the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin

[crazyearner]

I thought  bitcoin was about being fee free or very little. Put the price up people gonna be hating and stop using if it goes up a lot more. If a little bit then not so bad but if it gets to that put am sure many will just look at other methods of alt coins out their without the fees or very little like btc use to have and not worried about waiting now if sending with little fees takes too long to confirm.

[1715546070]

1715546070

[1715546070]

1715546070

[adamstgBit]

well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS

Why on earth would they?

Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee?

I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that).

most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease

i sure as hell am not asking everyone on earth to run a full bitcoin node.

i'm asking for ~10,000nodes.

THE TX HASH IS ONLY USED TO COMMUNICATE BLOCK INFORMATION BETWEEN MINERS.

ALL TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE TRANSMITTED BY THE NODES (BANDWIDTH), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO PROCESS (GPU), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO STORE (HD)

GODDAMNIT YOU ARE STUPID

YES I'M MAD  

yes i know, stop yelling, 1MBPS allows for streaming a max of ~4,000 TPS
processing and storage is just as easy.
if you can't store 1MB of data pre second your HD sucks balls
if you can't process 1MB of TX pre second your GPU sucks balls.
point is a 1000$ computer with a home connection can deal with 4,000 TPS

did you expect bitcoin full nodes to run on embedded devices?

It's not 1MB you retard, it's the full block. THERE IS NO COMPRESSION!!!

you're not getting what i'm saying...

you can expect a home computer to stream 600MB in 10mins easy, yes or no?

[CIYAM]

you can expect a home computer to stream 600MB in 10mins easy, yes or no?

While it is streaming two HD movies at the same time?

You seem to think that people are going to donate all of their bandwidth (for no return) just to run Bitcoin. Why on earth would they do that?

There is *no reward* for running a Bitcoin node if you are not mining so I am pretty sure you are going to find no-one to run these 10K nodes you want.

And again I'll say (as none of you guys want to answer it) why hasn't Bitcoin already taken on the likes of Western Union and won?

[adamstgBit]

you can expect a home computer to stream 600MB in 10mins easy, yes or no?

While it is streaming two HD movies at the same time?

You seem to think that people are going to donate all of their bandwidth (for no return) just to run Bitcoin. Why on earth would they do that?

There is *no reward* for running a Bitcoin node if you are not mining so I am pretty sure you are going to find no-one to run these 10K nodes you want.

blockchain.info needs a full node

bitpay

every exchange.

etc.


sometimes you say SPV clients was always part of the plan for end users, and sometimes you say end users need to all run full nodes which is it?

[CIYAM]

blockchain.info needs a full node

bitpay

every exchange.

etc.

And you think that they are running home-grade internet connections (and are not running full nodes)?

[brg444]

well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS

Why on earth would they?

Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee?

I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that).

most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease

i sure as hell am not asking everyone on earth to run a full bitcoin node.

i'm asking for ~10,000nodes.

THE TX HASH IS ONLY USED TO COMMUNICATE BLOCK INFORMATION BETWEEN MINERS.

ALL TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE TRANSMITTED BY THE NODES (BANDWIDTH), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO PROCESS (GPU), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO STORE (HD)

GODDAMNIT YOU ARE STUPID

YES I'M MAD  

yes i know, stop yelling, 1MBPS allows for streaming a max of ~4,000 TPS
processing and storage is just as easy.
if you can't store 1MB of data pre second your HD sucks balls
if you can't process 1MB of TX pre second your GPU sucks balls.
point is a 1000$ computer with a home connection can deal with 4,000 TPS

did you expect bitcoin full nodes to run on embedded devices?

It's not 1MB you retard, it's the full block. THERE IS NO COMPRESSION!!!

you're not getting what i'm saying...

you can expect a home computer to stream 600MB in 10mins easy, yes or no?

I'm done with you. 

[adamstgBit]

blockchain.info needs a full node

bitpay

every exchange.

etc.

And you think that they are running home-grade internet connections?

no i expect something about 10X better.

but i want to keep full node accessible to as many poeple as possible for as long as possible

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic  

[CIYAM]

sometimes you say SPV clients was always part of the plan for end users, and sometimes you say end users need to all run full nodes which is it?

I don't say end-users need to run full nodes but I have said that some might do so if that matters to them (in particular they might do that if they have a lot of BTC).

[CIYAM]

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic  

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly.

[adamstgBit]

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic  

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

i don't run a full node either.

is bitcoin centralized?

[adamstgBit]

i give up.

[CIYAM]

So it comes down to what you consider to be "centralised".

If that is that "everyone should run it" (the full version) then Bitcoin clearly fails that test.

Others believe that provided we have enough *players* (that perhaps come from different countries) then it can still be considered to be decentralised (and that is basically what Satoshi had pretty much stated).

[adamstgBit]

So it comes down to what you consider to be "centralised".

If that is that "everyone should run it" (the full version) then Bitcoin clearly fails that test.

my def of centralised is "fully controlled by 1 entity"

[marky89]

That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.

Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

no one is suggesting we shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain, just bitcoin tx should appear on the blockchain.

Actually, that's part of the issue that I have with this discussion. There is this tendency towards tunnel vision about what scaling means. The way people are approaching this is, "no matter what transactions comprise blocks at present, we unequivocally need to increase capacity (as much as possible) to include any/all transactions." That's an irresponsible approach, and why we saw the community rally around such a reckless implementation as BIP 101 / XT.

