.

[VeritasSapere]

One thing I wonder about is how to motivate miners to fill up blocks; partial blocks when there's a backlog is pretty dumb.  Here's my thought; when a block is announced then look at the backlog and if the backlog is big enough then keep working on the pre-announced work trying to find a fuller block.  Orphaning partial blocks motivates the miners to fill up the blocks.  Full blocks will attract subsequent work and eventually build a longer chain.  Everyone on the fuller (and hopefully longer) chain wins; everyone on chains with partial blocks lose.

orphaning off blocks like that would cause more problems than solutions. the main result is the smaller miners who dont have hashpower will get orphaned off more, because they include less tx's to try gaining advantage against the large farms. making mining network less distributed and in favour of the large mining farms

Hmm, https://blockchain.info/block-index/1010926/0000000000000000001e7d9e5bf68fda5332ee606963b407353fc8b0f1f4d38b came from AntPool.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen the much smaller Slush pool put out such empty blocks.

The blocksize does not effect pools such as Slush, it would have to be much larger for it to effect mining centralization in this way. If anything it would move the mining nodes out of China having a temporary decentralizing effect. We can increase the blocksize much more before it would have any significant effect on mining centralization since it is trivial for pools like Slush to run a full node for the purpose of mining, considering the scale at which these pools need to operate to even be viable in the first place. The miners themselves do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining, we pool our hash power. I mine with Slush myself, it is a good pool.

[Lauda]

I am not wrong in saying that the Lighting network is being developed by Blockstream, and that segwit arbitrarily favors this transaction type for this technology over other transaction types, call it a subsidy if you will.

Your post made it seem like Blockstream is the only one behind Lightning Network (and implied control). You should watch your wording then.

Even if Blockstream is benign, the conflict of interest is clear. Just another example of Core attempting to apply a centrally planned economic policy onto the Bitcoin protocol.

As has already been demonstrated a number of times, Bitcoin does not scale efficiently via the block size limit. Bitcoin was never and will never be suited for microtransactions. These two things you can't change unless you redesign Bitcoin from scratch (obviously not possible anymore; you can create a new coin though). The only way that Bitcoin could ever acquire mainstream adoption would be with the use of second layer solutions such as LN.

[franky1]

Meanwhile, I haven't seen the much smaller Slush pool put out such empty blocks.

slush 500k not 900k
slush 175k not 900k
slush 335k not 900k

3 blocks out of their most recent 4 blocks being 500k or less..
its not a hard and constant rule that every small miner sticks below 50% or that large miners only make large blocks. its just logic that miners are going to try different tactics to maximize their potential of winning a block.

but small hashers would be affected more as they are trying it more often

[VeritasSapere]

Even if Blockstream is benign, the conflict of interest is clear. Just another example of Core attempting to apply a centrally planned economic policy onto the Bitcoin protocol.

As has already been demonstrated a number of times, Bitcoin does not scale efficiently via the block size limit. Bitcoin was never and will never be suited for microtransactions. These two things you can't change unless you redesign Bitcoin from scratch (obviously not possible anymore; you can create a new coin though). The only way that Bitcoin could ever acquire mainstream adoption would be with the use of second layer solutions such as LN.

This is where we disagree. I think that Bitcoin can scale the blocksize limit, and it does not need to be efficient. Bitcoin can be suited for micro transactions. I think people that disagree with this vision should just create a new coin, and stop trying to "force" this alternative vision onto Bitcoin. I believe in the original vision of Bitcoin and I want the experiment to continue, I share this vision with its founder.

While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day.  Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes.  At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.

The threshold can easily be changed in the future.  We can decide to increase it when the time comes.  It's a good idea to keep it lower as a circuit breaker and increase it as needed.  If we hit the threshold now, it would almost certainly be some kind of flood and not actual use.  Keeping the threshold lower would help limit the amount of wasted disk space in that event.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

[Lauda]

This is where we disagree. I think that Bitcoin can scale the blocksize limit, and it does not need to be efficient. Bitcoin can be suited for micro transactions. I think people that disagree with this vision should just create a new coin, and stop trying to "force" this alternative vision onto Bitcoin. I believe in the original vision of Bitcoin and I want the experiment to continue, I share this vision with its founder.

