Bitcoin Forum
October 18, 2018, 11:36:54 PM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   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 1985 times)
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1001



View Profile
November 17, 2015, 07:31:17 PM
 #21

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.

this can be translated in the fact that what will be the best choice for us, will be the perfect choice that was needed

personally i'm with the dynamic block if it can be implemented well
1539905814
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539905814

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539905814
Reply with quote  #2

1539905814
Report to moderator
1539905814
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539905814

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539905814
Reply with quote  #2

1539905814
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1539905814
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539905814

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539905814
Reply with quote  #2

1539905814
Report to moderator
1539905814
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539905814

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539905814
Reply with quote  #2

1539905814
Report to moderator
1539905814
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539905814

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539905814
Reply with quote  #2

1539905814
Report to moderator
Denker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1013


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 08:34:01 PM
 #22

Increase it! 2MB, 4MB whatever. But decentralisation must be retained! Big blocks and centralization will make us really vulnerable and therefore is strictly to avoid!
shorena
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1276


No I dont escrow anymore.


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2015, 08:48:02 PM
 #23

What about BIP 103? What about "dont care as long as O(1) propagation + LN is done" and a multitude of other options?

I dont think you can put all possible options in a vote.
Mickeyb
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000

Move On !!!!!!


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 09:45:55 PM
 #24

Yes, it's been awhile since we had one of these block size increase pools! Smiley

I say 8MB and keep it there for a while until we don't see the consequences, etc! Even Chinese miners have said yes to 8MB and they were making the most problems about this increase!
danielW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 277
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 10:55:37 PM
 #25

Voted 2mb. Maybe more down the line.
Wary
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


Who's there?


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 11:13:40 PM
 #26

2 Mb. Just because it's politically easier to implement. It'll buy us some time.
Time to implement something different, like lightning.

My favorite one - the solution that was suggested at the conference: introduce the second type of blocks that contain transactions only and issued 60 times more often, every 10 seconds or so. Those blocks are not for determining winner of reward, so they won't cause orphan problems. This solution will give us 60 times more space for transactions and reduce confirmation time 60-fold!  I think it is the perfect solution, even better than lightning, since it's not hub-based.

Fairplay medal of dnaleor's trading simulator. Smiley
Quantus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 883
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 17, 2015, 11:24:19 PM
 #27

1 MB forever

(I am a 1MB block supporter who thinks all users should be using Full-Node clients)
Avoid the XT shills, they only want to destroy bitcoin, their hubris and greed will destroy us.
Know your adversary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1377



View Profile
November 17, 2015, 11:24:57 PM
 #28

My favorite one - the solution that was suggested at the conference: introduce the second type of blocks that contain transactions only and issued 60 times more often, every 10 seconds or so. Those blocks are not for determining winner of reward, so they won't cause orphan problems. This solution will give us 60 times more space for transactions and reduce confirmation time 60-fold!  I think it is the perfect solution, even better than lightning, since it's not hub-based.

That's a really good idea, I wonder why that hasn't been attracting more attention? That's the first time I've heard that idea, I kind of like it.

Vires in numeris
Sir_lagsalot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 251



View Profile
November 17, 2015, 11:36:59 PM
 #29

I think it should be dynamic, or even just for a week, we try our am the options, and miners vote on a specific option. That way we'll get the best option possible.


░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ▄▄
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ █▀▀█
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ █▄▄█
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█▀▀▀▀▀█                         
░░░░░▄▄▄ ░░░░░░░▄█▄ ░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄
░░░▄▀░░░▀▄░░░░░░░▀█▀░░░░░░ ▄▀░░░░▄█
░░▄▀▀▄▄█░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ▀▀▀
▄█░░░░░░█▄ ░░░░█▄▄▄▄▄█░░░░░░░░░░░
▀▄█▄░░░▄█▄▀▄▀▀█ ▀▄▄▀ █▀▀▄░░ ▀▄░░░▄▀
░░░▄█▀▀▀█▄▄▀▀░░░█▄▀█▀▄█░░░▀▀▄▀ █▀█▀▄
▄▀░░▀▀▀  █░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
█   ▄           █      █          █          █     █    █    █  █
█   █           █      █          █          █     █    █    █  █
█   █           █      █          █          █     █    █    █  █
||
spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 18, 2015, 01:12:48 AM
 #30

2 Mb. Just because it's politically easier to implement. It'll buy us some time.
Time to implement something different, like lightning.

My favorite one - the solution that was suggested at the conference: introduce the second type of blocks that contain transactions only and issued 60 times more often, every 10 seconds or so. Those blocks are not for determining winner of reward, so they won't cause orphan problems. This solution will give us 60 times more space for transactions and reduce confirmation time 60-fold!  I think it is the perfect solution, even better than lightning, since it's not hub-based.

