2MB Pros and Cons

[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.

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

he's not the only "retard" pushing buttons...
i would guesstimate the "retard" out number the "geniuses" 10,000/1
its worth keeping that in mind as you watch core cling to their principals 

[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

he's not the only "retard" pushing buttons...
i would guesstimate the "retard" out number the "geniuses" 10,000/1
its worth keeping that in mind as you watch core cling to their principals 

A quick search of the page shows no one called VeritasSapere a "retard" but you. Happy to support Core as long as they are supporting my principles and bitcoin's principles.

[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.

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

he's not the only "retard" pushing buttons...
i would guesstimate the "retard" out number the "geniuses" 10,000/1
its worth keeping that in mind as you watch core cling to their principals  

A quick search of the page shows no one called VeritasSapere a "retard" but you. Happy to support Core as long as they are supporting my principles and bitcoin's principles.

'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!

[exstasie]

'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!

Prove it. What have alt pumps got to do with bitcoin? The only thing that matters is making bitcoin as viable and robust as possible. It doesn't matter what alts are doing. Go buy alts if getting rich quick is your intention here. But you may find that doing that right now will be a bad decision in hindsight.

[adamstgBit]

'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!

Prove it. What have alt pumps got to do with bitcoin? The only thing that matters is making bitcoin as viable and robust as possible. It doesn't matter what alts are doing. Go buy alts if getting rich quick is your intention here. But you may find that doing that right now will be a bad decision in hindsight.

its a doge eat doge world out there buddy 

[exstasie]

'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!

Prove it. What have alt pumps got to do with bitcoin? The only thing that matters is making bitcoin as viable and robust as possible. It doesn't matter what alts are doing. Go buy alts if getting rich quick is your intention here. But you may find that doing that right now will be a bad decision in hindsight.

its a doge eat doge world out there buddy 

Yes let the forks and alts cannibalize one another as they all try in disagreement to fix bitcoin's problems.

[adamstgBit]

'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!

Prove it. What have alt pumps got to do with bitcoin? The only thing that matters is making bitcoin as viable and robust as possible. It doesn't matter what alts are doing. Go buy alts if getting rich quick is your intention here. But you may find that doing that right now will be a bad decision in hindsight.

its a doge eat doge world out there buddy  

Yes let the forks and alts cannibalize one another as they all try in disagreement to fix bitcoin's problems.

yes of course, they dont posse a threat, there silly competition with no merit

they'll never crack the >1MB "problem"

[exstasie]

'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!

Prove it. What have alt pumps got to do with bitcoin? The only thing that matters is making bitcoin as viable and robust as possible. It doesn't matter what alts are doing. Go buy alts if getting rich quick is your intention here. But you may find that doing that right now will be a bad decision in hindsight.

its a doge eat doge world out there buddy  

Yes let the forks and alts cannibalize one another as they all try in disagreement to fix bitcoin's problems.

yes of course, they dont posse a threat, there silly competition with no merit

they'll never crack the >1MB "problem"

Nobody said alts have no merit (although most of them don't on their face)......what I said was do what is best for bitcoin regardless of them. Competition from alts is not a legitimate reason to force hasty/untested software changes that much of community does not support

And whether they crack the problem of scalability is years off. Easy to claim scalability when a network is barely used by anybody (whether ethereum or whatever else)......some eth devs have said that they are already realizing that eth is not more scalable than btc

[adamstgBit]

'principles' have cost us 10% market share in 3 months!

Prove it. What have alt pumps got to do with bitcoin? The only thing that matters is making bitcoin as viable and robust as possible. It doesn't matter what alts are doing. Go buy alts if getting rich quick is your intention here. But you may find that doing that right now will be a bad decision in hindsight.

its a doge eat doge world out there buddy  

Yes let the forks and alts cannibalize one another as they all try in disagreement to fix bitcoin's problems.

yes of course, they dont posse a threat, there silly competition with no merit

they'll never crack the >1MB "problem"

Nobody said alts have no merit (although most of them don't on their face)......what I said was do what is best for bitcoin regardless of them. Competition from alts is not a legitimate reason to force hasty/untested software changes that much of community does not support

And whether they crack the problem of scalability is years off. Easy to claim scalability when a network is barely used by anybody (whether ethereum or whatever else)......some eth devs have said that they are already realizing that eth is not more scalable than btc

a self imposed limits ( like 1 block every 10mins or 1MB max per block) is not a problem other alt are subject to.

i hope we dont actually have an alt PROVE it can handle more TX than bitcoin.

[jbreher]

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 ...

We're working on it, thanks.

... and create your datacentercoin.

You misunderstand the situation entirely. We believe in the original Bitcoin vision. We feel you have lost your way.