These quotes are irrelevant and outdated. You can only try to disagree with something that is a fact, but that is pointless. Let me show you an example of a recent and quick calculation that I've made.

Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).

It is reasonable to assume that the average transactions per person per day would be between 5 - 10 (minimum) if Bitcoin was used for everyday purchases. You're talking about 1750 - 3 500 GB of unnecessary data per day. Unnecessary as it, can be avoided with second layer solutions. Another problem with you is that you see LN as an alternative coin, but it is not even remotely close to that.
I would love to know the validation time of a 24 GB block on the latest CPU's.  
What you don't understand is that LN gives the opportunity for two persons (or companies) to have an theoretically infinite amount of transactions between themselves and then settling on the block chain. Tell me why this is bad if the transactions on LN (a decentralized solution) are almost equally as secure, cheaper and faster (near instant transacting in a payment channel)?

[franky1]

This is where we disagree. I think that Bitcoin can scale the blocksize limit, and it does not need to be efficient. Bitcoin can be suited for micro transactions. I think people that disagree with this vision should just create a new coin, and stop trying to "force" this alternative vision onto Bitcoin. I believe in the original vision of Bitcoin and I want the experiment to continue, I share this vision with its founder.

These quotes are irrelevant and outdated. You can only try to disagree with something that is a fact, but that is pointless. Let me show you an example of a recent and quick calculation that I've made.

Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).

It is reasonable to assume that the average transactions per person per day would be between 5 - 10 (minimum) if Bitcoin was used for everyday purchases. You're talking about 3 500 GB of unnecessary data per day. This can be avoided with second layer solutions. Another problem with you is that you see LN as an alternative coin, but it is not even remotely close to that.

you not talking about today.. you are using an example of bitcoin in many many years..
its like trying to describe netflix to someone in the 1980s and telling them its impossible to have netflix then.. hello wake up.. in 30 years it will be possible.. technology grows. so will bitcoin. bitcoin will not have 700m users in 2 years. so dont use a calculation of a 30year utopian dream as your bases to discredit todays community needs of just 2mb+segwit(effectively 4mb)

[David Rabahy]

Meanwhile, I haven't seen the much smaller Slush pool put out such empty blocks.

slush 500k not 900k
slush 175k not 900k
slush 335k not 900k

3 blocks out of their most recent 4 blocks being 500k or less..
its not a hard and constant rule that every small miner sticks below 50% or that large miners only make large blocks. its just logic that miners are going to try different tactics to maximize their potential of winning a block.

but small hashers would be affected more as they are trying it more often

We don't know the backlog at those time but AntPool puts out empty blocks often during big backlogs whereas I haven't seen an empty block from Slush ever.

Any and all minors, large pool, small pool, and/or solo, ought to suffer trying to put out partial blocks when the backlog is big enough.

[franky1]

Any and all minors, large pool, small pool, and/or solo, ought to suffer trying to put out partial blocks when the backlog is big enough.

i agree they should suffer. they are getting paid 25 bitcoin and so they should be making blocks without ignoring transactions. but orphaning them off sounds good emotionally.. but not practically, the positives do not outweigh the negatives

[David Rabahy]

Any and all minors, large pool, small pool, and/or solo, ought to suffer trying to put out partial blocks when the backlog is big enough.

i agree they should suffer. they are getting paid 25 bitcoin and so they should be making blocks without ignoring transactions. but orphaning them off sounds good emotionally.. but not practically, the positives do not outweigh the negatives

Ok.  Is there another way or do we just wait for the block reward to be halved to the point where the transaction fees carry us?

[VeritasSapere]

This is where we disagree. I think that Bitcoin can scale the blocksize limit, and it does not need to be efficient. Bitcoin can be suited for micro transactions. I think people that disagree with this vision should just create a new coin, and stop trying to "force" this alternative vision onto Bitcoin. I believe in the original vision of Bitcoin and I want the experiment to continue, I share this vision with its founder.

These quotes are irrelevant and outdated. You can only try to disagree with something that is a fact, but that is pointless. Let me show you an example of a recent and quick calculation that I've made.

You reveal your scientific and engineering background. "You can only try to disagree with something that is a fact" this is not true. I have a background in philosophy, unlike science it is not based on facts alone but self evident rationality as well. Ethics for instance is not based on any "facts". And I certainly can disagree with other peoples ethics.

Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).

