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

[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...

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

i already have unlimited bandwidth

The thing is, those who can run a node at home today but don't, likely won't bother doing it in the future regardless of the block size.
But those who are dedicated to it and have enough good reasons (like Holliday), might consider the cloud as a better and more convenient alternative.

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.

The home internet connections (that we already pay for) are provided by the state, so it's not quite independent either way at the moment.
I agree, that some countries made "the right to access Internet" as one of the basic human rights, but I don't know if that extends to "the cloud" as well.


There are a few more things we need to understand here.

Evolution stages are discreet for a good reason, they aren't arbitrary.
It has something to do with frequencies, resonance and energy minimums.

It means that there is a necessity to have a static limit in place (representing a stage),
but we cannot just shift it a little bit (like 2MB) in order to move forward.
We got to aim for the next stable orbit (like 8MB) if we are considering progressing at all.

As stage transitions imply "quantity -> quality", the system might lose some of its mass in the process.
However, if done carefully with decent coherency and commitment, it should be able to re-capture
that mass along the way and begin attracting new particles, while gaining more energy for the next stage.

The only thing that is still quite uncertain at this point is timing.
But, I guess, we will all know when it happens.

[1714656384]

1714656384

[1714656384]

1714656384

[1714656384]

1714656384

[adamstgBit]

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.

nothing i proposed there " sacrifice Bitcoin's uniqueness ".

there is a relay network which implements #2 and gets blocks to miners that connect to this network and configure there software to accept new blocks in this way (header + list of TX ID") get there blocks 250X faster.

clearly there are significant optimizations to be had.

whats disheartening is seeing how poeple are so afraid of the tiniest changes, bitcoin development grinds to a halt.

[coalitionfor8mb]

Haha!

"stay in 1" -> (stain)
"go for 8" -> (gr8)

Gr8ness Awaits!
(psheyshtation)

[iCEBREAKER]

whats disheartening is seeing how poeple are so afraid of the tiniest changes, bitcoin development grinds to a halt.

Hard forks are not "the tiniest of changes."

Bitcoin development has not ground to a halt.

Your problems are that you are a noob, you don't understand software development, and you don't understand Bitcoin.

Sorry about that.

[DarkHyudrA]

whats disheartening is seeing how poeple are so afraid of the tiniest changes, bitcoin development grinds to a halt.

Even if people make a hard fork to 1.5MB, it wouldn't be tiniest of changes.
Stopping mining pools to run a new daemon is easy and all, but the problem is that the world wouldn't update all at once, and the whole Bitcoin "ecosystem" would have a temporary problem with the "2 blockchains".

[adamstgBit]

whats disheartening is seeing how poeple are so afraid of the tiniest changes, bitcoin development grinds to a halt.

Even if people make a hard fork to 1.5MB, it wouldn't be tiniest of changes.
Stopping mining pools to run a new daemon is easy and all, but the problem is that the world wouldn't update all at once, and the whole Bitcoin "ecosystem" would have a temporary problem with the "2 blockchains".

I think they can all update at once, like BitcoinXT planned to do, everyone run the new software which runs old code until some high percentage of blocks are hashing with the new version. and one time there was an emergency hard fork without any of this fancy way of updating everyone all at once and it took a few hours for the new chain to catch up.

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in and of itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

[brg444]

whats disheartening is seeing how poeple are so afraid of the tiniest changes, bitcoin development grinds to a halt.

Even if people make a hard fork to 1.5MB, it wouldn't be tiniest of changes.
Stopping mining pools to run a new daemon is easy and all, but the problem is that the world wouldn't update all at once, and the whole Bitcoin "ecosystem" would have a temporary problem with the "2 blockchains".

I think they can all update at once, like BitcoinXT planned to do, everyone run the new software which runs old code until some high percentage of blocks are hashing with the new version. and one time there was an emergency hard fork without any of this fancy way of updating everyone all at once and it took a few hours for the new chain to catch up.

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in and of itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

Satoshi spoke of SPV clients that would provide fraud proof. Something that doesn't exist right now.

[Mr Felt]

whats disheartening is seeing how poeple are so afraid of the tiniest changes, bitcoin development grinds to a halt.

