Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU

[muyuu]

The options I listed in my first post are still the only options. If you don't want to filter out SD transactions then the default "do nothing" option means that transactions will become very expensive, and small quantities of Bitcoin won't be spendable at all.

Not really.

Just expensive enough so SD is not viable. Say, 0.03 or so. For a moderate quantity it's not expensive. For micropayments, BTC is never going to scale to global scale as to accommodate micropayments. It's simple math really...

I don't think BTC is ready for fees so high.  That's going to shut out a lot of commerce, not just SD.

It's going to force the evolution that will need to happen sooner or later anyway.

Ripple or whatever other overlay system is required for micropayments. Free transactions in the blockchain are not going to last too long.

[1714017813]

1714017813

[1714017813]

1714017813

[1714017813]

1714017813

[1714017813]

1714017813

[SgtSpike]

The options I listed in my first post are still the only options. If you don't want to filter out SD transactions then the default "do nothing" option means that transactions will become very expensive, and small quantities of Bitcoin won't be spendable at all.

Not really.

Just expensive enough so SD is not viable. Say, 0.03 or so. For a moderate quantity it's not expensive. For micropayments, BTC is never going to scale to global scale as to accommodate micropayments. It's simple math really...

I don't think BTC is ready for fees so high.  That's going to shut out a lot of commerce, not just SD.

It's going to force the evolution that will need to happen sooner or later anyway.

Ripple or whatever other overlay system is required for micropayments. Free transactions in the blockchain are not going to last too long.

I'm ok with fees.  But $1.20 fee per transaction is too much.

That said, it really doesn't matter what you or I think.  The free market will always set a fair fee price based on the marginal cost per transaction and the willingness of users of the system to pay fees.

[Largo]

The options I listed in my first post are still the only options. If you don't want to filter out SD transactions then the default "do nothing" option means that transactions will become very expensive, and small quantities of Bitcoin won't be spendable at all.

Not really.

Just expensive enough so SD is not viable. Say, 0.03 or so. For a moderate quantity it's not expensive. For micropayments, BTC is never going to scale to global scale as to accommodate micropayments. It's simple math really...

I don't think BTC is ready for fees so high.  That's going to shut out a lot of commerce, not just SD.

It's going to force the evolution that will need to happen sooner or later anyway.

Ripple or whatever other overlay system is required for micropayments. Free transactions in the blockchain are not going to last too long.

Exactly, and i just hope the devs are intelligent enough not to try to 'fix' that problem by making the blocksize much larger. At least not untill everyone really got 10x faster/bigger CPU/HD/Internet compared to today.
Everyone should be able to run a full node through slow broadband internet (or Tor).

[dree12]

The options I listed in my first post are still the only options. If you don't want to filter out SD transactions then the default "do nothing" option means that transactions will become very expensive, and small quantities of Bitcoin won't be spendable at all.

Not really.

Just expensive enough so SD is not viable. Say, 0.03 or so. For a moderate quantity it's not expensive. For micropayments, BTC is never going to scale to global scale as to accommodate micropayments. It's simple math really...

I don't think BTC is ready for fees so high.  That's going to shut out a lot of commerce, not just SD.

It's going to force the evolution that will need to happen sooner or later anyway.

Ripple or whatever other overlay system is required for micropayments. Free transactions in the blockchain are not going to last too long.

Exactly, and i just hope the devs are intelligent enough not to try to 'fix' that problem by making the blocksize much larger. At least not untill everyone really got 10x faster/bigger CPU/HD/Internet compared to today.
Everyone should be able to run a full node through slow broadband internet (or Tor).

I don't believe in full nodes anymore after the last chain split. It's clear that many people don't understand the responsibility involved with running a full node rather than an SPV or a FAN node. Full nodes need to be upgraded as soon as possible, or the network will break like it did yesterday.

Just like mining is no longer a business one can get in with their GPU or CPU, I feel that full nodes should be moved out of the hands of the ignorant consumer and even the average merchant.