I am not interested in the bitcoin blockchain including any/all transactions. This should be a legitimate topic of discussion, not to be brushed aside. If we want to be technical, an altcoin like Devcoin could be used to make much, much smaller microtransactions than bitcoin. But it doesn't logically follow that we should alter the protocol to include divisibility past the satoshi unit or lower the dust threshold considerably lower than 546 satoshis simply to include these useless transactions. Clearly, there must be some discussion of what transactions belong on the blockchain, to optimize efficiency and encourage decentralization.

[CIYAM]

my def of centralised is "fully controlled by 1 entity"

So then - even if we have two entities by your definition it would not be centralised.

Personally I'd think two is not enough but I don't have a ready formula to respond with apart from that I think it would be best to have at least two entities from every major country.

Another point that I'd like to make is there is no reason to only have one blockchain (and it will be possible to transfer funds between different blockchains in the future as I've already built tech to do that).

[adamstgBit]

my def of centralised is "fully controlled by 1 entity"

So then - even if we have two entities by your definition it would not be centralised.

not in bitcoin case, with 2 one always has more than 51% hashing power and therefore 1 of them could control the whole thing.

my views on what constitutes  "decentralized" are pretty minimal, of course the more the better, 10K plus is a worthy target.

[adamstgBit]

That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.

Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

no one is suggesting we shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain, just bitcoin tx should appear on the blockchain.

Actually, that's part of the issue that I have with this discussion. There is this tendency towards tunnel vision about what scaling means. The way people are approaching this is, "no matter what transactions comprise blocks at present, we unequivocally need to increase capacity (as much as possible) to include any/all transactions." That's an irresponsible approach, and why we saw the community rally around such a reckless implementation as BIP 101 / XT.

I am not interested in the bitcoin blockchain including any/all transactions. This should be a legitimate topic of discussion, not to be brushed aside. If we want to be technical, an altcoin like Devcoin could be used to make much, much smaller microtransactions than bitcoin. But it doesn't logically follow that we should alter the protocol to include divisibility past the satoshi unit or lower the dust threshold considerably lower than 546 satoshis simply to include these useless transactions. Clearly, there must be some discussion of what transactions belong on the blockchain, to optimize efficiency and encourage decentralization.

what does scaling mean to you? 7TPS with high fees, and with lighting network and or side-chains?

"what transactions belong on the blockchain, to optimize efficiency and encourage decentralization. "
as many as we can get, until there are so many that a typical home computer can handle the traffic and this starts to affect  decentralization in a big way. at which point we cap the blocksize and let fees run up, until a better faster internet is available to all. and again we let in as many TX as we can get, until there are so many that a typical home computer can't handle the traffic and this starts to affect decentralization in a big way.

that would be my answer.

we could limit ourselves so that bitcoin full nodes can run in an embedded device, but why would we? limiting ourselves to a typical home computer makes more sense.

thing is you could say bitcoin needs to consume no more then 10% of a typical home computers resources, and you'd still be able to push the TPS to 400. so i find it SILLY to think 1MB is the good limit.

[marky89]

"what transactions belong on the blockchain, to optimize efficiency and encourage decentralization. "
as many as we can get

And that, my friend, is the crux of the problem. Unfortunately I don't really have the technical expertise to do this analysis, but I would love to see some analysis of median value transacted vs. transaction size, generally, on the blockchain.... with the approach in mind that there ought to be a threshold under which we are content not (reliably) relaying transactions (i.e. most nodes refuse to relay them while under significant mempool load).

Ideally, those making uneconomical (default unspendable) transactions ought to be penalized, and considerably so, in order to prevent the cost of their transactions from being socialized. One approach is obviously to allow block size to grow limitlessly (virtually or literally). The question, then, is whether this is a) responsible, and b) necessary (are there alternatives?)

[uxgpf]

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic  

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly.

Maybe something is wrong with your laptop or maybe The Great Firewall prevents you from syncing? (I presume you live in China)
My desktop (with a mobile CPU, so basically same as your average laptop) runs fully validating node just all right.
CPU Usage is at 6% and upload and download usage is mostly under 10kB/s, which is tiny fraction of my bandwidth.

I have even relatively slow connection by local standards 50/10 Mb/s. Currently where I live you can get 100/100 Mb/s for roughly 19,90€/month and I wouldn't be surprised if in few years that is 1 Gb/s. (For streaming multiple channels of 4k video and whatnot.) On this planet there's millions of homes with such internet connections and only few thousand need to run full nodes.

[brg444]

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic  

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly.

Maybe something is wrong with your laptop or maybe great firewall prevents you from syncing? (I presume you live in china)
Mine runs fully validating node just all right.
MY CPU Usage is at 6% and upload and download usage is mostly under 10kB/s, which is tiny fraction of my bandwidth.

I have even relatively slow connection by local standards 50/10Mb. Currently where I live you can get 100/100 Mb for roughly 19,90€/month and I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years that is 1Gb/s. There's millions of people with such home connections and only few thousand need to run full nodes.

How did you come up with this number?

What if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes then I guess as it stands the rest of the network is in pretty bad shape heh?