Dire
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
Crypto-Games.net: DICE and SLOT
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 14, 2015, 08:29:45 PM |
|
This is a good question, I've also wanted to clearly know the answer to this.
What about companies that have API's or have built something connected to the blockchain? Will they have to do something at the fork? All of them? Because I imagine that would be a nightmare to do every two years.
Or is it not like that?
An increase in size of the blocks changes nothing to the nodes and daemons, only, of course, in the main mining code. Ah, thanks for the answer. After reading quite a lot of stuff about the block size, and in particular a post by Litecoin guy, I have to say, I can't see what the exact point is to keep the blocks at 1mb. I mean, in the long run Bitcoin will stand to lose more than it will gain by not adapting. I'm no miner so I know I basically don't know, but as far as I can understand it, Bitcoin needs bigger blocks, and even if it needs bigger blocks in the future and another fork, then so what? PC hardware was never designed to be upgraded in the first place, but it was built on... and on... and on. It wasn't the end of the world, quite the opposite in fact. I remember when I was using a 1k 'computer'. You couldn't even fart with 1k nowadays.
|
|
|
|
RoadTrain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 14, 2015, 09:41:47 PM |
|
I have to say, I can't see what the exact point is to keep the blocks at 1mb. Neither can I. I believe we need a gradual rise which is compatible with technology improvement. 15-20% a year looks reasonable to me. XT's proposal doesn't.
|
|
|
|
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 14, 2015, 10:19:37 PM |
|
My admittedly very limited understanding: Currently because of the limited block sizes the bitcoin network could never handle the traffic if a large amount of new bitcoin users came online and started using bitcoin. The network would be so slow that people would not have a very good experience.
The solution to this is to increase the block size to 8 MB per block allowing for many more transactions and a much faster network capable of handling an event in which a large amount of new users start using bitcoin.
I don't know of the downside though. Why are so many people against this? I don't understand.
8MB doesn't allow for "for many more transactions" only ~8 times the current (extremely low) number. You can't scale by adding more of the same. More of the same risks negative marginal returns, which is why that approach is called "bloating."
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ 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
|
| | |
|
|
|
Andy4.4
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 03:45:31 AM |
|
Downsides...... 8mb block take much time to spread throughout the bitcoin network or block chain.
There are many places in world where Internet is costly and speed is also not good. So according to me, this is a downside.
|
|
|
|
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1014
In Satoshi I Trust
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 06:29:12 AM |
|
no bandwidth problem. no storage problem. i would like to see mass adoption. i would like to follow satoshis view of big blocks. i would like to have a permission less and cheap blockchain (cheap transactions) for everybody in the world. look at Nielsen's Law: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/we dont talk about 100 MB blocks tomorrow - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (and it takes time to even fill them). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem.
|
|
|
|
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 15, 2015, 06:36:23 AM |
|
no bandwidth problem. no storage problem. i would like to see mass adoption. i would like to follow satoshis view of big blocks. i would like to have a permission less and cheap blockchain (cheap transactions) for everybody in the world. look at Nielsen's Law: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/we dont talk about 100 MB blocks tomorrow - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (and it takes time to even fill them). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem. Nielsen's (Folk) Law is bounded by Gibson's Razor: "The future is already here - it's just not evenly distributed." See my lengthy, well-researched response to you here for Important Details. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ 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
|
| | |
|
|
|
Soros Shorts
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1617
Merit: 1012
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 08:54:32 AM |
|
Storage and internet bandwidth are not really an issue these days. The real issue is the CPU resources used during block validation. Every new block that a node receives has to be validated against the known blockchain. This includes blocks that a new node downloads for the very first time. Some idiots are still running nodes on Raspberry Pis or Beagle Bones. When/if we move to 8MB, these nodes will not be able to cope with the larger blocks in a reasonable amount of time.
If you run a p2pool node and bitcoin node on the same machine (like I did), you already see a problem today when 1MB blocks come in and you are running anything less than a 4-core current generation CPU. My solution was to run p2pool and bitcoind on separate i7 machines, which was a pain in the ass but my setup can now handle 1MB blocks without too many orphans of p2pool shares.
|
|
|
|
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1014
In Satoshi I Trust
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 08:56:59 AM |
|
no bandwidth problem. no storage problem. i would like to see mass adoption. i would like to follow satoshis view of big blocks. i would like to have a permission less and cheap blockchain (cheap transactions) for everybody in the world. look at Nielsen's Law: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/we dont talk about 100 MB blocks tomorrow - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (and it takes time to even fill them). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem. Nielsen's (Folk) Law is bounded by Gibson's Razor: "The future is already here - it's just not evenly distributed." See my lengthy, well-researched response to you here for Important Details. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) i read it. but even when you look Rustys estimation, bigger blocks are no problem: Extracting the figures gives: #Average download speed in November 2008 was 3.6Mbit #Average download speed in November 2014 was 22.8Mbit
#Average upload speed in November 2008 to April 2009 was 0.43Mbit/s #Average upload speed in November 2014 was 2.9Mbithttp://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=551@Soros Shorts that could happen. but please note that blocks will probably not be full immediately.
|
|
|
|
fonsie
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 11:45:48 AM |
|
What's the point of a "speedy 1MB blocks flashing by over 10gbps uplinks" bitcoin network, if nobody can use it.
|
I decided to no longer use a signature, because people were trolling me about it.
|
|
|
andysbizz
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 01:23:55 PM |
|
This will help to solve the spam attack, and send more transactions to the network
|
|
|
|
Kazimir
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1011
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 02:15:58 PM |
|
Some idiots are still running nodes on Raspberry Pis or Beagle Bones.
