Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 09:40:11 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too  (Read 8421 times)
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2015, 08:15:25 AM
 #1



Bitcoin can support a large scale and it must, for all sorts of reasons.
Amongst others:

  
1. Currencies have network effects. A currency that has few users is
   simply not competitive with currencies that have many. There's no such
   thing as a settlement currency for high value transactions only, as
   evidenced by the ever-dropping importance of gold.


   2. A decentralised currency that the vast majority can't use doesn't
   change the amount of centralisation in the world. Most people will still
   end up using banks, with all the normal problems. You cannot solve a
   problem by creating a theoretically pure solution that's out of reach of
   ordinary people: just ask academic cryptographers!


   3. Growth is a part of the social contract. It always has been.

   The best quote Gregory can find to suggest Satoshi wanted small blocks
   is a one sentence hypothetical example about what *might* happen if
   Bitcoin users became "tyrannical" as a result of non-financial transactions
   being stuffed in the block chain. That position makes sense because his
   scaling arguments assuming payment-network-sized traffic and throwing DNS
   systems or whatever into the mix could invalidate those arguments, in the
   absence of merged mining. But Satoshi did invent merged mining, and so
   there's no need for Bitcoin users to get "tyrannical": his original
   arguments still hold.


   4. All the plans for some kind of ultra-throttled Bitcoin network used
   for infrequent transactions neglect to ask where the infrastructure for
   that will come from. The network of exchanges, payment processors and
   startups that are paying people to build infrastructure are all based on
   the assumption that the market will grow significantly. It's a gamble at
   best because Bitcoin's success is not guaranteed, but if the block chain
   cannot grow it's a gamble that is guaranteed to be lost.

   So why should anyone go through the massive hassle of setting up
   exchanges, without the lure of large future profits?


   5. Bitcoin needs users, lots of them, for its political survival. There
   are many people out there who would like to see digital cash disappear, or
   be regulated out of existence. They will argue for that in front of
   governments and courts .... some already are. And if they're going to lose
   those arguments, the political and economic damage of getting rid of
   Bitcoin must be large enough to make people think twice. That means it
   needs supporters, it needs innovative services, it needs companies, and it
   needs legal users making legal payments: as many of them as possible.

   If Bitcoin is a tiny, obscure currency used by drug dealers and a
   handful of crypto-at-any-cost geeks, the cost of simply banning it outright
   will seem trivial and the hammer will drop. There won't be a large scale
   payment network OR a high-value settlement network. And then the world is
   really screwed, because nobody will get a second chance for a very long
   time.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009815.html


Most actors in the space (exchanges, payment processors, big pool operators) have stated, in a scattershot way over time, that they support a blocksize increase.

Also some well known people like Roger Ver and Andreas Antonopoulos support bigger blocks.



--------------------

Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks:


“We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less."

Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux"

Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2"

BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x"

Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):


“BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.”

BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):

“BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system."







--------

Total known mining power supporting big blocks: 68.86%

8MB:
F2Pool (19.77%): https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese)
AntPool (16.68%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/1c7ce8b32ffa6f3ceb6a343828bc6d9fbf10a06bb884ecee042d6740716d0bda
BTCChina (11.86%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/498e4a4225a9cd147ec5091fbcf2a3ca2a9a0f8e18566af50e37c1802360b82b
BW pool (7.14%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/0fe25d362c3567ec7d9b485aa8d77c10c27bc464c610eab8639fc3876518cd4a
KNCMiner (4.63%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/4022ca10810c7ce69a17bc612a94c1114cabd7fa8141106c12b0c402ecd68076
Slush (4.63%): https://twitter.com/AlenaSatoshi/status/631369094718164992
21 Inc (4.15%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/fa142a8cac0a292d8319b8f8cd048dcb6c577dafcdd0a96842eedfeb9ab07927
Huobi (unknown): https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese)




https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gryjy/slushs_pool_endorses_8mb_blocks/
--------------

first block mined with XT

https://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000000174419fa2ba5003e123dbd97c6982aff1863f016b04789d


12.5 % XT Nodes - 19.08.2015



--------------



--------------

Time is running out - 1 MB blocks are not enough:



Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1512985211
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512985211

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512985211
Reply with quote  #2

1512985211
Report to moderator
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2015, 08:35:28 AM
 #2

We all know that some have plans and are going to try to keep the system available to less people for as long as they can. Most of the arguments that were against bigger blocks are pretty much invalid.
Even increasing it to 2MB only (which can't surely harm anything) would be a huge benefit compared to 1MB.
I'm just waiting to see when and if the Core developers are going to add bigger blocks. I would not prefer switching to XT, but they aren't leaving people many options.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile WWW
August 02, 2015, 09:18:05 PM
 #3

  4. All the plans for some kind of ultra-throttled Bitcoin network used
   for infrequent transactions neglect to ask where the infrastructure for
   that will come from. The network of exchanges, payment processors and
   startups that are paying people to build infrastructure are all based on
   the assumption that the market will grow significantly.

