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

[adamstgBit]

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).

pretty much.

even if there was 1000X more node than miners it would still be up to them

[CIYAM]

even if there was 1000X more node than miners it would still be up to them

So - my other point is that >50% of the power comes from China and not one of the major China CEO's signed that document (about BIP 101).

Therefore my guess is that BIP 101 is not going to succeed (as the Chinese will just quietly kill it).

[adamstgBit]

even if there was 1000X more node than miners it would still be up to them

So - my other point is that >50% of the power comes from China and not one of the major China CEO's signed that document.

My guess is that BIP 101 is not going to succeed as the Chinese will just quietly kill it.

china has gr8 influence and rightfully so, ya.

XT is cooked, and not just because  Chinese don't like it NO ONE likes it.

the CEO's were pressured  into writing by XT. all i'd take away from their letter is that they see there is a need for SOME change and are willing to back the most popular implementation of that solution, they thought XT was going to be popular, i guess.

[johnyj]

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.

If you have a consensus, you don't need to vote. If you vote, you have not reach a consensus. It is consensus that matters. Suppose that 75% miners are confiscated by chinese government and fork into a BJ chain, that would still not make it bitcoin, but an altcoin

People tends to rely on authorities, when they find that human are unreliable, they turn to bitcoin, thinking that machine will be reliable. But they forget that machines are also operated by human. So rely on machine is just rely on the person that maintain the machine, even worse. They have to learn to rely on their own judgement, not blindly listening to anyone else

[CIYAM]

If you have a consensus, you don't need to vote. If you vote, you have not reach a consensus. It is consensus that matters. Suppose that 75% miners are confiscated by chinese government and fork into a BJ chain, that would still not make it bitcoin, but an altcoin

Funnily enough it is not China that is wanting to fork Bitcoin but Gavin and Mike (the US and the UK).

As usual - the Chinese are never the ones to "start a fight". Instead they'll just sit back and decide how to best profit (as they always do).

[adamstgBit]

If you have a consensus, you don't need to vote. If you vote, you have not reach a consensus. It is consensus that matters. Suppose that 75% miners are confiscated by chinese government and fork into a BJ chain, that would still not make it bitcoin, but an altcoin

Funnily enough it is not China that is wanting to fork Bitcoin but Gavin and Mike (the US and the UK).

As usual - the Chinese are never the ones to "start a fight". Instead they'll just sit back and decide how to best profit (as they always do).

they will soon realize they can best profit by putting all there hashes on BIP100 and then everyones going to LOVE BIP100 with 99% hashing power backing it, BAM we fork it seamlessly leaving 0.1% (Gavin and Mike's hashing power) mine XT. the war is over prematurely investors see bitcoin nolong hangs in the balance, they buy coins from chain and everything is back to normal.

its not rocket since chain, VOTE.

[CIYAM]

the war is over prematurely investors see bitcoin nolong hangs in the balance, they buy coins from chain and everything is back to normal.

You just missed one rather important thing.

Chinese love to gamble.

So they will not make their position known until the last possible moment (they view this whole block size thing as a way to get rich quick).

[Carlton Banks]

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  

market turn stalled, well done LiteCoinGuy    ( )

[adamstgBit]

the war is over prematurely investors see bitcoin nolong hangs in the balance, they buy coins from chain and everything is back to normal.

You just missed one rather important thing.

Chinese love to gamble.

So they will not make their position known until the last possible moment (they view this whole block size thing as a way to get rich quick).

i bet they induced the crash yesterday, they have a  plan for all this and are not scared to buy while everyone else folds under pressure they accumulate. mischievous little chinese are going to soon be the economic marjoy in BTC as well.

[TheAnalogKid]

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.

This is exactly what BIP100 gives them.  By the mining pool voting with the blocks it produces, the majority can pick what the blocksize limit is.  If the majority of Chinese pools don't want to go above 8MB, then they keep their voting at 8MB or under, and it's the top 80% of votes that judge the blocksize.

BIP100 is the perfect compromise for the current situation.  

First, it introduces a dynamic ability to adjust the size up to a 32MB maximum, which will be able to scale the network for at least the majorly forseeable future - that's potentially 224 Tps.  You have to remember that Satoshi's original limit was 33MB, which this falls inline with.  

Second, it keeps the blocksize down to a manageable size, which will prolong the lifetime of a full node on the network.  An 8GB blocksize limit with XT?  And you still clamor for decentralization, whining about the number of nodes declining?  That large of a blocksize will accelerate the centralization of nodes, as only those who have top-tier datacenter hosting will be able to run a full node due to the bandwith limits.  Hard drive sizes matter not, but with an 8GB block it would take over 6500 seconds to pass that block info on a 100Mbit network connection.  It would take over 650 seconds (longer than the 10-minute block threshold) on a Gigabit network connection.  That is completely unrealistic.