It is reasonable to assume that the average transactions per person per day would be between 5 - 10 (minimum) if Bitcoin was used for everyday purchases. You're talking about 1750 - 3 500 GB of unnecessary data per day. Unnecessary as it, can be avoided with second layer solutions. Another problem with you is that you see LN as an alternative coin, but it is not even remotely close to that.
I would love to know the validation time of a 24 GB block on the latest CPU's.  

You are arguing a huge straw man here. Just because we can not scale Bitcoin to twenty four blocks gigabyte blocks now it does not mean we should not scale Bitcoin at all. You have falling into the nirvana fallacy. An increase to two megabyte is huge, it doubles throughput. In the real world that is significant and it does not matter that we can not scale to 24 gigabyte blocks now. Over time maybe we can who knows, but if you are correct and LN and SD will be very popular then that will take a load of the network as well, as over time the technology increases, hopefully it will remain in step with technological progress. If that is not the case however we still can and should limit blocksize according to actual supply and demand and real technological limits. Instead of arbitrarily and unnecessarily limiting Bitcoin at one megabyte.

If people choose to use LN and SD instead of using the Bitcoin blockchain directly then that is fine. However arbitrarily and unnecessarily limiting Bitcoin at one megabyte causing increased fees and unreliability in order to push everyone onto off chain solutions is wrong, and antithetical to the original vision of Bitcoin. Just increase the blocksize and if we do not need to raise it again because everyone prefers off chain solutions then that is fine right? I think this would simply be a choice for freedom. Its not like increasing to two megabyte prevents LN and SD whereas not increasing the blocksize does prevent us from using Bitcoin directly in the way that we are used to so far. We should not radically change the economic policy of Bitcoin so early in its development, allow the experiment to continue.

[lucasjkr]

This is where we disagree. I think that Bitcoin can scale the blocksize limit, and it does not need to be efficient. Bitcoin can be suited for micro transactions. I think people that disagree with this vision should just create a new coin, and stop trying to "force" this alternative vision onto Bitcoin. I believe in the original vision of Bitcoin and I want the experiment to continue, I share this vision with its founder.

These quotes are irrelevant and outdated. You can only try to disagree with something that is a fact, but that is pointless. Let me show you an example of a recent and quick calculation that I've made.

Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).

It is reasonable to assume that the average transactions per person per day would be between 5 - 10 (minimum) if Bitcoin was used for everyday purchases. You're talking about 1750 - 3 500 GB of unnecessary data per day. Unnecessary as it, can be avoided with second layer solutions. Another problem with you is that you see LN as an alternative coin, but it is not even remotely close to that.
I would love to know the validation time of a 24 GB block on the latest CPU's.  
What you don't understand is that LN gives the opportunity for two persons (or companies) to have an theoretically infinite amount of transactions between themselves and then settling on the block chain. Tell me why this is bad if the transactions on LN are almost equally as secure, cheaper and the network being decentralized as well?

Why can't people differentiate between scaling Bitcoin to handle current transaction loads and future loads?

We don't have to worry about how long a 24 GB block will take to verify on current CPU's because today's CPUs will never see such a block. It's like Adams IEEE interview where he talk about the downside of 1gb blocks, despite the fact that such blocks are nowhere on alternative roadmap for years.... Decades, even

[Lauda]

]You reveal your scientific and engineering background. "You can only try to disagree with something that is a fact" this is not true. I have a background in philosophy, unlike science it is not based on facts alone but self evident rationality as well. Ethics for instance is not based on any "facts". And I certainly can disagree with other peoples ethics.

Let's not discuss what science is and whatever you've just started talking about else that is a straw-man.

You are arguing a huge straw man here.

No. Let's start by analyzing your post.

Just because we can not scale Bitcoin to twenty four blocks now does not mean we should not scale Bitcoin at all. You have falling into the nirvana fallacy.

No. Scaling Bitcoin via the block size is not the only way, thus wrong. Segwit scales Bitcoin and so do second layer solutions.

An increase to two megabyte is huge, it doubles throughput.

Segwit will amount to a ~2MB increase (possibly more), thus 2 MB blocks aren't huge.

