Bitcoin Forum
December 15, 2017, 04:45:43 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Curious to everyone's opinion.
Stay the same - 8 (20.5%)
2mB - 6 (15.4%)
8mB - 5 (12.8%)
8mB + doubling every 2 years - 10 (25.6%)
Miners choose / dynamic. - 10 (25.6%)
Total Voters: 39

Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Blocksize  (Read 1976 times)
spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 06:29:24 PM
 #1

It's been awhile since blocksize has been talked about.. curious to everyones opinion.
1513313143
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513313143

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513313143
Reply with quote  #2

1513313143
Report to moderator
1513313143
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513313143

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513313143
Reply with quote  #2

1513313143
Report to moderator
1513313143
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513313143

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513313143
Reply with quote  #2

1513313143
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513313143
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513313143

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513313143
Reply with quote  #2

1513313143
Report to moderator
1513313143
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513313143

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513313143
Reply with quote  #2

1513313143
Report to moderator
1513313143
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513313143

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513313143
Reply with quote  #2

1513313143
Report to moderator
eddie13
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 06:31:55 PM
 #2

I'm not 100% convinced that it is necessary.. I just hope they don't go and screw it up..

spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 06:33:39 PM
 #3

I'm not 100% convinced that it is necessary.. I just hope they don't go and screw it up..

Then vote stay the same.

I think a move to 8MB and hold is a safe move.
mexxer-2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


Kinda back


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 06:37:09 PM
 #4

Eh I'm fine with whatever bitcoin currently is. And I think most opinions about blocksize are still unchanged, you might wanna check the old threads.
emelac
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 184



View Profile
November 17, 2015, 06:38:37 PM
 #5

I choose 8MB because I think that's what the Chinese miners favor. Without their agreement it's pointless changing the block size, and they don't want anything bigger than 8MB as far as I know. The block size argument is damaging bitcoin's image, and I hope it gets resolved before next year.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848



View Profile
November 17, 2015, 06:39:04 PM
 #6

I'm not 100% convinced that it is necessary.. I just hope they don't go and screw it up..

Then vote stay the same.

I think a move to 8MB and hold is a safe move.


Lol what's wrong with 4. I'm not sure that the 4MB option is getting a fair hearing  Grin


(tip: split "miners decide/dynamic" into separate categories, both have separate BIPs that could arguably represent each voting option)

Vires in numeris
oblivi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686



View Profile
November 17, 2015, 06:40:17 PM
 #7

2 MB so we have extra time to work on the Lightning Network. 8 maybe is a good idea too, but it may be too much of a hardcore step of a sudden that may bring some problems. If there is an huge adoption all of a sudden, its not like 8 would be enough anyway, we need LN.

..C..
.....................
........What is C?.........
..............
...........ICO            Dec 1st – Dec 30th............
       ............Open            Dec 1st- Dec 30th............
...................ANN thread      Bounty....................

spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 06:41:29 PM
 #8

I'm not 100% convinced that it is necessary.. I just hope they don't go and screw it up..

Then vote stay the same.

I think a move to 8MB and hold is a safe move.


Lol what's wrong with 4. I'm not sure that the 4MB option is getting a fair hearing  Grin


(tip: split "miners decide/dynamic" into separate categories, both have separate BIPs that could arguably represent each voting option)

Didn't know 4mB was a thing.. lol.

I am lazy and didn't want to change the poll opitions lol.
spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 06:42:16 PM
 #9

Hum.. lots of different opinions... complicates things greatly this does.
eddie13
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 06:43:33 PM
 #10

I'm not 100% convinced that it is necessary.. I just hope they don't go and screw it up..

Then vote stay the same.

I think a move to 8MB and hold is a safe move.


Sorry for being such an ignorant noob but how exactly do you place your vote? There is nothing to click.. ??

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848



View Profile
November 17, 2015, 06:45:22 PM
 #11

2 MB so we have extra time to work on the Lightning Network. 8 maybe is a good idea too, but it may be too much of a hardcore step of a sudden that may bring some problems. If there is an huge adoption all of a sudden, its not like 8 would be enough anyway, we need LN.