I would prefer a Bitcoin client that offered the user 5 types of nodes:

Supernodes, that run two or more full nodes to ensure consistency. Should be upgraded ASAP, and uses the most resources but also provides the most security.
Full nodes, the current default for Bitcoin-QT. Should be upgraded ASAP. Uses a lot of resources for good security.
FAN nodes, which are no yet implemented AFAIK. Can be left at an older version. Uses a lot of resources for good security, but not as good as a full node.
SPV nodes, which download and verify only headers. Can be left at an older version. Light on resources for adequate security.
Server nodes, which use a server to communicate transactions. Can be left at an older version. Very light on resources for acceptable security.

[Blowfeld]

I suppose you forgot already why this thread started - we ran out of block space and transactions started stacking up, unconfirmed. This almost immediately caused lots of user complaints.

Exactly because people did NOT upgrade to Bitcoin 0.8 fast enough, which fixed the bug in 0.7 and below, now we are now back to square one - stuck with blocks that are too small to meet demand for transactions. Expect the complaints to start again soon unless filtering of SD becomes common.

The options I listed in my first post are still the only options. If you don't want to filter out SD transactions then the default "do nothing" option means that transactions will become very expensive, and small quantities of Bitcoin won't be spendable at all.

The fork is certainly a big problem: unfortunately, nobody realized it would happen. It's not even clear yet what kind of testing would have revealed this issue. Simply making big blocks is apparently not enough to trigger it. That said, we knew that BDB was generally a rats nest of weird problems which is one reason why I ported Bitcoin to LevelDB. If the block sizes had been raised a few months from now, we'd probably have just abandoned the 0.7 users to their fate, but we got unlucky with the timing.

Assuming we want Bitcoin to scale up, we'll have to fork 0.7 and lower off the chain sooner rather than later and then raise the block size limits again.

Users will not upgrade on your schedule, except very begrudingly!  Yet, the sky is not falling.  When the problem is better understood, it should be possible for miners to raise the soft block-size limits.  When the actual limit in BDB that causes 0.7.x clients to fail a block is well understood, that condition needs to be added (by miners, only) to the 0.8 code they use to generate and verify a block.  Then, after some testing and a gentle roll-out of bigger block sizes, that buys some breathing room.  You can add a couple of factors of 2 in this manner, but it appears to me this won't keep up with SD's growth rate for long.

[As I currently understand it, the problem is thought to be a limit on the number of locks on the BDB database, which is in turn a function of the number of transactions in a block and/or the number of transactions referenced by a block, which is indirectly related to the size of a block.]

@all:  Gamblers, have a different mindset than those who are engaged in commerce.  Let's just call it entertainment, and not get too preachy.  Gamblers will pay substantial fees for entertainment that those engaged in ordinary commerce will not (or cannot) pay.  (15%-20%, typically, at a parimutuel US horse race; 40-50% at a typical US State lottery; 5% at American roulette; etc.)  I don't think it is possible to raise the fees in a way that would make SD unprofitable, without raising the fees in a way that makes bitcoin unprofitable for many other economic purposes. 

[justusranvier]

[As I currently understand it, the problem is thought to be a limit on the number of locks on the BDB database, which is in turn a function of the number of transactions in a block and/or the number of transactions referenced by a block, which is indirectly related to the size of a block.]

There is some evidence from other threads that it might be possible to fixed old clients by adding a single configuration file, without requiring any code updates at all.

[Blowfeld]

[As I currently understand it, the problem is thought to be a limit on the number of locks on the BDB database, which is in turn a function of the number of transactions in a block and/or the number of transactions referenced by a block, which is indirectly related to the size of a block.]

There is some evidence from other threads that it might be possible to fixed old clients by adding a single configuration file, without requiring any code updates at all.

I am aware of that.  The problem remains.  Any 0.7.x (or prior) client that hasn't upgraded or updated the BDB configuration file will soon be on a hard fork of the block chain.  Aside from the risk to those individuals, I think that would be extremely harmful to the overall credibility of Bitcoin.

