luke jr's solution: make the blocks smaller

[jonald_fyookball]

[1714619369]

1714619369

[1714619369]

1714619369

[anonymoustroll420]

Do you run a full node? if not, why?

[QuestionAuthority]

Why doesn't he just have Jesus miracle a solution. Or maybe that's what happened. Me might have prayed for a solution and this is the best thing Jesus could come up with in a pinch.     

[K128kevin2]

Why doesn't he just have Jesus miracle a solution. Or maybe that's what happened. Me might have prayed for a solution and this is the best thing Jesus could come up with in a pinch.     

Yes. Jesus is an expert in "game theory economics and applied cryptography"

[Zionatin]

Why doesn't he just have Jesus miracle a solution. Or maybe that's what happened. Me might have prayed for a solution and this is the best thing Jesus could come up with in a pinch.     

I don't think he has prayed for a solution. He even proposed a change of PoW, that will kill the bitcoin certainly.

[kiklo]

Do you run a full node? if not, why?

I don't run one, because Full BTC Node are basically working for Free.

Pay me and I will run one. 


 

[Sadlife]

Noob question:
If we make the blocksize lesser would that make the transactions take several hours to get confirmed ?
i mean we all know that there are multiple transactions in a single block.

[anonymoustroll420]

I don't run one, because Full BTC Node are basically working for Free.

Pay me and I will run one.  

In the old days everyone ran a node. Running a full node was just as convenient as running an SPV client, with the added bonus of privacy and extra security. You have no privacy when you use an SPV wallet. All your Bitcoin addresses are sent to the node and they can see every transaction in your wallet.

Now running a full node requires doing an initial sync for a few days and 300+GB bandwidth a month and a minimum of 2GB RAM dedicated to the node.

Increasing the blocksize will only make this worse. The more you increase it, the worse it gets, and it's not even linear, a doubling of blocksize requires more than double bandwidth. Eventually nodes will become so expensive to run only a few people will be able and the network will become highly vulnerable and centralized and very easy to attack or even shut down.

To make it even worse, the max blocksize that the code can handle right now is 72MB. This isn't nearly enough to scale to the size of visa. Another scaling solution is needed. My preferred solution is: short term, a small increase in blocksize. Medium term, LN to make microtransactions possible again and get all small value transactions off the chain. Long term, MimbleWimble sidechain, possibly won't even need LN anymore when thats done. We need segwit to do all these 3.

[Amph]

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.


 

altcoin, can do hard fork without worry too much what are the consequence, because they are not as a big as bitcoin, they have no merchants not anything important that need to upgrade their blockchain in case of hard fork

this is a big difference, with an hard fork(not chain split) all miners and merchants need to upgrade, what if someone do not? might result in a mess with some transactions that are lost, because sent to the old fork

[kiklo]

altcoin, can do hard fork without worry too much what are the consequence, because they are not as a big as bitcoin, they have no merchants not anything important that need to upgrade their blockchain in case of hard fork

this is a big difference, with an hard fork(not chain split) all miners and merchants need to upgrade, what if someone do not? might result in a mess with some transactions that are lost, because sent to the old fork

If they don't update, once the fork happens, they won't receive be able to send or receive BTC until they do.
If they waited til after it forked, they will have to update to the new wallet, and then redownload the blockchain and -reindex to make sure all of their coins amounts are accurate. If they are too stupid to do that, they really need to let someone else manage their wallet.
Which by the way , the majority of BTC users do let others manage their wallet.

 

FYI:
Coins sent out on a bad fork are not lost , because when you reindex, (it is like they were never sent out.)  

FYI2:
You Guys do know the Dev Team can broadcast a message out that pops up on All of your BTC wallets until you update.
The Message could say ,  Hard Fork ahead Update before May 15th.

[anonymoustroll420]

You Guys do know the Dev Team can broadcast a message out that pops up on All of your BTC wallets until you update.
The Message could say ,  Hard Fork ahead Update before May 15th.

The alert system was removed a year ago.

[kiklo]

You Guys do know the Dev Team can broadcast a message out that pops up on All of your BTC wallets until you update.
The Message could say ,  Hard Fork ahead Update before May 15th.

The alert system was removed a year ago.

Well that was stupid.

Who did that?


 

[anonymoustroll420]

Well that was stupid.

Who did that?


 

Core: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2016-11-01-alert-retirement
Bitcoin Unlimited: https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/360

in short:

the Alert system also represents a large source of centralization in Bitcoin. The holders of the singular Alert Key can at any time send an alert which could affect the entire network. As more developers join, the Alert Key is given to others, but cannot be taken away from those who have left. This has led to the Alert Key potentially falling into the hands of malicious actors who could use it to disrupt the network. Because there is only one Alert key, it is not possible to prevent former developers from sending an alert nor is it possible to identify who sent an Alert.