Just stop calling it bitcoin...

No. It is Bitcoin. It adheres much closer to the existing principles than does BlockstreamCoin.

...and go back to pumping <<random shitcoin>>.

WTF are you on about?

[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 ...

We're working on it, thanks.

Apparently sky was supposed to fall a year ago. What the hell are you waiting for? People are continuing to realize that the fearmongering around "overcapacity" and "fee events" were bullshit.

... and create your datacentercoin.

You misunderstand the situation entirely. We believe in the original Bitcoin vision. We feel you have lost your way.

That's cute. Unfortunately if you do so in a contentious manner (i.e. with 75% miner agreement and no consideration for nodes/users) you will split the network. Only the fork that is not compatible with the original network can be considered an altcoin, by definition.

Just stop calling it bitcoin...

No. It is Bitcoin. It adheres much closer to the existing principles than does BlockstreamCoin.

How so? Blockstream doesn't control anything. They aren't pushing a contentious hard fork on the community. If adam's datacentercoin is a problem for you, stick with CoinbaseCoin.

...and go back to pumping <<random shitcoin>>.

WTF are you on about?

The bitco.in crew's tendency to come here to trash bitcoin's future while glorifying shitcoins like DASH.

[achow101]

Here's a con. A simple 2 Mb hard fork does not solve the O(n^2) hashing problem. For those of you who have no idea what that means, it means that as the number of hashes required to verify a transaction increases linearly, the time required to hash all of it increases quadratically. This means that a transaction could theoretically be produced that causes nodes to have to spend a significant amount of time (several seconds to a few minutes, depending on the transaction) verifying the transaction. Such a thing was seen in the past when a miner (f2pool I think) created a 1 Mb transaction to clean up spam that went to wee brainwallets. The transaction took about 30 seconds to verify. With 2 Mb, a 2 Mb theoretical transaction could take 2 minutes or more to verify.

[adamstgBit]

Here's a con. A simple 2 Mb hard fork does not solve the O(n^2) hashing problem. For those of you who have no idea what that means, it means that as the number of hashes required to verify a transaction increases linearly, the time required to hash all of it increases quadratically. This means that a transaction could theoretically be produced that causes nodes to have to spend a significant amount of time (several seconds to a few minutes, depending on the transaction) verifying the transaction. Such a thing was seen in the past when a miner (f2pool I think) created a 1 Mb transaction to clean up spam that went to wee brainwallets. The transaction took about 30 seconds to verify. With 2 Mb, a 2 Mb theoretical transaction could take 2 minutes or more to verify.

the con in OP that refers to this:

The possibility exists to construct a TX that takes too long to validate
easily mitigated, through the use of soft limits imposed by miners limiting the number of inputs a TX can have.  

its a dumbed down version of what you are talking about, if you think i could reword it for more clarity let me know.

[HostFat]

Why "off-chain scaling" cannot eliminate the need for main-chain scaling

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4btwa9/why_offchain_scaling_cannot_eliminate_the_need/

Am I the only one who hates the phrase “off-chain scaling”? I guess my reaction when I hear that phrase is, well yeah, of course Bitcoin can "scale" off-chain. If you want to scale to “VISA levels,” and you're willing to do it off-chain, it can be pretty simple. Take the existing VISA infrastructure (or recreate it) and, instead of using it to process fiat-denominated IOUs, use it to process Bitcoin-denominated IOUs. Now obviously the “Bitcoin as settlement network” camp will say: “hey, that’s not fair! We’re not talking about simply recreating the custodial, trust-based credit and banking models of the fiat world in Bitcoin. We're talking about the Lightning Network which uses crypto-magic to enable off-chain transactions while still avoiding centralization and custodial risk. Lightning transactions are Bitcoin transactions.”

Well, no. They’re not. I’m far from an expert on the Lightning Network, but as I understand it, the proposal involves the repeated exchange of unconfirmed, unbroadcast Bitcoin transactions, i.e. potential Bitcoin transactions. Now there are some people who are very excited about the LN’s potential, and there are others who are very skeptical. But for purposes of the point I’m making it doesn’t really matter who’s right. I have no doubt that Bitcoin, by its very nature as an open, extensible network, enables the creation of some really novel, really useful “layer two” solutions (whether or not the LN proves to be one of them). But the fact remains: when you move transactions to a “layer two” solution, you have – by definition – added a layer of risk. Your layer two solution might be really, really great and a huge improvement over the traditional banking model such that the added layer of risk is relatively thin. And that’s awesome… but it’s still there. So you can’t just say: “who cares if Bitcoin’s layer one is artificially crippled? We’ll just move everything to layer two.” To the extent that on-chain scaling is artificially restricted (rather than being constrained only by technological limits), there is going to be an unavoidable deadweight loss. And all that can do is open the door for Bitcoin’s competitors.