[muyuu]

@all:  Gamblers, have a different mindset than those who are engaged in commerce.  Let's just call it entertainment, and not get too preachy.  Gamblers will pay substantial fees for entertainment that those engaged in ordinary commerce will not (or cannot) pay.  (15%-20%, typically, at a parimutuel US horse race; 40-50% at a typical US State lottery; 5% at American roulette; etc.)  I don't think it is possible to raise the fees in a way that would make SD unprofitable, without raising the fees in a way that makes bitcoin unprofitable for many other economic purposes. 

The only reason gamblers would pay that sort of fees is because it's an extremely regulated business and as a result it's very uncompetitive.

SD would have to compete with other gambling systems off the blockchain and it would soon become a rip-off in comparison.

On top of that, all the current abuse would become so expensive they would be squint rather soon.

And on top of that, it really isn't a business that can grow so big that it will phagocyte any possible blockchain, provided there are some sanity limits (namely fees).

If you think gambling can grow so big, even at fees as high as 5%, that it will make any other business uncompetitive by land-grabbing blockchains of any transactional performance, then that would basically prove the whole idea of Bitcoin inviable. We would have to abolish complete anonymity in transactions and start monitoring what people do to stop gambling.

 I'm willing to bet ( ) this is not necessary and that gambling would stay within control just by virtue of fee-based self-regulation.

[Smoovious]

@all:  Gamblers, have a different mindset than those who are engaged in commerce.  Let's just call it entertainment, and not get too preachy.  Gamblers will pay substantial fees for entertainment that those engaged in ordinary commerce will not (or cannot) pay.  (15%-20%, typically, at a parimutuel US horse race; 40-50% at a typical US State lottery; 5% at American roulette; etc.)  I don't think it is possible to raise the fees in a way that would make SD unprofitable, without raising the fees in a way that makes bitcoin unprofitable for many other economic purposes. 

The only reason gamblers would pay that sort of fees is because it's an extremely regulated business and as a result it's very uncompetitive.

SD would have to compete with other gambling systems off the blockchain and it would soon become a rip-off in comparison.

On top of that, all the current abuse would become so expensive they would be squint rather soon.

And on top of that, it really isn't a business that can grow so big that it will phagocyte any possible blockchain, provided there are some sanity limits (namely fees).

If you think gambling can grow so big, even at fees as high as 5%, that it will make any other business uncompetitive by land-grabbing blockchains of any transactional performance, then that would basically prove the whole idea of Bitcoin inviable. We would have to abolish complete anonymity in transactions and start monitoring what people do to stop gambling.

 I'm willing to bet ( ) this is not necessary and that gambling would stay within control just by virtue of fee-based self-regulation.

Gamblers don't choose where to play, because of the fees (or rake, or house edge, etc)... they choose to play because of the games being offered... the rake is secondary.

If fees were the primary choice to choose where to gamble? Everyone would be playing at Seals With Clubs. (referral link in my sig below )

-- Smoov

[muyuu]

Gamblers don't choose where to play, because of the fees (or rake, or house edge, etc)... they choose to play because of the games being offered... the rake is secondary.

If fees were the primary choice to choose where to gamble? Everyone would be playing at Seals With Clubs. (referral link in my sig below )

-- Smoov

Both are factors.

As I said, fee pressure would be enough to keep the volume from taking up all the transaction real estate.

I'd be willing to bet on that

Raising the block size much more poses very real problems in terms of storage and bandwidth, and I don't think it's necessary at all.

[Smoovious]

Gamblers don't choose where to play, because of the fees (or rake, or house edge, etc)... they choose to play because of the games being offered... the rake is secondary.

If fees were the primary choice to choose where to gamble? Everyone would be playing at Seals With Clubs. (referral link in my sig below )

-- Smoov

Both are factors.

As I said, fee pressure would be enough to keep the volume from taking up all the transaction real estate.

I'd be willing to bet on that

Raising the block size much more poses very real problems in terms of storage and bandwidth, and I don't think it's necessary at all.

Don't get me wrong here... I think the whole move to make SD a scapegoat for BTC's shortcomings is a foolish direction to take to begin with.

