blockstream - wants to tax you and become the new Bitcoin oligarchy

[jonald_fyookball]

what? the miners don't have bills?

we don't fully use the 1mb and out of gavin(CIA)'s ass we jump to 8mb?

wtf!!!

blocks sometimes do get filled up and we'll see more and more
of that as Bitcoin grows.  You want to wait till its a dire situation before expanding
the bandwidth?  wtf!!!

[1715085559]

1715085559

[1715085559]

1715085559

[1715085559]

1715085559

[1715085559]

1715085559

[dachnik]

I know, maximum block size as 8 MB does not necessarily mean all blocks after that will be 8 MB. IMHO, its better for a gradual increase than a jump. However, I might support 8 MB but I am still opposed to BIP 101.

The idea of a jump (from 1 to 8 in this case) is to allow for temporary peaks in transaction volume.
The hard limit can only be raised in a hard fork and we don't want to fork every year or now and then.
The hard limit must be such that the network should feel uneasy operating at full capacity, but still workable.

In fact I'm more inclined to think that forking every 4 years as "Bitcoin halving celebration" is actually a good idea.
So my proposed solution would to be increase the hard limit to 8Mb (with soft limit of 4Mb for initial ramp up) and then re-evaluate every 4 years.

[mavericklm]

what? the miners don't have bills?

we don't fully use the 1mb and out of gavin(CIA)'s ass we jump to 8mb?

wtf!!!

blocks sometimes do get filled up and we'll see more and more
of that as Bitcoin grows.  You want to wait till its a dire situation before expanding
the bandwidth?  wtf!!!

bullshit!!!!!!! they never get filled! even with the spam from coinwallet.eu!
i don't scratch if i dont have an itch!

[jonald_fyookball]

what? the miners don't have bills?

we don't fully use the 1mb and out of gavin(CIA)'s ass we jump to 8mb?

wtf!!!

blocks sometimes do get filled up and we'll see more and more
of that as Bitcoin grows.  You want to wait till its a dire situation before expanding
the bandwidth?  wtf!!!

bullshit!!!!!!! they never get filled! even with the spam from coinwallet.eu!
i don't scratch if i dont have an itch!

except for the one just now.

[Muhammed Zakir]

According to Gavin, storage space won't be the bottleneck in the future , but rather bandwidth.
"The (pruned) ledger only takes up 1 gig and will be further optimized."

It is still a problem.

What's a problem?  Storage space required to run a node?

Bandwidth.

what? the miners don't have bills?

we don't fully use the 1mb and out of gavin(CIA)'s ass we jump to 8mb?

wtf!!!

blocks sometimes do get filled up and we'll see more and more
of that as Bitcoin grows.  You want to wait till its a dire situation before expanding
the bandwidth?  wtf!!!

Right but should we jump from 1 MB to 8 MB?

bullshit!!!!!!! they never get filled! even with the spam from coinwallet.eu!
i don't scratch if i dont have an itch!

Transaction backlog is there and legitimate transaction gets rejected or take longer than usual.

[jonald_fyookball]

Right but should we jump from 1 MB to 8 MB?
 

I preferred Gavin's original proposal of 20 MB.

[Quickseller]

The only reason that BIP101 is bad is that there is the possibility that it will be attempted to be implemented without consensus. There is no real reason why the network would not be able to support 8MB blocks on a technical basis and Moores law would imply that technology will advance quickly enough so that the network will continue to be able to support the increasingly large max block size and if it doesn't then then Bitcoin can be formed again.

Moore's law? It looks like you aren't up to date with that one.

Intel confirmed in 2015 that the pace of advancement has slowed, starting at the 22 nm node around 2012 and continuing at 14 nm. Brian Krzanich, CEO of Intel, announced that “our cadence today is closer to two and a half years than two.

It is going to get worse from here, until the transition to something entirely new. The growth factor in BIP 101 is not sustainable and people should be aware of this. That's one of the main problems.

Okay then change BIP101 so that the max block size doubles every 2.5 years. Problem solved.

Plus the change in timeframe is only the short term trend which is hardly an indication of what will happen between now and the next 20 years.

Regardless if Bitcoin is to remain decentralized the max block size needs to increase, and it needs to increase a lot over time. Otherwise it will become too expensive to use and people will be forced to either use the traditional banking system or centralized systems like LN and side chains. There is no way around this. There is a good chance that it might get more expensive to run a full node.

[hdbuck]

Right but should we jump from 1 MB to 8 MB?
 

I preferred Gavin's original proposal of 20 MB.

you bet you are. N00b.

[Carlton Banks]

blocks sometimes do get filled up

bullshit!!!!!!! they never get filled! even with the spam from coinwallet.eu!
i don't scratch if i dont have an itch!

except for the one just now.

jonald can't count as high as 1024 apparently

[onemorexmr]

Right but should we jump from 1 MB to 8 MB?
 

I preferred Gavin's original proposal of 20 MB.

you bet you are. N00b.

grow up.
"protecting your investment" by insulting anybody is laughable.
if you have a real argument tell it or gtfo.

[mavericklm]

Right but should we jump from 1 MB to 8 MB?
 

I preferred Gavin's original proposal of 20 MB.

you bet you are. N00b.

grow up.
"protecting your investment" by insulting anybody is laughable.
if you have a real argument tell it or gtfo.

oh yeah! from 1mb jump to 20 mb! not even 2mb or 4mb...