Also, it seems to me that if there were no downside to using a “layer two” solution to make a particular payment, if it were really true that “Lightning transactions have the full security of on chain transactions” (as I saw one redditor claim), that would be a very dangerous state of affairs. If everyone could get all of the benefits of an on-blockchain transaction without actually using the blockchain (and thus paying the fees to secure it), that would seem to create a tragedy of the commons.

[achow101]

Here's a con. A simple 2 Mb hard fork does not solve the O(n^2) hashing problem. For those of you who have no idea what that means, it means that as the number of hashes required to verify a transaction increases linearly, the time required to hash all of it increases quadratically. This means that a transaction could theoretically be produced that causes nodes to have to spend a significant amount of time (several seconds to a few minutes, depending on the transaction) verifying the transaction. Such a thing was seen in the past when a miner (f2pool I think) created a 1 Mb transaction to clean up spam that went to wee brainwallets. The transaction took about 30 seconds to verify. With 2 Mb, a 2 Mb theoretical transaction could take 2 minutes or more to verify.

the con in OP that refers to this:

The possibility exists to construct a TX that takes too long to validate
easily mitigated, through the use of soft limits imposed by miners limiting the number of inputs a TX can have.  

its a dumbed down version of what you are talking about, if you think i could reword it for more clarity let me know.

Oh, whoops, I missed that.

[adamstgBit]

Why "off-chain scaling" cannot eliminate the need for main-chain scaling

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4btwa9/why_offchain_scaling_cannot_eliminate_the_need/

Am I the only one who hates the phrase “off-chain scaling”? I guess my reaction when I hear that phrase is, well yeah, of course Bitcoin can "scale" off-chain. If you want to scale to “VISA levels,” and you're willing to do it off-chain, it can be pretty simple. Take the existing VISA infrastructure (or recreate it) and, instead of using it to process fiat-denominated IOUs, use it to process Bitcoin-denominated IOUs. Now obviously the “Bitcoin as settlement network” camp will say: “hey, that’s not fair! We’re not talking about simply recreating the custodial, trust-based credit and banking models of the fiat world in Bitcoin. We're talking about the Lightning Network which uses crypto-magic to enable off-chain transactions while still avoiding centralization and custodial risk. Lightning transactions are Bitcoin transactions.”

Well, no. They’re not. I’m far from an expert on the Lightning Network, but as I understand it, the proposal involves the repeated exchange of unconfirmed, unbroadcast Bitcoin transactions, i.e. potential Bitcoin transactions. Now there are some people who are very excited about the LN’s potential, and there are others who are very skeptical. But for purposes of the point I’m making it doesn’t really matter who’s right. I have no doubt that Bitcoin, by its very nature as an open, extensible network, enables the creation of some really novel, really useful “layer two” solutions (whether or not the LN proves to be one of them). But the fact remains: when you move transactions to a “layer two” solution, you have – by definition – added a layer of risk. Your layer two solution might be really, really great and a huge improvement over the traditional banking model such that the added layer of risk is relatively thin. And that’s awesome… but it’s still there. So you can’t just say: “who cares if Bitcoin’s layer one is artificially crippled? We’ll just move everything to layer two.” To the extent that on-chain scaling is artificially restricted (rather than being constrained only by technological limits), there is going to be an unavoidable deadweight loss. And all that can do is open the door for Bitcoin’s competitors.

Also, it seems to me that if there were no downside to using a “layer two” solution to make a particular payment, if it were really true that “Lightning transactions have the full security of on chain transactions” (as I saw one redditor claim), that would be a very dangerous state of affairs. If everyone could get all of the benefits of an on-blockchain transaction without actually using the blockchain (and thus paying the fees to secure it), that would seem to create a tragedy of the commons.

couldn't agree more!

but this doesn't really belong in this thread.

we need a new thread On-Chain Vs Off-Chain scaling Pros, Cons and tragedies

[lottery248]

i would be with bells on to within 2017, suppose you have a SSD/HDD of 4TB (4096*10⁹) each block comes with 2MB, you can hold ~2 million blocks including the previous, which is almost 8~9 years.
anyway, i hope people won't be in problem of this, such as synchronising speed.
FYI price of SSD decreases by at least 10% per annum AFAIK.

[jbreher]

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 ...

We're working on it, thanks.

Apparently sky was supposed to fall a year ago. What the hell are you waiting for?

Merely to amass 75% hashing power. Yes, it's a long way from here. But the trend is positive. As I said, we're working on it, thanks.

... and create your datacentercoin.

