Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 01:55:46 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [PATCH] increase block size limit  (Read 45859 times)
jgarzik
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
October 03, 2010, 08:13:42 PM
 #1

We should be able to at least match Paypal's average transaction rate...

Code:
diff --git a/main.h b/main.h
index c5a0127..c92592a 100644
--- a/main.h
+++ b/main.h
@@ -14,7 +14,10 @@ class CBlockIndex;
 class CWalletTx;
 class CKeyItem;
 
-static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
+static const unsigned int TX_PER_MINUTE = 1400;
+static const unsigned int TX_AVG_SIZE_GUESS = 256;
+static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE =
+ TX_PER_MINUTE * TX_AVG_SIZE_GUESS * 10 * 2;
 static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/2;
 static const int MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/50;
 static const int64 COIN = 100000000;

URL: http://yyz.us/bitcoin/patch.bitcoin-block-sz-limit

Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
1481464546
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481464546

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481464546
Reply with quote  #2

1481464546
Report to moderator
1481464546
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481464546

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481464546
Reply with quote  #2

1481464546
Report to moderator
1481464546
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481464546

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481464546
Reply with quote  #2

1481464546
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481464546
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481464546

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481464546
Reply with quote  #2

1481464546
Report to moderator
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506


View Profile
October 03, 2010, 08:28:39 PM
 #2

Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
satoshi
Founder
Sr. Member
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
October 03, 2010, 09:07:28 PM
 #3

Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.
+1 theymos.  Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.
jgarzik
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
October 03, 2010, 09:38:46 PM
 #4

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

IMO it's a marketing thing.  It's tough to get people to buy into a system, if the network is technically incapable of supporting high transaction rates.

Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
October 04, 2010, 07:39:35 AM
 #5

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

IMO it's a marketing thing.  It's tough to get people to buy into a system, if the network is technically incapable of supporting high transaction rates.

Satoshi just said it can be changed, so technically the network is capable.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
jgarzik
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
October 04, 2010, 08:10:01 AM
 #6

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

IMO it's a marketing thing.  It's tough to get people to buy into a system, if the network is technically incapable of supporting high transaction rates.

Satoshi just said it can be changed, so technically the network is capable.

It is also an incompatible change, as you see.....

Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
martin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 150



View Profile WWW
October 04, 2010, 11:50:35 AM
 #7

No, it's incompatible if just a few people change their behaviour. To roll out a change to the network you need to get most of the clients understanding both the old and the new protocol, and then when you have a majority you turn on the new protocol.

jgarzik
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
October 04, 2010, 06:33:55 PM
 #8

No, it's incompatible if just a few people change their behaviour. To roll out a change to the network you need to get most of the clients understanding both the old and the new protocol, and then when you have a majority you turn on the new protocol.

You just described a whole-network upgrade.  I'd call that an incompatible change Smiley

The effort to raise the transaction rate limit is the same as the effort to change the fundamental nature of bitcoins:  convince the vast majority to upgrade.

Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
satoshi
Founder
Sr. Member
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM
 #9

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
October 06, 2010, 01:09:04 AM
 #10

No, it's incompatible if just a few people change their behaviour. To roll out a change to the network you need to get most of the clients understanding both the old and the new protocol, and then when you have a majority you turn on the new protocol.

You just described a whole-network upgrade.  I'd call that an incompatible change Smiley

The effort to raise the transaction rate limit is the same as the effort to change the fundamental nature of bitcoins:  convince the vast majority to upgrade.

If we upgrade now, we don't have to convince as much people later if the bitcoin economy continues to grow.

appamatto
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 36


View Profile
October 20, 2010, 07:50:02 PM
 #11

No, it's incompatible if just a few people change their behaviour. To roll out a change to the network you need to get most of the clients understanding both the old and the new protocol, and then when you have a majority you turn on the new protocol.

You just described a whole-network upgrade.  I'd call that an incompatible change Smiley

The effort to raise the transaction rate limit is the same as the effort to change the fundamental nature of bitcoins:  convince the vast majority to upgrade.

If we upgrade now, we don't have to convince as much people later if the bitcoin economy continues to grow.

I agree, especially since generators are both the source of blocks and "votes" in the network.  Since a block restriction would allow generators to charge higher transaction fees, they might "vote" against an increase in the max size in the future.

It seems unlikely to be a real problem though.
caveden
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
November 20, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
 #12

Only recently I learned about this block size limit.

