Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2018, 03:40:20 AM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Why not "Just" increase the block size?  (Read 418 times)
Q?
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 22, 2017, 04:09:55 PM
 #1

is there any valid argument against only increasing the block size?

what i mean is why not for example increase the block size to 2000 byte instead of current 1000 byte?


Segwit: is a lot of things, mostly malleability fix and eventually for LN and then payment channels,... which i don't even like because it wouldn't be on-chain.

BU: is a lot of headache and not only about increasing block size.

the previous ones (classic, XT): I remember them being a lot of other things, lets call them "additional changes"

In short, what I have seen so far, is different solutions none of which is focusing on removing the limit that satoshi put on block size years ago.
1539920420
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539920420

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539920420
Reply with quote  #2

1539920420
Report to moderator
1539920420
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539920420

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539920420
Reply with quote  #2

1539920420
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1539920420
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539920420

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539920420
Reply with quote  #2

1539920420
Report to moderator
1539920420
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539920420

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539920420
Reply with quote  #2

1539920420
Report to moderator
Kprawn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1052


View Profile
February 22, 2017, 04:26:59 PM
 #2

Well one reason would be, that it would sabotage Blockstream, because they want smaller block sizes to justify the solutions they are offering for

scaling.  Roll Eyes Most people also agree, increasing Blocksizes to something much bigger, will also open new opportunities for people to spam the

network. At this stage, it is just politics and power play between different groups of developers that slows everything down.  Angry

Signature space for Hire :->
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1377



View Profile
February 22, 2017, 04:28:53 PM
 #3

is there any valid argument against only increasing the block size?

Yes. Sigops per block can be used to attack the network, and it's a serious attack. Only segwit solves this, although it could just be solved separately with a softfork that performs only that change.

There's no point in increasing the blocksize at all while that attack still exists, an attacker could disrupt the network in a far more destructive fashion than the simple spamming attacks that we get today.


Vires in numeris
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1377



View Profile
February 22, 2017, 04:44:29 PM
 #4

Well one reason would be, that it would sabotage Blockstream, because they want smaller block sizes to justify the solutions they are offering for

scaling.

You obviously don't understand the second half of your own post.


The whole point of developing off-chain scaling layers is to keep the on-chain system decentralised, you can't claim to care about blocksize increasing centralisation of nodes and simultaneously complain about using a low blocksize to promote decentralised networks of nodes.


How else do you propose to keep the node count up, magic?

Vires in numeris
Q?
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 22, 2017, 04:52:37 PM
 #5

Well one reason would be, that it would sabotage Blockstream, because they want smaller block sizes to justify the solutions they are offering for scaling.

Well this is turning into a fight over power and there is no denying that part.

Most people also agree, increasing Blocksizes to something much bigger, will also open new opportunities for people to spam the network.

The limit was placed there in the first place by Satoshi to prevent this. But the argument saying "bigger blocks means more attacks so we don't increase it" is wrong and bullshit.

There's no point in increasing the blocksize at all while that attack still exists, an attacker could disrupt the network in a far more destructive fashion than the simple spamming attacks that we get today.

simple spamming attacks? are you for real!
there has been 80,000 transactions in the mempool today and fee has gone up to 180 satoshi/byte and it is increasing nonstop.
I don't get how bigger block, which causes the attacker to lose more money from his attacks can lead to a more destructive attack?

oh and P.S for the majority of the past 8 years the 1000 byte block size was almost empty and ever since this dick measuring fight over block size started we are seeing full blocks and big mempool.

Yes. Sigops per block can be used to attack the network, and it's a serious attack. Only segwit solves this, although it could just be solved separately with a softfork that performs only that change.

Ok, explain to me after activation of Segwit what is going to prevent the attacker from sending a transaction every 5 seconds from each of his 100 keys and filling the blocks again making another 80K-100K unconfirmed transactions in the mempool?
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1377



View Profile
February 22, 2017, 05:17:13 PM
 #6

Most people also agree, increasing Blocksizes to something much bigger, will also open new opportunities for people to spam the network.

The limit was placed there in the first place by Satoshi to prevent this. But the argument saying "bigger blocks means more attacks so we don't increase it" is wrong and bullshit.

Why is an improvement in sighashing scaling performance being offered then?
.
There's no point in increasing the blocksize at all while that attack still exists, an attacker could disrupt the network in a far more destructive fashion than the simple spamming attacks that we get today.

simple spamming attacks? are you for real!
there has been 80,000 transactions in the mempool today and fee has gone up to 180 satoshi/byte and it is increasing nonstop.
I don't get how bigger block, which causes the attacker to lose more money from his attacks can lead to a more destructive attack?

oh and P.S for the majority of the past 8 years the 1000 byte block size was almost empty and ever since this dick measuring fight over block size started we are seeing full blocks and big mempool.

Yes. Sigops per block can be used to attack the network, and it's a serious attack. Only segwit solves this, although it could just be solved separately with a softfork that performs only that change.