In the real world that is significant and it does not matter that we can not scale to 24 gigabyte blocks now. Over time maybe we can who knows, but if you are correct and LN and SD will be very popular then that will take a load of the network as well, as over time the technology increases, hopefully it will remain in step with technological progress. If that is not the case however we still can and should limit blocksize according to actual supply and demand and real technological limits. Instead of arbitrarily and unnecessarily limiting Bitcoin at one megabyte.

Nobody ever said that the plan is to keep Bitcoin at 1 MB. Additionally what you're telling me is: "We can't have that today, but it is okay because we don't need it and technology mighty enable it in the future.".
I'm telling you this is possible with LN today (i.e. once released) and you're completely ignoring this (this being a very important point).

We don't have to worry about how long a 24 GB block will take to verify on current CPU's because today's CPUs will never see such a block.

I wanted to know out of curiosity; that was not an argument. Read my post above.

[VeritasSapere]

I do not consider "off chain" solutions or "second layer" solutions to be a way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly at all. The only way to significantly scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly and significantly is by increasing the blocksize.

[Jet Cash]

Here is a real newbie question. If the current 1Mb blocks are underutilised, is there any evidence that doubling them to 2Mb will make any difference at all?

[jonald_fyookball]

]You reveal your scientific and engineering background. "You can only try to disagree with something that is a fact" this is not true. I have a background in philosophy, unlike science it is not based on facts alone but self evident rationality as well. Ethics for instance is not based on any "facts". And I certainly can disagree with other peoples ethics.

Let's not discuss what science is and whatever you've just started talking about else that is a straw-man.

You are arguing a huge straw man here.

No. Let's start by analyzing your post.

Just because we can not scale Bitcoin to twenty four blocks now does not mean we should not scale Bitcoin at all. You have falling into the nirvana fallacy.

No. Scaling Bitcoin via the block size is not the only way, thus wrong. Segwit scales Bitcoin and so do second layer solutions.

An increase to two megabyte is huge, it doubles throughput.

Segwit will amount to a ~2MB increase (possibly more), thus 2 MB blocks aren't huge.

In the real world that is significant and it does not matter that we can not scale to 24 gigabyte blocks now. Over time maybe we can who knows, but if you are correct and LN and SD will be very popular then that will take a load of the network as well, as over time the technology increases, hopefully it will remain in step with technological progress. If that is not the case however we still can and should limit blocksize according to actual supply and demand and real technological limits. Instead of arbitrarily and unnecessarily limiting Bitcoin at one megabyte.

Nobody ever said that the plan is to keep Bitcoin at 1 MB. Additionally what you're telling me is: "We can't have that today, but it is okay because we don't need it and technology mighty enable it in the future.".         I'm telling you this will be possible with LN today (i.e. once released) and you're completely ignoring this (being a very important point).

We don't have to worry about how long a 24 GB block will take to verify on current CPU's because today's CPUs will never see such a block.

I wanted to know out of curiosity; that was not an argument. Read my post above.

Actions speak louder than words.  Any sensible person is wondering why is core apparently endlessly delaying the increase.

[Lauda]

I do not consider "off chain" solutions or "second layer" solutions to be a way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly at all. The only way to significantly scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly and significantly is by increasing the blocksize.

Then we have nothing to talk about. Your limited and closed-minded view (not ad hominem, nor am I trying to be offensive) is not adaptable to changing and new technologies. You could have said so from the beginning. Again, I have demonstrated the unnecessary bloat that the block size will create. It doesn't matter when, but it will be if the adoption is there. You can't change this. You have a very view opinion on this and I could state that it is irrational. You would pick a very inefficient way of transacting instead of a very efficient way of transacting for what, bragging rights?

If the current 1Mb blocks are underutilised, is there any evidence that doubling them to 2Mb will make any difference at all?

There isn't.

Actions speak louder than words.  Any sensible person is wondering why is core apparently endlessly delaying the increase.

So the majority of the community is not sensible anymore? Because Segwit. If there was no Segwit and the decision was a block size increase, the HF would not be rushed as in Classic. If you want  2 MB blocks at some time in the future, what are you waiting for? Make a proposal. You will know what they think of it once you publish the BIP.

What you don't understand is that LN gives the opportunity for two persons (or companies) to have an theoretically infinite amount of transactions between themselves and then settling on the block chain. Tell me why this is bad if the transactions on LN (a decentralized solution) are almost equally as secure, cheaper and faster (near instant transacting in a payment channel)?

