flix (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1227
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 11, 2015, 09:07:35 PM |
|
Interesting summary of the often mentioned accusation against devs that oppose any block size increase: The Blockstream Business Plan https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/tl;dr: Blockstream wants to choke transactions on the blockchain in order to spur adoption of sidechannels and the Lightning Network, where they will be perfectly situated to collect fees for providing that service.
|
|
|
|
Swordsoffreedom
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2870
Merit: 1115
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 11, 2015, 09:38:41 PM |
|
Voted for a less popular option since it's more complex but Adam Backs idea of sidechains as an extension of the Bitcoin infrastructure seems like the best long term solution to the problem as it addresses size issues and bandwidth capacity until the technology picks up, combined with a Pieter Wullies idea in the short term for incremental blocksize increases programmed into Bitcoin to ensure that Blocksize is Dynamic and adjusts relative to the capacity the network needs at any time, whether incremental increases can be set up this way would require a D@T discussion. Else go back to Blockchain compression.
That said I can see Gavins idea of increasing the size to 8MB then implementing sidechains steadily over time to further enhance Bitcoin's capability and options as a viable idea as well but not an 8GB blockchain in the near future.
|
..Stake.com.. | | | ▄████████████████████████████████████▄ ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄████▄ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ▀██▀ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████▄ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████▀ ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ██ ██ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████████████████████████████████████ | | | | | | ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ ▄▀▄ █▀▀█▀▄▄ █ █▀█ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▄██▄ █ ▌ █ █ ▄██████▄ █ ▌ ▐▌ █ ██████████ █ ▐ █ █ ▐██████████▌ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▀▀██████▀▀ █ ▌ █ █ ▄▄▄██▄▄▄ █ ▌▐▌ █ █▐ █ █ █▐▐▌ █ █▐█ ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█ | | | | | | ▄▄█████████▄▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄█▀ ▐█▌ ▀█▄ ██ ▐█▌ ██ ████▄ ▄█████▄ ▄████ ████████▄███████████▄████████ ███▀ █████████████ ▀███ ██ ███████████ ██ ▀█▄ █████████ ▄█▀ ▀█▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄▄▄█▀ ▀███████ ███████▀ ▀█████▄ ▄█████▀ ▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀ | | | ..PLAY NOW.. |
|
|
|
RoadTrain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 12, 2015, 05:51:36 AM Last edit: August 12, 2015, 06:20:21 AM by RoadTrain |
|
Interesting summary of the often mentioned accusation against devs that oppose any block size increase: The Blockstream Business Plan https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/tl;dr: Blockstream wants to choke transactions on the blockchain in order to spur adoption of sidechannels and the Lightning Network, where they will be perfectly situated to collect fees for providing that service. What is sidechannels btw? Did he mean sidechains? In fact, even the LN paper states that it needs bigger blocks to operate smoothly. The OP is arguing that LN itself is centralized, so it's dishonest for Blockstream devs to argue against Bitcoin centralization. One question: what's better - to have a centralized system build on top of a decentralized one or a centralized system built on top of a centralized one? Also, these two kinds of centralization are probably very different, e.g. how costly is it to set up and operate a payment hub as compared to setting up and operating a mining farm of comparable characteristics (can we even compare them)? Moreover, the OP downplays that Blockstream was created to develop sidechains (a completely different matter which he doesn't discuss at all) in the first place, and they became involved in the LN only very recently. Then he assumes they have a plan to monetize on the LN, but doesn't discuss what was their plan before the advent of the LN (did they plan to monetize of sidechains? How?). He's assuming that Blockstream investors want direct monetization, but that's not neccessarily true, e.g. investors can monetize by using their innovation in business. This post might seem good at first glance, but if we dig deeper, it's full of baseless assumptions.
|
|
|
|
Possum577
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 12, 2015, 05:59:22 AM |
|
Where can we get more background on the pros and cons of each option?
I'm not willing to vote until i have more information - can you point me (and I'm sure others) in the right direction to get more information?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
RoadTrain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 12, 2015, 06:14:27 AM |
|
Where can we get more background on the pros and cons of each option?