Exactly what is so idiotic about supporting the Bitcoin network by running dedicated devices as nodes (like Raspberry Pis) ?
|
|
|
|
Brewins
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 02:22:11 PM |
|
Some idiots are still running nodes on Raspberry Pis or Beagle Bones.
Exactly what is so idiotic about supporting the Bitcoin network by running dedicated devices as nodes (like Raspberry Pis) ? they will soon run out of disk space and I don't think raspeberries are supposed to handle so much disk accesses, so it might reduce the life of the device
|
|
|
|
cellard
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1252
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 03:34:01 PM |
|
Sooner or later only a few people will be able to run nodes. And even if running nodes was easy, most people would be too lazy and resort to SPV or web based wallets. So the moral of the story is: No matter what they do, the % of people running nodes is always going to be a minority of enthusiasts.
|
|
|
|
fonsie
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 16, 2015, 12:46:13 AM |
|
Some idiots are still running nodes on Raspberry Pis or Beagle Bones.
Exactly what is so idiotic about supporting the Bitcoin network by running dedicated devices as nodes (like Raspberry Pis) ? they will soon run out of disk space and I don't think raspeberries are supposed to handle so much disk accesses, so it might reduce the life of the device A 1TB drive attached to a Raspberry Pie doesn't run out of diskspace sooner then if it were attached to a Core i7. I'm also not sure why it would die from "disk accesses".
|
I decided to no longer use a signature, because people were trolling me about it.
|
|
|
Linuld
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 29, 2015, 11:53:46 AM |
|
8MB per 10 minutes is about 13.6 KB/s. What was the problem again? Not that I think that simply increasing the block size limit to 8MB is a good solution (I'd rather see something more dynamic) but if 13.6 KB/s is actually a problem, maybe you should fix your internet, rather than debate over Bitcoin. Miners cant wait 10 minutes to have their newly mined block trasfered to the next node. What do you mean with that? Miners can propagate really fast. An there is a project, i'm not sure anymore what it's name was, that was created to propagate blocks faster. And they get >50% in 2 seconds or so when using that network. My numbers might be wrong but it was so fast that creating 1 transaction blocks made no real sense.
|
|
|
|
Linuld
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 29, 2015, 11:55:50 AM |
|
The biggest downside is basically the fact that the blocksize will be bigger, therefore limiting the amount of people that can access to it, or they could still access to it but it will be slower to download it.
Not really. Where should all these additional transactions come from suddenly to fill the 8MB? The blocks weren't full up to the spam attacks so why should suddenly there be so much more transactions? If you think about spammers then no, that would simply be way too expensive.
|
|
|
|
Linuld
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 29, 2015, 11:57:45 AM |
|
It will solve the spam attacks problem.
How is that? What prevents anyone from sending 8 times (or 100 times) as much spam as what we've seen recently? What we need is a slight change in the default fee setting for Bitcoin nodes, that still allow very cheap payments (also micropayments) but helps against mass spam / dust transactions. Something similar to what Litecoin does, by requiring an additional small fee for each small output in a tx (and perhaps for each small input as well, while we're at it). Will you do it? You would be poor pretty fast. Even the small KB that were needed to fell the 1MB were already expensive. Imagining that someone would spend the money to fill 8 MB blocks is hard. It simply would not make any sense in any way to spam that way.
|
|
|
|
uxgpf
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 29, 2015, 12:18:21 PM |
|
There are some problems with bigger blocks, as far as I can understand bigger blocks means:
1. You need to have more HDD place to store bigger blockchain. Partly true. If you're running a node you can prune the blockchain. I run with a node with 10GB blockchain currently, but even pruning it to 512MB is possible. 2. Transactions fees will be actually higher, RIP bitcoin microtransactions. False. Transaction fees will be lower, because there's more space in the block, thus less fee competition. 3. Higher blocks also requires higher internet bandwidth. True. Now running a node requires some 5kB/s, so running a node won't be a problem for a long time. Propagation times for miners might be, though.
|
|
|
|
uxgpf
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 29, 2015, 12:29:44 PM Last edit: August 29, 2015, 01:34:01 PM by uxgpf |
|
Some idiots are still running nodes on Raspberry Pis or Beagle Bones.
Exactly what is so idiotic about supporting the Bitcoin network by running dedicated devices as nodes (like Raspberry Pis) ? they will soon run out of disk space and I don't think raspeberries are supposed to handle so much disk accesses, so it might reduce the life of the device Just use some external drive and prune the blockchain to size of your liking. I haven't had any problems running node on raspberry pi and won't have until bandwidth of my ca. $25 connection is not enough (would need over 100X increase of blocksize from today). Currently upload bandwitdh used is under 5kB/s for most of time (of which some might be other traffic as I also run other services on it).
|
|
|
|
Linuld
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 29, 2015, 12:35:03 PM |
|
There are some problems with bigger blocks, as far as I can understand bigger blocks means:
1. You need to have more HDD place to store bigger blockchain. 2. Transactions fees will be actually higher, RIP bitcoin microtransactions. 3. Higher blocks also requires higher internet bandwidth.
Point 1 is not really the case. I mean the 8MB won't be filled magically suddenly. Where should these transactions come from. And when you would stay at 1MB only because of that then bitcoin would be unuseable since ALWAYS transactions would not be included. What kind of transaction system would it be when you can't trust that it transfers? Point 2 is wrong. The fee will grow without a bigger blocksize. With 1MB blocksize for example everyone would pay higher fees to get their transaction included before others. Point 3 is the same like point 1.
|
|
|
|
|