I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't.

[iluvpie60]

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here. As someone who has been really out of the loop on the technical side of things and I also have really no idea of the politics behind these factions... but I want to ask what is the problem with big blocks exactly.

In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size(which is extremely unlikely but lets go with that) 1MB or 2MB or 3MB or 4 MB or 10 MB.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 MB blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there would not be a storage issue, for the average person. The average person(western) can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bucks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period. (I note that this number may be higher as others point out).

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mb(mega bits) and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS.

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that means almost everyone in the world would be using BTC to make 100MBblocks full every 10 minutes every day every week every year...


So what is the issue? Please lay it out for me, I have been away for awhile.  Am I missing something? Maybe poorer people cant afford to host a node is the issue? But are they hosting it now anyways, probably not...

Please note I did edit some things as I realized I did not word some things correctly and some things were exclamatory for no reason. Thank you below for the great responses about the spam attacks, did not consider that. I guess that changes my mind then on what the real solution is, this may have made me more confused than before I posted to be honest.

[1714892983]

1714892983

[1714892983]

1714892983

[1714892983]

1714892983

[1714892983]

1714892983

[The One]

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size(which is extremely unlikely but lets go with that) 1MB or 2MB or 3MB or 4 MB or 10 MB.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 MB blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bucks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mb(mega bits) and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that means almost everyone in the world would be using BTC to make 100MBblocks full every 10 minutes every day every week every year...


So what is the issue? Please lay it out for me, I have been away for awhile.  Am I missing something? Maybe poorer people cant afford to host a node is the issue? But are they hosting it now anyways, probably not...

It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss.

There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised.

I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all.

[pereira4]

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size(which is extremely unlikely but lets go with that) 1MB or 2MB or 3MB or 4 MB or 10 MB.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 MB blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bucks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mb(mega bits) and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that means almost everyone in the world would be using BTC to make 100MBblocks full every 10 minutes every day every week every year...


So what is the issue? Please lay it out for me, I have been away for awhile.  Am I missing something? Maybe poorer people cant afford to host a node is the issue? But are they hosting it now anyways, probably not...

It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss.

There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised.

I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all.

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size, 1mb or 2mb or 3 mb or 4 mb.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 mb blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bcks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mbp and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that won't happen!

It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss.

There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised.

I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all.

Nice copy-pasted answer. At least big blocktard sockpuppets should put some more effort into varying their answers.

Anyway, we don't need big blocks because the mempool is not full, except when it gets attacked by Roger Ver and other rich attackers:

The Bitmain-Ver PBOC sponsored attack on Bitcoin is increasingly obvious as the spam attacks become increasingly less organic and happening right in key moments where hardfork FUD is being spread.

Segwit2x will soon join XT, Classic, and Unlimited into the also ever increasing list of Failed Bitcoin Takeover attempts.

Sorry, no hard forks for you.

It's objectively stupid to risk a hardfork that only contains a 2MB increase when we don't need to. If we are hardforking you should look into other interesting technology and not the dumb blocksize increase only:

https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

We also do NOT want to hardfork with unsafe code, developed in an unsafe amount of time, risking a 40 billion market in the process.

We do not need bigger blocks now, it's objectively a mistake:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ

[d5000]

There is a third factor besides storage and bandwidth: Validation of blocks and transactions costs a certain amount of CPU power and RAM. Large transactions particularly are resource-hungry.

10 MB blocks may not be that much of a problem - 8MB is what we would get after Segwit2x, in the worst case. The fear of the "small blocker" fraction, however, is that with a solution like Bitcoin Unlimited, in a few couple of years, we'll have 20+ MB blocks, because in view of the inexistent fee market it becomes viable to send microtransactions and gambling "spam" in the Satoshi Dice tradition or even to store arbitrary data on the blockchain.

[iluvpie60]

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size(which is extremely unlikely but lets go with that) 1MB or 2MB or 3MB or 4 MB or 10 MB.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 MB blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bucks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mb(mega bits) and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that means almost everyone in the world would be using BTC to make 100MBblocks full every 10 minutes every day every week every year...


So what is the issue? Please lay it out for me, I have been away for awhile.  Am I missing something? Maybe poorer people cant afford to host a node is the issue? But are they hosting it now anyways, probably not...

It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss.

There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised.

I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all.

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size, 1mb or 2mb or 3 mb or 4 mb.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 mb blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bcks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mbp and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that won't happen!

It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss.

There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised.

I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all.

Nice copy-pasted answer. At least big blocktard sockpuppets should put some more effort into varying their answers.

Anyway, we don't need big blocks because the mempool is not full, except when it gets attacked by Roger Ver and other rich attackers:

The Bitmain-Ver PBOC sponsored attack on Bitcoin is increasingly obvious as the spam attacks become increasingly less organic and happening right in key moments where hardfork FUD is being spread.

Segwit2x will soon join XT, Classic, and Unlimited into the also ever increasing list of Failed Bitcoin Takeover attempts.

Sorry, no hard forks for you.

It's objectively stupid to risk a hardfork that only contains a 2MB increase when we don't need to. If we are hardforking you should look into other interesting technology and not the dumb blocksize increase only:

https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

We also do NOT want to hardfork with unsafe code, developed in an unsafe amount of time, risking a 40 billion market in the process.

We do not need bigger blocks now, it's objectively a mistake:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ

Oh I agree hardforks cause chaos and are risky.

My point was more I dont see how segwit makes sense to do. Offchain stuff is more centralized and vunerable vs onchain.

I am aware of the above also, the graph and spam attacks.

Though censorship is not ideal, why not include in the code to disable sending of 1 satoshi transactions. Maybe in 20 years if there is a need to send a 1 sat transaction it can be solved a different way. Btc would need to be worth a lot for 1 sat transaction to be important in any way.

I think people will just use ETH for stuff like that.

I dont want segwit.

I think the fear of hardforks to increase blocksize correct. But only if the code is a secret. If the code is open to all for months i dont see why raising it would be a problem in the future.

Yes mempool isnt full any more I  am also aware of that. Just the things people said about blocksize being too big arent justified. Having a 20MB block right now still wont see it filled. And people could still run their nodes and what not.

[iluvpie60]

There is a third factor besides storage and bandwidth: Validation of blocks and transactions costs a certain amount of CPU power and RAM. Large transactions particularly are resource-hungry.

10 MB blocks may not be that much of a problem - 8MB is what we would get after Segwit2x, in the worst case. The fear of the "small blocker" fraction, however, is that with a solution like Bitcoin Unlimited, in a few couple of years, we'll have 20+ MB blocks, because in view of the inexistent fee market it becomes viable to send microtransactions and gambling "spam" in the Satoshi Dice tradition or even to store arbitrary data on the blockchain.

Ok yeah. That is something i did not think of. Any idea on the specs needed to process a 1mb transaction with a lot of inputs? I didnt think it was that significant for the modern day processors but i dont know that much about that side.


I dont see why we need to let anyone even send 1 or 10 or 100 satoshis. Do that on ETH or XRP would be better with how their tech works. I  probably in favor of banning any transaction under 100satoshi as it is not worth almost anything currently. In the future i can see how it might need to be changed and agree changes need to happen.

Or maybe i am not taking everything into account for thay either. Is thsir real value in doing 1sat transactions beyond spam attacks?

[gentlemand]

Bandwidth?

Downloading is fuck all for most people.

Uploading is where it gets sticky. And then there's general turnover too. I've seen people mention their node getting through over 1 TB a month. Quite a few internet plans would shut you down long before it reaches that.

If we assume 10mb blocks would be full, which is an awful long way away, that's over 10tb a month.

[hv_]

There is a third factor besides storage and bandwidth: Validation of blocks and transactions costs a certain amount of CPU power and RAM. Large transactions particularly are resource-hungry.

10 MB blocks may not be that much of a problem - 8MB is what we would get after Segwit2x, in the worst case. The fear of the "small blocker" fraction, however, is that with a solution like Bitcoin Unlimited, in a few couple of years, we'll have 20+ MB blocks, because in view of the inexistent fee market it becomes viable to send microtransactions and gambling "spam" in the Satoshi Dice tradition or even to store arbitrary data on the blockchain.

Parallel?  Multi threading?

[Meuh6879]

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1336481.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg13664554#msg13664554



( backup image : http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img910/6880/x4YPj9.jpg )

P2P network, it's node ... it's people ... it's a fraction of 500GB hard drive (300 USD laptop).

[Lauda]

OP, you're clearly uninformed and unqualified to make these kinds of decisions (same as everyone else promoting this stupid idea).


https://twitter.com/TuurDemeester/status/881851053913899009
Do you want a peer-to-peer network, or a proxy-to-proxy network?

[kolloh]

Yeah, if you have blocks that huge it can add up really quickly. Most people won't have the resources to operate such a beefy node either.

Thats a really great chart there by bitfury.

[Kronos21]

Probably the whole reason the greed of the miners. The bigger the block the easier, faster and cheaper to conduct transactions. The miners do not want to lose the money that they have invested in expensive equipment. The unit will continue to grow as if they did not resist or there will be another currency that will give the best conditions and people will begin to get rid of bitcoins, and no one is interested.

