2MB Pros and Cons

[Doc Martin]

Keeping small max block size doesn't solve the decentralisation issue (decline in node count). At very best it only slows it down.

I think thats the idea + eventually more security features like fraud proofs to make lite nodes safer. Bandwidth-saving features in 0.12 also help to address the issue.

[1714992984]

1714992984

[1714992984]

1714992984

[1714992984]

1714992984

[1714992984]

1714992984

[1714992984]

1714992984

[adamstgBit]

Keeping small max block size doesn't solve the decentralisation issue (decline in node count). At very best it only slows it down.

Correct. I never implied that it does solve it. However, an increased block size limit could only make it worse.

i think its worth noting segwit will have the same effect on node count as 2MB, it will increase requirement to nodes in more or less the same way.

and i think we can all agree maximizing node count shouldn't be a major concern, classic nodes are popping up left and right on AWS. keeping full node requirements very low, only opens the door to a sybil attack, and makes it easy to drown out the voices of real participants dependent on the system.

if anything the barrier to entry on running a full node should be raised to make it easier to hear the voice of Serious participants, participants that matter like bitpay, bitfinex, or tiger direct.

[Lauda]

i think its worth noting segwit will have the same effect on node count as 2MB, it will increase requirement to nodes in more or less the same way.

As far as validation time is concerned, it doesn't. Additionally, a 2 MB block size limit is unsafe without additional limitations placed upon it.

and i think we can all agree maximizing node count shouldn't be a major concern, classic nodes are popping up left and right on AWS. keeping full node requirements very low, only opens the door to a sybil attack, and makes it easy to drown out the voices of real participants dependent on the system.

Those nodes are useless due to their concentration.

if anything the barrier to entry on running a full node should be raised to make it easier to hear the voice of Serious participants, participants that matter like bitpay, bitfinex, or tiger direct.

Do you even realize what you're saying? Were you already corrupted by the people on that other (horrible) forum? The option to run a node should always remain as cheap as possible.

[DooMAD]

if anything the barrier to entry on running a full node should be raised to make it easier to hear the voice of Serious participants, participants that matter like bitpay, bitfinex, or tiger direct.

Do you even realize what you're saying? Were you already corrupted by the people on that other (horrible) forum? The option to run a node should always remain as cheap as possible.

Indeed.  I'm not sure how you thought such a view would be received, adamstgBit, but even as someone who supports a larger blocksize, that's just plain wrong in my view.  "Participants that matter"?  That sounds equally as horrid as the elite-chain fans who think that only the whales and early adopters matter.  The voice that should carry the most weight is the one talking the most sense, not just whoever happens to be a big company.

[busybee7]

well the main pros for me is that the problem of block size would be solved and there would be no need to pay higher fees

i cant find any cons of that though i heard something that if the hard fork happened there is a possibility to create two bitcoins

[adamstgBit]

if anything the barrier to entry on running a full node should be raised to make it easier to hear the voice of Serious participants, participants that matter like bitpay, bitfinex, or tiger direct.

Do you even realize what you're saying? Were you already corrupted by the people on that other (horrible) forum? The option to run a node should always remain as cheap as possible.

this is not somthing new i picked up from the other forum
i never expected that devs would make such an effort to keep node requirements low enough to run on a raspberry pi.
in fact i was lead to believe that full node centralization was natural evolution
this was the creator's vision as well.

Indeed.  I'm not sure how you thought such a view would be received, adamstgBit, but even as someone who supports a larger blocksize, that's just plain wrong in my view.  "Participants that matter"?  That sounds equally as horrid as the elite-chain fans who think that only the whales and early adopters matter.  The voice that should carry the most weight is the one talking the most sense, not just whoever happens to be a big company.

some node centralization Vs settlement layer prohibitively to expensive to use by everyone
i'll pick full node centralization....

its not like not running a node will prevent anyone from participating in the development or discussion
i'm just point out that by keeping requirements low, makes node count MEANINGLESS
just look at classic nodes, if we go by that metric classic is the favored implementation.
if it cost 1000$ a year to run a node, node count would actually mean somthing.

clearly there is a balance to be stuck between keeping node requirements low and allowing the main chain to grow.

1MB isn't it.

segwit + 1MB is a good start but I want MORE!

also i want to feel as tho the devs are on the same page, they will do everything they can to allow mainchain to grow.

[brg444]

if anything the barrier to entry on running a full node should be raised to make it easier to hear the voice of Serious participants, participants that matter like bitpay, bitfinex, or tiger direct.

Do you even realize what you're saying? Were you already corrupted by the people on that other (horrible) forum? The option to run a node should always remain as cheap as possible.

this is not somthing new i picked up from the other forum
i never expected that devs would make such an effort to keep node requirements low enough to run on a raspberry pi.
in fact i was lead to believe that full node centralization was natural evolution
this was the creator's vision as well.

