Bitcoin Block Size Conflict Ends With Latest Update

[ammy009]

read below :

An issue that has been the source for months of debate and rancor throughout the Bitcoin mining and developer community over Bitcoin's block size appears to have reached a long-awaited resolution. Within the most recent BitcoinXT update, Gavin Andresen has begun the process of revising the block chain individual block size from 1 MB to 8 MB starting next year. This is deemed necessary for the overall growth and usability of Bitcoin, as the current limits of seven transactions per second are becoming insufficient for the growing global community as consumer and business interest increases.

These impending updates were revealed on GitHub, and this is what is in store for the upcoming “hard fork”, taken directly from GitHub, posted by Gavin Andresen:

Implement hard fork to allow bigger blocks. Unit test and code for a bigger block hard fork.

Parameters are:

    8MB cap
    Doubling every two years (so 16MB in 2018)
    For twenty years
    Earliest possible chain fork: 11 Jan 2016
    After miner supermajority (code in the next patch)
    And grace period once miner supermajority achieved (code in next patch)

The 1 MB block size debate has been a constant issue for months, with Andresen and Mike Hearn discussing the need to upgrade the block size to as much as 20 MB. China's major exchanges and mining interests came out against any block size changes initially, deriding the extra operating costs and complexities involved with mostly empty blocks. After further review, the increase was deemed warranted to an 8 MB size, much smaller than the 20 MB requests by the Core Developers. An accord was reached, and the revisions will take effect next year.

We attempted to contact Hearn and Andresen for more information and will provide updated information as it becomes available. It seems some details are still to be sorted out in the next coding batch within the coming days. We’ll keep our readers informed of any further developments.

What do you think of these new core updates and the automatic changes every two years? Share above and comment below.

Source : https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-conflict-ends-latest-update/

[1715264648]

1715264648

[1715264648]

1715264648

[1715264648]

1715264648

[1715264648]

1715264648

[Muhammed Zakir]

Conflicts has not ended yet. It will end once Bitcoin Core increase block size limit.

[fishy91]

.......

Parameters are:

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

Does that mean in 20 years after it starts doubling the blocks will be 8192 MB, which is 8.192 GB per block?

Have I done my maths right?

8 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 8192

To keep it simple I'm not considering the difference between mebibytes and megabytes.

[emdje]

.......

Parameters are:

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

Does that mean in 20 years after it starts doubling the blocks will be 8192 MB, which is 8.192 GB per block?

Have I done my maths right?

8 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 8192

To keep it simple I'm not considering the difference between mebibytes and megabytes.

Yes but 20 years ago we had this:


The computers now are not comparable with the one from 20 years ago, unthinkable even.
And the computers from 20 years in the future will be unthinkably fast as well, so I guess blocks of 8.2 gb will not be a problem.

[ikydesu]

Well, let's see the sequel, it seems need more information.

.......

Parameters are:

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

Does that mean in 20 years after it starts doubling the blocks will be 8192 MB, which is 8.192 GB per block?

Have I done my maths right?

8 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 8192

To keep it simple I'm not considering the difference between mebibytes and megabytes.

What? that's too much right He told doubling every 2 years, so every 2 years increased 8MB. The parameters will implement next years(2016) and then in 2018 increase 8MB, so 8+8=16MB.  
You means 20 years after starts. Start from 2016 and the end is 2036.

8MB(2016) + 8MB = 16MB(2018) + 8MB = 24MB(2020) + 8MB = 32MB(2022) + 8MB = 40MB(2024) + 8MB = 48MB(2026) + 8MB = 56MB(2028) + 8MB = 64MB(2030) + 8MB = 72MB(2032) + 8MB = 80MB(2034) +8MB = 88MB in 2036.
CMIIW.


~iki

[MicroGuy]

I like the idea of doubling every 4 years instead of every 2 years.

[tvbcof]

...
The 1 MB block size debate has been a constant issue for months, with Andresen and Mike Hearn discussing the need to upgrade the block size to as much as 20 MB.
...