I understand not putting any limit might allow flooding. On the other hand, the smaller your block, the faster it will propagate to network (I suppose.. or is there "I've got a block!" sort of message sent before the entire content of the block?), so miners do have an interest on not producing large blocks.

I'm very uncomfortable with this block size limit rule. This is a "protocol-rule" (not a "client-rule"), what makes it almost impossible to change once you have enough different softwares running the protocol. Take SMTP as an example... it's unchangeable.

I think we should schedule a large increase in the block size limit right now while the protocol rules are easier to change. Maybe even schedule an infinite series of increases, as we can't really predict how many transactions there will be 50 years from now.

Honestly, I'd like to get rid of such rule. I find it dangerous. But I can't think of an easy way to stop flooding without it, though.

18rZYyWcafwD86xvLrfuxWG5xEMMWUtVkL
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


Monero Core Team


View Profile
February 25, 2013, 03:54:02 PM
 #13

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.


It is time to revive this old thread since this should serve as a wakeup call to the Bitcoin community.

My question is this: What will happen first?
1) Bitcoin transaction volume increases by a factor of 4
2) Current Bitcoin clients become obsolete.

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile WWW
February 25, 2013, 04:34:27 PM
 #14

Hmm Satoshi wrote that over two years ago and we still aren't actually close to needing it yet.

Still I guess it mostly depends on how many more years it is going to be before someone actually goes out there and signs up Walmart or President's Choice or A&P (are they still around?) or Sainsbury's or something and actually shows us a little of this vast flood of users they keep yelling is going to descend upon us any moment now.

So far it seems possible the volume of ranting about vast numbers of users coming at us is actually inversely proportional to the number of users the ranter actually has signed up lined up ready to bring aboard.

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


Monero Core Team


View Profile
February 25, 2013, 05:03:11 PM
 #15

http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions With a 10x increase in the number of transactions over the last year it is reasonable to say that we can reach the 1MB limit in well under a year. The point is that in order to roll out a hard fork one has to delay its implementation way into the future in order to avoid chaos in the network. It we reach the limit before anything is done it will be way too late and a massive loss in confidence will result.

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
BitcoinINV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile
February 25, 2013, 05:08:56 PM
 #16

off-topic and I am sorry but I could not help myself. Why did satoshi ever stop posting visiting us?

ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


Monero Core Team


View Profile
February 25, 2013, 05:23:23 PM
 #17

off-topic and I am sorry but I could not help myself. Why did satoshi ever stop posting visiting us?

There are many theories of this. One of them is can Bitcoin continue to function without centralized control? By leaving us he in effect left Bitcoin leaderless and that is by design. This block size issue is likely to be the perfect test since the community has no choice but to implement a hard fork. If Bitcoin survives this it will come out way stronger, there is however also a significant chance that block size issue will turn Bitcoin into a failed experiment.  By the way I would not consider your post off topic at all.  

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile WWW
February 25, 2013, 05:29:47 PM
 #18

Isn't a huge huge amount of the increase in transactions so far attributed to what seems to be basically an app designed expressly for the purpose of artifically/frivolously spamming the blockchain with frivolous/trivial, even "dust spam", transactions?

If so it seems more to show desperation on the part of some bigger bigger bigger agenda than any real need. Especially the dust, that is pretty much an attack really, even if intended to highlight a problem existing with tiny value transactions so it can maybe be addressed.

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
Technomage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Affordable Physical Bitcoins - Denarium.com


View Profile WWW
February 25, 2013, 05:30:08 PM
 #19

http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions With a 10x increase in the number of transactions over the last year it is reasonable to say that we can reach the 1MB limit in well under a year. The point is that in order to roll out a hard fork one has to delay its implementation way into the future in order to avoid chaos in the network. It we reach the limit before anything is done it will be way too late and a massive loss in confidence will result.

Exactly. We're not having these discussions too early at all, on the contrary. We will probably need 1 year of lead time for such a massive change, and indeed it is possible that we will be pushing the limit within 1 year. So this is no joke.

Denarium - Leading Physical Bitcoin Manufacturer - Special Xmas deals now live!
BitcoinINV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile
February 25, 2013, 05:36:24 PM
 #20

Here soon blockchain.info is going to roll soo fast you can not even see the transactions.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »  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!