Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[adamstgBit]

JayJuanGee you're a small blocker? 

[AlexGR]

The main argument among those who reject a block-size increase is that Bitcoin would centralize even faster because the costs are rising of running a full node. This would make Bitcoin insecure.

This is wrong! Adding 1000 nodes randomly around the world would not increase Bitcoin’s security.


https://medium.com/@yanislav/decentralize-bitcoin-again-bigger-blocks-and-a-new-dynamic-pow-199a68dbf34a#.2id1xrch3

Lol?

The problem is that this is not an "argument by those who reject a block-size increase". It's simply the reality of the matter, whether it's BTC or ...Ethereum.

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper

Scalability

One common concern about Ethereum is the issue of scalability. Like Bitcoin, Ethereum suffers from the flaw that every transaction needs to be processed by every node in the network. With Bitcoin, the size of the current blockchain rests at about 15 GB, growing by about 1 MB per hour. If the Bitcoin network were to process Visa's 2000 transactions per second, it would grow by 1 MB per three seconds (1 GB per hour, 8 TB per year). Ethereum is likely to suffer a similar growth pattern, worsened by the fact that there will be many applications on top of the Ethereum blockchain instead of just a currency as is the case with Bitcoin, but ameliorated by the fact that Ethereum full nodes need to store just the state instead of the entire blockchain history.

The problem with such a large blockchain size is centralization risk. If the blockchain size increases to, say, 100 TB, then the likely scenario would be that only a very small number of large businesses would run full nodes, with all regular users using light SPV nodes. In such a situation, there arises the potential concern that the full nodes could band together and all agree to cheat in some profitable fashion (eg. change the block reward, give themselves BTC). Light nodes would have no way of detecting this immediately. Of course, at least one honest full node would likely exist, and after a few hours information about the fraud would trickle out through channels like Reddit, but at that point it would be too late: it would be up to the ordinary users to organize an effort to blacklist the given blocks, a massive and likely infeasible coordination problem on a similar scale as that of pulling off a successful 51% attack.

Again, this is from ...Ethereum, not BTC. So if Ethereum seriously considers centralization as a problem, and most if not all altcoins do too, then how is this relevant only for "btc smallblockers"?

[AlexGR]

AlexGR, do you allow for the possibility that maybe small blocks isn't a good idea?

Timing is crucial.

Even 1TB per year blocks (20mb/block) will have its time when 20mb/block will be "alright".

Upgrade too soon, you'll have 10gb txs and 990gb spam.

Upgrade on time, you'll get 800-950gb txs and 50-200gb spam.

[Fatman3001]

JayJuanGee you're a small blocker? 

That alone should settle the matter.

[adamstgBit]

The main argument among those who reject a block-size increase is that Bitcoin would centralize even faster because the costs are rising of running a full node. This would make Bitcoin insecure.

This is wrong! Adding 1000 nodes randomly around the world would not increase Bitcoin’s security.


https://medium.com/@yanislav/decentralize-bitcoin-again-bigger-blocks-and-a-new-dynamic-pow-199a68dbf34a#.2id1xrch3

Lol?

The problem is that this is not an "argument by those who reject a block-size increase". It's simply the reality of the matter, whether it's BTC or ...Ethereum.

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper

Scalability

One common concern about Ethereum is the issue of scalability. Like Bitcoin, Ethereum suffers from the flaw that every transaction needs to be processed by every node in the network. With Bitcoin, the size of the current blockchain rests at about 15 GB, growing by about 1 MB per hour. If the Bitcoin network were to process Visa's 2000 transactions per second, it would grow by 1 MB per three seconds (1 GB per hour, 8 TB per year). Ethereum is likely to suffer a similar growth pattern, worsened by the fact that there will be many applications on top of the Ethereum blockchain instead of just a currency as is the case with Bitcoin, but ameliorated by the fact that Ethereum full nodes need to store just the state instead of the entire blockchain history.

The problem with such a large blockchain size is centralization risk. If the blockchain size increases to, say, 100 TB, then the likely scenario would be that only a very small number of large businesses would run full nodes, with all regular users using light SPV nodes. In such a situation, there arises the potential concern that the full nodes could band together and all agree to cheat in some profitable fashion (eg. change the block reward, give themselves BTC). Light nodes would have no way of detecting this immediately. Of course, at least one honest full node would likely exist, and after a few hours information about the fraud would trickle out through channels like Reddit, but at that point it would be too late: it would be up to the ordinary users to organize an effort to blacklist the given blocks, a massive and likely infeasible coordination problem on a similar scale as that of pulling off a successful 51% attack.