You misunderstand the situation entirely. We believe in the original Bitcoin vision. We feel you have lost your way.

That's cute. Unfortunately if you do so in a contentious manner (i.e. with 75% miner agreement and no consideration for nodes/users) you will split the network.

Is there something in your reply that you believe is a stunning revelation?

Only the fork that is not compatible with the original network can be considered an altcoin, by definition.

Oh - there it is. Though it is merely a stunning misunderstanding of the way Nakamoto Consensus works. The blockchain that emerges with the majority of the hashing power (e.g. economic majority) ends up being The One True Bitcoin. FWIW, The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, as proposed, is also not compatible with the original network. We need some way forward. I have cast my lot with bigger blocks for the time being.

How sure are you that you'll end up on the winning side of this trade? I'm working towards my side being the victor. You doing anything other than waiting for Blockstream to pull through for you?

Just stop calling it bitcoin...

No. It is Bitcoin. It adheres much closer to the existing principles than does BlockstreamCoin.

How so? Blockstream doesn't control anything. They aren't pushing a contentious hard fork on the community.

You're right - they're pushing a contentious soft fork on the community. Yawn.

If adam's datacentercoin is a problem for you, stick with CoinbaseCoin.

Yikes! I have no idea what 'adam's datacentercoin' is. I assume by 'CoinbaseCoin', you mean Classic? Or do you mean Unlimited? XT? Or maybe you mean the source tree that Coinbase's engineers forked? You're gonna have to specify.

I've made my choice for the moment, thank you. Interestingly, any of the above are compatible with any of the others. So when another incorporates features I value higher, I can simply switch. Oh yeah - you can throw Satoshi 0.12 in that pile too. At least for now. Next Core rev... err ... not so much.

...and go back to pumping <<random shitcoin>>.

WTF are you on about?

The bitco.in crew's tendency to come here to trash bitcoin's future while glorifying shitcoins like DASH.

Can you name more than five people that you consider to be 'the bitco.in crew'? How many of them are pumping DASH here?

[jbreher]

Here's a con. A simple 2 Mb hard fork does not solve the O(n^2) hashing problem. For those of you blah blah blah

Here's a con. SegWit does not solve the O(n^2) hashing problem. Other fixes in the The SegWit Omnibus Changeset do. As do other changes in those other forks you so love to deride.

First, this has to do with _transaction_ size, not _block_ size. Sure, you can fit a larger than 1MB transaction in a larger than 1MB block. Yawn.

But even if the other forks had nothing in place to deal with this issue, you still need to explain to me why a miner would not stop validating a malformed block, rather than getting back to earning revenue*. If this sort of technical detail is what Bitcoin's continued success depends upon, rather than an alignment of economic incentive for being 'a good neighbor', we're all doomed anyway.

*For those of you who don't know what this is, it consists of being the first miner to find a nonce that brings the hash of a block to a result lower than that determined by the current difficulty.**

** Yes, I know you know this. Well, most of you, anyway. Think the incentives through.

[achow101]

Here's a con. SegWit does not solve the O(n^2) hashing problem. Other fixes in the The SegWit Omnibus Changeset do.

No, segwit requires that those changes be made to be compliant with the segwit fork. A simple 2 hard fork to a block size limit of 2 MB will not fix that. Yes, I know that a specific implementation of a 2 MB hard fork has a solution for that problem, but that is not the topic of this thread. This thread specifically talks about a generic 2 Mb hard fork which does not include such changes whereas segwit must include that change.

First, this has to do with _transaction_ size, not _block_ size. Sure, you can fit a larger than 1MB transaction in a larger than 1MB block. Yawn.

But even if the other forks had nothing in place to deal with this issue, you still need to explain to me why a miner would not stop validating a malformed block, rather than getting back to earning revenue*. If this sort of technical detail is what Bitcoin's continued success depends upon, rather than an alignment of economic incentive for being 'a good neighbor', we're all doomed anyway.

You're right, there is nothing stopping a miner from not validating the block, and you know what, that is exactly what miners do now. It's called SPV mining, they don't verify the blocks that they receive, they just start mining on the block even before verifying it. Even before they have received anything about the block except for the header.

Obviously there are solutions such as running validating in another thread, but that is off topic.

The problem with blocks having large transactions that have this problem is the potential attack vector on full nodes which do actually verify all blocks and transactions. Say you run a full node. Then I decide to start sending you blocks with transactions that take minutes to verify. Suddenly your node pretty much grinds to a halt as it attempts to verify all of those maliciously crafted blocks. Right now I could do that with a 1 Mb transaction. If the block size limit was 2 Mb, I could send you a 2 Mb transaction (assuming it is strictly just an increase to 2Mb only and nothing else) which would take you 4 times as long to validate.