[Syke]

OP, you're clearly uninformed and unqualified to make these kinds of decisions (same as everyone else promoting this stupid idea).

https://i.imgur.com/tAM24R3.png
https://twitter.com/TuurDemeester/status/881851053913899009
Do you want a peer-to-peer network, or a proxy-to-proxy network?

Decent analysis, until they get to *guessing* what hardware nodes are running on. "Characteristics of node hardware are based on a survey performed by Steam." They might as well estimate that everyone is using Raspberry Pi's.

[Lauda]

Decent analysis, until they get to *guessing* what hardware nodes are running on. "Characteristics of node hardware are based on a survey performed by Steam." They might as well estimate that everyone is using Raspberry Pi's.

Absolute nonsense. The hardware used on Steam is an overestimation for the hardware used for nodes. In other words, the situation would actually be worse than what is claimed by this paper.

[franky1]

here we go again..
nonsense propoganda from the bscartel* that the only future is hubs..

bscartel want LN hubs and cry that blocksize increases = centralised upstream nodes (hubs). in their mind all they can see is centralisation
all because they want people to believe that everyone wants to run bitcoin on a raspberryPi 1a board(about a decade out of date nearly) and a memorystick


boring fools like that are stuck in the past. the internet has got faster since 2009, hard drives have got bigger and the average ram on basic home computers is more then the past.

real funny part is data for data of a fully validating full archival usernode is the same.
4200 tx's is still ~2mb whether using segwit or legacyx2

what will actually kill the network is the pruning and -nowitness options that then kill off the amount of full nodes (analogy: torrent seeders) and just leaves a cludge of a network of SPV/prunned/no-witness nodes (analogy: torrent leachers)
meaning what Gmaxwell called downstream nodes and what luke JR calls stripped nodes.. become the lower tier (cludgy leacher nodes)

meaning what Gmaxwell called upstream filters and what luke JR calls bridging nodes.. become the higher tier (full seeder nodes) hubs

maybe its time those that adore gmax and core actually do the research, yes some of you i have actually told to do this research atleast a year ago, but yet you still cant get your head passed the buzzwords, gmax and co have spoonfed.. and that leaves you unable to understand it.

segwit causes more breakdown of the full node count.
wake up

*bscartel(barry silbert, blockstream, core, btcc,litecoin, and DCG portfolio, (all loving segwit))

as for the mempool bloat graphs.. all the spam spikes relate to times the bscartel want their new bips activated by drumming up how change needs to be made ASAP
check out june 2016, october/november 2016 and then more recently when the other segwit activating bips popped up..

its all just drama to try getting segwit activated

[franky1]

No thanks, i still want see bitcoin decentralized where people can run bitcoin full nodes without expensive hardware or very fast internet. I would rather see small block size upgrade regularly every year by seeing actual nodes capability and hardware growth.
If you really think 10MB block size isn't problem and won't hurt decentralization too much, i want you try it on testnet where the nodes use inexpensive computer/server/VPS.

10mb per ~10 minutes

lol
i remember 1999 where two mp3 songs (10mb) took 10 minutes... now its seconds..

does anyone see MILLIONS of people crying that Call of Duty cannot function bcause online gameplay just cannot work due to hardware/internet
does anyone see MILLIONS of people crying that skype ....
does anyone see MILLIONS of people crying that youtube Livestream ....
does anyone see MILLIONS of people crying that twitch ....

[iluvpie60]

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1336481.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg13664554#msg13664554



( backup image : http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img910/6880/x4YPj9.jpg )

P2P network, it's node ... it's people ... it's a fraction of 500GB hard drive (300 USD laptop).

So is everyone here running a node then? Shouldn't we be? I am not saying anything about centralizing anything... I just showed some quick math that shows any average person in any western country can run a node and there is basically no cost. If you already have a gaming rig you can run a node for awhile and there are tens of millions of gaming rigs. If there is only 5,000 nodes right now doesn't some blame belong on all of us for not promoting node usage more?

I am questioning why we all aren't running nodes and showing the math is there that many people can afford it, even if it was 10MB or 20 MB or 30MB right now and was always full, we can still afford it. I am not saying it is the best way to go.

[25hashcoin]

They AREN'T a problem. That's just Blockstream/Core LYING to your face because they have an agenda to turn bitcoin into a profitable settlement layer! Boycott any implementation from Core and support bigger blocks by supporting Bitcoin ABC https://www.bitcoinabc.org/

[d5000]

Ok yeah. That is something i did not think of. Any idea on the specs needed to process a 1mb transaction with a lot of inputs? I didnt think it was that significant for the modern day processors but i dont know that much about that side.

Lauda has already posted some data - RAM seems even more a show-stopper for big blocks on consumer hardware than CPU. If you want the details, the source, a Bitfury study, is here. (It's from 2015, though; but also 2 years later it seems everything >8MB blocks is simply too much.)

I  probably in favor of banning any transaction under 100satoshi as it is not worth almost anything currently.[...]
Is thsir real value in doing 1sat transactions beyond spam attacks?

That would be very probably seen by the Bitcoin community as "censorship", and the block size debate shows us that it would not be easy to lift the restriction in the future even if it's needed for several use cases.

And even today there are some valid use cases for transactions that even have no value at all (OP_RETURN transactions), like a decentralized notary system like Factom, coloured coins, etc..  See the usage cases here: in this study.

[franky1]

So is everyone here running a node then? Shouldn't we be? I am not saying anything about centralizing anything... I just showed some quick math that shows any average person in any western country can run a node and there is basically no cost. If you already have a gaming rig you can run a node for awhile and there are tens of millions of gaming rigs. If there is only 5,000 nodes right now doesn't some blame belong on all of us for not promoting node usage more?

I am questioning why we all aren't running nodes and showing the math is there that many people can afford it, even if it was 10MB or 20 MB or 30MB right now and was always full, we can still afford it. I am not saying it is the best way to go.

the real reason people dont run full nodes is not about restrictions of technology.. its about their crap GUI (user interface) and the social use of not needing to have something running 24/7 if they only personally use it once a day.

its about UTILITY that makes being a full node not attractive.
if bitcoin gained utility they would use it more often

current tech limitations is not the problem. its the fact that core dont seem to care about utility or care about users. all they care about is leadership and dominance

[Jet Cash]

It's not blocksize that is the bottleneck. It's block generation time. Bitcoin needs to find a way to generate smaller blocks much faster if it wants to become a major payment system rather than a store of wealth.

[Hydrogen]

Big blocks do not prevent DDoS spam. If someone spams transactions, increasing block size does nothing to stop it.

Imagine a thief smashes the window of a car to steal something inside it. Then big blockers say, we need bigger glass windows in cars to prevent a scaling problem.

That's what the block size debate amounts to.

[franky1]

Ok yeah. That is something i did not think of. Any idea on the specs needed to process a 1mb transaction with a lot of inputs? I didnt think it was that significant for the modern day processors but i dont know that much about that side.

Lauda has already posted some data - RAM seems even more a show-stopper for big blocks on consumer hardware than CPU. If you want the details, the source, a Bitfury study, is here. (It's from 2015, though; but also 2 years later it seems everything >8MB blocks is simply too much.)

lol the stats lauda / bitfury have are out of context

firstly its stupidly silly maths to promote "sgwit linear"

without segwit, changing things like
maxtxsigops to 4k has REDUCED the ram cpu usage

in the future dropping it again to 2k can further reduce the ram/cpu usage, yet even with 'bigger blocks' you can reduce cpu/ram usage aswell as over time having an average computer that has more ram in it. EG Raspi1 vs Raspi3.. vs todays basic desktop pc

[iluvpie60]

Ok yeah. That is something i did not think of. Any idea on the specs needed to process a 1mb transaction with a lot of inputs? I didnt think it was that significant for the modern day processors but i dont know that much about that side.

Lauda has already posted some data - RAM seems even more a show-stopper for big blocks on consumer hardware than CPU. If you want the details, the source, a Bitfury study, is here. (It's from 2015, though; but also 2 years later it seems everything >8MB blocks is simply too much.)

I  probably in favor of banning any transaction under 100satoshi as it is not worth almost anything currently.[...]
Is thsir real value in doing 1sat transactions beyond spam attacks?

That would be very probably seen by the Bitcoin community as "censorship", and the block size debate shows us that it would not be easy to lift the restriction in the future even if it's needed for several use cases.

And even today there are some valid use cases for transactions that even have no value at all (OP_RETURN transactions), like a decentralized notary system like Factom, coloured coins, etc..  See the usage cases here: in this study.

Thanks for the link to that, I have been out of the loop on BTC info and tech related details for a few years. This is a great read and I will dive in to this.

From what I have found on the web for minimum requirements for current, it seems almost everyone can run a full node as current requirements are quite pitiful in terms of power/internet speed/hardware involved. I am going to look into what the cost of this will be in electricity and other factors. I already have a 4TB HDD not really being used, have a 4 physical core (8hyperthreaded) 3.1 GHZ processor and a pretty decent GPU + reliable internet + 16 GB ram.

I see that I am underestimating the current hardware used for the network. If 95% of nodes would be eliminated at 8MB blocks that means they are really scraping by with pitiful outdated computers for the most part. I would have thought in our community we were running 1,000s of nodes and that we all pretty much had gaming rigs or high powered rigs.