Again, this is from ...Ethereum, not BTC. So if Ethereum seriously considers centralization as a problem, and most if not all altcoins do too, then how is this relevant only for "btc smallblockers"?

define "centralization"

[adamstgBit]

AlexGR, do you allow for the possibility that maybe small blocks isn't a good idea?

Timing is crucial.

Even 1TB per year blocks (20mb/block) will have its time when 20mb/block will be "alright".

Upgrade too soon, you'll have 10gb txs and 990gb spam.

Upgrade on time, you'll get 800-950gb txs and 50-200gb spam.

you place way too much weight on spam. think of spam as a placeholder for legit TX, we welcome the placeholder because it pays some miner fees

[inca]

JayJuanGee you're a small blocker?  

That alone should settle the matter.

LOL

There is no such thing as spam if a transaction fee is paid -  just transactions you don't like. I thought bitcoin was about censorship resistance?

[AliceGored]

AlexGR, do you allow for the possibility that maybe small blocks isn't a good idea?

Timing is crucial.

Even 1TB per year blocks (20mb/block) will have its time when 20mb/block will be "alright".

Upgrade too soon, you'll have 10gb txs and 990gb spam.

Upgrade on time, you'll get 800-950gb txs and 50-200gb spam.

You really think miners are complete idiots, then. Chomping at the bit to bloat blocks to infinity with free spam...

~Come with me, reader, into the mind of the economic central planner... where "capitalism" is one broken production quota away from abject devastation and horror.~

[Fatman3001]

Again, this is from ...Ethereum, not BTC. So if Ethereum seriously considers centralization as a problem, and most if not all altcoins do too, then how is this relevant only for "btc smallblockers"?

To quote Egon Olsen : "There's a difference between shaving and cutting your head off."

[JayJuanGee]

JayJuanGee you're a small blocker?  

I'm o.k. with the current plan to implement seg wit first and to reassess the blocksize limit situation after seg wit is in play for a while.

I doubt anyone is suggesting small blocks forever, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence of an emergency need to take some kind of drastic measures to increase the blocksize limit on an emergency basis..  and in that regard, the impression and/or creation of an emergency seems to be largely fabricated with a bunch of loud and whiny voices.

Seems like we are going to see how seg wit plays out and then be able to reassess the blocksize limit situation at that time.


Further I believe that there is no meaningful proposal on the table to merely increase the blocksize limit without also attempting to affect bitcoin governance, which demonstrates to me that proposals that have recently been on the table to immediately increase the blocksize limit appear to be largely disingenuous.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The main argument among those who reject a block-size increase is that Bitcoin would centralize even faster because the costs are rising of running a full node. This would make Bitcoin insecure.

This is wrong! Adding 1000 nodes randomly around the world would not increase Bitcoin’s security.


https://medium.com/@yanislav/decentralize-bitcoin-again-bigger-blocks-and-a-new-dynamic-pow-199a68dbf34a#.2id1xrch3

Lol?

The problem is that this is not an "argument by those who reject a block-size increase". It's simply the reality of the matter, whether it's BTC or ...Ethereum.

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper

Scalability

One common concern about Ethereum is the issue of scalability. Like Bitcoin, Ethereum suffers from the flaw that every transaction needs to be processed by every node in the network. With Bitcoin, the size of the current blockchain rests at about 15 GB, growing by about 1 MB per hour. If the Bitcoin network were to process Visa's 2000 transactions per second, it would grow by 1 MB per three seconds (1 GB per hour, 8 TB per year). Ethereum is likely to suffer a similar growth pattern, worsened by the fact that there will be many applications on top of the Ethereum blockchain instead of just a currency as is the case with Bitcoin, but ameliorated by the fact that Ethereum full nodes need to store just the state instead of the entire blockchain history.

The problem with such a large blockchain size is centralization risk. If the blockchain size increases to, say, 100 TB, then the likely scenario would be that only a very small number of large businesses would run full nodes, with all regular users using light SPV nodes. In such a situation, there arises the potential concern that the full nodes could band together and all agree to cheat in some profitable fashion (eg. change the block reward, give themselves BTC). Light nodes would have no way of detecting this immediately. Of course, at least one honest full node would likely exist, and after a few hours information about the fraud would trickle out through channels like Reddit, but at that point it would be too late: it would be up to the ordinary users to organize an effort to blacklist the given blocks, a massive and likely infeasible coordination problem on a similar scale as that of pulling off a successful 51% attack.

