The Blocksize Debate & Concerns

[ziiip]

To those calling for further decentralization and increased censorship resistance, China has trolled you all.

We already know that larger blocks will likely become an issue for fully validating nodes behind GFW regardless of seg wit. Furthermore, no one needs to be reminded that a vast majority of hashing power is located behind the great firewall.
Why don't we kill two birds with one stone, raise the blocksize already and force China to rethink it's priorities on censorship.
Who's with me?

And to those complaining about disk space, the blockchain in it's entirety can easily fit into RAM these days!

[1715028470]

1715028470

[1715028470]

1715028470

[1715028470]

1715028470

[Carlton Banks]

Why don't we kill two birds with one stone, raise the blocksize already and force China to rethink it's priorities on censorship.
Who's with me?

What are "the Chinese" censoring?

And to those complaining about disk space, the blockchain in it's entirety can easily fit into RAM these days!

Uh, you mean the everyday typical RAM amount of 80GB? Right

[franky1]

To those calling for further decentralization and increased censorship resistance, China has trolled you all.

We already know that larger blocks will likely become an issue for fully validating nodes behind GFW regardless of seg wit. Furthermore, no one needs to be reminded that a vast majority of hashing power is located behind the great firewall.
Why don't we kill two birds with one stone, raise the blocksize already and force China to rethink it's priorities on censorship.
Who's with me?

And to those complaining about disk space, the blockchain in it's entirety can easily fit into RAM these days!

just to clarify.. although the majority of hashpower is in china.. the POOL is not.
a simply laymans explanation is that ASIC miners do not have a hard drive.. they dont hold the blockchain. so them being behind the Chinese firewall means nothing..
their POOL which does have the blockchain, does the main job of communicating the hashes between miners, and communicates solved blocks to the world is outside the firewall. so in short the firewall is not a problem or something to be considered a reason why pools are saying/doing anything

[ziiip]

Why don't we kill two birds with one stone, raise the blocksize already and force China to rethink it's priorities on censorship.
Who's with me?

What are "the Chinese" censoring?

Umm. . Do you need to be reminded what firewalls implemented by governments are used for  . .

And to those complaining about disk space, the blockchain in it's entirety can easily fit into RAM these days!

Uh, you mean the everyday typical RAM amount of 80GB? Right

Everyday typical users should just use SPV clients. If you're paranoid then buy a HDD or don't use bitcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

I thought it was 80 GB of RAM I needed to buy? lol. Why not round it up to 96GB, what the hell! It'd make filling the memory channels easier

[Lauda]

Uh, you mean the everyday typical RAM amount of 80GB? Right

Totally typical, like those 1 GBPS download/upload connections. Did you not know that? I have no idea why we don't have 1 GB blocks right now, it is easy to download with those speeds  

Everyday typical users should just use SPV clients. If you're paranoid then buy a HDD or don't use bitcoin.

So if you want to verify that the incoming information is indeed correct you are paranoid and should either spend more money or not use Bitcoin at all? This logic is horrible. Bitcoin is about individual sovereignty and as such it should not be too difficult for one to use a 'full' wallet if they chose to. I have personally never use anything other (aside from testing SPV a few times).

I thought it was 80 GB of RAM I needed to buy? lol

dbcache=80000, a 16 Core CPU and everything will be swift. All you need to do is combine those typical things with the typical 1 GBPS download connection!

[Carlton Banks]

Just need a winged pegasus to fly on while I'm blockchainin', and I'm good to go!

[ziiip]

To those calling for further decentralization and increased censorship resistance, China has trolled you all.

We already know that larger blocks will likely become an issue for fully validating nodes behind GFW regardless of seg wit. Furthermore, no one needs to be reminded that a vast majority of hashing power is located behind the great firewall.
Why don't we kill two birds with one stone, raise the blocksize already and force China to rethink it's priorities on censorship.
Who's with me?

And to those complaining about disk space, the blockchain in it's entirety can easily fit into RAM these days!

just to clarify.. although the majority of hashpower is in china.. the POOL is not.
a simply laymans explanation is that ASIC miners do not have a hard drive.. they dont hold the blockchain. so them being behind the Chinese firewall means nothing..
their POOL which does have the blockchain, does the main job of communicating the hashes between miners, and communicates solved blocks to the world is outside the firewall. so in short the firewall is not a problem or something to be considered a reason why pools are saying/doing anything

Where is "the" pool then?

So far i found these.
f2pool stratum.f2pool.com 42.96.248.230
AS37963 Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.,Ltd.
Country of Orgin: China


BTCC stratum.btcchina.com 180.97.161.9
AS4134 China Telecom Backbone
Country of Orgin: China

BW.com stratum.bw.com 120.55.153.228
AS37963 Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.,Ltd.
Country of Orgin: China

You saying that BGP is lying today? lol

[ziiip]

Just need a winged pegasus to fly on while I'm blockchainin', and I'm good to go!

