[POLL] Which is more centralizing? Small Blocks or Big Blocks?

[jonald_fyookball]

  The "big=central" votes crept up from 1 to 5 over the last couple hours but no one except brg posted supporting it.. hmmmmmmm

[Soros Shorts]

I think big blocks would have a disproportionately negative effect on grassroots distributed mining operations such as p2pool. Because of the 30 second p2pool blocks, the effect would be far worse than for a regular pool or mining farm.

Ok, so the hashrate contribution of p2pool is low, but why kill a good thing?

[coalitionfor8mb]

Small blocks, big blocks...
Nah, we need spaceblocks!
But because space is infinite, 8MB will satisfy the condition only if it gets laid, hence the hard-fork!  

[johnyj]

There are different types of centralization, if you are not careful, you will always end up with one type of centralization. The real question is which type of centralization is most dangerous for bitcoin

An extremely small block will make the blockchain work like Fedwire system: Only coins worth more than 1 million dollars can be transferred in a timely and cheap manner, thus blockchain will only serve the rich and institutions. Although anyone can run a node, they can not afford making transactions on blockchain, they have to rely on payment processors and web wallet providers to do micro transactions

An extremely large block will make the blockchain work like IT admin's club: Only those mainframe server sitting on internet backbone can relay the blocks, all the other nodes have to connect to them in SPV style, no normal people can run a node, they have to rely on those supernodes to do transaction

If any powerful entity want to kill the bitcoin network, they will easily do that through killing those super nodes, but they will achieve almost nothing by killing those web wallet providers and payment processors, because the damage is limited at micro transactions. So the first kind of centralization is less dangerous than the second

Of course these are extreme cases, some where in between we might find a balance point where both centralization do not happen. But from survival point of view, the first is always the safest bet

[gogxmagog]

pretty sure smaller blocks = more centralized. still dont really understand the whole thing, but Andreas seems to think so, so I\m betting on his opinion. arent the only people in favour of smaller blocks the big private miners? that should tell you something...anyways, the network is going to figure it out. just like the hard fork all those years ago... much arguing, but as soon as it was in effect and the network survived everybody shut up.

[jonald_fyookball]

much arguing, but as soon as it was in effect and the network survived everybody shut up.

Yep. 

Then next topic.

Maybe block halving if that doesn't come sooner.

If nothing else, we can also fall back on constant price speculation. 

[erik777]

If the blocks were *extremely* large I could buy the notion that the hardware costs would be prohibitive. But per Moores Law the jump to 8 MB from 1 MB six years ago is actually regressive - at 18 months per doubling we ought to be at 16 MB by now.

Moores law seems to be exempting internet speed. 

http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/23/akamai-global-average-internet-speed-grew-10-year-over-year-to-5-0-mbps-but-only-4-6-have-broadband/

[adamstgBit]

If the blocks were *extremely* large I could buy the notion that the hardware costs would be prohibitive. But per Moores Law the jump to 8 MB from 1 MB six years ago is actually regressive - at 18 months per doubling we ought to be at 16 MB by now.

Moores law seems to be exempting internet speed. 

http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/23/akamai-global-average-internet-speed-grew-10-year-over-year-to-5-0-mbps-but-only-4-6-have-broadband/

at 5MBPS

takes 1 second to download 5MB

why in the world are we thinking 1-8MB
we should be thinking 100-800MB

[MicroGuy]

Block size is not the centralizing factor. Bitcoin core is decentralized, Bitcoin XT (by Gavin's own admission) is a totalitarian dictatorship.

[BillyBobZorton]

Also: bigger blocks = more transactions = more users = more nodes = more miners = more security in numbers = higher prices = more transactions…

More is better. It's not complicated : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6udb4LNcw

Yeah and you forgot

More blocks = centralized nodes = bitcoin dead as we know it.

Not to mention bigger possibility for exploits etc. So to think it's as simple as more is better is having no idea how this works. Otherwise there would be no debate about it.

[jonald_fyookball]

If the blocks were *extremely* large I could buy the notion that the hardware costs would be prohibitive. But per Moores Law the jump to 8 MB from 1 MB six years ago is actually regressive - at 18 months per doubling we ought to be at 16 MB by now.

Moores law seems to be exempting internet speed. 

http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/23/akamai-global-average-internet-speed-grew-10-year-over-year-to-5-0-mbps-but-only-4-6-have-broadband/

at 5MBPS

takes 1 second to download 5MB

why in the world are we thinking 1-8MB
we should be thinking 100-800MB

isn't that megabits per second not bytes?

5 megabits per second would be 8 times slower I assume since there are 8 bits in a byte.
let's use a round number and say 1 megaBYTE per second...if you want a safe download time
well under the ten minute block time, let's say 1 minute, so that would put us at around 60 megabyte blocks.

[knight22]

Block size is not the centralizing factor. Bitcoin core is decentralized, Bitcoin XT (by Gavin's own admission) is a totalitarian dictatorship.

And how a dictatorship run by 5 compromised poeple is any different?

[coalitionfor8mb]

Look at it this way.

If we target higher than 8MB, we will put home-based population of Bitcoin at risk -> slippery slope.
If we target lower than 8MB, we will artificially cap Bitcoin and allow it to mutate into sidechains.

If we don't like SW centralization and dictatorship then changing one line of code (1MB -> 8MB) is the simplest thing we could ever make.
Plus the number 8 (put on its side) opens up Bitcoin's way to infinity, so you really won't get better than this.

It's time for all of us to agree.