Not months;  Years.  The same dire predictions of impending disaster are not new either and have accompanied each one of these pushes.

Hearn has lobbied for essentially unlimited capacity as long as I can remember.  The 2011/2012 timeframe at least.  Tainting also.  Though it is not totally fair to characterize his lobbying as 'for', it is certainly fair to say that it was not 'against'.  Tainting and industrial level infrastructure are joined at the hip in some ways.

[Alley]

I like this.  Any chance core will go along with this?

[melody82]

I like the idea I read of a floating system that adjusts block size as needed, but I suppose this system is not horrible.  Now that there is a plan in place lets cross our fingers for a smooth transition.

[unamis76]

Conflict is far from over... We can all breath a sigh of relief when/if the changes go ahead (which I hope they do).

Things are looking good, people are now actually coding solutions, instead of just discussing them, and progress is being amde... Let's see where we're at January next year

[Amph]

so they anticipated the hard fork, to january instead of the planned march

also if it will double every two years for twenty years it mean a maximum of 256MB, which is around 1000tx max per seconds, still far below what it is visa right now

[LiteCoinGuy]

.......

Parameters are:

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

Does that mean in 20 years after it starts doubling the blocks will be 8192 MB, which is 8.192 GB per block?

Have I done my maths right?

8 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 8192

To keep it simple I'm not considering the difference between mebibytes and megabytes.

Yes but 20 years ago we had this:


The computers now are not comparable with the one from 20 years ago, unthinkable even.
And the computers from 20 years in the future will be unthinkably fast as well, so I guess blocks of 8.2 gb will not be a problem.

it is funny that some people cant look in the future (or in the past) isnt it  ?

[jeannemadrigal2]

so they anticipated the hard fork, to january instead of the planned march

also if it will double every two years for twenty years it mean a maximum of 256MB, which is around 1000tx max per seconds, still far below what it is visa right now

Wait, I don't understand, if it doubles every 2 years, it is 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, right?  It starts at 8 then doubles 10 times?  I am not so good at math, so maybe I am misunderstanding it.  But I am glad to see something move forward on this issue.

[Amph]

so they anticipated the hard fork, to january instead of the planned march

also if it will double every two years for twenty years it mean a maximum of 256MB, which is around 1000tx max per seconds, still far below what it is visa right now

Wait, I don't understand, if it doubles every 2 years, it is 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, right?  It starts at 8 then doubles 10 times?  I am not so good at math, so maybe I am misunderstanding it.  But I am glad to see something move forward on this issue.

ah yeah i confused the original every two years with the block halving, so it double for 10 times and not 5

[Lauda]

so they anticipated the hard fork, to january instead of the planned march
also if it will double every two years for twenty years it mean a maximum of 256MB, which is around 1000tx max per seconds, still far below what it is visa right now

"Do you even math?"
I can't even figure out how you got 256 MB? 2^8 is 256; however the number will double 10 times according to Gavin. I'm surprised.
Update: That explains it.

Well, let's see the sequel, it seems need more information.

Does that mean in 20 years after it starts doubling the blocks will be 8192 MB, which is 8.192 GB per block?

Have I done my maths right?

8 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 8192

To keep it simple I'm not considering the difference between mebibytes and megabytes.

What? that's too much right He told doubling every 2 years, so every 2 years increased 8MB. The parameters will implement next years(2016) and then in 2018 increase 8MB, so 8+8=16MB.  
You means 20 years after starts. Start from 2016 and the end is 2036.

8MB(2016) + 8MB = 16MB(2018) + 8MB = 24MB(2020) + 8MB = 32MB(2022) + 8MB = 40MB(2024) + 8MB = 48MB(2026) + 8MB = 56MB(2028) + 8MB = 64MB(2030) + 8MB = 72MB(2032) + 8MB = 80MB(2034) +8MB = 88MB in 2036.
CMIIW.

