Thanks to people who support 1-2 MB blocks - great idea u fools...

[tl121]

so in the end if we have 1MB blocks floating around we'd expect each peer to use ~1.1MB of bandwidth every 10mins for TX propagation.

No, a node needs at least 8 peers to serve its purpose well. If it doesn't the messages risk not being propagated fast enough throughout the whole network.

Do you understand the word "overhead"?

The gossip broadcasting still has to occur between peers and it is valuable for them be well connected.

Stop being under the impression that you are somehow onto novel ideas, you really think too much of yourself.

Not all nodes need to have the same connectivity. It is possible to have very low average connectivity and still have a topology that has a small diameter.  An extreme example  would be a star topology with one node having N -1 connections to the remaining N - 1 nodes, each of which had a single connection.  There would be an average connectivity of about two and transmission would be fast (2 hops).

The most efficient topology (based on propagation time) will be a function of the bandwidth of individual connections and individual nodes.  Using random connections will not be optimal if there is a wide disparity in node performance and network bandwidth.  There are other possible optimizations that will minimize the effect of multiple hop transmissions, particularly of large blocks.  None of these ideas are new, having been well understood in the area of computer networking for decades.  The unique difficulty where bitcoin is concerned is the absence of any central network management and the need to operate under denial of service attacks.

[1714640060]

1714640060

[1714640060]

1714640060

[1714640060]

1714640060

[1714640060]

1714640060

[1714640060]

1714640060

[brg444]

so in the end if we have 1MB blocks floating around we'd expect each peer to use ~1.1MB of bandwidth every 10mins for TX propagation.

No, a node needs at least 8 peers to serve its purpose well. If it doesn't the messages risk not being propagated fast enough throughout the whole network.

Do you understand the word "overhead"?

The gossip broadcasting still has to occur between peers and it is valuable for them be well connected.

Stop being under the impression that you are somehow onto novel ideas, you really think too much of yourself.

Not all nodes need to have the same connectivity. It is possible to have very low average connectivity and still have a topology that has a small diameter.  An extreme example  would be a star topology with one node having N -1 connections to the remaining N - 1 nodes, each of which had a single connection.  There would be an average connectivity of about two and transmission would be fast (2 hops).

The most efficient topology (based on propagation time) will be a function of the bandwidth of individual connections and individual nodes.  Using random connections will not be optimal if there is a wide disparity in node performance and network bandwidth.  There are other possible optimizations that will minimize the effect of multiple hop transmissions, particularly of large blocks.  None of these ideas are new, having been well understood in the area of computer networking for decades.  The unique difficulty where bitcoin is concerned is the absence of any central network management and the need to operate under denial of service attacks.

I'm well aware of that but for Bitcoin to remain robust there is a certain minimum to achieve.

[adamstgBit]

The issue you only now realize is the lack of well connected peers throughout the network.

The solution is more full nodes.

Surely you also now understand raising the block size is not ideal nor desired as it stands.

as it stands, no i am forced to conclude raising block limit any higher then a few MB's will start to cost to much in terms of bandwidth for home users to stay online.

with optimizations, i believe 500MB block limit will be the absolute limit for most home users.

i think gavin banking on tech improving enough to allow for GB blocks in a matter of years is very optimistic. maybe he doesn't care too much that full nodes no longer run on home networks....

[brg444]

The issue you only now realize is the lack of well connected peers throughout the network.

The solution is more full nodes.

Surely you also now understand raising the block size is not ideal nor desired as it stands.

as it stands, no i am forced to conclude raising block limit any higher then a few MB's will start to cost to much in terms of bandwidth for home users to stay online.

with optimizations, i believe 500MB block limit will be the absolute limit for most home users.

i think gavin banking on tech improving enough to allow for GB blocks in a matter of years is very optimistic. maybe he doesn't care too much that full nodes no longer run on home networks....

 

Optimizations like everyone running SPV I suppose....

Again, you can "optimize" overhead and inefficiencies, but you still have to communicate the whole block of data. There's no way you get around that.

[Argwai96]

Wow i i haven been really up to date on the block size drama in till today again i noticed a 240k volume on transactions since yesterday. talk about waiting for a transaction paying .0001

[adamstgBit]

The issue you only now realize is the lack of well connected peers throughout the network.

The solution is more full nodes.

Surely you also now understand raising the block size is not ideal nor desired as it stands.

as it stands, no i am forced to conclude raising block limit any higher then a few MB's will start to cost to much in terms of bandwidth for home users to stay online.

with optimizations, i believe 500MB block limit will be the absolute limit for most home users.

i think gavin banking on tech improving enough to allow for GB blocks in a matter of years is very optimistic. maybe he doesn't care too much that full nodes no longer run on home networks....

 

Optimizations like everyone running SPV I suppose....

Again, you can "optimize" overhead and inefficiencies, but you still have to communicate the whole block of data. There's no way you get around that.

no no no

simple shit like :

1) making sure the gossip network actually does make every peer on average use 503Bytes to get everyone to hear about a 500Byte msg.
2) communicate new blocks by listing all the TX ID's in that block instead of in full.
3) has SOME trusted centralized nodes dedicated to allowing new nodes to sync fast ( probably don't even need to trust them using some fancy PGP or something)
4) and yes some SPV, and maybe different types of nodes, simi-full node, full node, super node, minner node.

wtv it takes.

[brg444]

The issue you only now realize is the lack of well connected peers throughout the network.

The solution is more full nodes.

Surely you also now understand raising the block size is not ideal nor desired as it stands.

as it stands, no i am forced to conclude raising block limit any higher then a few MB's will start to cost to much in terms of bandwidth for home users to stay online.

with optimizations, i believe 500MB block limit will be the absolute limit for most home users.

i think gavin banking on tech improving enough to allow for GB blocks in a matter of years is very optimistic. maybe he doesn't care too much that full nodes no longer run on home networks....