Ok, explain to me after activation of Segwit what is going to prevent the attacker from sending a transaction every 5 seconds from each of his 100 keys and filling the blocks again making another 80K-100K unconfirmed transactions in the mempool?
It's not that attack that we need to worry about, all spamming does is hike the transaction fees. Sighashing attack is much more serious in it's effects.

Vires in numeris
pedrog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1005



View Profile
February 22, 2017, 05:24:57 PM
 #7

is there any valid argument against only increasing the block size?

what i mean is why not for example increase the block size to 2000 byte instead of current 1000 byte?


Segwit: is a lot of things, mostly malleability fix and eventually for LN and then payment channels,... which i don't even like because it wouldn't be on-chain.

BU: is a lot of headache and not only about increasing block size.

the previous ones (classic, XT): I remember them being a lot of other things, lets call them "additional changes"

In short, what I have seen so far, is different solutions none of which is focusing on removing the limit that satoshi put on block size years ago.

There was such a thing:

https://github.com/jgarzik/bips/blob/87aacb6a58d3c63a5dd2082a566b763dd22f919e/bip-0202.mediawiki
BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1019


View Profile
February 22, 2017, 05:26:18 PM
 #8

is there any valid argument against only increasing the block size?

what i mean is why not for example increase the block size to 2000 byte instead of current 1000 byte?


Segwit: is a lot of things, mostly malleability fix and eventually for LN and then payment channels,... which i don't even like because it wouldn't be on-chain.

BU: is a lot of headache and not only about increasing block size.

the previous ones (classic, XT): I remember them being a lot of other things, lets call them "additional changes"

In short, what I have seen so far, is different solutions none of which is focusing on removing the limit that satoshi put on block size years ago.

Segwit fixes things that would be useful to upgrade the block size. So first segwit, then blocksize increase. All the people that know how bitcoin works agree with this. Only paid /r/btc trolls and greedy chink miners are opposing segwit.

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168
Sithara007
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1013


★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
February 22, 2017, 05:28:44 PM
 #9

I am afraid that sooner or later, this is going to become a necessity. More and more people are using Bitcoin now, and the user-base is expanding. A corresponding increase in the number of transactions is being noticed. We should increase the block size, and there is no other choice out there.

Q?
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 22, 2017, 05:49:54 PM
 #10


Yeah, I meant something like this.

Segwit fixes things that would be useful to upgrade the block size. So first segwit, then blocksize increase. All the people that know how bitcoin works agree with this. Only paid /r/btc trolls and greedy chink miners are opposing segwit.

I am not opposing Segwit, and I don't know if you are calling me a shill or generally speaking or just spamming with your signature! but for all I care both /r/bitcoin and /r/btc and their supporters can burn in hell. As I said things are turning into a dick measuring contest over who can get the most power.
Q?
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 22, 2017, 05:56:26 PM
 #11

I have been reading more about "Sighash" that was mentioned above and I am starting to understand it a little more. Try to read more in the morning see if I am convinced.

Meanwhile feel free to add anything here about this and the main topic.
Bitcoinsummoner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 501


View Profile
February 22, 2017, 06:07:32 PM
 #12

Im afraid of the block size increase only miners will be get benefits and we are paying much more fee than before..
Honestly before i can pay without a fee in electrum before but now slowly the fee is needed and increased..
I hope if segwit can help why still now we are experience sometimes block size increased.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1200



View Profile
February 22, 2017, 07:11:16 PM
 #13

1. segwit does NOT solve sigops attacks.. sigop attackers will still use native keys after segwit is active. segwit is not the solution it promises because the bypass is soo easy (just continue using native keys)

2. putting in a tx sigops limit does help. which can be sorted out in any new consensus event, thus not something only "segwit" can fix,

3. the schnorr signature concept can also be added to any new consensus event. again it doesnt need "segwit" specifically

seems many silly people think that segwit solves everything.. and also stupidly think nothing can be done unless segwit is done first.
in both brainless thoughts.. they are wrong

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1200



View Profile
February 22, 2017, 07:33:14 PM
 #14

Segwit fixes things that would be useful to upgrade the block size. So first segwit, then blocksize increase. All the people that know how bitcoin works agree with this. Only paid /r/btc trolls and greedy chink miners are opposing segwit.

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

seems 2 blockstream scripters wanted to spam the same script in different topics.

Blocksize increase without segwit first = stupid:

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

So let's get this done (segwit activated, then block size increase eventually and LN), or keep complaining about bitcoin's lack of updates.

funny thing is that the tweet is out dated (9:53 am - 20 May 2016) the tweet was wrote before segwit even had a release candidate
the tweet was wrote before people actually properly tested segwit to realise it does not stop attackers.

seems they need to update their script or learn what segwit can and cant actually achieve rather than qouting people who have "fame" but no actual experience of what they were promoting at the time.

andreas is a goodman, but he promoted segwit before understanding it in reality

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!