I'm not willing to vote until i have more information - can you point me (and I'm sure others) in the right direction to get more information?
Thanks.
The most summaries I have seen so far are biased towards one of options. I'd suggest reading the bitcoin-dev mailing list (it's a link to page two, there are some relevant discussions), it might be a long read, but it can give you a better idea of what's going on.
|
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 12, 2015, 06:16:46 AM |
|
There are two points: 1) Yes, we are assuming no one does 51% attack, but this assumption is based on economics and game theory (e.g. that BTC becomes worthless and hurts miners so it's not rational). Though it doesn't mean there can't be a hostile actor who's dedicated to bring Bitcoin down, and it's an inherent flaw. -snip-
Exactly. However, recently we've learned that economics and game theory aren't accountable as there are hostile people (i.e. transaction spam attacks). Where can we get more background on the pros and cons of each option? -snip-
Well if you read the thread and you would know a few. Basically Gavin's proposal is risky mainly because of China and their bandwidth outside of the country. If we increase the blocks too much then it will cause even more centralization as miners outside of China will be generating more orphans. I think that a 2 or 4 MB compromise wouldn't cause such a issue. There are also cons to sidechains. Basically that's completely unexplored territory, something that has never been done before. Sidechains are going to add a lot of unnecessary complexity for their benefits. It's hard to teach people already how to use Bitcoin, not to mention how harder it is going to be to explain sidechains and two way peg. Another factor is that we don't know when it is going to be fully operational. Even if we use sidechains or the LN right now, eventually 1 MB blocks will not be enough. I certainly would not want to be having the same discussion in 10-15 years. Tl;dr: There can't be an agreement because nobody is willing to compromise. There are a ton of topics on here and reddit for you to read about the debate.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
RoadTrain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 12, 2015, 06:28:16 AM |
|
There are two points: 1) Yes, we are assuming no one does 51% attack, but this assumption is based on economics and game theory (e.g. that BTC becomes worthless and hurts miners so it's not rational). Though it doesn't mean there can't be a hostile actor who's dedicated to bring Bitcoin down, and it's an inherent flaw. -snip-
Exactly. However, recently we've learned that economics and game theory aren't accountable as there are hostile people (i.e. transaction spam attacks). Well, I think that they are still accountable as the hostile actor still needs money to execute an attack, and our job is to make this attack as expensive as possible. That's why e.g. JorgeStolfi has argued for bigger blocks - to make a spam attack more expensive thus less likely. It might not apply only if actors are completely irrational, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 12, 2015, 10:08:54 PM |
|
No change, and/or Dr. Back's soft fork. Give extension blocks (Layer 1.5) a chance before resorting to bloating-as-scaling desperation. That summary sucks. We can do much better:
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
tadakaluri
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 13, 2015, 05:03:09 AM |
|
The long debate over the bitcoin block size is over. The updates being done to the bitcoin code have been published by the core developer Gavin Andresen on GitHub. The block size will change from 1MB to 8MB, with further doubling every two years – so in 2018, it will reach 16 MB, then 32MB in 2020 and so on.
2016: 8 MB 2018: 16 MB 2020: 32 MB 2022: 64 MB 2024: 128 MB 2026: 256MB 2028: 512 MB 2030: 1024 MB 2032: 2048 MB 2034: 4096 MB
Personally I believe that this well overestimating the rate internet connection-speeds and hard-disk space will grow. Just look at ADSL or even cable for instance.
4096mb per 10minutes in a year will grow to: 205TB per year worth of storage.