I hope that more people run nodes is all I have to say. Really not advocating for anything other than onchain solutions.




Minimum Requirements
Bitcoin Core full nodes have certain requirements. If you try running a node on weak hardware, it may work—but you’ll likely spend more time dealing with issues. If you can meet the following requirements, you’ll have an easy-to-use node.

Desktop or laptop hardware running recent versions of Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux.

145 gigabytes of free disk space

2 gigabytes of memory (RAM)

A broadband Internet connection with upload speeds of at least 400 kilobits (50 kilobytes) per second

An unmetered connection, a connection with high upload limits, or a connection you regularly monitor to ensure it doesn’t exceed its upload limits. It’s common for full nodes on high-speed connections to use 200 gigabytes upload or more a month. Download usage is around 20 gigabytes a month, plus around an additional 140 gigabytes the first time you start your node.

6 hours a day that your full node can be left running. (You can do other things with your computer while running a full node.) More hours would be better, and best of all would be if you can run your node continuously

[elite3000]

Not a problem for average?

For the average people of the world is too much.

Also you'll have the hardware to support the bigger blocks, like memory and processor.

[franky1]

It's not blocksize that is the bottleneck. It's block generation time. Bitcoin needs to find a way to generate smaller blocks much faster if it wants to become a major payment system rather than a store of wealth.

there can be side services to handle the niche market of 'instant spend' .. but that is no reason to try doomsday the blockchain using propaganda to stifle natural growth.

segwit cannot solve the promises it promises. and you cant segwit a segwit after segwiting it.. so the last 2 years of promoting and pushing for segwit has been nothing more then an empty gesture

itss time we move passed "segwit hope" and realise the trths about it.. and start actually getting bitcoins real and productive code running such as dynamic blocks (there are many different brands with different proposals so dont shout BU as your doom cry)

[Syke]

Absolute nonsense. The hardware used on Steam is an overestimation for the hardware used for nodes. In other words, the situation would actually be worse than what is claimed by this paper.

You may be right, you may be wrong, I'm just asking for actual evidence of running nodes. The paper presented no evidence about the hardware nodes are running on. What's your evidence?

[FandangledGizmo]

OP, you're clearly uninformed and unqualified to make these kinds of decisions (same as everyone else promoting this stupid idea).


https://twitter.com/TuurDemeester/status/881851053913899009
Do you want a peer-to-peer network, or a proxy-to-proxy network?

That is a compelling study and I'm definitely concerned about centralisation.

Why is 'centralization of mining' not the no.1 topic that the community is trying to address everyday?

Over the years we've had situations where it would only take control of just two mining pools to get over 51% hashrate, (even just one once). Which meant regardless of nodes you'd only need to get to two people to 'attack' Bitcoin, crash it's value to near zero & destroy confidence in the system for a couple of years even if hashers left the attacking pools.

Is node centralisation really a more dangerous/centralising attack/control vector than the problem Bitcoin already has with mining pools and large miners?

[Jet Cash]

Hardware isn't a problem. I run a full node on a cheap netbook with an external SSD, and I do it over McDonalds free WiFi. I've got anothe node on a Windows 10 notebook, and that is also kept up to date over free WiFi.

However much you mess about with blocksize, with an average 10 minute generation time, and a couple of confirmations to verify the transaction, you are looking at average times of 30 minutes. That isn't competitive for a modern money transfer system.

[franky1]

Internet connection speed isn't biggest problem here, the biggest problem in this case are metered bandwitch and low-end/cheap computer won't able run bitcoin full nodes anymore. Mini PC such as Raspberry Pi 3B will struggle since they have small RAM.
It's no problem if most of people who run full nodes can afford better computer to run full nodes.

solution for users independantly
(same solution for torrent seeds)
reduce number of leachers(connections) = less bandwidth draw*

solution for dev implementations
reduce sigops and max txbytes = less ram/cpu demand

afterall with todays 4ktxsigops with 20k max block sigops
and segwits 16k txsigops 80k blocksigops.. that means a base block can be filled with just 5 tx's

and the max tx bytes of 100kb = 10 tx fills base block..

WHO THE F*CK deserves to have 10%-20% of the blocksize for just 1 tx..!!!!
reduce the greedy stupid, artificially high numbers, meaning transactions become leaner. and you will find that bloat, bottlenecking and processing time REDUCE all while allowing the block size to increase.

*i see many people with 'capped' internet that have 50+ connections. i facepalm them and tell them to learn "6 degree's of separation" and reduce their connection count.
not everyone needs to be a 'supernode' (multiple dozens of connections)

[jbreher]

Mini PC such as Raspberry Pi 3B will struggle since they have small RAM.
It's no problem if most of people who run full nodes can afford better computer to run full nodes.

RaspPi users can fuck right off.

If you want to be an integral part of the most significant advance in financial technology since the 1400's, use a real machine. Don't cripple the network just because your cheap ass doesn't want to meet the required expenditure.

That is a compelling study and I'm definitely concerned about centralisation.

That is an ancient study built upon faulty premise.

[Milan944]

This is gonna be a big problem in the future,if they don't upgrade it.

[Last of the V8s]

..study built upon faulty premise.

what premise is that?

[jbreher]

..study built upon faulty premise.

what premise is that?

That Steam gamers and their machines are equivalent to Bitcoin node operators and their machines.

aka ...I coulda had a V8, but all I got is this lousy rice burner - but at least it's got a fart pipe

[d5000]

Hardware isn't a problem. I run a full node on a cheap netbook with an external SSD, and I do it over McDonalds free WiFi. I've got anothe node on a Windows 10 notebook, and that is also kept up to date over free WiFi.

That is the current situation. But there are two things to consider:

1) Blocks are about ~1MB only in the last 1-2 years. The years before they were much smaller. So in one year the blockchain - only with 1MB blocks - will already be much heavier than now - and also much more difficult to syncronize.

2) Segwit alone will already give us blocks with a size from 1,7 to 2,x MB (4MB max, but I don't believe we'll see that). If Segwit2x comes, then we'll potentially have 3,4 to 4,x MB blocks with a maximum of 8 MB. If Bitcoin experiences a yearly 40-50% transaction growth like until now, then we will have these blocks full in about 2-3 years, and the blockchain then will be at least 3 times as heavy than now and will keep growing. Again, storage isn't the problem - the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks. Now do the math for 10MB+ blocks.

Big blockers are hoping for hardware improvements, that's true - but I would say, better let the hardware improvements come and adjust the block size _after_ we know we can handle these sizes. This proposal, where miners can vote for 10kB increases every 2 weeks, is just conservative enough to give us time to do that. Segwit2x, for me, is the most "big blockerish" proposal I would accept to avoid a chain split - nothing more.

[iluvpie60]

..study built upon faulty premise.

what premise is that?

That Steam gamers and their machines are equivalent to Bitcoin node operators and their machines.

aka ...I coulda had a V8, but all I got is this lousy rice burner - but at least it's got a fart pipe

I don't understand how people don't have a good or decent gaming computer if they are playing Steam games. You almost have to go out of your way to not get something that has at least 5 or 6 GB ram these days. Most built in Intel HD Graphics cards(built into processor) are pretty decent or better compared to dedicated graphics cards from 6 or 7 years ago too, or just buy a dedicated one for like 50 bucks if it is really necessary for the blockchain.

I built my computer and got everything I needed for less than $1,000 like 4 years ago or so, and it has a water cooled processor too.

32GB ram
I7-3770kK @ 3.5 GHZ4 physical cores (8 hyper threaded in total)
Radeon HD6870 Sapphire
750W power supply
Large case
Larger motherboard(for adding in upgrades later)
4TB External Hard Drive for the blockchain and other files

On Windows Experience Index I have the following scores.

Processor 7.7 out of 7.9
Memory(Ram) 7.7 out of 7.9
Graphics 7.8 out of 7.9
Gaming Graphics 7.8 out of 7.9
Primary Hard Disk 7.3 out of 7.9 (this is an older SSD that is still really fast too).

If people are struggling to have what I have 4 or 5 years later, I really don't know what to say to them I guess. You can almost build what I currently have now for half the price or less, and what I have is overkill by a lot for running a node.

So in reality, it would only cost a few hundred dollars to build a computer(buying a case/power supply/processor/ram/motherboard/HDD) that can handle current blocks and have enough power for larger blocks later.

What are these guys playing their Steam games with lol.

[pereira4]

..study built upon faulty premise.

what premise is that?

It looks like there's no way to convince big blockers of their mistake. What can be done at this point? Will they actually hardfork and find out for themselves?

Looks like no amount of arguments will ever change their mind. They want to live in 2010 when bitcoin was cheap as fuck because no one used it. They have lost their mind, they don't get it. We are witnessing something ridiculous unfolding. If the JarzikCoin code actually forks backed by the mining cartel it's time to get some popcorn.