And further to that, there's the mining infrastructure as well.  Transaction fees generated by the network seldom exceed $10k USD, sometimes averaging under $5k.  Once the block reward halves a few more times, that won't be sufficient to incentivise miners.  Limiting the number of transactions in a block also limits the quantity of fees that can be generated.  More users paying more fees equals more incentive to secure the network.  Also, a few whales sending megabucks every once in a while would result in an irregular flow of fees and mining empty or near-empty blocks will be of little value to the miner (in future), whereas millions of ordinary people sending several transactions a day means a steady flow of fees.  Unless you want a significant proportion of miners securing a different blockchain in future, you better make sure Bitcoin's blockchain remains the most attractive and profitable.  


BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 09:25:53 PM
 #4

Anyone that has been following this for a while knows that we need both approaches, the biggest blocksize and the LN off the chain solutions. Even Andreas Antonopoulos is advocating for both. Seriously it's time to get the blocksize bigger, start with 2 or start with 8 I dont really care, but lets get this done already and move on into developing other features.

..C..
.....................
........What is C?.........
..............
...........ICO            Dec 1st – Dec 30th............
       ............Open            Dec 1st- Dec 30th............
...................ANN thread      Bounty....................

forevernoob
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 676



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 09:35:11 PM
 #5

Bitcoin doesn't scale so why act like raising the block size would change anything?

Alley
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 09:59:05 PM
 #6

Why doesn't it scale?
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2015, 10:08:10 PM
 #7

Bitcoin doesn't scale so why act like raising the block size would change anything?

Wrong. While it may not be done efficiently, Bitcoin does scale. Similar things would apply to video quality. Just because a raw 4K movie easily takes up more than 100GB of space, that doesn't mean that we won't be using. People have complained about storage, but that will soon be solved with pruning being fully implemented (now it is only partially).
If we assume (assuming that they are full) that we have only 10MB blocks (which should be enough for some time), that's only 1,440MB of bandwidth per day (which is less than what I spend just using Chrome in a single day). Current pruning requires one to keep the last 255 blocks which means only 2.55 GB of storage would be needed (I'm pretty sure that everyone has this).

Now if we factor in the potential of the lightning network and sidechains, it is going to scale much better. However, these things need time as we are surfing in unexplored waters.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
BitCoinDream
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246

The revolution will be digital


View Profile
August 02, 2015, 10:21:58 PM
 #8

I'd be careful to listen to Mike Hearn. If he can covince the current core devs, it is fine. But, one should not join his XT fork anyway. He wants to ignore the longest chain. Read: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39r03i/mike_hearn_is_saying_fork_might_ignore_the/

BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 10:48:41 PM
 #9

Bitcoin doesn't scale so why act like raising the block size would change anything?

Wrong. While it may not be done efficiently, Bitcoin does scale. Similar things would apply to video quality. Just because a raw 4K movie easily takes up more than 100GB of space, that doesn't mean that we won't be using. People have complained about storage, but that will soon be solved with pruning being fully implemented (now it is only partially).
If we assume (assuming that they are full) that we have only 10MB blocks (which should be enough for some time), that's only 1,440MB of bandwidth per day (which is less than what I spend just using Chrome in a single day). Current pruning requires one to keep the last 255 blocks which means only 2.55 GB of storage would be needed (I'm pretty sure that everyone has this).

Now if we factor in the potential of the lightning network and sidechains, it is going to scale much better. However, these things need time as we are surfing in unexplored waters.

Yeah, Bitcoin will scale up as much as we need to, going worldwide. We'll take all these fuckers down including Mastercard and Visa and WU. It will scale proving everyone wrong just like TCP/IP proved everyone wrong.

..C..
.....................
........What is C?.........
..............
...........ICO            Dec 1st – Dec 30th............
       ............Open            Dec 1st- Dec 30th............
...................ANN thread      Bounty....................

forevernoob
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 676



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 11:45:24 PM
 #10

Bitcoin doesn't scale so why act like raising the block size would change anything?

Wrong. While it may not be done efficiently, Bitcoin does scale. Similar things would apply to video quality. Just because a raw 4K movie easily takes up more than 100GB of space, that doesn't mean that we won't be using. People have complained about storage, but that will soon be solved with pruning being fully implemented (now it is only partially).
If we assume (assuming that they are full) that we have only 10MB blocks (which should be enough for some time), that's only 1,440MB of bandwidth per day (which is less than what I spend just using Chrome in a single day). Current pruning requires one to keep the last 255 blocks which means only 2.55 GB of storage would be needed (I'm pretty sure that everyone has this).