I wonder if they took in account the laws of physics in this equation. It is not impossible but who can and will pay for such an investment just to be a unpaid bitcoin client (full node).
|
|
|
|
RoadTrain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 13, 2015, 05:21:47 AM |
|
The long debate over the bitcoin block size is over. No, it's not. The updates being done to the bitcoin code have been published by the core developer Gavin Andresen on GitHub. Who cares? The block size will change from 1MB to 8MB, with further doubling every two years – so in 2018, it will reach 16 MB, then 32MB in 2020 and so on. In case of doubling, Bitcoin is doomed. I'd personally favor an altered sipa's approach, which starts in 2016 instead of 2017 and maybe has a bit higher base limit (e.g. 2Mb). His suggestion of 17% yearly increase looks conservative enough to try to avoid any downsides while providing enough time to develop the LN.
|
|
|
|
Swordsoffreedom
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2870
Merit: 1115
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 13, 2015, 05:58:48 AM |
|
The long debate over the bitcoin block size is over. The updates being done to the bitcoin code have been published by the core developer Gavin Andresen on GitHub. The block size will change from 1MB to 8MB, with further doubling every two years – so in 2018, it will reach 16 MB, then 32MB in 2020 and so on.
2016: 8 MB 2018: 16 MB 2020: 32 MB 2022: 64 MB 2024: 128 MB 2026: 256MB 2028: 512 MB 2030: 1024 MB 2032: 2048 MB 2034: 4096 MB
Personally I believe that this well overestimating the rate internet connection-speeds and hard-disk space will grow. Just look at ADSL or even cable for instance.
4096mb per 10minutes in a year will grow to: 205TB per year worth of storage.
I wonder if they took in account the laws of physics in this equation. It is not impossible but who can and will pay for such an investment just to be a unpaid bitcoin client (full node).
The part that bugs me about that schedule of growth is that it may work in the West especially if the internet of things picks up and bandwidth becomes even more valuable but it surely will not be anywhere near as fast elsewhere it causes a huge US centered node base for Bitcoin with Japan in Asia and any opportunities for catching up bandwidth wise is unlikely with 2 year interval increases. A global increase rate would probably be 1/3rd of that over the same duration 2016: 8 MB --> 2.7 MB 2018: 16 MB --> 5.3 MB 2020: 32 MB --> 10.6 MB 2022: 64 MB --> 21.3 MB 2024: 128 MB --> 42.6 MB 2026: 256MB --> 85.3 MB 2028: 512 MB --> 170.7 MB 2030: 1024 MB --> 341.3 MB 2032: 2048 MB --> 682.7 MB 2034: 4096 MB --> 1365.3 MB --> In 2033 Global speeds will finally reach the 1GB level At least that's how I see it who will want to run a full node without Proof Of Stake makes me wonder if an incentive would have made sense retroactively as it does seem like a weakness.
|
..Stake.com.. | | | ▄████████████████████████████████████▄ ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄████▄ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ▀██▀ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████▄ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████▀ ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ██ ██ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████████████████████████████████████ | | | | | | ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ ▄▀▄ █▀▀█▀▄▄ █ █▀█ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▄██▄ █ ▌ █ █ ▄██████▄ █ ▌ ▐▌ █ ██████████ █ ▐ █ █ ▐██████████▌ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▀▀██████▀▀ █ ▌ █ █ ▄▄▄██▄▄▄ █ ▌▐▌ █ █▐ █ █ █▐▐▌ █ █▐█ ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█ | | | | | | ▄▄█████████▄▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄█▀ ▐█▌ ▀█▄ ██ ▐█▌ ██ ████▄ ▄█████▄ ▄████ ████████▄███████████▄████████ ███▀ █████████████ ▀███ ██ ███████████ ██ ▀█▄ █████████ ▄█▀ ▀█▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄▄▄█▀ ▀███████ ███████▀ ▀█████▄ ▄█████▀ ▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀ | | | ..PLAY NOW.. |
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 13, 2015, 09:42:37 AM |
|
The long debate over the bitcoin block size is over. The updates being done to the bitcoin code have been published by the core developer Gavin Andresen on GitHub. -snip-
The debate is not over. Gavin has published that code for Bitcoin XT which has no relationship with Bitcoin Core. This means that your post is irrelevant and contains useless information. Basically Gavin has made the proposed changes and implemented them into Bitcoin XT. However, people related to Bitcoin Core do not agree with him. If you factor in the network problems related to centralization and China, 16 MB blocks by 2018 would be catastrophic. It would be much worse every 2 years.