Even if people make a hard fork to 1.5MB, it wouldn't be tiniest of changes.
Stopping mining pools to run a new daemon is easy and all, but the problem is that the world wouldn't update all at once, and the whole Bitcoin "ecosystem" would have a temporary problem with the "2 blockchains".

I think they can all update at once, like BitcoinXT planned to do, everyone run the new software which runs old code until some high percentage of blocks are hashing with the new version. and one time there was an emergency hard fork without any of this fancy way of updating everyone all at once and it took a few hours for the new chain to catch up.

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

"i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself" <--- I like this point.  I would add that not changing is not the same and shouldn't be evaluated as a proxy for something else that isn't yet invented or otherwise ready-to-go as an alternative (ex: sidechains or LN).  From what I can understand, sidechains and LN will be groundbreaking/important regardless of blocksize. I get the feeling that a lot of folks see sidechains/ln as mutually exclusive w/ XT or any other blocksize increase BIP. 

Related question:  If you have time, what are the best two or three arguments against raising blocksize in your (or anybody else's) opinion, notwithstanding whether you agree with them? 

My background is not tech, and I'm positive I'm in the same boat w/ tons of folks, so some short bullet points would be helpful for us non-techies.  From what I can tell, the best arguments against increasing blocksize are things like: 1) security (decreased node count), 2) unreasonable economic barriers (objections based on specific BIPs (Blacklisting argument against XT) seem less concerning b/c they're fixable and negotiable).  Are there obvious solutions to the strongest arguments (whatever those are to you) that resolve the concern and still increase blocksize? 

[Zarathustra]

whats disheartening is seeing how poeple are so afraid of the tiniest changes, bitcoin development grinds to a halt.

Even if people make a hard fork to 1.5MB, it wouldn't be tiniest of changes.
Stopping mining pools to run a new daemon is easy and all, but the problem is that the world wouldn't update all at once, and the whole Bitcoin "ecosystem" would have a temporary problem with the "2 blockchains".

I think they can all update at once, like BitcoinXT planned to do, everyone run the new software which runs old code until some high percentage of blocks are hashing with the new version. and one time there was an emergency hard fork without any of this fancy way of updating everyone all at once and it took a few hours for the new chain to catch up.

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in and of itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

Yes, the stagnaters (stream blockers) are the real forkers.

[brg444]

whats disheartening is seeing how poeple are so afraid of the tiniest changes, bitcoin development grinds to a halt.

Even if people make a hard fork to 1.5MB, it wouldn't be tiniest of changes.
Stopping mining pools to run a new daemon is easy and all, but the problem is that the world wouldn't update all at once, and the whole Bitcoin "ecosystem" would have a temporary problem with the "2 blockchains".

I think they can all update at once, like BitcoinXT planned to do, everyone run the new software which runs old code until some high percentage of blocks are hashing with the new version. and one time there was an emergency hard fork without any of this fancy way of updating everyone all at once and it took a few hours for the new chain to catch up.

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

"i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself" <--- I like this point.  I would add that not changing is not the same and shouldn't be evaluated as a proxy for something else that isn't yet invented or otherwise ready-to-go as an alternative (ex: sidechains or LN).  From what I can understand, sidechains and LN will be groundbreaking/important regardless of blocksize. I get the feeling that a lot of folks see sidechains/ln as mutually exclusive w/ XT or any other blocksize increase BIP. 

Related question:  If you have time, what are the best two or three arguments against raising blocksize in your (or anybody else's) opinion, notwithstanding whether you agree with them? 

My background is not tech, and I'm positive I'm in the same boat w/ tons of folks, so some short bullet points would be helpful for us non-techies.  From what I can tell, the best arguments against increasing blocksize are things like: 1) security (decreased node count), 2) unreasonable economic barriers (objections based on specific BIPs (Blacklisting argument against XT) seem less concerning b/c they're fixable and negotiable).  Are there obvious solutions to the strongest arguments (whatever those are to you) that resolve the concern and still increase blocksize? 