Indeed.  I'm not sure how you thought such a view would be received, adamstgBit, but even as someone who supports a larger blocksize, that's just plain wrong in my view.  "Participants that matter"?  That sounds equally as horrid as the elite-chain fans who think that only the whales and early adopters matter.  The voice that should carry the most weight is the one talking the most sense, not just whoever happens to be a big company.

some node centralization Vs settlement layer prohibitively to expensive to use by everyone
i'll pick full node centralization....

its not like not running a node will prevent anyone from participating in the development or discussion
i'm just point out that by keeping requirements low, makes node count MEANINGLESS
just look at classic nodes, if we go by that metric classic is the favored implementation.
if it cost 1000$ a year to run a node, node count would actually mean somthing.

clearly there is a balance to be stuck between keeping node requirements low and allowing the main chain to grow.

1MB isn't it.

segwit + 1MB is a good start but I want MORE!

also i want to feel as tho the devs are on the same page, they will do everything they can to allow mainchain to grow.

you need to seek someone intelligent who can explain these things to you. clearly you have failed at educating yourself properly. now everytime you open your mouth you look like an idiot.

[ingiltere]

This max block size is still a hot discussion but I think we also need to talk about min block size. We see a lot of blocks found with only 1 transaction in it, mostly these are coming from Chinese pools.
+1 for 2 MB or even more block size and we should do something for empty blocks.

[exstasie]

This max block size is still a hot discussion but I think we also need to talk about min block size. We see a lot of blocks found with only 1 transaction in it, mostly these are coming from Chinese pools.
+1 for 2 MB or even more block size and we should do something for empty blocks.

Just throwing this out there: Empty blocks aren't going away with Classic. Gavin actually wrote SPV mining into the software, to make all miners engage in non-validating mining, rather than just the [Chinese] pools we know about. He tried to code in some node-enforced 30-second time limit on it, but current miner code is already patched to ignore such limits, and they can just patch it again to maximize their chances of finding a block without validating the prior.

[hv_]

This max block size is still a hot discussion but I think we also need to talk about min block size. We see a lot of blocks found with only 1 transaction in it, mostly these are coming from Chinese pools.
+1 for 2 MB or even more block size and we should do something for empty blocks.

I wonder if there could be some incentive to empty the mempool ... does that make sense?

[exstasie]

This max block size is still a hot discussion but I think we also need to talk about min block size. We see a lot of blocks found with only 1 transaction in it, mostly these are coming from Chinese pools.
+1 for 2 MB or even more block size and we should do something for empty blocks.

I wonder if there could be some incentive to empty the mempool ... does that make sense?

Yeah..... it's called..... FEES!

Unfortunately blocks are only 70% full and fees are something like 1% of block reward (99% being the 25btc subsidy). So for instance SPV miners don't give a shit about fees, they only want the subsidy.

[hdbuck]

This max block size is still a hot discussion but I think we also need to talk about min block size. We see a lot of blocks found with only 1 transaction in it, mostly these are coming from Chinese pools.
+1 for 2 MB or even more block size and we should do something for empty blocks.

I wonder if there could be some incentive to empty the mempool ... does that make sense?

Yeah..... it's called..... FEES!

Unfortunately blocks are only 70% full and fees are something like 1% of block reward (99% being the 25btc subsidy). So for instance SPV miners don't give a shit about fees, they only want the subsidy.

for now...

[Lauda]

this is not somthing new i picked up from the other forum

Yes were negatively influenced by those people.

in fact i was lead to believe that full node centralization was natural evolution  this was the creator's vision as well.

Stop with the appeal to authority bullshit.

i'll pick full node centralization....

Then you're an idiot. Bitcoin would be worth nothing if it was centralized. You'd just be left with a inefficient network.

also i want to feel as tho the devs are on the same page, they will do everything they can to allow mainchain to grow.

Redundant at best.

I wonder if there could be some incentive to empty the mempool ... does that make sense?

Not really, no. If you are too cheap to include the adequate fee, the miners shouldn't bother with your TX.

[DooMAD]

some node centralization Vs settlement layer prohibitively to expensive to use by everyone
i'll pick full node centralization....

Why does it have to be either/or?  Why not aim for a balance where the costs for the settlement layer will increase slightly and the resources required to run a node increase slightly.  Sacrificing one to bolster the other will always leave someone at a disadvantage, so if the costs have to go up, it should be spread as equally as possible between the two.

[adamstgBit]

this is not somthing new i picked up from the other forum

Yes were negatively influenced by those people.

those people, were once valued members of this community

in fact i was lead to believe that full node centralization was natural evolution  this was the creator's vision as well.

Stop with the appeal to authority bullshit.