No, it does not seem much. You're mistaken with your calculation. Do you even know what the definition of 'doubling' is?

Code:

To make twice as much. Multiply by 2.

So it is not 'add 8MB every two years for twenty years'.

In 2036 we are going to have 8192 MB blocks. Since it is also acceptable to use 1000 (MB = GB) instead of 1024, we can say that we are going to have ~8.2GB blocks. This actually might probably not be that much in 20 years. We can't really tell now. If we assume that our current tps is 3, we are going to have a tps of 24, 576 in 2036. The number doesn't seem that bad, however more is required for mainstream adoption.
Calculation: 3 x 8 x 2^10; 3 tps times 8 MB blocks (2016) times doubling ten times.

[coins101]

Details of consensus agreement by other Bitcoin devs?

[gentlemand]

Yes but 20 years ago we had this:


The computers now are not comparable with the one from 20 years ago, unthinkable even.
And the computers from 20 years in the future will be unthinkably fast as well, so I guess blocks of 8.2 gb will not be a problem.

I wonder. The laptop I'm using to type this on is seven years old. It still runs the most up to date video and photo programs that I ask of it and the spec is only a few % off what you'd buy now, albeit for less.

Consumer computing machinery seems to be becoming smaller and less energy intensive but relatively static in terms of specs.

As ever it's bandwidth that'll be the bitch. My broadband hasn't had any type of upgrade in well over a decade. I'm sure it'll keep up in a few megacities but outside those places progress is going to lag big time.

[Westin Landon Cox]

Details of consensus agreement by other Bitcoin devs?

There hasn't been an agreement. The article is misleading. The conflict hasn't ended. It's more like shots have been fired.

[coins101]

...As ever it's bandwidth that'll be the bitch. My broadband hasn't had any type of upgrade in well over a decade. I'm sure it'll keep up in a few megacities but outside those places progress is going to lag big time.

Bandwidth is going to be one of the biggest issues, and it's complicated.

More video services means more bandwidth is required. ISPs don't really benefit, its just a sunk cost that benefits Youtube or Netflix. Where is the incentive to invest in more bandwidth? We've just had throttling being addressed with a commitment to net neutrality.

A popular Bitcoin network in 20 years time will likely see TBs of data being transferred between groups of peers.  Will video demand indirectly create bandwidth for Bitcoin?

What about developing countries? There is no real internet infrastructure now, so why would there be one in 20 years? Developing countries could benefit most from Bitcoin, but they have the least developed bandwidth infrastructure. Even if they build some internet services, will they be able to run TBs of data, or will developing countries rely on SPVs only?

[Lauda]

I wonder. The laptop I'm using to type this on is seven years old. It still runs the most up to date video and photo programs that I ask of it and the spec is only a few % off what you'd buy now, albeit for less.
Consumer computing machinery seems to be becoming smaller and less energy intensive but relatively static in terms of specs.

As ever it's bandwidth that'll be the bitch. My broadband hasn't had any type of upgrade in well over a decade. I'm sure it'll keep up in a few megacities but outside those places progress is going to lag big time.

I do not agree with you. I don't believe that the performance/specification difference is only a few percentage. Performance has been improving with each release, however sometimes by only a small margin.
I'm disregarding laptops in the comparison; Desktop side: Let's assume that someone made a desktop PC with the best available CPU at that time, which would be the Intel® Core™ i7-965 Extreme Edition. We can easily compare that with the currently best CPU in the Extreme Edition lineup and that would be the Intel Core i7 5960X. Comparison , here are some examples:

Code:

More than 3.2x better geekbench (64-bit) score
Around 2.8x better PassMark score

If you compare GPU performance it is going to range from a 10 to 20x increase in terms of performance.

Okay let's get back on track. Unless we actually have quite better hardware in 20 years time, this might become a problem. We might need a heavy pruning feature.
If we assume that all of the blocks will be almost full, we would have:
7 GB x 6 blocks per hour x 24 hours = 1008 GB per day.