In order to surpass Visa (150 million transactions per day), we would only need a 256MB block size.  That's a far cry from needing an 8GB blocksize.
In order to surpass PayPal (10 million transactions per day), we would only need a 16MB block size.  That's a far cry from needing an 8GB blocksize.

Nodes need miners, and miners need nodes.  Each of them play a critical part in the network - without the nodes to protect the network, it fails, and without the miners to mine transactions to be protected, there's also no network.

In order to keep the miners going there needs to be enough transaction volume and fees to sustain them once the block rewards can't.  This proposal allows the market to dictate the blocksize, so that there's enough pressure in the blocks to have higher fees, but also enough block size to allow for those cheaper transactions to go through.  The proposal allows for expansion when there's enough transaction volume to warrant it, and contraction when it doesn't, so that miners will be able to maintain incentive to keep the network alive.

[dachnik]

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).

Since a lot of hash-power is concentrated in China,
it's appropriate that the majority of full nodes will then come from the rest of the world to help define what Bitcoin is.
That's the balance I see.

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.

This is exactly what BIP100 gives them.  By the mining pool voting with the blocks it produces, the majority can pick what the blocksize limit is.  If the majority of Chinese pools don't want to go above 8MB, then they keep their voting at 8MB or under, and it's the top 80% of votes that judge the blocksize.

BIP100 is the perfect compromise for the current situation.  
...

What if China fixes their connectivity problems in the future?
We will then have the highest mining capacity and decent connectivity all in one place with a mechanism that allows miners to push the block size limit high enough to dominate the blockchain completely. Hard cap allows to observe network dynamics, while staying on the safe side and adjust the limit when the need arises, while at the same time exercising achieving consensus on what the next limit should be.

[Lauda]

i figure we aren't quite at the very limit yet, all blocks are <900KB avg block size is like 500KB ish and network is running fine
so ~50X

Ah so you've made that conclusion using the amount of transactions being processeed today (not the maximum possible). Well, then you're probably right (as far as a estimation can be right).

This is the nirvana fallacy. Just because we can not scale Bitcoin efficiently it does mean we should not scale Bitcoin at all.
-snip-

Please stop spreading the nonsense that was implanted in your heads by Hearn. Nobody ever said anything about not scaling at all, thus your fallacy assumption is invalid. Some people are saying that we should not be looking into ways to scale upwards (as it is very inefficient). We have two options (hugely simplified):

• scale now with a very inefficient method (and risky)
• wait for R&D to scale with a very efficient method

Many do not realize the problems that anything untested can cause. A doubling every two years is completely unrealistic and is going to cause a lot of trouble, especially for developing lands.

In order to surpass Visa (150 million transactions per day), we would only need a 256MB block size.  That's a far cry from needing an 8GB blocksize.
In order to surpass PayPal (10 million transactions per day), we would only need a 16MB block size.  That's a far cry from needing an 8GB blocksize.
-snip-

Your calculations are not correct. I don't know where you are getting this from. Are you assuming that currently the network is doing 7 tps? Well it is not. Currently the network is doing ~3 tps, or a maximum of ~259k transactions per day (very low if we were to scale globally soon). To handle 10 million transactions per day we would need ~38MB blocks. To handle 150 million transactions we would need ~579MB blocks.

In order to keep the miners going there needs to be enough transaction volume and fees to sustain them once the block rewards can't.  This proposal allows the market to dictate the blocksize, so that there's enough pressure in the blocks to have higher fees, but also enough block size to allow for those cheaper transactions to go through.  The proposal allows for expansion when there's enough transaction volume to warrant it, and contraction when it doesn't, so that miners will be able to maintain incentive to keep the network alive.

In other words, this proposal is one of the better ones (if not the best one that we're aware of, so far).

What if China fixes their connectivity problems in the future?

Fix? Problems? There are no problems. They've built the system (i.e. Great Firewall). If you think that the censorship in China is going to go away soon, think again.

[TheAnalogKid]

What if China fixes their connectivity problems in the future?
We will then have the highest mining capacity and decent connectivity all in one place with a mechanism that allows miners to push the block size limit high enough to dominate the blockchain completely. Hard cap allows to observe network dynamic while staying on the safe side and then adjust the limit when the need arises.

First off, its the pools that vote, not the miners directly.  Which, if you aren't aware of already, the majority is currently in China and they're fine with going to 8MB today even with the crappy Infrastructure.

Second, there is a hard cap - 32MB - which has adjustable increments within it to handle active market pressure.  Which is a very reasonable cap, getting us to roughly 20 million transactions per day.  It will allow Bitcoin to surpass PayPal, and handle 1/8th the Visa transactions.

