BIP 100 and BIP 101 = i like both...

[knight22]

I like the idea of BIP100 except for the 32meg limit. It would be much better if we do not have to go through all of this again in a few years from now. I like BIP101 because it is a more permanent solution. If BIP100 did not have the 32meg limit I would absolutely support that instead.

This is the misinformation that I keep talking about. You think that BIP101 is a permanent solution. 8 GB blocks are not a permanent solution. If Bitcoin achieves its supposed goals, then 8 GB will be a inefficient temporary solution.
A 32 MB limit gives enough room for other solutions to be developed and implemented (they're much more efficient).

The same logic can also be applied with the 8 GB blocks...  and at least it is a much longer term solution.

[adamstgBit]

If you end up pushing the developing countries into a situation where they have no miners at all (so all just running SPV clients) then I wonder how much they'll end up actually trusting Bitcoin (as that is something controlled by those with high speed internet in the rich developed countries).

they don't have FED printing press and they trust dollars don't they?

[meono]

Am I mistaken or BIP100 has a blocksize hard cap at 32 mb while BIP101 goes up to 8 gb?

So we are seriously concerned now that 32 MB is going to become an issue in the next year or two so we should be thinking GBs per block?

If the point was to have all the world's txs on Bitcoin then it seems odd that only the part of the world that has the very best internet will be able to use it in a few years.

Very smart argument there

Since when bitcoin users = bitcoin nodes?

Its very clear from Satoshi that he doesnt even expect users to run nodes.

Current network: 6800 nodes ,

Most users even use thin wallets.

right which is why MAYBE GB limits would be OK but we are way to far away from that to make any reasonable choice about it now.

right now BIP 100 would have us set for years.

for years ,..... how many? and then what?

Blocksize limit isnt the solution to ANY problem you think a large limit may cause. Its not. Even at 1MB, not many ppl are willing to run nodes at home. Even at 1MB, miners can still do selfish mining attack. Even at 1MB, miners still dont fill blocks if doing so increase their orphan rate.

There should be a better way to governing. Let the economic incentives do its thing again. We dont have solution for this yet. But using blocksize limit isnt one.

[dachnik]

...
I think that BIP 100 is a more intelligent approach as it allows the miners (the only people that really matter in regards to block sizes) to vote between themselves as to when an increase should occur (rather than just relying upon a theory that bandwidth will increase much like processing power).
...

I wouldn't give miners that much freedom with regards to the block size limit.
A group of well-connected profit-driven miners would have little consideration for full nodes' capacity to handle the increased traffic.
They (miners), in fact, might not even notice the drop in the number of full nodes, while playing with increased block sizes.

A static flat cap gives end users running full nodes a way to stay in the game and to limit the voting power given to the miners.
Static limit is really hard to abuse from that perspective.

[CIYAM]

A static flat cap gives end users running full nodes a way to stay in the game and to limit the voting power given to the miners.

Huh - what on earth do you mean?

You do understand that a "full node" that is not mining has "no stake in the game" don't you?

You either keep running a full node or you don't (according to how much bandwidth you have) but no-one is going to care one way or the other (it is basically irrelevant whether or not you run a full node if you are not mining).

[dachnik]

A static flat cap gives end users running full nodes a way to stay in the game and to limit the voting power given to the miners.

Huh - what on earth do you mean?

You do understand that a "full node" that is not mining has "no stake in the game" don't you?

You either keep running a full node or you don't (according to how much bandwidth you have) but no-one is going to care one way or the other (it is basically irrelevant whether or not you run a full node if you are not mining).

Right now, miners cannot produce blocks larger than 1Mb (thanks to full nodes' consensus not to accept them). Even if it is economically viable for miners to increase the limit, they can't. I suggest we jump from 1Mb to 8Mb hard cap and re-evaluate in about 4 years based on the data we collect.

[CIYAM]

Right now, miners cannot produce blocks larger than 1Mb (thanks to full nodes' consensus not to accept them), even if it is economically viable for miners to increase the limit, they can't. I suggest we jump from 1Mb to 8Mb hard limit and re-evaluate in about 4 years based on the data we collect.

Okay - yes I get what you mean now.

I think that there might have been a BIP to do just that also.

But understand that as less and less people run full nodes the miners will actually end up more in control (eventually I think all consensus will be decided by the miners only as there is no economic incentive for non-miners to run full nodes).

[VeritasSapere]

I like the idea of BIP100 except for the 32meg limit. It would be much better if we do not have to go through all of this again in a few years from now. I like BIP101 because it is a more permanent solution. If BIP100 did not have the 32meg limit I would absolutely support that instead.