[franky1]

sounds like some people are stuck in 1999 trying to scream at twitch/skype that their business model of live streaming just wont work

anyway onto other points

the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks.

the synchronisation is not a problem. the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete.
as thats the real headache people gripe and moan about in regards to syncing
EG
no user balance or being able to spend until node has downloaded certain blocks that contain the users UTXO.
this can be fixed by having the UI function in Lite mode where it grabs a UTXO set first. or even just requests UTXO from peers of the keys the user owns. and then synchronisation becomes a background issue that can be done as and whenever the user pleases.

thus making a node spendably functional from the first hour

again the mindset is not about hinder bitcoin growth for the 99% purely for the 1% with limitations,
if it was the case, then core should not have removed fee controls that have wiped out utility for about 33% of the world*

(analogy time of dumb mindsets)
whats next. scream that employment wont work because most jobs are more than a mile from people houses and not everyone has decent transport
whats next. scream that retail shops wont work because most shops are more than a mile from people houses and not everyone has decent transport

*i do love the snobbery
"bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"

[Lauda]

I don't understand how people don't have a good or decent gaming computer if they are playing Steam games.

The data that I've posted is based off of Steam hardware in 2015.

So in reality, it would only cost a few hundred dollars to build a computer(buying a case/power supply/processor/ram/motherboard/HDD) that can handle current blocks and have enough power for larger blocks later.

Which is absolute nonsense. I have no idea why you are trying to push your, clearly uneducated, opinion on the matter? Do you really expect me to run a node, on the same machine that I'd play games on? Do you want the entry for nodes to be >$1000 worth of hardware? If you do, then you may as well start building Paypal 2.0.

[franky1]

If you do, then you may as well start building Paypal 2.0.

LN will become paypal2.0
go check out the idea of hubs.. then check out the meaning of multisig and then check out CLTV (3-5business day maturing after confirm) CSV revoke (chargeback)

lauda please research the finer details. stop relying on reddit scripts

[Tigggger]

the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks.

the synchronisation is not a problem. the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete.
as thats the real headache people gripe and moan about in regards to syncing
EG
no user balance or being able to spend until node has downloaded certain blocks that contain the users UTXO.
this can be fixed by having the UI function in Lite mode where it grabs a UTXO set first. or even just requests UTXO from peers of the keys the user owns. and then synchronisation becomes a background issue that can be done as and whenever the user pleases.

thus making a node spendably functional from the first hour

I currently have 3 nodes running and when the code for Segwit2x is released that will go up to 4. I have always run a node since I started but at the moment I want to make sure I am ready in case anything bad happens and that I will have a fully synced node running each type so that I can safeguard my bitcoins, probably a bit paranoid but better safe than sorry.

So anyway I feel the pain of that initial download/verify/sync having done more times than I can remember, and have wondered why it HAS to be done that way.

'New' nodes may not have any transactions of their own to download, and they may only want to run a pruned node, so surely it should be possible to do this in a backwards way similar to what you are suggesting, maybe with an option during install.

Do you have transactions to import ->
 Yes -> Start from 0 as it works now (or like in your suggestion)
 No ->
   Do you want store the full blockchain ->
     Yes -> Start from current block - x blocks (eg 2016 blocks), get the node up and running and usable then grab the previous blocks in the background (again like your suggestion)
     No -> Current block - x blocks (eg 2016) which then makes it a pruned node always holding just the previous x blocks.

This would surely help the number of nodes to grow ?

[The One]

I don't understand how people don't have a good or decent gaming computer if they are playing Steam games.

The data that I've posted is based off of Steam hardware in 2015.

So in reality, it would only cost a few hundred dollars to build a computer(buying a case/power supply/processor/ram/motherboard/HDD) that can handle current blocks and have enough power for larger blocks later.

Which is absolute nonsense. I have no idea why you are trying to push your, clearly uneducated, opinion on the matter? Do you really expect me to run a node, on the same machine that I'd play games on? Do you want the entry for nodes to be >$1000 worth of hardware? If you do, then you may as well start building Paypal 2.0.

Are you kidding? I run a full node on my Core I7-4790k 4.0ghz, use it daily for other things, including games, video editing/conversion and check my wallet data periodically and had no problems. So what is your issue?

Why not? People buy computers for other things, so running a node is free. No one buys a computer just to run a node and not browse the internet, etc. You do realised that everything that involves money had costs associated with it. Even printing money out of thin air has a small cost. Do you expect the bitcoin network to be secured for free? In my opinion, anyone who has over 50 bitcoins and bought below £1000 should run a node to protect their investment. That's is the nature of decentralisation, costs is no longer centralised; responsibility is no longer centralised. Protecting one's investment and securing the network doesn't make it Paypal 2.0.

[hv_]

the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks.

the synchronisation is not a problem. the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete.
as thats the real headache people gripe and moan about in regards to syncing
EG
no user balance or being able to spend until node has downloaded certain blocks that contain the users UTXO.
this can be fixed by having the UI function in Lite mode where it grabs a UTXO set first. or even just requests UTXO from peers of the keys the user owns. and then synchronisation becomes a background issue that can be done as and whenever the user pleases.

thus making a node spendably functional from the first hour

I currently have 3 nodes running and when the code for Segwit2x is released that will go up to 4. I have always run a node since I started but at the moment I want to make sure I am ready in case anything bad happens and that I will have a fully synced node running each type so that I can safeguard my bitcoins, probably a bit paranoid but better safe than sorry.

So anyway I feel the pain of that initial download/verify/sync having done more times than I can remember, and have wondered why it HAS to be done that way.

'New' nodes may not have any transactions of their own to download, and they may only want to run a pruned node, so surely it should be possible to do this in a backwards way similar to what you are suggesting, maybe with an option during install.

Do you have transactions to import ->
 Yes -> Start from 0 as it works now (or like in your suggestion)
 No ->
   Do you want store the full blockchain ->
     Yes -> Start from current block - x blocks (eg 2016 blocks), get the node up and running and usable then grab the previous blocks in the background (again like your suggestion)
     No -> Current block - x blocks (eg 2016) which then makes it a pruned node always holding just the previous x blocks.

This would surely help the number of nodes to grow ?

Looks pretty much bitcoins core is not really done to attract exponential growth at all. So how the hack this should scale at all ?

No industrial optimization allowed -> stay on small, nichy Rasp PIs


Or


Allow industrial competition, get rid of code bottlenecks -> Blocksize, Scaling  and decentralization is NO ISSUE for all !

It will not be needed that any average Tigger (sorry, dont feel blamed, rather feel thanked getting it up to that actual stage ) runs 4 nodes at all - buy you some bitcoin .

[iluvpie60]

I don't understand how people don't have a good or decent gaming computer if they are playing Steam games.

The data that I've posted is based off of Steam hardware in 2015.

So in reality, it would only cost a few hundred dollars to build a computer(buying a case/power supply/processor/ram/motherboard/HDD) that can handle current blocks and have enough power for larger blocks later.

Which is absolute nonsense. I have no idea why you are trying to push your, clearly uneducated, opinion on the matter? Do you really expect me to run a node, on the same machine that I'd play games on? Do you want the entry for nodes to be >$1000 worth of hardware? If you do, then you may as well start building Paypal 2.0.

Hello Lauda, I agree with what you are saying. I have stated I was asking a stupid question because I am uneducated on BTC currently as I have not kept up with it for years. I never claimed to know too much as I have stated multiple times in the thread. Yes, I am not fully versed in the technical side of everything as I had admited.

I don't expect anyone to do anything. All I am saying is a gaming rig can run the minimum current requirements and many times over.  If you have more than 16GB of ram and a decent internet connection and HDD space you can run a node while you game and it shouldn't affect your game.

My thought is that there are already tens of millions of people who have the hardware that can run nodes and it should be utlized, as I see the data that says only 5,000 nodes are running or so. Even if big blocks don't happen you should still run a node. I don't care if big blocks happen. I don't care about the politics of BTC.

[Meuh6879]

If there is only 5,000 nodes right now doesn't some blame belong on all of us for not promoting node usage more?

Just to be more clear : you can see 5000 listening nodes.

[d5000]

the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks.

the synchronisation is not a problem.

Yes, NOW it's not a problem. But with blocks 10 times bigger and a blockchain 10 times heavier it will be. And really ... real big blockers don't conform with 10 MB blocks, they want 32MB or even 1 GB to handle billions of users on-chain. That's complete madness. Let sidechains do that for us

the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete.

That's a minor problem. While a "Lite" mode could be desirable (some altcoins already have something like that) you always can use a SPV wallet for your urgent buys/transactions.

[Meuh6879]

SPV need completes nodes.  

I wait a random pruning tool to see evolving the Bitcoin Local Blockchain (or a SegWit obtimisation during the creation of a localc blockchain).

Actual Pruning system is not a solution.

[BillyBobZorton]

Here's my theory FWIW:

1. Core devs have connections with the exchanges.
2. Exchanges have connections with the banks.
3. Banks tell the exchanges "off-chain scaling or we cut you off".

1. Governments can't control the bitcoin protocol or the network
2. Governments need huge blocksizes to centralize nodes inside corporations which are easily located and therefore bribeable because a network of random people running nodes anonymously is unstoppable unless you cut the entire internet
3. Banks eventually become the custodians of the nodes and along with mining corporations they get bribed and controlled to make bitcoin their bitch

[The One]

Here's my theory FWIW:

1. Core devs have connections with the exchanges.
2. Exchanges have connections with the banks.
3. Banks tell the exchanges "off-chain scaling or we cut you off".