Again, this is from ...Ethereum, not BTC. So if Ethereum seriously considers centralization as a problem, and most if not all altcoins do too, then how is this relevant only for "btc smallblockers"?

We're at 15GB. I think I heard the Ethereum blockchain is at 10GB already. And nobody actually uses it for anything yet. I say good luck to 'em.

[JayJuanGee]

JayJuanGee you're a small blocker?  

That alone should settle the matter.

LOL

There is no such thing as spam if a transaction fee is paid -  just transactions you don't like. I thought bitcoin was about censorship resistance?

Yeah, but currently everything is getting on the blockchain whether there is a fee or not.  The ones without fees are just taking longer to confirm.

[Fatman3001]

We're at 15GB. I think I heard the Ethereum blockchain is at 10GB already. And nobody actually uses it for anything yet. I say good luck to 'em.

Looks like it's been a while since you ran a full node.

[adamstgBit]

JayJuanGee you're a small blocker?  

I'm o.k. with the current plan to implement seg wit first and to reassess the blocksize limit situation after seg wit is in play for a while.

I doubt anyone is suggesting small blocks forever, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence of an emergency need to take some kind of drastic measures to increase the blocksize limit on an emergency basis..  and in that regard, the impression and/or creation of an emergency seems to be largely fabricated with a bunch of loud and whiny voices.

Seems like we are going to see how seg wit plays out and then be able to reassess the blocksize limit situation at that time.


Further I believe that there is no meaningful proposal on the table to merely increase the blocksize limit without also attempting to affect bitcoin governance, which demonstrates to me that proposals that have recently been on the table to immediately increase the blocksize limit appear to be largely disingenuous.

you're right even small blockers aren't small blockers anymore.

i guess to be a "small blocker" these days means you place a lot of value on keeping the system "lightweight".

I value that to, but not enough to sacrifice user experience, give up micro TX,  etc...

i guess there is a spectrum of "blockers"  

[coins101]

We're at 15GB. I think I heard the Ethereum blockchain is at 10GB already. And nobody actually uses it for anything yet. I say good luck to 'em.

Looks like it's been a while since you ran a full node.

@65GB and ~5% rate of growth.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

We're at 15GB. I think I heard the Ethereum blockchain is at 10GB already. And nobody actually uses it for anything yet. I say good luck to 'em.

Looks like it's been a while since you ran a full node.

60GB? Oh my!


But Betamax is still around. Right??

[AliceGored]

i guess there is a spectrum... 

undoubtedly

[AlexGR]

define "centralization"

I use these terms in a relative fashion, not absolute. This a p2p protocol which requires an extensive "p2p mesh" so to speak where a lot of people are running as peers, not clients dependent on some server. Decentralization = you want the network to be more on the p2p side rather than the client/server side. Centralization = the network tends to gravitate to a consolidated state where equal peers drop off and a few main central players are left standing.

you place way too much weight on spam. think of spam as a placeholder for legit TX, we welcome the placeholder because it pays some miner fees

Spam is the most wasteful symptom. However, given ample supply and low actual demand, the extremely cheap use of bitcoin's blockspace will not attract only spam, but also other systems on top of bitcoin that will use its transaction space as a ...cheap distributed storage system, where the costs burden the network nodes.

Thing is, if that happens, and as Satoshi said about the need to avoid DNS data being stored on the blockchain:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

...now Satoshi understood the problem, however BTC is a data-agnostic protocol. Right? It doesn't know whether you are creating your own system and using it for storage, whether you are transacting, spamming, etc etc...

So how can you prevent the scenario where BTC's blockchain becomes a distributed-storage system that "doesn't scale", or, worse yet, a spam dumpster?

The only two ways are limiting block size and raising tx price.

As for now: If the fees were helping the network to sustain itself economically, which will be the case in some years, then we'll probably need a lot of txs. However this is not the case right now, since subsidy is like ...50-100 times larger than fees and mining can still be profitable as it is, or even ...more profitable with 0-tx blocks that avoid orphaning.

[adamstgBit]

We're at 15GB. I think I heard the Ethereum blockchain is at 10GB already. And nobody actually uses it for anything yet. I say good luck to 'em.

Looks like it's been a while since you ran a full node.

60GB? Oh my!

you can prune that down to 0.5GB

[coins101]

define "centralization"

....

Bitcoin mining, March 2016