This sounds like a wise plan.
cohnhead
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 18, 2015, 01:34:11 AM
 #31

is my understanding correct...is the controversy over block larger size...going from 1mb to 2mb or 8mb or even higher... due to the fact that it would be more costly to run full nodes...being that 2mb is more costly to purchase than 1 mb?
Wary
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


Who's there?


View Profile
November 18, 2015, 10:25:20 AM
 #32

My favorite one - the solution that was suggested at the conference: introduce the second type of blocks that contain transactions only and issued 60 times more often, every 10 seconds or so. Those blocks are not for determining winner of reward, so they won't cause orphan problems. This solution will give us 60 times more space for transactions and reduce confirmation time 60-fold!  I think it is the perfect solution, even better than lightning, since it's not hub-based.

That's a really good idea, I wonder why that hasn't been attracting more attention? That's the first time I've heard that idea, I kind of like it.
I wonder myself  Huh  Here is the link to the paper. https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/presentations/Day1/8-Ittay-eyal-testbed-for-bitcoin-scaling.pdf
The description is in the second half, it's called Bitcoin-NG.
I've found some articles about it http://hackingdistributed.com/2015/10/14/bitcoin-ng/, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-ng-or-how-cornell-researchers-think-a-radical-redesign-can-solve-bitcoin-s-scaling-issues-1447108649
And here is the discussion or Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3or365/bitcoinng_proposal_for_a_secure_faster_better/

Fairplay medal of dnaleor's trading simulator. Smiley
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1377



View Profile
November 18, 2015, 12:05:07 PM
 #33

Thanks Wary, I'm going to take a look at that info.

Vires in numeris
krach
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 1002


"every thought has a sound"


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2015, 12:17:43 PM
 #34

Im in favor of BIP 105 or something similar.
Soros Shorts
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1591
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 18, 2015, 12:32:10 PM
 #35

I did not vote because I feel that any scaling strategy should involve more that one dimension, i.e. the blocksize cannot be determined on its own in isolation of everything else.

It was super annoying to see big block pushers who kept screaming "Blocksize must go up because Bitcoin needs to scale!" whereas six months ago they probably had no experience and no clue as to what scaling a distributed system involves. They seem to have shut up a bit now.
tss
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 18, 2015, 01:43:13 PM
 #36

It's been awhile since blocksize has been talked about.. curious to everyones opinion.

everyone's opinion is still the same.

bitcoin will fail if we increase blocksize
and
bitcoin will fail if we dont increase blocksize.   

i can't say i am glad to see this post.  blocksize debate is getting tired.
spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 18, 2015, 01:45:50 PM
 #37

It's been awhile since blocksize has been talked about.. curious to everyones opinion.

everyone's opinion is still the same.

bitcoin will fail if we increase blocksize
and
bitcoin will fail if we dont increase blocksize.   

i can't say i am glad to see this post.  blocksize debate is getting tired.

Those non mining blocks for transactions sounds very promising.
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1152


View Profile
November 18, 2015, 01:48:01 PM
 #38

It's been awhile since blocksize has been talked about.. curious to everyones opinion.

everyone's opinion is still the same.

bitcoin will fail if we increase blocksize
and
bitcoin will fail if we dont increase blocksize.   

i can't say i am glad to see this post.  blocksize debate is getting tired.

Wrong, Bitcoin will never fail, universe will collapse before it fails. Lightning Network will allow to payments to scale globally, without the need of an insane block size will would surely result in corporations running nodes instead of random people all over the planet. Don't be a pessimist, we are making solid progress.

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1634


GUNBOT Licenses up to 50% OFF - 'GrumpyKitty'.


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2015, 01:58:11 PM
 #39

everyone's opinion is still the same.

bitcoin will fail if we increase blocksize
and
bitcoin will fail if we dont increase blocksize.   

i can't say i am glad to see this post.  blocksize debate is getting tired.
You're the one who's wrong and who isn't reading anything. If we increase with the right proposal Bitcoin will not fail. If we do not do anything Bitcoin will also not fail. Bitcoin has already succeeded.

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

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

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1377



View Profile
November 18, 2015, 01:59:10 PM
 #40

I did not vote because I feel that any scaling strategy should involve more that one dimension, i.e. the blocksize cannot be determined on its own in isolation of everything else.

It was super annoying to see big block pushers who kept screaming "Blocksize must go up because Bitcoin needs to scale!" whereas six months ago they probably had no experience and no clue as to what scaling a distributed system involves. They seem to have shut up a bit now.

That's sounding super well-rounded to me, +1

Vires in numeris
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!