From a message I just read a little while ago, it appears SD is paying plenty in fees, according to the rules, and if people don't like it, that's just too bad. As long as the transactions are being processed properly, without regard for who sent to who and why, with fees or without as appropriate according to the priority rules for processing them, SD is under no obligation to kowtow to "purists" who find SD's (or SR's, or whoever else ends up being the scapegoat of the month) use of the currency to somehow offend their fragile sensibilities of what is or isn't good enough to use bitcoin, in whatever manner they choose.

Cryptocoin should be agnostic. All it should care about is, is this a valid tx, and if it is, then throw it in the queue to be prioritized like all of the other ones.

Nobody using cryptocoin, is in a position to tell me what I can or can't do with my coin, and this bandwagon  bullshit trying to make SD the scapegoat here is laughable, AT BEST.

No, this recent problem with the fork, wasn't caused by SD... it was caused by short-sightedness of various programmers directly and not directly involved with cryptocoin development.

Plenty of blame to go around here...

but... being able to stand up and take responsibility for their own oversights, is a very rare quality in today's world... hence, the need for a scapegoat... that's the only place where SD comes in here.

-- Smoov

[muyuu]

Gamblers don't choose where to play, because of the fees (or rake, or house edge, etc)... they choose to play because of the games being offered... the rake is secondary.

If fees were the primary choice to choose where to gamble? Everyone would be playing at Seals With Clubs. (referral link in my sig below )

-- Smoov

Both are factors.

As I said, fee pressure would be enough to keep the volume from taking up all the transaction real estate.

I'd be willing to bet on that

Raising the block size much more poses very real problems in terms of storage and bandwidth, and I don't think it's necessary at all.

Don't get me wrong here... I think the whole move to make SD a scapegoat for BTC's shortcomings is a foolish direction to take to begin with.

From a message I just read a little while ago, it appears SD is paying plenty in fees, according to the rules, and if people don't like it, that's just too bad. As long as the transactions are being processed properly, without regard for who sent to who and why, with fees or without as appropriate according to the priority rules for processing them, SD is under no obligation to kowtow to "purists" who find SD's (or SR's, or whoever else ends up being the scapegoat of the month) use of the currency to somehow offend their fragile sensibilities of what is or isn't good enough to use bitcoin, in whatever manner they choose.

Cryptocoin should be agnostic. All it should care about is, is this a valid tx, and if it is, then throw it in the queue to be prioritized like all of the other ones.

Nobody using cryptocoin, is in a position to tell me what I can or can't do with my coin, and this bandwagon  bullshit trying to make SD the scapegoat here is laughable, AT BEST.

No, this recent problem with the fork, wasn't caused by SD... it was caused by short-sightedness of various programmers directly and not directly involved with cryptocoin development.

Plenty of blame to go around here...

but... being able to stand up and take responsibility for their own oversights, is a very rare quality in today's world... hence, the need for a scapegoat... that's the only place where SD comes in here.

-- Smoov

I'm not making SD the scapegoat. I don't advocate for its blocking, simply leaving the blocksize alone would make transactions expensive enough SD would die on its own (along with micropayments).

It's just a fact of life that we cannot raise the block size so big that no system with free or negligible fees wouldn't take up the whole transaction space.

Looking forward, the easiest, most conservative patch was to just ban SD, BUT this is not what I'm calling for. The problem is that DDoSing the blockchain is simply allowed (could be even worse than SD, it could be on 0.00000 fees, at all - most devs want to support this "for the time being" meaning years to come).

[Smoovious]

I'm not making SD the scapegoat. I don't advocate for its blocking, simply leaving the blocksize alone would make transactions expensive enough SD would die on its own (along with micropayments).

It's just a fact of life that we cannot raise the block size so big that no system with free or negligible fees wouldn't take up the whole transaction space.

Looking forward, the easiest, most conservative patch was to just ban SD, BUT this is not what I'm calling for. The problem is that DDoSing the blockchain is simply allowed (could be even worse than SD, it could be on 0.00000 fees, at all - most devs want to support this "for the time being" meaning years to come).

They're not DDoS'ing the blockchain in the first place, and banning SD is hardly a conservative approach.

Throwing accusations against SD for their choice of business model, _IS_ making them into a scapegoat.