I don't think a winged pegasus would be nessisary but the following item should suffice. $549
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Supermicro-2U-Server-H8DG6-F-2x-AMD-6272-2-1ghz-16-Core-128gb-9211-8i-6g-1x1200w-/371646283884?hash=item5687d8406c:g:h3UAAOSwbYZXUfpX

[rizzlarolla]

I worry a lot that there is a widespread misunderstanding that blocks being "full" is bad-- block access is a priority queue based on feerate-- and at a feerate of ~0 there effectively infinite demand (for highly replicated perpetual storage). I believe that (absent radical new tech that we don't have yet) the system cannot survive as a usefully decentralized system if the response to "full" is to continually increase capacity (such as system would have almost no nodes, and also potentially have no way to pay for security). One of the biggest problems with hardfork proposals was that they directly fed this path-to-failure, and I worry that the segwit capacity increase may contribute to that too... e.g. that we'll temporarily not be "full" and then we'll be hit with piles of constructed "urgent! crash landing!" pressure to increase again to prevent "full" regardless of the costs.  E.g. a constant cycle of short term panic about an artificial condition pushing the system away from long term survivability.

I worry too, but you appear to be adding to this misunderstanding.

You are saying blocks can always be full (if the miners wished) because there are infinite 0 fee transactions in the memool.
Therefore, any increase is useless to get blocks less than full.
Therefore every increase will be filled with 0 fee transactions to infinity.

Blocks have recently been full of fee paying transactions, not 0 fee transactions.
Now adoption is on stop for a year.
(I know core want it this way, escalating fees. dynamic fee market)

0 fees is not an issue here.
0 fees have nothing to do with full blocks or required blocks size.

[Carlton Banks]

I don't think a winged pegasus would be nessisary but the following item should suffice. $549
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Supermicro-2U-Server-H8DG6-F-2x-AMD-6272-2-1ghz-16-Core-128gb-9211-8i-6g-1x1200w-/371646283884?hash=item5687d8406c:g:h3UAAOSwbYZXUfpX

Dollars? eBay? What sort of Bitcoiner is this? Oh right, the sort that wants to start the 1,0001st failed attempt at a hard fork dev team coup

[ziiip]

I don't think a winged pegasus would be nessisary but the following item should suffice. $549
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Supermicro-2U-Server-H8DG6-F-2x-AMD-6272-2-1ghz-16-Core-128gb-9211-8i-6g-1x1200w-/371646283884?hash=item5687d8406c:g:h3UAAOSwbYZXUfpX

Dollars? eBay? What sort of Bitcoiner is this? Oh right, the sort that wants to start the 1,0001st failed attempt at a hard fork dev team coup

Can you not engage in a meaningful debate?
I don't even care if it's a hard fork or not. I'm simply stating that ANY increase in blocksize will not be the end of bitcoin. I'm also on board with segwit but please remind me, when will segwit be implemented?

[Lauda]

I'm also on board with segwit but please remind me, when will segwit be implemented?

Segwit is implemented and has been recently merged for the upcoming version. Check the Github page and the commits. However, the exact details of activation have not been set yet.

[ziiip]

I'm also on board with segwit but please remind me, when will segwit be implemented?

Segwit is implemented and has been recently merged for the upcoming version. Check the Github page and the commits. However, the exact details of activation have not been set yet.

No, Segwit has not been implemented. It has been merged, yes but the answer to my original question is that no one actually knows when it will be active. This is the real problem. Markets that are unable to respond to demand by the users are not free.

[Lauda]

No, Segwit has not been implemented.

Apparently you don't know the difference between the words 'implementation' and 'activation'. If you want to try out Segwit you can do so on testnet.

It has been merged, yes but the answer to my original question is that no one actually knows when it will be active. This is the real problem.

That's not a problem at all. You will be aware of the activation date once everything is ready and the appropriate version has been released. These things need not be rushed.

[Carlton Banks]

I don't think a winged pegasus would be nessisary but the following item should suffice. $549
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Supermicro-2U-Server-H8DG6-F-2x-AMD-6272-2-1ghz-16-Core-128gb-9211-8i-6g-1x1200w-/371646283884?hash=item5687d8406c:g:h3UAAOSwbYZXUfpX

Dollars? eBay? What sort of Bitcoiner is this? Oh right, the sort that wants to start the 1,0001st failed attempt at a hard fork dev team coup

Can you not engage in a meaningful debate?

Listen, we get shilled and trolled to high heaven on this forum by people sugesting exactly your forthright assertion that blocksize needs increasing via hardfork. If you're onboard with Segwit, coming in with suggestions to cut off >half the hashrate is really disruptive, if nothing else, particularly seeing as Segwit is a blocksize increase.

Segwit is implemented and has been recently merged for the upcoming version... However, the exact details of activation have not been set yet.

It might come out earlier, in 0.12.2. Depends how they schedule it all. Activation is the same/similar to the other soft forks: 95% of blocks in a 2016 block window locks the activation date to another 2016 blocks after that.

[ziiip]

Does anyone care to argue ANY valid point's regarding why a blocksize increase is a bad idea?

[Carlton Banks]

No, because one way or another, it's going up. There is no argument to be had, except the same tired old "b-b-but main chain 2MB" stuff. Knock yourself out, but I'm not interested

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

Does anyone care to argue ANY valid point's regarding why a blocksize increase is a bad idea?

Because Gregory said so. QED.

Why do you insist on attacking broad and uncontentious consensus like this?

[Lauda]

Does anyone care to argue ANY valid point's regarding why a blocksize increase is a bad idea?

Quick and short list:

• Network has practically no hard fork experience.
• 2 MB block size limit is unsafe due to quadratic validation time - Gavin's BIP for Classic adds additional limitations to prevent this.
• Does not improve scalability at all.
• Does not come with any benefits besides increased TPS either.

This has all been discussed over and over in various places. This is why Segwit is the next step, it will make validation time linear among other things. I can't say whether and when a potential block size increase is going to come after Segwit.