problems". It is essentially the same as Bitcoin Core but with just a few additional patches done by Gavin. I don't think that it will cause huge problems.
Forking is necessary. I'm not talking about the current situation. Your last part is incorrect. It should update whenever possible, including bugfixes and improvements. However we should only do forks if we reach consensus (not that easy).

Once again, using a fork to modify Bitcoin is a nuclear option. A fork has never intentionally been introduced into the blockchain.

It also ruins the decentralized nature of Bitcoin to have developers changing it with forks. No true Bitcoiner would support such a centralized action, and it sets a bad precedent for the future.

Undoubtedly if Bitcoin XT gained enough nodes to fork it would cause major losses of Bitcoin and destabilize the market. Anyone who stays on the fork that becomes shorter will be prone to losing Bitcoins. I think it's possible this could backfire severely on Bitcoin XT users, if the fork is implemented and then the community races to increase Bitcoin Core nodes/mining then there will be major Bitcoin losses for those on the XT fork.

Imagine the confusion if someone on Bitcoin XT after the fork sends Bitcoins to an exchange that's still on the Bitcoin Core fork. Their Bitcoins would never appear on the exchange and may be lost forever.

This is such a bad idea that it's possible Bitcoin XT is being created by a group that wants to destroy Bitcoin. It's like a crypto trojan horse, if the community lets it in thinking it's a gift then it will destroy Bitcoin from the inside.

Unfortunately the Bitcoin network is so weak at this point that it might be quite easy for XT to fork even if barely anyone supports this. Less than 6000 nodes and dropping, and mining power has leveled off at 350 petahash/second for the past 5 months. Since processing power becomes cheaper by the day it is becoming easier for someone to fork the network, any major corporation or the government could easily afford it. If mining power doesn't increase anymore then even a lone evil doer could successfully attack Bitcoin in the near future.

So much fear and panic for no reason.  None of those scenarios you've described are particularly likely.  There's only a slim chance that any exchange who knows what they're doing would willingly stay on the chain with less support.  They would risk damaging their reputation if they lost their customers money as a result of following the wrong chain, so there's no incentive for them to do that.  The only exception to that would be MPEX, as they've stated they won't accept any changes, but screw MP and all of his crackpot supporters.

The network hash rate has stabilised, but hasn't dropped by any significant amount.  The network is in no way, shape or form "weak".  In fact, it's more than twice as strong than it was this time last year.  The fork will only go ahead with majority support, so what you're saying about the fork being easy even if no one supports it is simply nonsense.  

If you think a fork "destroys centralisation", you clearly have no idea what the word means.  The users securing the network decide what software they want to run.  If the majority decides to support a change, that change goes ahead.  Anyone, core dev or not, can release modified code, but it's down to the users whether or not they decide to support that modification.  There's no logic in saying "one group of developers thinks A, so we all have to agree with that, but if you agree with this group of developers who thinks B, suddenly it's centralisation".  You can't have it both ways.  If you genuinely wanted a coin where a majority of users can't change the protocol, then you would actually want a centralised, closed-source coin where users don't have a say.  If that's what you want, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place.

I honestly can't tell whether you're just giving into hysteria through lack of understanding, or if this is a deliberate attempt to FUD.  Either way, most of what you've said needs some serious rethinking.  For someone considering themselves a "true Bitcoiner", it doesn't seem like you've grasped certain core concepts very well.

[spazzdla]

There is no way hardware can keep up with that doubling.... this is not a wise plan..

[Lauda]

So much fear and panic for no reason.  None of those scenarios you've described are particularly likely.  There's only a slim chance that any exchange who knows what they're doing would willingly stay on the chain with less support.  They would risk damaging their reputation if they lost their customers money as a result of following the wrong chain, so there's no incentive for them to do that.  The only exception to that would be MPEX, as they've stated they won't accept any changes, but screw MP and all of his crackpot supporters.

The network hash rate has stabilised, but hasn't dropped by any significant amount.  The network is in no way, shape or form "weak".  In fact, it's more than twice as strong than it was this time last year.  The fork will only go ahead with majority support, so what you're saying about the fork being easy even if no one supports it is simply nonsense.  