This is the misinformation that I keep talking about. You think that BIP101 is a permanent solution. 8 GB blocks are not a permanent solution. If Bitcoin achieves its supposed goals, then 8 GB will be a inefficient temporary solution.
A 32 MB limit gives enough room for other solutions to be developed and implemented (they're much more efficient).

32MB allows for like 50X increase in traffic, it would be years away. and when it came down to it poeple would sell their bitcoin and you'd know what to do.

Where did you come up with a 50X increase in traffic with a 32x increase in the block size limit?

This is the nirvana fallacy. Just because we can not scale Bitcoin efficiently it does mean we should not scale Bitcoin at all. I am starting to see that there is a big difference when you look at this problem from a political and economics perspective, compared to when you look at this problem from a technical perspective. From a purely technical perspective you are correct. However from a political and economics perspective 8 GB is a huge step up from 1 MEG, and does make a huge difference in terms of adoption and the survival of Bitcoin in the long term. I do think this maybe should be the last hard fork we ever do for Bitcoin since consensus will most likely be even more difficult to reach in the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12267335#msg12267335

[dachnik]

Right now, miners cannot produce blocks larger than 1Mb (thanks to full nodes' consensus not to accept them), even if it is economically viable for miners to increase the limit, they can't. I suggest we jump from 1Mb to 8Mb hard limit and re-evaluate in about 4 years based on the data we collect.

Okay - yes I get what you mean now.

I think that there might have been a BIP to do just that also.

But understand that as less and less people run full nodes the miners will actually end up more in control (eventually I think all consensus will be decided by the miners only as there is no economic incentive for non-miners to run full nodes).

Miners determine the longest chain, full nodes determine the valid chain.
The longest valid chain is called Bitcoin, so both miners and full nodes have a say in what Bitcoin is.

Statically capped Bitcoin with gradually increasing soft limits is Bitcoin we all recognize and value.
Hope that stays.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Right now, miners cannot produce blocks larger than 1Mb (thanks to full nodes' consensus not to accept them), even if it is economically viable for miners to increase the limit, they can't. I suggest we jump from 1Mb to 8Mb hard limit and re-evaluate in about 4 years based on the data we collect.

Okay - yes I get what you mean now.

I think that there might have been a BIP to do just that also.

But understand that as less and less people run full nodes the miners will actually end up more in control (eventually I think all consensus will be decided by the miners only as there is no economic incentive for non-miners to run full nodes).

Miners determine the longest chain, full nodes determine the valid chain.
The longest valid blockchain is called Bitcoin, so both miners and full nodes have a say in what Bitcoin is.

Statically capped Bitcoin with gradually increasing soft limits is Bitcoin we all recognize and value.
Hope that stays.

Miners also determine the valid chain because they also run full nodes. CIYAM stated it.

-snip-
But understand that as less and less people run full nodes the miners will actually end up more in control (eventually I think all consensus will be decided by the miners only as there is no economic incentive for non-miners to run full nodes).

[dachnik]

Right now, miners cannot produce blocks larger than 1Mb (thanks to full nodes' consensus not to accept them), even if it is economically viable for miners to increase the limit, they can't. I suggest we jump from 1Mb to 8Mb hard limit and re-evaluate in about 4 years based on the data we collect.

Okay - yes I get what you mean now.

I think that there might have been a BIP to do just that also.

But understand that as less and less people run full nodes the miners will actually end up more in control (eventually I think all consensus will be decided by the miners only as there is no economic incentive for non-miners to run full nodes).

Miners determine the longest chain, full nodes determine the valid chain.
The longest valid blockchain is called Bitcoin, so both miners and full nodes have a say in what Bitcoin is.

Statically capped Bitcoin with gradually increasing soft limits is Bitcoin we all recognize and value.
Hope that stays.

Miners also determine the valid chain because they also run full nodes. CIYAM stated it.

-snip-
But understand that as less and less people run full nodes the miners will actually end up more in control (eventually I think all consensus will be decided by the miners only as there is no economic incentive for non-miners to run full nodes).

Miners normally constitute a small minority in the network of full nodes. It is the rest of the network (non-mining nodes) that prevents miners from forging the definition of "valid" chain. Thus letting miners alone decide on the block size limit gives them unprecedented ability to wipe out the rest of the network and redefine what "valid" chain is.

[johnyj]

Anything beyond 2020 is a best effort guess

[CIYAM]

In regards to this whole blocksize debate I think one further thing needs to be stated and that is "what are the Chinese miners going to do?".

The Chinese miners account for more than 50% of the hashpower so in effect it is really up to them what will happen (as much as that probably galls all westerners).

My guess is that they'll remain silent about the issue but will decide one way or the other and we'll find out about that early next year (so all the grandstanding going on now will actually amount to nothing).