[hdbuck]

Right but should we jump from 1 MB to 8 MB?
 

I preferred Gavin's original proposal of 20 MB.

you bet you are. N00b.

grow up.
"protecting your investment" by insulting anybody is laughable.
if you have a real argument tell it or gtfo.

my argument is you are all pathologically crippled noobs, if not professional shills with the not-so-hidden agenda of destroying bitcoin.

[onemorexmr]

my argument is you are all pathologically crippled noobs, if not professional shills with the not-so-hidden agenda of destroying bitcoin.

judging from your post history we share the same vision for bitcoin.
its just that you think core is better and i think xt is.

is that really enough for you to start fighting like this?
do you realize that you actually harm your cause by acting this way?

i think you are well-informed. so why dont you share your experience?

and i am definitely not a shill and not crippled. i just say what i think.
and your opinion gets more and more less important to me - ONLY because of the way you act.

[Muhammed Zakir]

The only reason that BIP101 is bad is that there is the possibility that it will be attempted to be implemented without consensus. There is no real reason why the network would not be able to support 8MB blocks on a technical basis and Moores law would imply that technology will advance quickly enough so that the network will continue to be able to support the increasingly large max block size and if it doesn't then then Bitcoin can be formed again.

Moore's law? It looks like you aren't up to date with that one.

Intel confirmed in 2015 that the pace of advancement has slowed, starting at the 22 nm node around 2012 and continuing at 14 nm. Brian Krzanich, CEO of Intel, announced that “our cadence today is closer to two and a half years than two.

It is going to get worse from here, until the transition to something entirely new. The growth factor in BIP 101 is not sustainable and people should be aware of this. That's one of the main problems.

Okay then change BIP101 so that the max block size doubles every 2.5 years. Problem solved.

Plus the change in timeframe is only the short term trend which is hardly an indication of what will happen between now and the next 20 years.

Regardless if Bitcoin is to remain decentralized the max block size needs to increase, and it needs to increase a lot over time. Otherwise it will become too expensive to use and people will be forced to either use the traditional banking system or centralized systems like LN and side chains. There is no way around this. There is a good chance that it might get more expensive to run a full node.

Doubling maximum block size every X years is not a good idea which is what BIP 101 is about though in it X is 2. Even though it is dynamic increase, maximum block size increase should depend on more/better factors.

[jonald_fyookball]

blocks sometimes do get filled up

bullshit!!!!!!! they never get filled! even with the spam from coinwallet.eu!
i don't scratch if i dont have an itch!

except for the one just now.

jonald can't count as high as 1024 apparently

Carlton!  My main man.

I thought you were done responding to me?

974/1024 ..thats a 95% full block.  
Obviously that's close enough for the purpose
of this conversation as the essense of the issue is running up
against the limit, which is happening sometimes as
I mentioned.
 
@ onemorexmr:  Please ignore the troll (hdbuck).

[Lauda]

Okay then change BIP101 so that the max block size doubles every 2.5 years. Problem solved.

Plus the change in timeframe is only the short term trend which is hardly an indication of what will happen between now and the next 20 years.

No, this does not solve anything. Basically if we had a minimum and maximum within a possible projection, while speculating, Gavin would opt for a choice near the maximum. We can not predict the future and the more we try to predict (more time, e.g. years) the more we are wrong.
Pieter Wuille actually made a better suggestion (17.7% increase per year). However, this is not that good if we start with a 1 MB limit because we would reach a maximum of 8 MB in 2030. It would be interesting if we had a initial 8 MB limit and a 17.7% yearly increase.

Regardless if Bitcoin is to remain decentralized the max block size needs to increase, and it needs to increase a lot over time. Otherwise it will become too expensive to use and people will be forced to either use the traditional banking system or centralized systems like LN and side chains. There is no way around this. There is a good chance that it might get more expensive to run a full node.

Actually I disagree, and so does Gavin (among other people). Blockchain systems do not scale properly, nor were they designed to do so. We can't just infinitely increase the block size, this will just lead to other problems. We need other solutions that are going to be built on top of the blockchain or that are going to work completely off-chain.
Demonstration of the lack of scalability with Bitcoin:
At 1 MB per block, Bitcoin has a average of ~3 transactions per seconds (see D&T thread). Visa has an average of 2,000 tps (a maximum of 56,000).  Just to reach the average that Visa handles (not the maximum, nor peak times) everyday we would need ~666.6MB blocks right now.
Just for reference, we would need ~18.6666 GB blocks to be able to process the same amount of transactions that Visa can.
Tl;dr:
Bitcoin can't scale well on its own. We need to do everything, i.e. increase the block size, implement sidechains, the lightning network, payment channels. Everything.

[K210]

Even more important, how will miners make money?

If they will be getting the transaction fees what's the incentive to mine?

change to proof of stake screw the miners

[dachnik]

If we believe in consensus, instead of turning Bitcoin into a mindless machine, then we should be able to reach it consistently when the need arises.
Doing it every 4 years seems like a reasonable exercise, so that we remember how to stay vigilant. That's why I advocate one-off fork with 8Mb hard cap.

[MoorChael]

Where such information? It's just a suggestion to conduct discussions or reliable information?

[jonald_fyookball]

Where such information? It's just a suggestion to conduct discussions or reliable information?

see this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157575.0