/thread

(not saying I support 2MB, but even the over-baked BIP101 schedule isn't enough for worldwide levels of adoption, at least according to it's author)

Vires in numeris
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2015, 06:46:21 PM
 #12

Modest increase or a dynamic block size (BIP100 isn't the only proposal that has this feature). As long as we don't try predicting the future, we should be fine. Also "miners choose/dynamic" doesn't have to necessarily be true. The block size can be dynamic without the miners choosing anything.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
oblivi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686



View Profile
November 17, 2015, 06:53:06 PM
 #13

I don't know how the dynamic blocksize BIP works, it sounds too good to be true. If it was that easy, we would have selected that method a long time ago, but im sure there are some underlying problems with it.

..C..
.....................
........What is C?.........
..............
...........ICO            Dec 1st – Dec 30th............
       ............Open            Dec 1st- Dec 30th............
...................ANN thread      Bounty....................

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2015, 06:57:33 PM
 #14

I don't know how the dynamic blocksize BIP works, it sounds too good to be true. If it was that easy, we would have selected that method a long time ago, but im sure there are some underlying problems with it.
Every single proposal that has been made has issues and every single proposal that is going to be made in the future will have it's own issues as well. Nothing is perfect, and we can't just rush into unexplored territory. A dynamic block size system like the one in the BIP100 could possibly be cheated for an example (this is just one of the problems that has to be dealt with before one could even consider its implementation in the main chain).


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 07:01:01 PM
 #15

I don't know how the dynamic blocksize BIP works, it sounds too good to be true. If it was that easy, we would have selected that method a long time ago, but im sure there are some underlying problems with it.
Every single proposal that has been made has issues and every single proposal that is going to be made in the future will have it's own issues as well. Nothing is perfect, and we can't just rush into unexplored territory. A dynamic block size system like the one in the BIP100 could possibly be cheated for an example (this is just one of the problems that has to be dealt with before one could even consider its implementation in the main chain).

This is my issue with dynamic... The ability to move the fee around to advantage certian parties...

That is why I am in agreement with 8MB.  I don't see it bloating the blockchain too much and the Chinese farms have agreed to 8MB. 2MB just seems so small.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2015, 07:03:21 PM
 #16

This is my issue with dynamic... The ability to move the fee around to advantage certian parties...

That is why I am in agreement with 8MB.  I don't see it bloating the blockchain too much and the Chinese farms have agreed to 8MB. 2MB just seems so small.
Exactly how do you think that could happen if the dynamic system is based on the size of the previous block (for example)? That's not directly possible. As I've already said dynamic != miners voting. Miners voting is just one option of a dynamic block size.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848



View Profile
November 17, 2015, 07:06:16 PM
 #17

Every single proposal that has been made has issues and every single proposal that is going to be made in the future will have it's own issues as well. Nothing is perfect, and we can't just rush into unexplored territory.

Exactly.

The choice is not to pick the "perfect" solution, it is to pick the best compromise. In practice, that means picking the most tolerable imperfection, as perfection is not an available option. Or, at least not so far.

Vires in numeris
spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 07:08:22 PM
 #18

This is my issue with dynamic... The ability to move the fee around to advantage certian parties...

That is why I am in agreement with 8MB.  I don't see it bloating the blockchain too much and the Chinese farms have agreed to 8MB. 2MB just seems so small.
Exactly how do you think that could happen if the dynamic system is based on the size of the previous block (for example)? That's not directly possible. As I've already said dynamic != miners voting. Miners voting is just one option of a dynamic block size.

Miners with the ability to upload 100mb/s might pump the blocks to their limit until the block size is so large the miners with crappy interwebz can't win a block due to their inability to propegate it.

Although a range of 1MB to 32MB would prevent this or even 8MB top.
unamis76
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 07:25:00 PM
 #19

I still have pretty much the same opinion: the best way to please everyone is a dynamic blocksize. Not sure what it should depend on, but it's a more flexible solution that may come across almost every user out there.
spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 07:30:26 PM
 #20

I still have pretty much the same opinion: the best way to please everyone is a dynamic blocksize. Not sure what it should depend on, but it's a more flexible solution that may come across almost every user out there.

My main concern is security of the blockchain.  No matter what security is #1, IMO we should always be growing in hashing power.
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!