Now if we factor in the potential of the lightning network and sidechains, it is going to scale much better. However, these things need time as we are surfing in unexplored waters.

Yes Bitcoin might be able to scale in the future with the help of lightning network and other tools. So why the urgent need for a hard fork when it doesn't solve anything?
You said it. "these things need time".
So why not wait for lightning network to be operational before we go ahead with a dangerous fork?


Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
August 02, 2015, 11:50:14 PM
 #11

wait the halving to evolve the block size ... just to see the best thing of this decade.  Grin
Alley
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
August 03, 2015, 12:57:28 AM
 #12

Clearly XT is a non starter.  Nodes keep dropping and were never more then 3% of total nodes.  It has to be core devs or nothing.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
August 03, 2015, 01:01:20 AM
 #13

I'd be careful to listen to Mike Hearn. If he can covince the current core devs, it is fine. But, one should not join his XT fork anyway. He wants to ignore the longest chain. Read: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39r03i/mike_hearn_is_saying_fork_might_ignore_the/

quite simply, I do not trust Mike Hearn.  He has expressed too many authoritarian and questionable ideas to ever be trusted with big decisions in Bitcoin.  What a shame because his programming skills are powerful.

LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
August 03, 2015, 09:18:32 AM
 #14

I'd be careful to listen to Mike Hearn. If he can covince the current core devs, it is fine. But, one should not join his XT fork anyway. He wants to ignore the longest chain. Read: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39r03i/mike_hearn_is_saying_fork_might_ignore_the/

quite simply, I do not trust Mike Hearn.  He has expressed too many authoritarian and questionable ideas to ever be trusted with big decisions in Bitcoin.  What a shame because his programming skills are powerful.

You dont have to trust him. XT (Mike+Gavins work) will include bigger blocks and not more. So i will go with that.

spartacusrex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 610



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 11:15:49 AM
 #15

I want-ed bigger blocks. Still do. I thought everybody did.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1107731.0

The issue for me now is this :

Who knows more about Bitcoin than the CORE devs ? No-One. That's who.

Are we honestly going to tell GMaxwell - Sorry Greg. You're Wrong (Although I can find no other 'technical' instance where this is the case..) ? The Network CAN handle bigger blocks and your fears about what might go wrong, are incorrect. Boom!

 Huh

This is not a trust issue. Just people with different opinions about a very technical and complicated issue. (It is NOT simple)

Go with the Heart, I follow Mike+Gavin,

Go with the Brain, I have to follow #GMAX.

LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
August 06, 2015, 03:25:34 PM
 #16

"I think it is more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of millions of people, with no central point of control and the opportunity for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what I find interesting."

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009902.html

Gavin is right here.

Slark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
August 06, 2015, 03:52:13 PM
 #17

I wonder if this issue with bigger blocks will the be the problem everytime we discuss it. It is never ending debate when people argue: "do we need it, or not" all over again.
I have one advice for critics: please stay with Floppy Drive 3.5'. Suddenly everyone are wiser that bitcoin developers when it comes to block size...

LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
August 06, 2015, 03:55:00 PM
 #18

I wonder if this issue with bigger blocks will the be the problem everytime we discuss it. It is never ending debate when people argue: "do we need it, or not" all over again.
I have one advice for critics: please stay with Floppy Drive 3.5'. Suddenly everyone are wiser that bitcoin developers when it comes to block size...

it will end because the majority will adapt a software that supports bigger blocks.  Smiley

or bitcoin will never go mainstream.

BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 06, 2015, 04:29:29 PM
 #19

"I think it is more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of millions of people, with no central point of control and the opportunity for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what I find interesting."

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009902.html

Gavin is right here.

True, but running a node will be a pain in the ass, the problem is not HDD space, the problem is bandwith space. If the blockchain starts being too big a lot of people will be left marginalized as they will not be able to download the blockchain unless they spend ages on it.

..C..
.....................
........What is C?.........
..............
...........ICO            Dec 1st – Dec 30th............
       ............Open            Dec 1st- Dec 30th............
...................ANN thread      Bounty....................

LFC_Bitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!


View Profile
August 06, 2015, 04:44:19 PM
 #20

What's the main reason Core Dev's don't want to allow bigger blocks please, somebody?

I'm not a techie expert, I've read Gavin's & Mike's ideas on why we need bigger blocks, I've witnessed the stress testing but why are Core Dev's so hesitant to comply?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!