A sound theory, unfortunately one needs more evidences.

3. If the banks were to cut anyone off, simply use cash and make the exchange in public, preferably next to the bank, then one can withdraw cash safety and another deposit cash safety.

[jbreher]

Which is absolute nonsense. I have no idea why you are trying to push your, clearly uneducated, opinion on the matter? Do you really expect me to run a node, on the same machine that I'd play games on? Do you want the entry for nodes to be >$1000 worth of hardware? If you do, then you may as well start building Paypal 2.0.

Which is absolute nonsense. The machine I run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet upon, cost me $300. Several years ago.

And that's not the real issue. The real issue is that - if you're not willing to part with less than a half-bitcoin in order to run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet, your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative. Fuck right off.

[Lauda]

Are you kidding? I run a full node on my Core I7-4790k 4.0ghz, use it daily for other things, including games, video editing/conversion and check my wallet data periodically and had no problems. So what is your issue?

Periodically? Are you sure you are not running a non-listening node? Mine eats up over 1 TB of bandwidth per month very easily and I can't possibly imagine running the node on the same system that I use for work (not even with the current block size).

I don't expect anyone to do anything. All I am saying is a gaming rig can run the minimum current requirements and many times over.  If you have more than 16GB of ram and a decent internet connection and HDD space you can run a node while you game and it shouldn't affect your game.

Read the study and the data from the Bitfury group. Their data makes your claim void.

Which is absolute nonsense. I have no idea why you are trying to push your, clearly uneducated, opinion on the matter? Do you really expect me to run a node, on the same machine that I'd play games on? Do you want the entry for nodes to be >$1000 worth of hardware? If you do, then you may as well start building Paypal 2.0.

Which is absolute nonsense. The machine I run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet upon, cost me $300. Several years ago.

It is certainly not. Why are you spamming and quoting out of context? The data as provided by the study from Bitfury confirms my claim.

And that's not the real issue. The real issue is that - if you're not willing to part with less than a half-bitcoin in order to run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet, your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative. Fuck right off.

Who are you, to force me to pay half a Bitcoin, to achieve financial sovereignty? Leave this forum and Bitcoin, cancerous idiot. You are the exact type of people which should be called out on every occasion (and who unfortunately can't be removed from this system).
It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).

[franky1]

the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks.

the synchronisation is not a problem.

Yes, NOW it's not a problem. But with blocks 10 times bigger and a blockchain 10 times heavier it will be. And really ... real big blockers don't conform with 10 MB blocks, they want 32MB or even 1 GB to handle billions of users on-chain. That's complete madness. Let sidechains do that for us

lets first address the sidechains (i facepalm)
sidechain is an altcoin.. go play with litecoin or zcash or ethereum if you want that..
go support and protect a differnt chain/network...
honestly if another chain can handle 10mb then bitcoin can too.
simple reason: altcoins use computers.. altcoins use the internet so whatever an altcoin can handle bitcoin can too..

lets address the other part of ur comment
stop sniffing the reddit scripts of "gigabytes by midnight"

i continually laugh at the dooms dayers that know 32mb is manageable and any number below that is more then manageable
yep even 8mb is "RaspberryPi +ADSL (0.5mb upload /s)" safe.. so now the doomsdays try shouting
stay at 1mb or else gigabytes per block because they cant argue about 2-32 so have to exaggerate to 'gb by midnight' to scare people

this is not nor ever has been gigabytes by midnight proposal nor has there ever been a proposal for GB in hours days or months.
the main progress proposals onchain have been, natural growth over time that will eventually be xxmb IN DECADES
the stupid thing the "gigabytes by midnight" FUD scripters forget is that nodes choose what blocks are acceptable and so will not make such stupidly high leaps too soon. the nodes will challenge things going too fast. thus there is no problem. its self regulating because if the nodes cant handle it, they wont allow it. its the most fundamental part of bitcoins true consensus!!!


the reality is that TODAY 8mb is safe.. actually alot more than that is safe, but to calm down the doomsdayers it was suggested 16mb instead
of 32mb
then 8mb instead of 16.. then 4mb instead of 8mb then 2 instead of 4.. but then then the doomsdayers still cry they want 1mb

their explanations for 1mb are empty. no logic, no meaningful reason, apart from crying

every time i see a small blocker demand 1mb stays in effect all i read is
"no Call of duty/twitch live streaming due to ATI server rack data centres"
"no HDTV on demand due to server farms attached to household tvs"
in short they are stuck in the 90's

the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete.

That's a minor problem. While a "Lite" mode could be desirable (some altcoins already have something like that) you always can use a SPV wallet for your urgent buys/transactions.

what im talking about is instead of core syncing and then prunning, no witnessing, stripping to become lite.
im talking abut core run in litemode. making the syncing part a background thing.

imagine it this way
imagine if microsoft instead of loading windows for people to use and then do updates in the background, microsoft decided that all windows updates needed to be done before letting people log into their computer.

people would hate waiting hours just to send an email or access a web page..
same goes for core and other nodes.

let people open the client and quickly get a utxo st of the keys they use to see a balance and be able to spend, and then the full sync just occurs in the background while people are using the node.

its not about turning off syncing. its about allowing users to use their node on the same day they download it..
because thats the part people are really peed off with.. not being able to do a thing for a couple weeks

[franky1]

It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible.

says the guy that thinks someone paying 40 hours minimum wage labour for 1 tx is 'normal' and 'bitcoin is running fine',  'just pay appropriate fee'  and 'just pay more'

now to wake you up:
cost of using bitcoin (tx fee) is more of a curse than running a node cost

[hv_]

Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run?  Rasp PI

Bugger off mates. Times are changing and because of bitcoin is for BIG !!

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/07/12/business/12reuters-swiss-banks-falcon-bitcoin.html?mcubz=1

Guess how many business is the potential out there?

And it is happening in real. fasten your seatbelts!

Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?


Get play back with your little bs, brain, pi.

[Last of the V8s]

further resources for us to ignore
https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6mofdf/is_there_support_for_a_statusquo_digital/
https://medium.com/@rextar4444/why-bitcoin-shouldnt-be-scaled-how-bitcoin-will-become-a-commodity-money-that-inspires-our-9a6b048a4b0f
https://medium.com/@rextar4444/bitcoins-most-valuable-usecase-7f5c6e95be22

[pereira4]

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size(which is extremely unlikely but lets go with that) 1MB or 2MB or 3MB or 4 MB or 10 MB.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 MB blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bucks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mb(mega bits) and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that means almost everyone in the world would be using BTC to make 100MBblocks full every 10 minutes every day every week every year...


So what is the issue? Please lay it out for me, I have been away for awhile.  Am I missing something? Maybe poorer people cant afford to host a node is the issue? But are they hosting it now anyways, probably not...

It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss.

There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised.

I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all.

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size, 1mb or 2mb or 3 mb or 4 mb.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 mb blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bcks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mbp and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that won't happen!

It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss.

There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised.

I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all.

Nice copy-pasted answer. At least big blocktard sockpuppets should put some more effort into varying their answers.

Anyway, we don't need big blocks because the mempool is not full, except when it gets attacked by Roger Ver and other rich attackers:

The Bitmain-Ver PBOC sponsored attack on Bitcoin is increasingly obvious as the spam attacks become increasingly less organic and happening right in key moments where hardfork FUD is being spread.

Segwit2x will soon join XT, Classic, and Unlimited into the also ever increasing list of Failed Bitcoin Takeover attempts.

Sorry, no hard forks for you.

It's objectively stupid to risk a hardfork that only contains a 2MB increase when we don't need to. If we are hardforking you should look into other interesting technology and not the dumb blocksize increase only:

https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

We also do NOT want to hardfork with unsafe code, developed in an unsafe amount of time, risking a 40 billion market in the process.

We do not need bigger blocks now, it's objectively a mistake:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ

Oh I agree hardforks cause chaos and are risky.

My point was more I dont see how segwit makes sense to do. Offchain stuff is more centralized and vunerable vs onchain.

I am aware of the above also, the graph and spam attacks.

Though censorship is not ideal, why not include in the code to disable sending of 1 satoshi transactions. Maybe in 20 years if there is a need to send a 1 sat transaction it can be solved a different way. Btc would need to be worth a lot for 1 sat transaction to be important in any way.

I think people will just use ETH for stuff like that.

I dont want segwit.

I think the fear of hardforks to increase blocksize correct. But only if the code is a secret. If the code is open to all for months i dont see why raising it would be a problem in the future.

Yes mempool isnt full any more I  am also aware of that. Just the things people said about blocksize being too big arent justified. Having a 20MB block right now still wont see it filled. And people could still run their nodes and what not.

Blocking 1 satoshi transactions could work, but they would just raise it to 2, then to 3... when does it become economically unviable to stop spam without having an impact on how bitcoin works?

When second layer solutions are working, we will be able to get microtransactions, so im not sure how that would work out.

In any case... hardforking now is a mistake, everyone knows this.

Segwit has been insanely tested and it's not a hardfork so its not the end of the world.

The priority now is to avoid BitmainCoin fork.