If you think a fork "destroys centralisation", you clearly have no idea what the word means.  The users securing the network decide what software they want to run.  If the majority decides to support a change, that change goes ahead.  Anyone, core dev or not, can release modified code, but it's down to the users whether or not they decide to support that modification.  There's no logic in saying "one group of developers thinks A, so we all have to agree with that, but if you agree with this group of developers who thinks B, suddenly it's centralisation".  You can't have it both ways.  If you genuinely wanted a coin where a majority of users can't change the protocol, then you would actually want a centralised, closed-source coin where users don't have a say.  If that's what you want, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place.

I honestly can't tell whether you're just giving into hysteria through lack of understanding, or if this is a deliberate attempt to FUD.  Either way, most of what you've said needs some serious rethinking.  For someone considering themselves a "true Bitcoiner", it doesn't seem like you've grasped certain core concepts very well.

He's just spreading nonsense and one should ignore him. As already previously mentioned Bitcoin had a much higher block size limit. The change right now is not optional but is rather going to be a necessity.
There are people around here that think that their ideology is the right one, but in most cases it is false. Forking isn't a "nuclear option", it is a way to introduce changes/features that can't be done with a soft work.
Changes to the block structure, difficulty and other fundamental rules require a hardfork. Generally hardforks are used to correct something while softforks are used to introduce something new/useful (e.g. P2SH was introduced via a soft fork).

There is no way hardware can keep up with that doubling.... this is not a wise plan..

Why do you think hardware can not keep up with it? What in the last 25 years shows anything towards that idea? I think we will most likely be fine.

It should be able to keep up if companies stop releasing products that are only minor upgrades or rebrands. The internet speed/bandwidth might be a problem in places such as China. However, hopefully something else is going to be released that will be able to manage the amount of transactions that we need.

[BitUsher]

   8MB cap
   Doubling every two years (so 16MB in 2018)
    For twenty years

It is one thing to temporarily increase the size to give a bit more breathing room for sidechains , payment channels and the lightning network to be tested and another thing to simply double the limit every two years to remove the pressure of discovering more efficient means of scaling.

This is a horrible plan and one that I cannot support. (coming from someone that has defended Gavin and Hearn in the past)

Why do you think hardware can not keep up with it? What in the last 25 years shows anything towards that idea? I think we will most likely be fine.

It isn't blockchain bloat and hard disk space I'm concerned with but network latency and bandwidth which won't scale that quickly.

Many valid security and centralization concerns, some of which satoshi szabo is concerned with -
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/611259452402987008

[OrientA]

8 MB cap is a good compromise for now.

[Possum577]

I don't know why they're worrying about changing it so fast. The transaction volume has been almost flat for two years and the market cap is still dropping and has been for a year and a half. Do the devs have this fantasy that if they change the blocksize magically people are going to start flocking back to Bitcoin and the market cap will jump back up to 14b from its current 3b?

What does market cap have to do with this? It's just a measure of price by supply, not a measure of transaction volume.

[QuestionAuthority]

I don't know why they're worrying about changing it so fast. The transaction volume has been almost flat for two years and the market cap is still dropping and has been for a year and a half. Do the devs have this fantasy that if they change the blocksize magically people are going to start flocking back to Bitcoin and the market cap will jump back up to 14b from its current 3b?

What does market cap have to do with this? It's just a measure of price by supply, not a measure of transaction volume.

That way over simplification doesn't even come close to the reason to watch market cap. A common misconception is that the higher the price the larger the economy. Price usually misrepresents an assets actual worth. The classification of Bitcoins market cap allows investors to gauge the growth versus risk potential. Large caps mostly indicate slower growth with lower risk. Small caps have higher growth potential but with a much higher risk potential. Using this basic investing formula shows us that Bitcoin had more long term value when it had a large market cap than it does now. In other words, the risk profile is greater now and the devs are prepping a hard fork that will allow a rapid massive influx of new users which increases the risk. Market cap is a relatively good way to quickly value an asset. That's because prices are generally based on investors expectations of earning potential. As earnings rise, traders will bid more for the price. Understand?