Time To Grow Up

[tmltd]

A very nice and simple analysis that puts the right perspective to the block size incident.
Well spoken, I hope the devs are not deaf.

[wearehatetherules]

good analysist dude,got some information here.

[dachnik]

good analysist dude,got some information here.

A very nice and simple analysis that puts the right perspective to the block size incident.
Well spoken, I hope the devs are not deaf.

Thanks!

[RoadTrain]

It just shows what has happened to this forum that I see the same non-technical guys arguing the same stuff in numerous topics (with no technical guys even bothering to join in).

So whatever side you take about the situation what you won't find here is any real technical discussion about it (the ad sig campaigns have probably made sure of that).

+1000 to this. I guess it's been that way since 2012 at least, if not earlier.

[LiteCoinGuy]

if core stays, XT will be a distant bad memory very quickly.

I concur. If people stay with Core (a solution is implemented), the XT will be forgotten along with Gavin and Hearn.

 

iam pretty sure people will think again when they have to pay 1 USD for each transaction  

[CIYAM]

iam pretty sure people will think again when they have to pay 1 USD for each transaction  

Why?

The masses cannot use Bitcoin for buying coffee (it simply can't scale for that) and even the increased blocksize idea in XT would not scale up to the same size as something like Visa for many years (so even if XT became the main chain it won't be replacing the current payment systems for many years if ever).

So the only txs that most are going to make are going to be larger ones where 1 USD per tx might not be much at all (especially compared to something like Western Union).

The most logical area that Bitcoin can *own* is remittance and anyone thinking otherwise is just not looking at the reality.

I think it makes the most sense to first take on remittance and get rid of the ridiculous fees that are having to be paid currently in that area (how about we solve that first before worrying about people buying their coffee with Bitcoin?).

[Kprawn]

The answer is straight forward... everyone know the block size must be increased... is this necessary now? Probably not yet... but some people create a perception that it is,

by doing all these fake tests to scare people. During these fake tests { I'd rather call it attacks } a simulated small scale "mainstream" scenario is fabricated and people think

this would be the norm soon. {Nobody knows this for sure} The two forks enjoy this fake scenario, because both of them have hidden agenda's for pushing for these forks.

This whole situation could have been prevented, if they simply bumped the block size a little, without all the added bells n whistles.   

[tvbcof]

if core stays, XT will be a distant bad memory very quickly.

I concur. If people stay with Core (a solution is implemented), the XT will be forgotten along with Gavin and Hearn.

 

 

You don't think they'll be welcomed back with open arms do you?

Face it, Mike & Gavin are Bitcoin history at this point, a footnote at that.

Caution:  Don't count either one of them out.  Hearn in particular is like some sort of a zombie from a horror show who has kept popping up for the 4 years that I've been following things with one shitty idea after another about how to destroy Bitcoin.  Just like in real life, many people have either very poor memories or are to lazy to research history.  Or are wierd shill-like creatures which at this point I find a pretty compelling hypothesis to explain some of the participants here.

[Klestin]

1) Bitcoin XT
Allows the block size to increase exponentially to the point, where home-based nodes will no longer be able to participate in consensus.

I don't agree with that assessment, for four reasons:

1) Technology continues to improve.  e.g. $100 worth of hard drive space 15 years ago costs about 17 cents today.
2) Block size cap != block size.  The cap is 1MB now, yet we have no 1MB caps.  The blocks will increase as needed to store the transactions that we have. Assumptions of 100% filled blocks are baseless.
3) If the increase based on transactions is still judged too quick, the miners can always choose to include only some of the transactions, based on size, priority, fee, their mood of the day, etc.
4) BIP 101 is not the end-all be-all. It's a best-guess shot in the dark.  If it needs to be adjusted, it can be.  It can even be adjusted down with a soft fork.

Hearn and Gavin made a mistake by releasing XT with BIP 101 with a 75% activation rule.  They made a further mistake by including unrelated changes in XT.  We should not let these issues confuse the examination of the block cap increase BIP alternatives.  The simplest of the alternatives that actually has a chance to meet demand is BIP 101.

[RoadTrain]

1) Bitcoin XT
Allows the block size to increase exponentially to the point, where home-based nodes will no longer be able to participate in consensus.

I don't agree with that assessment, for four reasons:

1) Technology continues to improve.  e.g. $100 worth of hard drive space 15 years ago costs about 17 cents today.
2) Block size cap != block size.  The cap is 1MB now, yet we have no 1MB caps.  The blocks will increase as needed to store the transactions that we have. Assumptions of 100% filled blocks are baseless.
3) If the increase based on transactions is still judged too quick, the miners can always choose to include only some of the transactions, based on size, priority, fee, their mood of the day, etc.
4) BIP 101 is not the end-all be-all. It's a best-guess shot in the dark.  If it needs to be adjusted, it can be.  It can even be adjusted down with a soft fork.

Hearn and Gavin made a mistake by releasing XT with BIP 101 with a 75% activation rule.  They made a further mistake by including unrelated changes in XT.  We should not let these issues confuse the examination of the block cap increase BIP alternatives.  The simplest of the alternatives that actually has a chance to meet demand is BIP 101.