A vote for XT would do more towards fueling your fears than this proposal does.

[TheAnalogKid]

Your calculations are not correct. I don't know where you are getting this from. Are you assuming that currently the network is doing 7 tps? Well it is not. Currently the network is doing ~3 tps, or a maximum of ~259k transactions per day (very low if we were to scale globally soon). To handle 10 million transactions per day we would need ~38MB blocks. To handle 150 million transactions we would need ~579MB blocks.

The theoretical max of a 1MB blocksize is 7 Tps (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Scalability_targets).  The network is currently doing 3, but blocks are not currently maxed out (https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size).

Therefore, if we base the calculations on the theoretical max of 7Tps / 1MB, then 32MB = 224Tps in theory.  This puts us at a theoretical max of 19,353,600 transactions per day.  Let's just call it 19 mil.

If Visa is doing on average 150 million per day (http://usa.visa.com/merchants/industry-solutions/retail-visa-acceptance.jsp), then 150/19 = 7.895.  Multiply that out and you get 252.6MB as your theoretical blocksize to match/surpass Visa.

[Lauda]

The theoretical max of a 1MB blocksize is 7 Tps (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Scalability_targets).  The network is currently doing 3, but blocks are not currently maxed out (https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size).

Therefore, if we base the calculations on the theoretical max of 7Tps / 1MB, then 32MB = 224Tps in theory.  This puts us at a theoretical max of 19,353,600 transactions per day.  Let's just call it 19 mil.

If Visa is doing on average 150 million per day (http://usa.visa.com/merchants/industry-solutions/retail-visa-acceptance.jsp), then 150/19 = 7.895.  Multiply that out and you get 252.6MB as your theoretical blocksize to match/surpass Visa.

This is not how that works. Read this thread. The network can not handle 7 tps, that's a myth. Even though my calculation was done pretty quickly and without doing (extensive) research it is much more correct than yours.
Also don't say "surpass Visa". To surpass their network, we would need to be able to process more than 56 000 transactions per seconds (which is their current maximum).

[dachnik]

What if China fixes their connectivity problems in the future?
We will then have the highest mining capacity and decent connectivity all in one place with a mechanism that allows miners to push the block size limit high enough to dominate the blockchain completely. Hard cap allows to observe network dynamic while staying on the safe side and then adjust the limit when the need arises.

First off, its the pools that vote, not the miners directly.  Which, if you aren't aware of already, the majority is currently in China and they're fine with going to 8MB today even with the crappy Infrastructure.

Second, there is a hard cap - 32MB - which has adjustable increments within it to handle active market pressure.  Which is a very reasonable cap, getting us to roughly 20 million transactions per day.  It will allow Bitcoin to surpass PayPal, and handle 1/8th the Visa transactions.

A vote for XT would do more towards fueling your fears than this proposal does.

Chinese pools are likely not running on a "home internet" connection, that's why they have evaluated that 8Mb is probably ok for them. But the ability to run a full node at home for the rest of the network would be a must if we want a healthy network of nodes. Fortunately, in Europe, US, and other developed countries home connections are capable of handling 8Mb blocks, though some users might suffer from this temporarily before the tech catches up.

Regarding, 32Mb limit. I'm not sure if it comes from the original network message limitation in Bitcoin or is a new addition related to BIP100. It was explained somewhere on this forum, that the block no longer has to fit in one network message (due to headers first implementation), so that original 32Mb limit may no longer apply. But better call the experts on this.

All in all, BIP100 seems fairly balanced to me, so I wouldn't be opposed to it, just thought that a 8Mb static cap was easier to implement without bugs and safer from perspective of manipulation attempts by the miners.

[BitProdigy]

I like BIP100 also, I would be happy with either BIP100 or BIP101 implemented on Core.

[adamstgBit]

I like BIP100 also, I would be happy with either BIP100 or BIP101 implemented on Core.

+1

All in all, BIP100 seems fairly balanced to me, so I wouldn't be opposed to it, just thought that a 8Mb static cap was easier to implement without bugs and safer from perspective of manipulation attempts by the miners.

same exact feeling, but BIP100 should be fine, and it's not as extreme so we can all agree to it more easily

[maokoto]

I am relatively new to this discussion, but seems that everybody (or almost) supports a raise in the block size, either by BIP 100, 101 or XT.

Some people say it is not needed to raise block limit yet, but still support a raise. I have seen considerably less people supporting that maintaining the block size to 1MB is the way to go so ...

Wouldn´t be better to make some preasure on the developers to do the raise instead of fighting about the XT vs. Core thing?

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Mining pools are really starting to show support of BIP 100 in the coinbase blocksize vote.