-snip- I'd personally favor an altered sipa's approach, which starts in 2016 instead of 2017 and maybe has a bit higher base limit (e.g. 2Mb). His suggestion of 17% yearly increase looks conservative enough to try to avoid any downsides while providing enough time to develop the LN.
Well the problem is that people are not willing to compromise. A increase in 2016 to 2 MB (as Jeff suggested) and a 17% yearly increase would be a decent compromise. We need to buy more time without risking anything.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
boopy265420
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1005
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 13, 2015, 10:07:50 AM |
|
I gave vote for Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik's suggestions.It seems more logical and applicable according to my very limited knowledge and information.It is very hard to understand what exactly these changes are for and their long term consequences.We give vote on base of big lines.
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 13, 2015, 04:05:44 PM |
|
Another reason to do the fork soon, is that after the next reward halving (est.2017) it will be much harder to convince miners to accept low tx fees. Right now fees are a tiny part of their income compared to the 25BTC reward... in effect all BTC holders are currently paying miners via inflation. As new money creation declines, fees will have to pay for the network.
...but it is better for everyone if fees become a major source of income for miners at 50 million users and 1M daily txs than earlier. Scale must come first.
Social media companies (like Twitter and Facebook) that delayed revenue generation until they reached massive scale and network effects are a good example.
We have no idea what the price of Bitcoin (in fiat/gold/energy) will be in 2017, so who knows what part of miners' income will come from tx fees then? Scale cannot come before security, which includes decentralization. And you cannot scale by simply accommodating 8MB of mostly-spam in every block. Scaling entails doing more with less, not more of the same. You scale by adding layers, not by stuffing everything into a bloated Layer 1. TWTR and FB are terrible examples. Bitcoin is fintech, which emphasizes high availability and 100% security. Nobody loses their life savings (or defection fund) if some daft corporation's vapid social media site is down for a week or hacked.
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 13, 2015, 04:14:54 PM |
|
Gavin: I understand you want to build an extremely decentralized system, where .
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.htmlI wish Gavin and Hearn good luck with their unicorn project. But if they try to change Bitcoin's social contract (everybody participating trusts nothing except the genesis block hash), in order to capture and repurpose Bitcoin as the engine of their utopian altcoin, both projects may be ruined.
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
kelsey
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 14, 2015, 08:38:18 AM |
|
bitcoin reminds me of one of those anti establishment rockbands ![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif) now this is the $hit that happens when all the corporate dogs notice the $$$$$ possible from said rockband ![Lips sealed](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/lipsrsealed.gif)
|
|
|
|
Adrian-x
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 14, 2015, 07:47:09 PM |
|
thanks for the survey and condensed summary.
|
Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
|
|
|
Adrian-x
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 14, 2015, 07:54:21 PM |
|
Gavin: I understand you want to build an extremely decentralized system, where .
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.htmlI wish Gavin and Hearn good luck with their unicorn project. But if they try to change Bitcoin's social contract (everybody participating trusts nothing except the genesis block hash), in order to capture and repurpose Bitcoin as the engine of their utopian altcoin, both projects may be ruined. Keep dreaming :-) its not a unicorn project its call Satoshhi's Bitcoin. Hearn and Gavin have both toyed with unpopular or potentially devastating ideas, but unlike Gmax and Back they have never tried to implement them. We all learn as we go, I'll only judge what they have done or are to do, and right now BIP 101 makes is the most appropriate solution to keep the original intent of Bitcoin intact.
|
Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
|
|
|
GreenStox
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 252
Undeads.com - P2E Runner Game
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 14, 2015, 08:06:44 PM |
|
No increase until the block doesnt reach 70% fullness, its no reason to increase it until we have low block size.
I`d prefer the 8mb one if they would do it, but i think its not needed.
But anyway its not us who decide but the miners... Talking about decentralization... Bitcoin is a fucking oligarchy!
|
|
|
|
|