-- Smoov

[muyuu]

I'm not making SD the scapegoat. I don't advocate for its blocking, simply leaving the blocksize alone would make transactions expensive enough SD would die on its own (along with micropayments).

It's just a fact of life that we cannot raise the block size so big that no system with free or negligible fees wouldn't take up the whole transaction space.

Looking forward, the easiest, most conservative patch was to just ban SD, BUT this is not what I'm calling for. The problem is that DDoSing the blockchain is simply allowed (could be even worse than SD, it could be on 0.00000 fees, at all - most devs want to support this "for the time being" meaning years to come).

They're not DDoS'ing the blockchain in the first place, and banning SD is hardly a conservative approach.

Throwing accusations against SD for their choice of business model, _IS_ making them into a scapegoat.

-- Smoov

They are scaling the transactions over sustainable levels paying a fee that doesn't make mining worth it on its own, and forcing to grow the block size if we want to continue allowing free transactions.

Call that whatever you want, that's basically playing the social engineering card.

Simple fact is, if you allow them to pay such low fees, they are growing over what BTC can currently support.

Making something completely free or extremely cheap, allows exploitation (DDoSing if you will, or if you don't like the term just call it overexploitation) of the resource above sustainable levels. This is actually what happens with spam and this is what PoW was developed to fight against originally.

[willphase]

seems some miners are mining over the 250k limit - is this okay?  Will these blocks propagate fine?

https://blockchain.info/block-index/379053/000000000000019f90205f482ec19801627a31a52640ac58d8f59db5a057600b

Will

[jgarzik]

seems some miners are mining over the 250k limit - is this okay?  Will these blocks propagate fine?

Yes.

[zebedee]

They are scaling the transactions over sustainable levels paying a fee that doesn't make mining worth it on its own, and forcing to grow the block size if we want to continue allowing free transactions.

Call that whatever you want, that's basically playing the social engineering card.

Simple fact is, if you allow them to pay such low fees, they are growing over what BTC can currently support.

You're saying the miners are including SD transactions and accepting them because the fee they're paying is too low and is killing those same miners?  Huh?

You guys justifying a block size limit, or even believing it solves a problem, never cease to amaze me with the supporting "logic".

[deepceleron]

They are scaling the transactions over sustainable levels paying a fee that doesn't make mining worth it on its own, and forcing to grow the block size if we want to continue allowing free transactions.

Call that whatever you want, that's basically playing the social engineering card.

Simple fact is, if you allow them to pay such low fees, they are growing over what BTC can currently support.

You're saying the miners are including SD transactions and accepting them because the fee they're paying is too low and is killing those same miners?  Huh?

You guys justifying a block size limit, or even believing it solves a problem, never cease to amaze me with the supporting "logic".

User statistics for: zebedee
Most Popular Boards By Activity: Electrum

You don't use the full blockchain, you aren't supporting the infrastructure of the Bitcoin network, therefore you do not stand on solid ground when putting forth an argument.

[dree12]

They are scaling the transactions over sustainable levels paying a fee that doesn't make mining worth it on its own, and forcing to grow the block size if we want to continue allowing free transactions.

Call that whatever you want, that's basically playing the social engineering card.

Simple fact is, if you allow them to pay such low fees, they are growing over what BTC can currently support.

You're saying the miners are including SD transactions and accepting them because the fee they're paying is too low and is killing those same miners?  Huh?

You guys justifying a block size limit, or even believing it solves a problem, never cease to amaze me with the supporting "logic".

User statistics for: zebedee
Most Popular Boards By Activity: Electrum

You don't use the full blockchain, you aren't supporting the infrastructure of the Bitcoin network, therefore you do not stand on solid ground when putting forth an argument.

"You did not contribute to the Church of Scientology; therefore, you have no right to criticize it."

Everyone, including Electrum users, uses Bitcoin. They should not be denied their right to an opinion because in your mind they do not "support" the Bitcoin network.

[Crazygreek]

There is the only ting I am worried about: was that Satoshi, quoted in OP-post, a real one? Why is everyone thinking that this is the word of a real creator of Bitcoin?