[VeritasSapere]

Here is a real newbie question. If the current 1Mb blocks are underutilised, is there any evidence that doubling them to 2Mb will make any difference at all?

It is not necessarily the case that the current 1Mb blocks are being underutilized. To answer that question you would have to define what transaction have sufficient utility? How do we even define and identify spam? The answers to these questions are not necessarily clear, which makes the follow up question even more complicated. My answer is that whatever transactions the miners choose to include in the blocks have sufficient utility to be included.

This should follow real supply and demand for block space, not an arbitrary blocksize limit. The blocksize limit should be continued to be used as an anti spam measure which should exist significantly above the current average transaction volume.

[blunderer]

Here is a real newbie question. If the current 1Mb blocks are underutilised, is there any evidence that doubling them to 2Mb will make any difference at all?

Dear Curious,
Your question is somewhat ambiguous.
If you're asking about higher block size limit causing the miners to better utilize block space, there's no evidence..
If, OTOH, you're asking whether allowing bigger bollocks would allow more transactions to be packed into a block, the answer is "obviously."

[VeritasSapere]

I do not consider "off chain" solutions or "second layer" solutions to be a way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly at all. The only way to significantly scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly and significantly is by increasing the blocksize.

Then we have nothing to talk about. Your limited and closed-minded view (not ad hominem, nor am I trying to be offensive) is not adaptable to changing and new technologies.

I am not against LN and SD, I am not against it being implemented at all. I just do not think we should change the economic policy of Bitcoin now unessarelly just because Bitcoin does not scale perfectly according to your ideals. In regards to me having a limited and close minded view, that is how I view your perspective so I suppose I am not offended.

You would pick a very inefficient way of transacting instead of a very efficient way of transacting for what, bragging rights?

Bitcoin does not make sense from an engineering perspective, but it does make a lot of sense in a human way. It makes certain technical sacrifices in terms of efficiency in favor of political and or ideological goals of freedom and decentralization. Concepts of democracy and decentralization might be very inefficient. However they are better for very human reasons, based on our subjective ethics.

What you don't understand is that LN gives the opportunity for two persons (or companies) to have an theoretically infinite amount of transactions between themselves and then settling on the block chain. Tell me why this is bad if the transactions on LN (a decentralized solution) are almost equally as secure, cheaper and faster (near instant transacting in a payment channel)?

I do not think that your vision of Bitcoin will be more decentralized or secure. Payment channels will still be possible on a more unrestricted Bitcoin, and of course can be used for the appropriate use cases. You view is limited and restricted, I am saying that Bitcoin can do it all. We do not have to choose between features, that would be a false dichotomy.

[Lauda]

I am not against LN and SD, I am not against it being implemented at all. I just do not think we should change the economic policy of Bitcoin now unessarelly just because Bitcoin does not scale perfectly according to your ideals. In regards to me having a limited and close minded view, that is how I view your perspective so I suppose I am not offended.

I'm open to a 2 MB increase, to dynamic blocks, to payment channels, LN, sidechains, pretty much anything that make sense and is rational. This means that my view is not closed minded and thus your view of me is wrong. Albeit, you're not. In a "battle" between Segwit and 2 MB, where segwit is the clear winner (that carries many benefits), you stick to 2 MB without a proper argument to back it up.

Bitcoin does not make sense from an engineering perspective, but it does make a lot of sense in a human way. It makes certain technical sacrifices in terms of efficiency in favor of political and or ideological goals of freedom and decentralization. Concepts of democracy and decentralization might be very inefficient. However they are better for very human reasons, based on our subjective ethics.

This is not relevant to my statement. Albeit, I'd argue that the day that Bitcoin loses a good part of its decentralization, is the day that Bitcoin has lost one of the fundamental reasons of its existence.

I do not think that your vision of Bitcoin will be more decentralized or secure. Payment channels will still be possible on a more unrestricted Bitcoin, and of course can be used for the appropriate use cases. You view is limited and restricted, I am saying that Bitcoin can do it all. We do not have to choose between features, that would be a false dichotomy.

More decentralized? I have not stated this. I have stated that LN is decentralized and secure which is correct; you can't be the judge of this because you don't have a technical background as you've said, right? If anything Bitcoin will be very centralized if we focus on scaling via the block size. You can't deny this.