1. Centralization of nodes
2. Centralization of miners

[VeritasSapere]

whats disheartening is seeing how poeple are so afraid of the tiniest changes, bitcoin development grinds to a halt.

Even if people make a hard fork to 1.5MB, it wouldn't be tiniest of changes.
Stopping mining pools to run a new daemon is easy and all, but the problem is that the world wouldn't update all at once, and the whole Bitcoin "ecosystem" would have a temporary problem with the "2 blockchains".

I think they can all update at once, like BitcoinXT planned to do, everyone run the new software which runs old code until some high percentage of blocks are hashing with the new version. and one time there was an emergency hard fork without any of this fancy way of updating everyone all at once and it took a few hours for the new chain to catch up.

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

"i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself" <--- I like this point.  I would add that not changing is not the same and shouldn't be evaluated as a proxy for something else that isn't yet invented or otherwise ready-to-go as an alternative (ex: sidechains or LN).  From what I can understand, sidechains and LN will be groundbreaking/important regardless of blocksize. I get the feeling that a lot of folks see sidechains/ln as mutually exclusive w/ XT or any other blocksize increase BIP.  

Related question:  If you have time, what are the best two or three arguments against raising blocksize in your (or anybody else's) opinion, notwithstanding whether you agree with them?  

My background is not tech, and I'm positive I'm in the same boat w/ tons of folks, so some short bullet points would be helpful for us non-techies.  From what I can tell, the best arguments against increasing blocksize are things like: 1) security (decreased node count), 2) unreasonable economic barriers (objections based on specific BIPs (Blacklisting argument against XT) seem less concerning b/c they're fixable and negotiable).  Are there obvious solutions to the strongest arguments (whatever those are to you) that resolve the concern and still increase blocksize?  

1. Centralization of nodes
2. Centralization of miners

Whether nodes will "Centralize" is somewhat of an assumption, and does also depend on the rate of increased adoption. Since when more people know about Bitcoin more people will be running full nodes, the exact balance between the difficulty of running a full node and the number of people running full nodes in the future is impossible to predict.

I do not think that increasing the blocksize would lead to increased mining centralization. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do. Miners are free to point their hashing power wherever they want and they are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin. There is in effect a free market of pools, which act as a type of representative democracy for the miners. This is why increasing the block size would not lead to increased mining centralization, even with much larger blocks miners are not effected whatsoever since the pools which run the full nodes for mining can be set up in data centers almost anywhere in the world.

[coalitionfor8mb]

Haha!

"stay in 1" -> (stain)
"go for 8" -> (gr8)

Gr8ness Awaits!
(psheyshtation)

For those of you wondering what to think of leftovers in the above.
Let's take a look.

"stay in 1" -> (stain) + (y 1) -> "Why One?" -> "Why Alone?" -> "Go out and create and bring all things back to me!"
"go for 8" -> (gr8) + (foo) -> "metasyntactic variable" usually comes with "bar" -> "raising the bar!" <- sounds gr8!

whats disheartening is seeing how poeple are so afraid of the tiniest changes, bitcoin development grinds to a halt.

Even if people make a hard fork to 1.5MB, it wouldn't be tiniest of changes.
Stopping mining pools to run a new daemon is easy and all, but the problem is that the world wouldn't update all at once, and the whole Bitcoin "ecosystem" would have a temporary problem with the "2 blockchains".

That's why 1.5 or 2 or even 4 are not the options for the hard fork, as they simply won't justify the hassle.
Small limits like these would already begin alienating home-based full nodes due to the increased load, but won't provide enough commitment to handle larger user base. That's why they won't "resonate" with the whole ecosystem and agreeing on them will be problematic. They are not "stable orbits" in that sense.

There are two ways to approach this.

1) Stay with 1MB blocks long enough and let the technology advance to the point that jumping to 8MB (for example) would still allow full nodes to continue running on home networks. There is a chance, however, that other similar systems become more attractive as the time passes and there will be no reason to bother with the changes at all. That's where Bitcoin stops being the master of its own game.

2) Jump to 8MB (as a new limit) in the near future and let the internal competition figure out the appropriate block size. This may alienate home-based full nodes during the transition stage, however, due to the increased potential to handle larger user base and therefore higher overall value (market cap) of the network, people who are committed to running a node should still be able to afford it (using other methods: cloud services or dedicated servers).