 

Optimizations like everyone running SPV I suppose....

Again, you can "optimize" overhead and inefficiencies, but you still have to communicate the whole block of data. There's no way you get around that.

no no no

simple shit like :

1) making sure the gossip network actually does make every peer on average use 503Bytes to get everyone to hear about a 500Byte msg.
2) communicate new blocks by listing all the TX ID's in that block instead of in full.
3) has SOME trusted centralized nodes dedicated to allowing new nodes to sync fast ( probably don't even need to trust them using some fancy PGP or something)
4) and yes some SPV, and maybe different types of nodes, simi-full node, full node, super node, minner node.

wtv it takes.

Yes, your intention are clear. Diverge from the trustless decentralized model of Bitcoin to accomodate more spam.

Hopefully you sell your coins so we can be done with people like you and move away from such toxic attitudes.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoin is first and foremost about censorship resistance and decentralization. The rest is bells and whistles.

Everyone needs to understand that.  Time to put this back in my sig.

Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

[adamstgBit]

Bitcoin is first and foremost about censorship resistance and decentralization. The rest is bells and whistles.

Everyone needs to understand that.  Time to put this back in my sig.

Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

if you can trade off a small amount of decentralization for a large gain in efficiency...

it's not so clear cut.

[brg444]

Bitcoin is first and foremost about censorship resistance and decentralization. The rest is bells and whistles.

Everyone needs to understand that.  Time to put this back in my sig.

Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

if you can trade off a small amount of decentralization for a large gain in efficiency...

it's not so clear cut.

You're trying to install trusted centralized nodes in the system, gtfo  

Bitcoin will scale beyond its blockchain. Stop trying to figure out ways to break it.

[coalitionfor8mb]

if you can trade off a small amount of decentralization for a large gain in efficiency...

I don't know why,
but it sounded a bit like "you can trade off a small amount of freedom for some gain in security" 

Muhahahaha!!!

[adamstgBit]

Bitcoin is first and foremost about censorship resistance and decentralization. The rest is bells and whistles.

Everyone needs to understand that.  Time to put this back in my sig.

Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

if you can trade off a small amount of decentralization for a large gain in efficiency...

it's not so clear cut.

You're trying to install trusted centralized nodes in the system, gtfo  

Bitcoin will scale beyond its blockchain. Stop trying to figure out ways to break it.

https://bitcoin.org/en/download

a centralized source of download bitcoin   

[adamstgBit]

Hopefully you sell your coins so we can be done with people like you and move away from such toxic attitudes.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

i ain't selling buddy i'm forking along with the 70% of miners 

[brg444]

Bitcoin is first and foremost about censorship resistance and decentralization. The rest is bells and whistles.

Everyone needs to understand that.  Time to put this back in my sig.

Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

if you can trade off a small amount of decentralization for a large gain in efficiency...

it's not so clear cut.

You're trying to install trusted centralized nodes in the system, gtfo  

Bitcoin will scale beyond its blockchain. Stop trying to figure out ways to break it.

https://bitcoin.org/en/download

a centralized source of download bitcoin   

[Meuh6879]

troll ... but ... well :

ed2k
torrent
freenet
dropbox
mega
4shared
...


  find the 3 errors ...

[coalitionfor8mb]

BTW, it currently costs $60 a month to run a full node on a dedicated Microsoft Azure VM. This includes virtual hardware (includes 1 dedicated CPU core) and bandwidth, which is around 600GB a month (mostly outgoing). It is not quite "free" anymore.

By the way, has any of you guys considered running a full node in the cloud, as Soros Shorts suggested above?
Would that solve the problem for at least 8MB blocks? Just wondering...

[adamstgBit]

BTW, it currently costs $60 a month to run a full node on a dedicated Microsoft Azure VM. This includes virtual hardware (includes 1 dedicated CPU core) and bandwidth, which is around 600GB a month (mostly outgoing). It is not quite "free" anymore.

By the way, has any of you guys considered running a full node in the cloud, as Soros Shorts suggested above?
Would that solve the problem for at least 8MB blocks? Just wondering...

why would i do that when i can run it free from home?

i already have unlimited bandwidth

[brg444]

BTW, it currently costs $60 a month to run a full node on a dedicated Microsoft Azure VM. This includes virtual hardware (includes 1 dedicated CPU core) and bandwidth, which is around 600GB a month (mostly outgoing). It is not quite "free" anymore.

By the way, has any of you guys considered running a full node in the cloud, as Soros Shorts suggested above?
Would that solve the problem for at least 8MB blocks? Just wondering...

Running a full node "in the cloud" defeats the whole purpose of running a node which is to be independent.

[RoadTrain]

no no no

simple shit like :

1) making sure the gossip network actually does make every peer on average use 503Bytes to get everyone to hear about a 500Byte msg.
2) communicate new blocks by listing all the TX ID's in that block instead of in full.
3) has SOME trusted centralized nodes dedicated to allowing new nodes to sync fast ( probably don't even need to trust them using some fancy PGP or something)
4) and yes some SPV, and maybe different types of nodes, simi-full node, full node, super node, minner node.

wtv it takes.

It's disheartening to see how some people want to sacrifice Bitcoin's uniqueness just because they hope that more txs on blockchain will somehow help in their get rich quick scheme. Nothing unexpected, though...

Truth is, there might be optimizations in the relay protocol, but I doubt they are as significant in the grand scheme of things.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Hopefully you sell your coins so we can be done with people like you and move away from such toxic attitudes.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

i ain't selling buddy i'm forking along with the 70% of miners 

75% i guess.