[Iranus]

Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run?  Rasp PI

Banks should not be the only people running nodes.

Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?

Quote from Lauda just three posts before yours:

It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).

Please read the thread before posting.

"bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"

Transaction fees should be approximately 20 cents right now.  40 satoshi/byte or sometimes even less is good enough when the network isn't undergoing a spam attack.

In my view, there's a fine balance.  The first step should be offchain scaling or alterations of onchain transactions like SegWit - the second step should be onchain scaling, when there's no other clear options available.  The bigger the max block size, the more space that's open for long-term spamming and eventually node centralisation.

[hv_]

Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run?  Rasp PI

Banks should not be the only people running nodes.

Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?

Quote from Lauda just three posts before yours:

It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).

Please read the thread before posting.

"bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"

Transaction fees should be approximately 20 cents right now.  40 satoshi/byte or sometimes even less is good enough when the network isn't undergoing a spam attack.

In my view, there's a fine balance.  The first step should be offchain scaling or alterations of onchain transactions like SegWit - the second step should be onchain scaling, when there's no other clear options available.  The bigger the max block size, the more space that's open for long-term spamming and eventually node centralisation.

Read before posting.

Where is written 'only banks' ?

Once you could point me to, pls explain why you want people do the txs rather off-chain than onchain? Since this will be the result of your order, correct?

And if you got that, than tell us, how far is that away, from moving people into alts directly?

Last, what do you think is more expensive, spamming 1MB blocks or 2MB blocks up to the limit?

[25hashcoin]

https://www.bitcoinabc.org

[The One]

Are you kidding? I run a full node on my Core I7-4790k 4.0ghz, use it daily for other things, including games, video editing/conversion and check my wallet data periodically and had no problems. So what is your issue?

Periodically? Are you sure you are not running a non-listening node? Mine eats up over 1 TB of bandwidth per month very easily and I can't possibly imagine running the node on the same system that I use for work (not even with the current block size).

I have no idea of my bandwidth (don't check at all) as i have optic fibre in UK and not some crappy telephone copper wire that other internet services provides. Mine has no cap at all, unlike other internet services. I download all my favourite TV programs as i don't have 18 to 20 minutes per hour to waste on watching adverts. My network traffic on my wallet shows the usual download of new blocks but sending out more, roughly 1gb daily. I have the usual 8 outbound and on average 5 inbound (tends to fluctuate as my wallet auto banned some inbound connections for some reason)

Based on my experience, i can not fathom why others are complaining.

[Iranus]

Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run?  Rasp PI

Banks should not be the only people running nodes.

Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?

Quote from Lauda just three posts before yours:

It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).

Please read the thread before posting.

"bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"

Transaction fees should be approximately 20 cents right now.  40 satoshi/byte or sometimes even less is good enough when the network isn't undergoing a spam attack.

In my view, there's a fine balance.  The first step should be offchain scaling or alterations of onchain transactions like SegWit - the second step should be onchain scaling, when there's no other clear options available.  The bigger the max block size, the more space that's open for long-term spamming and eventually node centralisation.

Read before posting.

Where is written 'only banks' ?

OK, fair point.  However, poorly interpreting (or being hyperbolic about) your wording is not the same as actually lying and acting like Lauda said the exact opposite of what they did.

Once you could point me to, pls explain why you want people do the txs rather off-chain than onchain? Since this will be the result of your order, correct?

Offchain first.  It doesn't mean people should do all of their transactions offchain, it just means that for microtransactions offchain transactions are necessary, and that it's important to be as efficient as possible before raising the block size.

It was never actually practical to walk into a coffee shop and do a zero-confirmation transaction.  You can either do that zero-confirmation and have the merchant risk not getting their money, or you can stand there saying "hang on, just a few minutes", until your transaction gets confirmed.  That's the scenario that needs offchain transactions.

And if you got that, than tell us, how far is that away, from moving people into alts directly?

Not at all comparable to altcoins, nor is raising the block size through a hard fork IMO.

Last, what do you think is more expensive, spamming 1MB blocks or 2MB blocks up to the limit?

It's the same cost to spam the same amount of space.  Neither SegWit nor block size increases would actually mitigate spam very well.  If they wanted to fill the whole block I recognise that it would be more expensive, but it's still not very expensive to do that.

The point is that a higher block size means there's more space in which it's possible for someone to spam and put strain on node users.

[franky1]

I have no idea of my bandwidth (don't check at all) as i have optic fibre in UK and not some crappy telephone copper wire that other internet services provides. Mine has no cap at all, unlike other internet services. I download all my favourite TV programs as i don't have 18 to 20 minutes per hour to waste on watching adverts. My network traffic on my wallet shows the usual download of new blocks but sending out more, roughly 1gb daily. I have the usual 8 outbound and on average 5 inbound (tends to fluctuate as my wallet auto banned some inbound connections for some reason)

Based on my experience, i can not fathom why others are complaining.

well lets take copper wire ADSL that the UK averaged a DECADE ago

0.5mb upload(2mb down)

0.5mbit/s = 5.4 GByte daily UP
2mbit/s = 21.6 GByte daily down

because of bits to bytes and then 1second to 24hours.. easy maths is to take whatever mbit speed you have and multiply it by 10800 to get the mbyte per day
(x / 8 * 60 * 60 * 24)=10800

thats mbytes per day.. or more simply multiply your xmbit per sec by 10.8 to get gbytes per day...

so say you had 1mb up on fibre
10.8gbyte of data can be sent from your pc per day

[hv_]

Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run?  Rasp PI

Banks should not be the only people running nodes.

Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?

Quote from Lauda just three posts before yours:

It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).

Please read the thread before posting.

"bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"

Transaction fees should be approximately 20 cents right now.  40 satoshi/byte or sometimes even less is good enough when the network isn't undergoing a spam attack.

In my view, there's a fine balance.  The first step should be offchain scaling or alterations of onchain transactions like SegWit - the second step should be onchain scaling, when there's no other clear options available.  The bigger the max block size, the more space that's open for long-term spamming and eventually node centralisation.

Read before posting.

Where is written 'only banks' ?

OK, fair point.  However, poorly interpreting (or being hyperbolic about) your wording is not the same as actually lying and acting like Lauda said the exact opposite of what they did.

Once you could point me to, pls explain why you want people do the txs rather off-chain than onchain? Since this will be the result of your order, correct?

Offchain first.  It doesn't mean people should do all of their transactions offchain, it just means that for microtransactions offchain transactions are necessary, and that it's important to be as efficient as possible before raising the block size.

It was never actually practical to walk into a coffee shop and do a zero-confirmation transaction.  You can either do that zero-confirmation and have the merchant risk not getting their money, or you can stand there saying "hang on, just a few minutes", until your transaction gets confirmed.  That's the scenario that needs offchain transactions.

And if you got that, than tell us, how far is that away, from moving people into alts directly?

Not at all comparable to altcoins, nor is raising the block size through a hard fork IMO.

Last, what do you think is more expensive, spamming 1MB blocks or 2MB blocks up to the limit?

It's the same cost to spam the same amount of space.  Neither SegWit nor block size increases would actually mitigate spam very well.  If they wanted to fill the whole block I recognise that it would be more expensive, but it's still not very expensive to do that.

The point is that a higher block size means there's more space in which it's possible for someone to spam and put strain on node users.

Ok. No of your points is addressing the risk of SW and compares it with simple BS increase.

All efforts you do is more off chain ( first...). This will change code, design AND Nash equilibrium ( discussed in the ck's SW2x thread).

Are you still just fear the HF ? Or now rather fear the other 3 more realistic risks I outlined?

My point is clear. Do only such changes if you really understand all impacts. SW changes just too much and bitcoin network is too complex.

So do little BS increases and see. HF is well known to cryptoland.

[Lauda]

Are you kidding? I run a full node on my Core I7-4790k 4.0ghz, use it daily for other things, including games, video editing/conversion and check my wallet data periodically and had no problems. So what is your issue?

Periodically? Are you sure you are not running a non-listening node? Mine eats up over 1 TB of bandwidth per month very easily and I can't possibly imagine running the node on the same system that I use for work (not even with the current block size).

I have no idea of my bandwidth (don't check at all) as i have optic fibre in UK and not some crappy telephone copper wire that other internet services provides. Mine has no cap at all, unlike other internet services. I download all my favourite TV programs as i don't have 18 to 20 minutes per hour to waste on watching adverts. My network traffic on my wallet shows the usual download of new blocks but sending out more, roughly 1gb daily. I have the usual 8 outbound and on average 5 inbound (tends to fluctuate as my wallet auto banned some inbound connections for some reason)

"Crappy telephone copper wire"? What has this got to do with anything? It is very clear that you have no idea what you're talking about and there must be a reason for the low number of inbound connections. A true and longstanding node will easily hit the default cap of 125 connections. If you have optic fibre (100 or 1000 Mbps upload speed), then you should be spending at least several TB of bandwidth per month (not 1 GB per day).
Either your IP is dynamic or something else is limiting your Bitcoin node.

Based on my experience, i can not fathom why others are complaining.

"I am comfortable with $100 fees. Based on my experience, I can not fathom why others are complaining about $5 fees." - Do you not see how statements like this yours are fundamentally flawed?