In general, there is a need to have a static limit in place as a common background representing the interests of the whole ecosystem, as it allows to keep the costs of running a node manageable and therefore provide enough validation for blockchain rules. However, if the rules are compact and simple enough, people might just want to keep them in their memories and associate them with the brand, in which case only one (single!) honest validator (or full node) would be enough to keep the integrity of the whole system intact, but since the costs of doing that are manageable (thanks to a static limit) there will be many (validators).

The risk of pushing the home-based demographic of full nodes out of the system resides in the potential, that the new static limit doesn't last very long and a few large and most active players in the ecosystem collude to keep raising it, while pushing more and more smaller players out of the validation field. The only reasonable way to prevent that is to bake the new limit into the brand itself for at least half a decade and ensure that people are aware and responsible for their actions in choosing a complying full node (or any other service) when transacting in the network.

In order words, if even your cat knows that Bitcoin is capped at 8MB per block till at least 2020, then you can rest assured that the network is holding up nicely.

[brg444]

This may alienate home-based full nodes during the transition stage, however, due to the increased potential to handle larger user base and therefore higher overall value (market cap) of the network, people who are committed to running a node should still be able to afford it (using other methods: cloud services or dedicated servers)

No.

[adamstgBit]

whats disheartening is seeing how poeple are so afraid of the tiniest changes, bitcoin development grinds to a halt.

Even if people make a hard fork to 1.5MB, it wouldn't be tiniest of changes.
Stopping mining pools to run a new daemon is easy and all, but the problem is that the world wouldn't update all at once, and the whole Bitcoin "ecosystem" would have a temporary problem with the "2 blockchains".

I think they can all update at once, like BitcoinXT planned to do, everyone run the new software which runs old code until some high percentage of blocks are hashing with the new version. and one time there was an emergency hard fork without any of this fancy way of updating everyone all at once and it took a few hours for the new chain to catch up.

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

"i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself" <--- I like this point.  I would add that not changing is not the same and shouldn't be evaluated as a proxy for something else that isn't yet invented or otherwise ready-to-go as an alternative (ex: sidechains or LN).  From what I can understand, sidechains and LN will be groundbreaking/important regardless of blocksize. I get the feeling that a lot of folks see sidechains/ln as mutually exclusive w/ XT or any other blocksize increase BIP. 

Related question:  If you have time, what are the best two or three arguments against raising blocksize in your (or anybody else's) opinion, notwithstanding whether you agree with them? 

My background is not tech, and I'm positive I'm in the same boat w/ tons of folks, so some short bullet points would be helpful for us non-techies.  From what I can tell, the best arguments against increasing blocksize are things like: 1) security (decreased node count), 2) unreasonable economic barriers (objections based on specific BIPs (Blacklisting argument against XT) seem less concerning b/c they're fixable and negotiable).  Are there obvious solutions to the strongest arguments (whatever those are to you) that resolve the concern and still increase blocksize? 

heres a good link  http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36085/what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-the-increase-of-the-block-size-limit


i'll comment on them.

Arguments against increasing

Bandwidth requirements are too much for full nodes
this is #1 argument, and is true when you talk about blocksize >8MB's without any optimizations to limit bandwidth usage for full node. I agree to delay any significant increase until optimizations implemented.

Bigger blocks will destroy the market for transaction fees
has been mostly discredited.

Bitcoin is not meant for every person on the planet to pay for their every cup of coffee
Pretty sure this idea ( bitcoin is GOLD not money ) isnt what the white paper says, and is merely an excuse to not scale bitcoin.

Consensus may not be achievable, bitcoin may split down the middle
weather devs push for 1MB to stay forever, or increase the block limit, this statement holds true. at this point there is a gr8er chance of splitting bitcoin if the answer is 1MB stays forever.

Bitcoin is destroying viability of altcoins

An increased Bitcoin blocksize would decrease demand for other blockchains, hurting investors of altcoins.

this one's just retarded.


