luke jr's solution: make the blocks smaller

[jonald_fyookball]

anyone else agree with this? 

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/

[1715469072]

1715469072

[1715469072]

1715469072

[1715469072]

1715469072

[unamis76]

luke-jr's ideas never seem to have much acceptance. He gets most of his facts straight, however:

No block size increase is needed now. All legitimate uses of the blockchain currently amount to approximately 750k/block average. If inefficient and microtransaction usage is put aside, likely below 500k would be sufficient.

luke-jr still says that the blockchain is inefficiently used, which derives from his known "blacklist". He has taken a stance on certain transaction labeling them "inefficient" now and even "spam" in the past. The question is: who are we to take a stance regarding any kind of transaction? At least at transactions whose purpose isn't to disrupt the network.

No block size increase is likely to be needed in the near future. Before we reach the point that 1 MB is insufficient, we are likely to have the Lightning protocol working in production. This improves efficiency of blockchain usage by magnitudes, possibly reducing 1 MB block usage to ~10k.

Another imprecision is that LN does not improve the efficiency of the blockchain...

So yeah, there's that... I guess I'm not really in agreement. At least I don't agree with implementing his ideas.

[K128kevin2]

luke-jr still says that the blockchain is inefficiently used, which derives from his known "blacklist". He has taken a stance on certain transaction labeling them "inefficient" now and even "spam" in the past. The question is: who are we to take a stance regarding any kind of transaction? At least at transactions whose purpose isn't to disrupt the network.

I thought his blacklist was just for the Gentoo ebuild and never made it upstream. I also think that his blacklist was just a way for him to push his religious agenda, and doesn't really have anything to do with scaling Bitcoin.

[anonymoustroll420]

I thought his blacklist was just for the Gentoo ebuild and never made it upstream. I also think that his blacklist was just a way for him to push his religious agenda, and doesn't really have anything to do with scaling Bitcoin.

Yeah it is just his gentoo build. He isn't entirely wrong though in that there are people wasting their money by making spammy transactions to fill up the blocks. Thats why the fees suddenly drop every so often, because the attack stops.

[Sundark]

So miners are the ones to blame here? We were told by miners propaganda that big blocks are the only viable solution to scaling problem.

While in reality:

"Miners are de facto cheating by skipping the very validation that is a crucial part of their job.
This breaks the little security light clients had. The cause for this is the time it takes to verify large blocks."

Also this point seems very pleasing:

"today, hardforks are not safe. GIven a few years more on this research, it should be possible to make an uncontroversial hardfork equally as safe as a softfork"

We need to wait what will franky1 say about this new level of core devs lunacy.

[hv_]

If  block time gets smaller by a factor > 2 and 21 Mio are constant I m fine....

[kiklo]

anyone else agree with this?  

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/

He is literally Talking out of his Ass.

today, hardforks are not safe.

If the Crybabies can't pull off a hard fork, Fire them.

BTC is pricing itself out of the markets , sending money orders is now cheaper.

Smaller Blocks , just mean less transaction fees for the miners and more Offchain is required.

If anyone has not figured out BTC Core is LN/Bankers Bitch, they are not paying attention.

BTC Core lies all of the time claim BTC can't do this or it can't do that.

ALT coins have been doing what they clam BTC can't for over 3 years. (They are LYING!)

 

FYI:
Increasing Blocksize or a Faster BlockSpeed , Either would Solve the Current ONCHAIN Issues.

[franky1]

wonder why full nodes are under 85%

1. core invent prunned mode
2. core tell the comunity its fine to use

3. core then complain its diluting the node count..

its called shooting self in the foot with "its ok"

same is happening with cores "its ok to be a downstream bottom tier of cores segwit network
same with
its ok to be a no witness

hey luke(if ur reading this). no matter what size you make the blocks.. bigger or smaller.. if you then add a feature to prune/no witness the full node even further.. ur still going to end up with a cesspool of nodes that cant be used as syncing seeds or full blockchain validators.

yep make the blocks just 50kb and people will still enable features to crapout the node count.. because core allow it.