[The One]

I have no idea of my bandwidth (don't check at all) as i have optic fibre in UK and not some crappy telephone copper wire that other internet services provides. Mine has no cap at all, unlike other internet services. I download all my favourite TV programs as i don't have 18 to 20 minutes per hour to waste on watching adverts. My network traffic on my wallet shows the usual download of new blocks but sending out more, roughly 1gb daily. I have the usual 8 outbound and on average 5 inbound (tends to fluctuate as my wallet auto banned some inbound connections for some reason)

Based on my experience, i can not fathom why others are complaining.

well lets take copper wire ADSL that the UK averaged a DECADE ago

0.5mb upload(2mb down)

0.5mbit/s = 5.4 GByte daily UP
2mbit/s = 21.6 GByte daily down

because of bits to bytes and then 1second to 24hours.. easy maths is to take whatever mbit speed you have and multiply it by 10800 to get the mbyte per day
(x / 8 * 60 * 60 * 24)=10800

thats mbytes per day.. or more simply multiply your xmbit per sec by 10.8 to get gbytes per day...

so say you had 1mb up on fibre
10.8gbyte of data can be sent from your pc per day

ADSL is pants 

[The One]

Are you kidding? I run a full node on my Core I7-4790k 4.0ghz, use it daily for other things, including games, video editing/conversion and check my wallet data periodically and had no problems. So what is your issue?

Periodically? Are you sure you are not running a non-listening node? Mine eats up over 1 TB of bandwidth per month very easily and I can't possibly imagine running the node on the same system that I use for work (not even with the current block size).

I have no idea of my bandwidth (don't check at all) as i have optic fibre in UK and not some crappy telephone copper wire that other internet services provides. Mine has no cap at all, unlike other internet services. I download all my favourite TV programs as i don't have 18 to 20 minutes per hour to waste on watching adverts. My network traffic on my wallet shows the usual download of new blocks but sending out more, roughly 1gb daily. I have the usual 8 outbound and on average 5 inbound (tends to fluctuate as my wallet auto banned some inbound connections for some reason)

"Crappy telephone copper wire"? What has this got to do with anything? It is very clear that you have no idea what you're talking about and there must be a reason for the low number of inbound connections. A true and longstanding node will easily hit the default cap of 125 connections. If you have optic fibre (100 or 1000 Mbps upload speed), then you should be spending at least several TB of bandwidth per month (not 1 GB per day).
Either your IP is dynamic or something else is limiting your Bitcoin node.

Based on my experience, i can not fathom why others are complaining.

"I am comfortable with $100 fees. Based on my experience, I can not fathom why others are complaining about $5 fees." - Do you not see how statements like this yours are fundamentally flawed?

Simple. Low upload and download speed. Optic fibre; high upload and download speed. Forget about the false sales patter of promised download speed that no one seems to get.

Don't know about that, setting is in correct order, Perhaps others are banning me. IP is dynamic but rarely ever changes, once or twice a year.

No. There is a difference between subjective statement like mine and objective statement like yours.

[XbladeX]

Big block at end will lead to biger centraization of BTC and centralization is leading to problem.
I see today how BTC is fucked up becouse one asic comany shake whole market they can threaten all people in space becouse they sell miners so you have to listen to them at proposals.
Bitcoins supose to be resistant to centralization and current mining issue is getting to paint where we see why DECENTRALIZATION in mining is so needed.
There will be no decentralization when one china party have 51%+ power over network.

[Meuh6879]

Stats from my node :

- limited to 25 connexions (working days)
- 3Gb per day (upload blocks to others in sync. job)
- Less than 1Gb per day if not (week-end, for example ... fall to 15-18 connexions)
- core 2 duo 2,9GHz (less than 15% of CPU) + 2Gb RAM
- full node (260Gb partition allowed)
- 7 years old machine (780 USD price, same machine now = 480 USD)

That's why i want SegWit and not a Block increase.
Block increase is an idiotic solution with the developper brain possibilities.

And with the new Tablet/Smartphone with Android system (Atom 64bits 2,4GHz dual-core) ... and 256GB storage, i want a bitcoin core (complet blockchain) first on Android platform. 

[franky1]

Stats from my node :

- limited to 25 connexions (working days)
- 3Gb per day (upload blocks to others in sync. job)
- Less than 1Gb per day if not (week-end, for example ... fall to 15-18 connexions)
- core 2 duo 2,9GHz (less than 15% of CPU) + 2Gb RAM
- full node (260Gb partition allowed)
- 7 years old machine (780 USD price, same machine now = 480 USD)

That's why i want SegWit and not a Block increase.
Block increase is an idiotic solution with the developper brain possibilities.

do you even know segwit..
i think you need to look at the empty promises vs realistic scenarios and see your hyping up something that offers very little

[jbreher]

And that's not the real issue. The real issue is that - if you're not willing to part with less than a half-bitcoin in order to run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet, your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative. Fuck right off.

Who are you, to force me to pay half a Bitcoin, to achieve financial sovereignty?

Look, peabrain - I'm not forcing you to do anything. First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative.

Leave this forum and Bitcoin,

Fuck right off.

[franky1]

dont worry about lauda. he admitted last year that he hasnt even read a line of code, and also doesnt know how long it takes to sync to the network.

i believe he runs a node using amazon server and wants to cry about the cost of bandwidth (amazon subscription costs) but has no clue about computer costs, stats, utility.
he takes things out of context alot because of all the reddit scripts he gets spoonfed

he tries hard to sound like an expert who cough gets paid to consult cough. yet loves penny grabbing his sig campaign schemes and charging people for things they can do themselves.

i feel sorry for him as he seems to have wasted the last few years not learning the real utility of bitcoin and is just penny grabbing to stay afloat
i tried helping him but then he just cries "walls of text".. so you cant teach an old cat new tricks

[jonald_fyookball]

Big blocks aren't a problem?  But if there's big blocks that means everyone will be free to
conduct transactions on-chain.  And if that happens, how will Blockstream make money from its patented sidechains?

[Lauda]

-snip-

You've failed to address anything, thus your post is worthless. As said, for an average node with that connection you should be spending at least several TB worth of data.

First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative.

Which is absolute nonsense and couldn't be further from reality. Only a delusional idiot or a paid infiltrator could write something like this. Nobody wants you here; the same goes with Jonald. Why are you here?

dont worry about lauda. he admitted last year that he hasnt even read a line of code, and also doesnt know how long it takes to sync to the network.

Incoherent statements by someone who did not read the code themselves. Ironic.

i believe he runs a node using amazon server and wants to cry about the cost of bandwidth (amazon subscription costs) but has no clue about computer costs, stats, utility.

Which is absolute nonsense and something which you could not possibly know.

he tries hard to sound like an expert who cough gets paid to consult cough. yet loves penny grabbing his sig campaign schemes and charging people for things they can do themselves.

If anyone is an expert here, it ain't you, nor the duo of j-degenerates.

[jbreher]

First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative.

Which is absolute nonsense and couldn't be further from reality.

Well, then you should have no problem disproving at least one portion of what I typed with evidence of facts and reasoning therefrom. Instead, all you've got so far is platitudes.

[Lauda]

First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative.

Which is absolute nonsense and couldn't be further from reality.

Well, then you should have no problem disproving at least one portion of what I typed with evidence of facts and reasoning therefrom. Instead, all you've got so far is platitudes.

You have provided absolutely no kind of evidence, unless I've missed it and/or you've stealthy inserted it into some post. "Reasoning" is not evidence, considering you're a paid shill.
This is real evidence:

https://twitter.com/TuurDemeester/status/881851053913899009
Do you want a peer-to-peer network, or a proxy-to-proxy network?

[jonald_fyookball]

The benefits of non mining fully validating nodes to the network are greatly exaggerated to say the least.  They only thing they really do is help support SPV. 

[jonald_fyookball]

Thanks for bringing that paper to my attention Lauda.  Thoroughly debunking it will be a delight just like I
trashed the SPV myths and the LN myths. 

It's easy to utterly destroy the narratives of those who have positions based on non-reality. 

[franky1]

dont worry about lauda. he admitted last year that he hasnt even read a line of code, and also doesnt know how long it takes to sync to the network.

Incoherent statements by someone who did not read the code themselves. Ironic.

lauda just to remind you bitcoin is wrote in C++ not java
http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/17#l1453062298.0
"20:24    Lauda    Bitcoin does not use Java right?"

i believe he runs a node using amazon server and wants to cry about the cost of bandwidth (amazon subscription costs) but has no clue about computer costs, stats, utility.