The top three reasons are perfect examples of worst possible assumptions, on which no sound engineering (especially of decentralized consensus-critical payment network) can be based.

[Klestin]

The top three reasons are perfect examples of worst possible assumptions, on which no sound engineering (especially of decentralized consensus-critical payment network) can be based.

Once again,  BIP 101 is not the end-all be-all.  It's a first stab at the problem, and a reasonable one at that, imo.

But let's take the worst case scenario: technology ceases to improve whatsoever, transaction volume skyrockets enough to fill all blocks 100%, and all the miners (irrationally) choose to jam every block completely full.  In that world, a reasonable desktop PC running on a home connection, and with hard drives that today cost about $300 will have zero problems keeping up and storing the data, and operating as full nodes, until at least the year 2023.  In that made-up, dystopian apocalyptic future, we would have to (gasp!) consider a fork... eight years from now.

Is it really reasonable to assume zero technology improvements in the next eight years? Of course not.

[RoadTrain]

The top three reasons are perfect examples of worst possible assumptions, on which no sound engineering (especially of decentralized consensus-critical payment network) can be based.

Once again,  BIP 101 is not the end-all be-all.  It's a first stab at the problem, and a reasonable one at that, imo.

But let's take the worst case scenario: technology ceases to improve whatsoever, transaction volume skyrockets enough to fill all blocks 100%, and all the miners (irrationally) choose to jam every block completely full.  In that world, a reasonable desktop PC running on a home connection, and with hard drives that today cost about $300 will have zero problems keeping up and storing the data, and operating as full nodes, until at least the year 2023.  In that made-up, dystopian apocalyptic future, we would have to (gasp!) consider a fork... eight years from now.

Is it really reasonable to assume zero technology improvements in the next eight years? Of course not.

I don't know what your numbers are based on, but take a look at Bitfury's calculations (Table 2). Currently, in the worst case scenario, my PC could handle 8Mb blocks, but I wouldn't bother running a node that consumes 1MB/s of traffic and eats more than 1GB space a day.

[Klestin]

How on Earth do 8MB blocks consume 1MB per second traffic?  You would have to make the assumption that each and every full node must serve a legion of leech nodes.

1 GB of space per day works out to a cost of 3.6 cents per day - a whopping $13 for the entire year.  With today's prices.  And assuming all blocks magically 100% filled.

[knight22]

iam pretty sure people will think again when they have to pay 1 USD for each transaction  

Why?

The masses cannot use Bitcoin for buying coffee (it simply can't scale for that) and even the increased blocksize idea in XT would not scale up to the same size as something like Visa for many years (so even if XT became the main chain it won't be replacing the current payment systems for many years if ever).

So the only txs that most are going to make are going to be larger ones where 1 USD per tx might not be much at all (especially compared to something like Western Union).

The most logical area that Bitcoin can *own* is remittance and anyone thinking otherwise is just not looking at the reality.

I think it makes the most sense to first take on remittance and get rid of the ridiculous fees that are having to be paid currently in that area (how about we solve that first before worrying about people buying their coffee with Bitcoin?).

So basically you are suggesting to get rid of all the companies that got into bitcoin for other things than remittance? We should tell people to outright stop investing and innovating on top of that open network because we don't really want it to be THAT open after all because we fear it cannot scale while in fact it perfectly can?

Meanwhile some people are expecting that somehow a massive amount of nodes (thanks to the artificially kept small blockchain) will be run on a network that nobody can really use but a few niche areas.

This makes absolute no sense to me.

[brg444]

iam pretty sure people will think again when they have to pay 1 USD for each transaction  

Why?

The masses cannot use Bitcoin for buying coffee (it simply can't scale for that) and even the increased blocksize idea in XT would not scale up to the same size as something like Visa for many years (so even if XT became the main chain it won't be replacing the current payment systems for many years if ever).

So the only txs that most are going to make are going to be larger ones where 1 USD per tx might not be much at all (especially compared to something like Western Union).

The most logical area that Bitcoin can *own* is remittance and anyone thinking otherwise is just not looking at the reality.

I think it makes the most sense to first take on remittance and get rid of the ridiculous fees that are having to be paid currently in that area (how about we solve that first before worrying about people buying their coffee with Bitcoin?).

So basically you are suggesting to get rid of all the companies that got into bitcoin for other things than remittance? We should tell people to outright stop investing and innovating on top of that open network because we don't really want it to be THAT open after all because we fear it cannot scale while in fact it perfectly can?

Meanwhile some people are expecting that somehow a massive amount of nodes (thanks to the artificially kept small blockchain) will be run on a network that nobody can really use but a few niche areas.

This makes absolute no sense to me.

Get rid? No.

We should just be realistic and tell people it isn't conceivable nor desirable to put all their transactions on the main chain.

Bitcoin will scale using payment channels, side chains & off chain services so that we can guarantee the robustness of the foundation layer 

[knight22]

iam pretty sure people will think again when they have to pay 1 USD for each transaction  

Why?