.. hey core.. leave the prunned non-archival, lite wallet crap for things like armory and electrum to invent.


P.S i made this complaint nearly a year ago...

Why is that , are you talking the new version ? what changed exactly because I read the changelog and I honestly didn't understand much , too much technical stuff .

The new Bitcoin Core version (0.12.0) enables you to run a wallet in pruned mode. This means that you can use it without storing the whole blockchain. Essentially it can cut down the usage from around 60 GB of data to around ~2 GB. You only store the last X amount of blocks.

thats not what the original version of what prune mode was envisioned.

the original vision was to no longer keep spent data. but keep every unspent

now all of a sudden 2500 people who regularly upgrade are no longer going to hold full data should they enable lite node(which core wrongly calls prune)..
it should be called trim mode.. any gardener can explain the difference
pruning only cutting off the dead parts that are not needed.
trimming cutting off larger areas to improve asthetics and space for growth

but just keeping recent relay data is like cutting off the tree and only keeping the ripe fruit.. good old blockstream adding features to dilute the population of REAL FULL nodes. and leaving the community with a patch work of litenodes and compatible nodes.

if people dont have full history of unspents. then they cannot validate that a transaction is authentic.
why oh why do people think that making full node clients into crippled versions is a good thing. because fundamentally its not. if you want lite clients then download a lite client

stop trying to advertise that running in lite mode is better then sliced bread. if you want to say your a full node then dont cripple yourself or believe your still a full node after enabling such features

if your going to run (better to call it trim/lite) mode atleast accept your just a relay node and not a full archival node

now core are blaming others yet its actually a core feature which they thought was "ok" to add to their full node..

[ImHash]

The world is moving forward growing every day we can't just shrink and get smaller blocks and there is no way to determine which transactions are unneeded or inefficient other than the obvious spam attacks that now been revealed that they are to push the BU and other bigger blocks agendas.

With faster than 10 min block speed miners will mine more bitcoins and as a natural result the price will decrease.
I'd say lets make the fees to increase to a point where only the real supporters and users remain and spammers (aka BU dry out of money)
But that would mean nothing since they can keep mining their own spam transactions and earn back the fees that they've paid.

[unamis76]

I thought his blacklist was just for the Gentoo ebuild and never made it upstream. I also think that his blacklist was just a way for him to push his religious agenda, and doesn't really have anything to do with scaling Bitcoin.

Correct. For him, things are co-related because he assumes these transactions can be discarded, thus making the blocks free up...

He isn't entirely wrong though in that there are people wasting their money by making spammy transactions to fill up the blocks. Thats why the fees suddenly drop every so often, because the attack stops.

Attackers have nothing to do with this. The blacklist targeted transactions from online casinos and a few more sites I don't remember from the top of my head. Now the question is: why aren't those transactions legitimate and what makes them less legitimate than our transactions?

So miners are the ones to blame here? We were told by miners propaganda that big blocks are the only viable solution to scaling problem.

While in reality:

"Miners are de facto cheating by skipping the very validation that is a crucial part of their job.

This is a fact, but they can still say whatever they want about blocks.

FYI:
Increasing Blocksize or a Faster BlockSpeed , Either would Solve the Current ONCHAIN Issues.

Take a note that fast block speeds aren't a bed of roses. And miners will probably be against it (higher chance of orphans)

[kiklo]

FYI:
Increasing Blocksize or a Faster BlockSpeed , Either would Solve the Current ONCHAIN Issues.

Take a note that fast block speeds aren't a bed of roses. And miners will probably be against it (higher chance of orphans)

Oh Please, don't tell me you believe their Crybaby bullshit.

Change the Block speed to 5 minutes instead of 10 , you double the transaction capacity without touching the blocksize.

If they are that scarred of orphans , they can change the recommended confirmations from 3 to 6 , it would be finished in the same amount of Time either way.
LTC does 2½ minutes with only 6 confirms and never has a problem.