Arguments for increasing

The transaction capacity is too low to support a global payment network
Greater blocksize will increase total transaction fees
Effective blocksize will not increase over night
Consensus will be achieved before the hardfork is initiated
Technical issues will be fixed
Slower block propagation due to bigger blocks will be mitigated by Header-first synchronization, etc.

[tonycamp]

i dont say we dont need ideas for bitcoin but ints not on the structure of blocks of bitcoin its in the market and states implementation

[adamstgBit]

in short the only good argument for not raising the block size is that it would require more bandwidth to be consumed by nodes, and in turn drop the full node count. which is a very good argument. enough to force me to agree 1MB limit is necessary. the good news this argument won't hold up for very long, as internet connectivity improves and more importantly optimizations are implemented

[brg444]

in short the only good argument for not raising the block size is that it would require more bandwidth to be consumed by nodes, and in turn drop the full node count. which is a very good argument. enough to force me to agree 1MB limit is necessary. the good news this argument won't hold up for very long, as internet connectivity improves and more importantly optimizations are implemented

There are many more good arguments but at least you are starting to see the light...!

[coalitionfor8mb]

This may alienate home-based full nodes during the transition stage, however, due to the increased potential to handle larger user base and therefore higher overall value (market cap) of the network, people who are committed to running a node should still be able to afford it (using other methods: cloud services or dedicated servers)

No.

Ok, I need to give a perspective on this first.

At the heart of creation is a perpetual push-pull engine.
You can easily see it as presented in the choreography below.
It attracts you first (at 1:24), then pushes you out (at 1:29).

That's all it does, except that in the mean time it "raises the bar".


So, how does that relate to the question at hand?

Well, the weakest (or less motivated) validators are going to be pushed out in the transition stage, while everyone rushes to the next (bar)rier.
That's where we all meet again to see who is running and where to go next.

There doesn't seem to be a good way around that.
Improvements in any areas require hard work and dedication.
That's how evolution works.


Can't be stopped
Can't be moved
Can't be rocked
...
Came to bring life
Came to get it started
Came to get it right
...
Open your hearts for me
Look what I got for you
You in the presence of gr8ness
I'll make it hot for you
Pass the rock to me
Block and I'll run with it
Here for the game
...
Dead discussion, you will not win
Cause I will not lose  

[iCEBREAKER]

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed.
not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

"i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself" <--- I like this point.

My background is not tech

Nobody with a background in tech or basic logic will accept the surreal anti-conceptual Red Queen Interpretation that "not changing" "is changing."

Anyone with a background in policy debate should know (and deeply appreciate) why the default state is status quo, not Doing Something Because Reasons.

You don't get to redefine A as Not-A and expect anyone except drooling, easily excited ADHD Redditards to support you.

Presumption has always been negative, and that's not going to change just because you think the limit needs to move up Right Fucking Now And Faster Please.

Satoshi "promised" you nothing, with the arguable exception of Nakamoto Consensus being a solution/workaround to the Byzantine General Problem.

Good luck selling your false sense of urgency, especially now that XT's governance coup was rekt like Stannis at Winterfell and Hearn/Galvin have disappeared in a cloud of public disgrace.   

[adamstgBit]

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed.
not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

"i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself" <--- I like this point.

My background is not tech

Nobody with a background in tech or basic logic will accept the surreal anti-conceptual Red Queen Interpretation that "not changing" "is changing."

Anyone with a background in policy debate should know (and deeply appreciate) why the default state is status quo, not Doing Something Because Reasons.

You don't get to redefine A as Not-A and expect anyone except drooling, easily excited ADHD Redditards to support you.

Presumption has always been negative, and that's not going to change just because you think the limit needs to move up Right Fucking Now And Faster Please.

Satoshi "promised" you nothing, with the arguable exception of Nakamoto Consensus being a solution/workaround to the Byzantine General Problem.

Good luck selling your false sense of urgency, especially now that XT's governance coup was rekt like Stannis at Winterfell and Hearn/Galvin have disappeared in a cloud of public disgrace.  

there is some urgency.
right now you can't get a TX through without a good fee.
i wonder how long you can sell that there is "plenty of time" to keep arguing in circles...