The masses cannot use Bitcoin for buying coffee (it simply can't scale for that) and even the increased blocksize idea in XT would not scale up to the same size as something like Visa for many years (so even if XT became the main chain it won't be replacing the current payment systems for many years if ever).

So the only txs that most are going to make are going to be larger ones where 1 USD per tx might not be much at all (especially compared to something like Western Union).

The most logical area that Bitcoin can *own* is remittance and anyone thinking otherwise is just not looking at the reality.

I think it makes the most sense to first take on remittance and get rid of the ridiculous fees that are having to be paid currently in that area (how about we solve that first before worrying about people buying their coffee with Bitcoin?).

So basically you are suggesting to get rid of all the companies that got into bitcoin for other things than remittance? We should tell people to outright stop investing and innovating on top of that open network because we don't really want it to be THAT open after all because we fear it cannot scale while in fact it perfectly can?

Meanwhile some people are expecting that somehow a massive amount of nodes (thanks to the artificially kept small blockchain) will be run on a network that nobody can really use but a few niche areas.

This makes absolute no sense to me.

Get rid? No.

We should just be realistic and tell people it isn't conceivable nor desirable to put all their transactions on the main chain.

Bitcoin will scale using payment channels, side chains & off chain services so that we can guarantee the robustness of the foundation layer  

You didn't address my point at all.

[brg444]

iam pretty sure people will think again when they have to pay 1 USD for each transaction  

Why?

The masses cannot use Bitcoin for buying coffee (it simply can't scale for that) and even the increased blocksize idea in XT would not scale up to the same size as something like Visa for many years (so even if XT became the main chain it won't be replacing the current payment systems for many years if ever).

So the only txs that most are going to make are going to be larger ones where 1 USD per tx might not be much at all (especially compared to something like Western Union).

The most logical area that Bitcoin can *own* is remittance and anyone thinking otherwise is just not looking at the reality.

I think it makes the most sense to first take on remittance and get rid of the ridiculous fees that are having to be paid currently in that area (how about we solve that first before worrying about people buying their coffee with Bitcoin?).

So basically you are suggesting to get rid of all the companies that got into bitcoin for other things than remittance? We should tell people to outright stop investing and innovating on top of that open network because we don't really want it to be THAT open after all because we fear it cannot scale while in fact it perfectly can?

Meanwhile some people are expecting that somehow a massive amount of nodes (thanks to the artificially kept small blockchain) will be run on a network that nobody can really use but a few niche areas.

This makes absolute no sense to me.

Get rid? No.

We should just be realistic and tell people it isn't conceivable nor desirable to put all their transactions on the main chain.

Bitcoin will scale using payment channels, side chains & off chain services so that we can guarantee the robustness of the foundation layer  

You didn't address my point at all.

Which is?

[knight22]

Which is?

Meanwhile some people are expecting that somehow a massive amount of nodes (thanks to the artificially kept small blockchain) will be run on a network that nobody can really use but a few niche areas.

Basically, who will care running a node at all?

[brg444]

Which is?

Meanwhile some people are expecting that somehow a massive amount of nodes (thanks to the artificially kept small blockchain) will be run on a network that nobody can really use but a few niche areas.

Basically, who will care running a node at all?

Oh... that... well..it would be a legitimate point if it made any sense at all..unfortunately it doesn't.

Without nodes there's no Bitcoin and without Bitcoin there is no payment channels, sidechains, off-chain services, nothing.

So basically by running a node you are not only supporting Bitcoin but all of its ecosystem. Imagine when nodes get commoditized and every one can set easily set up one and maintain it a little to no cost, the ultimate decentralization!

Of course that can't happen if you bloat the blockchain so much that you'd need specialized hardware/datacenters to run it.

[knight22]

Which is?

Meanwhile some people are expecting that somehow a massive amount of nodes (thanks to the artificially kept small blockchain) will be run on a network that nobody can really use but a few niche areas.

Basically, who will care running a node at all?

Oh... that... well..it would be a legitimate point if it made any sense at all..unfortunately it doesn't.

Without nodes there's no Bitcoin and without Bitcoin there is no payment channels, sidechains, off-chain services, nothing.

So basically by running a node you are not only supporting Bitcoin but all of its ecosystem. Imagine when nodes get commoditized and every one can set easily set up one and maintain it a little to no cost, the ultimate decentralization!

Of course that can't happen if you bloat the blockchain so much that you'd need specialized hardware/datacenters to run it.

Look I'm not here to argue that decentralization + having a maximum of full nodes and security is not important. It is and I do care about that a lot just like you do.

But how does that solve any problem about bloating? The bloat will just go elsewhere btw and there will still need people to run sidechain nodes with massive bloat.

Another thing, how do you expect to keep most of the miners on the main chain if most transaction volume happen on sidechains? How do you know if a sidechain will, at some point, become much more profitable to mine than the main chain? You don't, just like myself but risk is very real because big transaction volume = big potential transaction fees. You should think about the consequences of this very probable scenario.