In addition, the Alert system is primarily Bitcoin Core specific. Many other wallets have their own systems in place but still must have handling for the Alert system because it is network wide. Something specific for one software should not be imposed on the entire network.

The Alert system has also lost its usefulness. It is no longer necessary to use it to inform users about problematic network events as users can easily get their information from any major Bitcoin news outlet.

[kiklo]

Well that was stupid.

Who did that?


 

Core: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2016-11-01-alert-retirement
Bitcoin Unlimited: https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/360

in short:

the Alert system also represents a large source of centralization in Bitcoin. The holders of the singular Alert Key can at any time send an alert which could affect the entire network. As more developers join, the Alert Key is given to others, but cannot be taken away from those who have left. This has led to the Alert Key potentially falling into the hands of malicious actors who could use it to disrupt the network. Because there is only one Alert key, it is not possible to prevent former developers from sending an alert nor is it possible to identify who sent an Alert.

In addition, the Alert system is primarily Bitcoin Core specific. Many other wallets have their own systems in place but still must have handling for the Alert system because it is network wide. Something specific for one software should not be imposed on the entire network.

The Alert system has also lost its usefulness. It is no longer necessary to use it to inform users about problematic network events as users can easily get their information from any major Bitcoin news outlet.

Core is really a bunch of NitWits, they could have just changed the Alert key so that it was different from the previous key.
Seems like Core has been setting you guys up for quite a while now. 


 

FYI:
Well , that leaves the Forums, News & Radio & Email & Web Ads , and Phone Calls directly to the Big Pools.
Still more than enough ways for everyone to be informed.

[anonymoustroll420]

Core is really a bunch of NitWits, they could have just changed the Alert key so that it was different from the previous key.
Seems like Core has been setting you guys up for quite a while now. 

Well, Bitcoin Unlimited did remove it too. It's a dangerous feature. Compromising that key would allow someone to spread panic and crash the price.

[AngryDwarf]

If blocks have a version number, and a hard fork results in a new block version, isn't just the receipt of a block version higher than your node expects enough to trigger an upgrade alert? Could a consensus cryptographic solution be put in place to protect this (rogue version block attacks, and killing the old blockchain fork by rendering it unworkable?)

[franky1]

If blocks have a version number, and a hard fork results in a new block version, isn't just the receipt of a block version higher than your node expects enough to trigger an upgrade alert? Could a consensus cryptographic solution be put in place to protect this (rogue version block attacks, and killing the old blockchain fork by rendering it unworkable?)

why do you think segwit team disabled the alert message system with some foolish crap about the keys may be compromised

why do you think they went soft instead of letting nodes upgrade first and show network confidence .. and then do a pool vote secondary..
think about why they avoided nodes first.

oh and why are they now FORCING a mandatory activation without conceding if they dont get the votes

[AngryDwarf]

If blocks have a version number, and a hard fork results in a new block version, isn't just the receipt of a block version higher than your node expects enough to trigger an upgrade alert? Could a consensus cryptographic solution be put in place to protect this (rogue version block attacks, and killing the old blockchain fork by rendering it unworkable?)

why do you think segwit team disabled the alert message system with some foolish crap about the keys may be compromised

That's kind of not answering a question by asking another question.
A centralised alert key system should not be a long term solution.

[anonymoustroll420]

If blocks have a version number, and a hard fork results in a new block version, isn't just the receipt of a block version higher than your node expects enough to trigger an upgrade alert? Could a consensus cryptographic solution be put in place to protect this (rogue version block attacks, and killing the old blockchain fork by rendering it unworkable?)

why do you think segwit team disabled the alert message system with some foolish crap about the keys may be compromised

Why did Bitcoin Unlimited do it too?


Bitcoin Unlimited: https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/360
Title: Removal of alert system #360

By the way, Bitcoin contains "partition detection" and still does alerts for that. Though I don't know if that triggers with a different version block. It definitely won't kill the chain though, it's just a message. If it killed the chain, a rogue miner could shut down the network. EDIT: it's supposed to trigger when it detects a fork.

[franky1]

If blocks have a version number, and a hard fork results in a new block version, isn't just the receipt of a block version higher than your node expects enough to trigger an upgrade alert? Could a consensus cryptographic solution be put in place to protect this (rogue version block attacks, and killing the old blockchain fork by rendering it unworkable?)

why do you think segwit team disabled the alert message system with some foolish crap about the keys may be compromised

Why did Bitcoin Unlimited do it too?


Bitcoin Unlimited: https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/360
Title: Removal of alert system #360

lol the alert was removed in core last year
when bu grabbed core code. BU cleaned out the clutter of the last remnants of unneeded code