BTC code is not as Lame as Core makes out, Alts running at adaptive Blocksizes and faster than 1 minute blockspeeds have been out for years.

Core just wants you to think BTC is Lame, so they can force LN\Bankers Offchain Network down your Throats.


 

[jonald_fyookball]

changing the blockspeed is never going to happen. 

[European Central Bank]

who the hell am i to know better than him when it comes to bitcoin?

no doubt he's totally right but this guy's business is technical perfection. that can't happen in a vacuum when there's real demand eating away at it.

if he wants it to run the way he believes it should then he'll have to ask most of the users to leave.

[jonald_fyookball]

who the hell am i to know better than him when it comes to bitcoin?

no doubt he's totally right but this guy's business is technical perfection. that can't happen in a vacuum when there's real demand eating away at it.

if he wants it to run the way he believes it should then he'll have to ask most of the users to leave.

i think you just answered your own question

[Viscount]

It's a good solution instead of dumb increasing the block size. With segwit and side chains the scaling will be perfect. In programming it's better way to optimize things make them more petite. Google what was PC twenty years ago and what are they now.

[kiklo]

It's a good solution instead of dumb increasing the block size. With segwit and side chains the scaling will be perfect. In programming it's better way to optimize things make them more petite. Google what was PC twenty years ago and what are they now.

Have you read the LN WhitePaper, apparently Not.

There is a specific attack to let someone Steal Funds, by spamming the ONCHAIN network , so the Time Locks Expire.
Smaller Blocks will make theft easier to achieve.


 
 

[freedomno1]

anyone else agree with this? 

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/

Somewhat Luke Jr is always an interesting Dev node usage is dropping because of the lack of benefits.
 
Syncing takes a long time at 1MB a block hence move to lightweight as people feel that is secure enough and downloading the full blockchain is no small size either you need fast enough internet to keep up as well so incentives would be beneficial but still end up resulting in a fork due to changing block rewards etc.

As for making blocks smaller it is feasible if we move to an asset class and build a non-blockchain transaction layer but even at that point we need a few years or consensus.

Alas we probably won't have those few years so in a conundrum.

[unamis76]

Oh Please, don't tell me you believe their Crybaby bullshit.

Change the Block speed to 5 minutes instead of 10 , you double the transaction capacity without touching the blocksize.

If they are that scarred of orphans , they can change the recommended confirmations from 3 to 6 , it would be finished in the same amount of Time either way.
LTC does 2½ minutes with only 6 confirms and never has a problem.

BTC code is not as Lame as Core makes out, Alts running at adaptive Blocksizes and faster than 1 minute blockspeeds have been out for years.

Core just wants you to think BTC is Lame, so they can force LN\Bankers Offchain Network down your Throats.

 

Yes, I do believe, from what I've read on the forums during the years, that quicker blocks might not be the best solution. Some of their "crybaby bullshit" is right. Each camp has its own rights and wrongs.

[franky1]

Change the Block speed to 5 minutes instead of 10 , you double the transaction capacity without touching the blocksize.

to change the 'blockspeed'. is not just a few lines of code..it requires:
changing the reward per block
difficulty formulae
retarget period
block halving schedule
etc.

it effects many other things, like:
propagations times
tweaking reward unsettles peoples minds of the rarity/fixed release of new coins. not being as fixed as first thought.
and of course 5minutes is no better than 10minutes in reality of the "waiting at a grocery checkout aisle"

and still requires a full NODE and pool consensus. so its not going to be any less hassle of a consensus achieving event, it will actually be more hassle

however just moving the blocksize alone is less issues.

[Xester]

anyone else agree with this? 

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/

I have read the article and it was interesting how smaller blocks is fitted in todays situation. Maybe he is right and in the future we are all going to need the HArd fork without issues and is much safer compare to the hardfork today. Though there are some points that I dont get but I dont know if I agree with him that an increase in blocksize today is not needed.