I can't help but point out we are going against the "classical road map"

i'll pick full node centralization....

Then you're an idiot. Bitcoin would be worth nothing if it was centralized. You'd just be left with a inefficient network.

if 1000's of poeple run nodes, and 10,000's connect to pools to mine coins, that is hardly centralized...
I Imagine a future where individual states, universities, governments, corporations, banks are the ones running bitcoin nodes.
China and USA may not agree on a lot of thing, but they will be made to participate in nakamoto consensus!!
I simply do not care if there individual citizens can't run a full node without a 10,000$ investment.
Welcome to the future of money, its a BIG DEAL.

also i want to feel as tho the devs are on the same page, they will do everything they can to allow mainchain to grow.

Redundant at best.

does peter todd speak for them?
does blockstream?  

some node centralization Vs settlement layer prohibitively to expensive to use by everyone
i'll pick full node centralization....

Why does it have to be either/or?  Why not aim for a balance where the costs for the settlement layer will increase slightly and the resources required to run a node increase slightly.  Sacrificing one to bolster the other will always leave someone at a disadvantage, so if the costs have to go up, it should be spread as equally as possible between the two.

this is a sensible compromises i can go along with happily.

i guess segwit is such a compromises, but if thats are far as they are willing to go, and attempt to force me off chain in the name of "raspberry pie standards" i will fork off.

[Lauda]

those people, were once valued members of this community

"Valued" is subjective in this case. Besides, their past is irrelevant.

I can't help but point out we are going against the "classical road map"

Doesn't matter. Satoshi's words should not be quoted into arguments of today. Everything was very different back then and he had very limited data to go from.

I Imagine a future where individual states, universities, governments, corporations, banks are the ones running bitcoin nodes.
China and USA may not agree on a lot of thing, but they will be made to participate in nakamoto consensus!!
I simply do not care if there individual citizens can't run a full node without a 10,000$ investment.

Again, either very foolish or stupid. Bitcoin was always about individual sovereignty and now you're talking about turning it into a government/corporation coin. Nice viewpoint. 

does peter todd speak for them?
does blockstream?  

No and no.

i guess segwit is such a compromises, but if thats are far as they are willing to go, and attempt to force me off chain in the name of "raspberry pie standards" i will fork off.

You aren't being forced to go off-chain. People don't know the definition of the word 'forced' apparently. The only way in which that word could apply is if there are no way of transacting on the main chain (which isn't the case). Additionally, there's nothing wrong with using a secondary layer. There would be no internet of today if it weren't for the 7 layers that it uses.

[adamstgBit]

I Imagine a future where individual states, universities, governments, corporations, banks are the ones running bitcoin nodes.
China and USA may not agree on a lot of thing, but they will be made to participate in nakamoto consensus!!
I simply do not care if there individual citizens can't run a full node without a 10,000$ investment.
Welcome to the future of money, its a BIG DEAL.

Again, either very foolish or stupid. Bitcoin was always about individual sovereignty and now you're talking about turning it into a government/corporation coin. Nice viewpoint. 

you understand the distinction between controlled by 1 cooperation Vs decentralized amongst all cooperations. right?

the idea of bitcoin running on home computers while its only use is as a settlement layer only large corporations can afford to transact on is either very foolish or stupid.

maybe my point of view isn't "Nice" but at least its realistic.

lets not forget large corporations and banks have already said PASS on the bitcoin bandwagon, and they are on the Bitcoin bandwagon. weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.

[exstasie]

weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.

So fork off and create your datacentercoin. Just stop calling it bitcoin and go back to pumping DASH.

[adamstgBit]

weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.

So fork off and create your datacentercoin. Just stop calling it bitcoin and go back to pumping DASH.

i mention dash once and suddenly i'm pumping it.
does le bitcoin feel threatened?
it should!
it is!

[exstasie]

weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.

So fork off and create your datacentercoin. Just stop calling it bitcoin and go back to pumping DASH.

i mention dash once and suddenly i'm pumping it.

Seems a theme among bitco.in crowd. VS loves to pump DASH in here while trashing bitcoin. Fortunately I saw that he recently has given up on bitcoin, as well as some others in frapdoc's cult. Don't worry: you guys always have DASH to fall back on. Satoshi's true vision:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-448#post-16025

The original vision of Satoshi will be upheld in the alternative cryptocurrencies.

I think I have reached the edge of my patience where I have lost hope for Bitcoin

LOL.

As if that wasn't bad/lulzy enough...

I consider Dash to be one of the best alternative cryptocurrencies around. If Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed I would think that Dash will have solved these problems

@tungfa You are being paid by the dash blockchain right? I think that is so cool

I have lost much hope in Bitcoin recently. 

Dash best preserves the original vision of Satoshi