(by "miners" I am meaning "mining pools" of course)

[LiteCoinGuy]

Let me ask you something directly then (no, this is not an ad hominem attempt). Why did you initially ignore both BIP 100 and 102 when I (along with a few others) were telling you guys to read about both of them?
BIP100 has been around for quite some time and I've talked about it in multiple threads.

hopefully miners are aware of this option and start voting for it.

Yes they are.
BIP 100 support:
DiscusFish / F2Pool
Kano CKPool
BitClub Network

because it wasn't well pushed. and at first it seemed overly complex for nothing, at first it seemed an agreement would be made when the BIP went from 20MB down to 8MB. but with so much disagreement, this idea of letting the network form the agreement is looking good.

also, LiteCoinGuy turning around appears to have turned the market! well done LiteCoinGuy  

you are wrong - i was always a big block guy not an XT guy per se. 



but if we find no consensus, XT is still my way  

[johnyj]

In regards to this whole blocksize debate I think one further thing needs to be stated and that is "what are the Chinese miners going to do?".

The Chinese miners account for more than 50% of the hashpower so in effect it is really up to them what will happen (as much as that probably galls all westerners).

My guess is that they'll remain silent about the issue but will decide one way or the other and we'll find out about that early next year (so all the grandstanding going on now will actually amount to nothing).

(by "miners" I am meaning "mining pools" of course)

No, hash power is not the one that decide where bitcoin will go, consensus is

Imagine that Chinese government took over most of the mining farms in china and controlled 70% of network hash power, made their fork and created client bitcoin BJ (BJ stands for BeiJing), with their party leader deciding the future coin generation scheme. What will happen?

No one will use their fork, no merchant will accept that client, coins on that chain would worth nothing, those hash power working on that chain would just be wasted electricity

The censorship resistance is not achieved through physical hash power(In this case you can't fight against BJ coin fork since it has majority of hash power), but through a consensus. Anything that brake this consensus is automatically excluded out of the current bitcoin ecosystem. Of course those hash power could harm the network if they attack, but the damage is limited: Anyone who hold his coin will not be affected by the attack

[CIYAM]

No, hash power is not the one that decide where bitcoin will go, consensus is

You might have missed my earlier post - but if the requirements (such as bandwidth) for running a full-node become too much then no-one is going to run one other than a miner.

Thus the consensus will be according to the miners as the SPV nodes (everyone else) will simply accept that.

So a vote for "huge blocks" is basically a vote to reduce the consensus decision to a very small group of miners.

[dachnik]

Anything beyond 2020 is a best effort guess

True.

In a system that values consensus, like Bitcoin, it would be natural for participants to exercise achieving it consistently on a regular basis.
I suggest we re-evaluate the grounds that Bitcoin is standing on (with a possibility of a hard fork to rectify known issues) every 4 years.
The "halving celebration" needs to be well deserved by having to achieve consensus on how Bitcoin's going to move forward.

Raising the hard cap would be one of those issues on the table.

In regards to this whole blocksize debate I think one further thing needs to be stated and that is "what are the Chinese miners going to do?".

The Chinese miners account for more than 50% of the hashpower so in effect it is really up to them what will happen (as much as that probably galls all westerners).

My guess is that they'll remain silent about the issue but will decide one way or the other and we'll find out about that early next year (so all the grandstanding going on now will actually amount to nothing).

(by "miners" I am meaning "mining pools" of course)

Chinese miners alone won't be able to replace the 6000 full nodes that exist in the network today, but they can collectively agree to implement a soft limit on block size in case a more aggressive approach gains momentum. From what I've heard, the move from 20Mb to 8Mb was pushed by Chinese miners due to poor connectivity in the region.

[CIYAM]

Maybe you guys "just don't get it" but I no longer run a "full node" because I live in China and the bandwidth doesn't work (so I would think that pretty much no-one in China runs a full node on a home-grade internet connection).

Although I am only using "home internet' I am sure that others in China would also have problems trying to run full nodes due to the controls of the internet here (so you are simply not going to see any Chinese nodes able to handle GB blocks with any reasonable speed).

[adamstgBit]

Maybe you guys "just don't get it" but I no longer run a "full node" because I live in China and the bandwidth doesn't work (so I would think that pretty much no-one in China runs a full node on a home-grade internet connection).

Although I am only using "home internet' I am sure that others in China would also have problems trying to run full nodes due to the controls of the internet here.

so what?

i live in canada with gr8 internet and haven't ran a full node in years. why should i? miners run full nodes.

decentralized != 100% evenly distributed / accessible

[CIYAM]

i live in canada with gr8 internet and haven't ran a full node in years. why should i? miners run full nodes.

Then the decision (about block size) is 100% up to the miners not up to the "other nodes" as was being suggested by others (my earlier point).