Which is absolute nonsense and something which you could not possibly know.

http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/17#l1453064029.0
20:53    phantomcircuit    Lauda, it would take ~12 days to synchronize from the wifi here at 1MB
21:04    Lauda    phantomcircuit 12 days..?
21:17    Lauda    That seems like quite long.
21:17    Rebroad    Lauda, anyway, 12 days is not a long time for someone wanting to run a full-node... I mean, what's the rush?!
21:17    Lauda    That's almost half a month.. it is long to set up one.
21:17    Rebroad    Lauda, yes, but why the rush?
21:18    belcher    time is money
21:18    Lauda    Exactly.
21:18    Rebroad    belcher, running a full node doesn't make money
21:18    belcher    Rebroad if you're using bitcoin instead of some other currency, presumably its valuable to you
21:18    Lauda    You lose money waiting.
21:18    belcher    it doesnt make you "money" per se but theres still economic value in it
21:18    Rebroad    Lauda, how would you lose money?
21:18    Lauda    If you're paying for a VPS
21:19    Lauda    12 days of lost money.
21:19    Rebroad    Lauda, if you're running a full node, it'll cost you the same to run it no matter how long it takes to download the blockchain
21:19    Lauda    Imagine compiling code that takes 12 days instead of 1?
21:19    Lauda    No time lost?
21:20    Rebroad    Lauda, belcher, I don't think you understand what motivates people to run full-nodes
21:20    Lauda    ...
21:20    Lauda    you're weird.
21:20    Rebroad    Lauda, you've still now answered my question. Rush to do what?
21:20    Lauda    Time is valuable, time should not be wasted unless necessary.
21:21    Rebroad    Lauda, you could argue that running a full-node IS a waste of time... it's either a waste of time to run it, or it isn't... but running it involves downoading the blockchain.. it's part and parcel of running a full-node
21:22    Lauda    I wouldn't bother setting up a node that takes 12 days to set up.
21:22    Lauda    No way.
21:23    Lauda    Imagine a situation where user has no full node, they need it for reason X to use Y
21:23    Lauda    so wait 12 days before using it?

he tries hard to sound like an expert who cough gets paid to consult cough. yet loves penny grabbing his sig campaign schemes and charging people for things they can do themselves.

If anyone is an expert here, it ain't you, nor the duo of j-degenerates.

lauda, go spend more time reading reference material and less time on reddit propoganda scripts.
its proven time and time again that you failed the basics..

even now you cant explain the tier network, upstream filters, and why segwit keypair utility is not possible to test on mainnet now, even when everything is supposedly (in your eyes) backward compatible..
reminder: i gave you a hint april 2016

anyway. getting back on point of the topic:

as for the graphic of statistics lauda has pasted several times.. does he even know maths to actually check before pasting
EG
blocks 0.5mb.....graphic shows 6.2gb daily traffic.............. (facepalm)
..........
hint: there are only 144 blocks a day you dont even need a calculator to do the maths (hint: number in graphic is out by 86 multiples)
and dont even gt me started on the facepalming of ram in that graphic

[Lauda]

The benefits of non mining fully validating nodes to the network are greatly exaggerated to say the least.  They only thing they really do is help support SPV.  

Absolute nonsense which can only be spread by centralizing agents.

Thanks for bringing that paper to my attention Lauda.  Thoroughly debunking it will be a delight just like I
trashed the SPV myths and the LN myths.  

Both of your articles are the laughing stock of any Bitcoin developer (besides the few BU/Jihan paid ones who are malicious actors anyways).

-snip-

I am not even in that channel. Why are you trying to defame my name? Who is paying you to do this? I do not trust you.

as for the graphic of statistics lauda has pasted several times.. does he even know maths to actually check before pasting
EG
blocks 0.5mb.....graphic shows 6.2gb daily traffic.............. (facepalm)
..........
hint: there are only 144 blocks a day you dont even need a calculator to do the maths (hint: number in graphic is out by 86 multiples)

You have no idea how Bitcoin works. Who are you to judge anything? Block size * number of blocks per day != bandwidth total spend per day. Any idiot should know this by now.
Strangely enough, it is always the people with zero contributions to this community, the code, development, nor build process (et. al.) that try to centralize Bitcoin and claim they know their stuff.

[jbreher]

First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative.

Which is absolute nonsense and couldn't be further from reality.

Well, then you should have no problem disproving at least one portion of what I typed with evidence of facts and reasoning therefrom. Instead, all you've got so far is platitudes.

You have provided absolutely no kind of evidence, unless I've missed it and/or you've stealthy inserted it into some post. "Reasoning" is not evidence, considering you're a paid shill.

Which is again another assertion for which you have provided no evidence. What really makes it funny is that your gunbot sig makes you definitively a paid shill.

This is real evidence:

https://twitter.com/TuurDemeester/status/881851053913899009
Do you want a peer-to-peer network, or a proxy-to-proxy network?

Yes, that is evidence. Evidence that some percentage of Steam gamers will likely not be Bitcoiners in 2015.

That is a brain-dead criterium.

If you want to be a first-order member of the network that protects the most significant financial technology since the 1400's, buck up for a real machine. If not, your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin security is a net negative.

[pereira4]

Big blocks aren't a problem?  But if there's big blocks that means everyone will be free to
conduct transactions on-chain.  And if that happens, how will Blockstream make money from its patented sidechains?

If the blocks become huge and only corporations are able to run the mods which be easily bribed, and these corporations get thrown billions to compromise the bitcoin code by adding privacy unfriendly trash as the shit we've seen before in XT or the blockchain analysis stuff Jarzik is working on and they add it at protocol level, and since the blocks are too big you can't run a full node yourself with your own validating rules, what are you going to do?

You don't know what the rule of full validating nodes is or the game theory surrounding it. Go back to school.

[jonald_fyookball]

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/examining-bitfurys-scaling-research-9d62cb725477

[Lauda]

Which is again another assertion for which you have provided no evidence.

You want me to debunk you, yet you've provided no evidence whatsoever?

What really makes it funny is that your gunbot sig makes you definitively a paid shill.

The creator of it is a very good friend of mine. He has nicely contributed to the ecosystem, unlike cancerous idiots like yourself and jonald.

Yes, that is evidence. Evidence that some percentage of Steam gamers will likely not be Bitcoiners in 2015. That is a brain-dead criterium.

That's not even what the study says. You have reading comprehension problem. The hardware used to gather the data is a generous overestimation for the hardware used to run nodes.

If you want to be a first-order member of the network that protects the most significant financial technology since the 1400's, buck up for a real machine. If not, your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin security is a net negative.

Which is a lie spread by the scammer CW and his religion of followers.

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/examining-bitfurys-scaling-research-9d62cb725477

Do not get me started on this corporate takeover change: https://archive.fo/yWNNj.
Or the Bitcoin ABC garbage: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6n7hju/are_bitcoin_abc_nodes_under_attack/.

[jbreher]

Which is again another assertion for which you have provided no evidence.

You want me to debunk you, yet you've provided no evidence whatsoever?

No. You are the one accusing me of being a paid shill. The burden of proof is upon you. Because, logic.

What really makes it funny is that your gunbot sig makes you definitively a paid shill.

The creator of it is a very good friend of mine. He has nicely contributed to the ecosystem, unlike cancerous idiots like yourself and jonald.

You are receiving payment for an advertisement in your sig. This is, by definition, shillery.

You have reading comprehension.

Yes. I have reading comprehension. You, OTOH, have a lack of reading comprehension.

[Lauda]

No. You are the one accusing me of being a paid shill. The burden of proof is upon you. Because, logic.

This is not even what we are talking about. Factually speaking, you're a shill. It does not need proving, especially not when you're diverting.

You are receiving payment for an advertisement in your sig. This is, by definition, shillery.

The latter is not even a word, and the foremost has nothing to do with my opinion on the hostile takeover attempt BU/ABC (or whatever scam name you try to use next time). Therefore, your statement is not logically coherent. Of course, your statements usually aren't.

Yes. I have reading comprehension. You, OTOH, have a lack of reading comprehension.

Enjoying that Ver and Jihad money, are you?

[jbreher]

No. You are the one accusing me of being a paid shill. The burden of proof is upon you. Because, logic.

This is not even what we are talking about. Factually speaking, you're a shill. It does not need proving, especially not when you're diverting.

You are receiving payment for an advertisement in your sig. This is, by definition, shillery.

The latter is not even a word, and the foremost has nothing to do with my opinion on the hostile takeover attempt BU/ABC (or whatever scam name you try to use next time). Therefore, your statement is not logically coherent. Of course, your statements usually aren't.

Yes. I have reading comprehension. You, OTOH, have a lack of reading comprehension.

Enjoying that Ver and Jihad money, are you?

Quoted in entirety in order to memorialize your obtuseness, irrationality, and denial of logic.

[Lauda]

Quoted in entirety in order to memorialize your obtuseness, irrationality, and denial of logic.

Which is absolutely untrue. Again, if you are *unpaid* (not that anyone would believe this after following these threads around) and you are not actively participating in this community in any possible way, and you are likely unwanted, why are you here? Definitely-not-paid.ABC.
Strangely enough, until CW and other scammers claimed that the peer-to-peer model was worthless (proxy-to-proxy datacenters seem to be desirable), neither Jonald nor you were diminishing the value of user nodes.
I wonder whether franky agrees with the idea of $20k as the entry cost for nodes. Franky, show yourself.

[hv_]

Bitcoiners know $s are worthless. get rid of them and support the network, at any scale you could do.

[jbreher]

Again, if you are *unpaid* (not that anyone would believe this after following these threads around) and you are not actively participating in this community in any possible way, and you are likely unwanted, why are you here?

Now you are being a special kind of stupid. My mere presence here is 'participating in this community in any possible way'. Nevertheless, as I have indicated before, I am here looking after my interests. 'My interests', defined herein for the purposes of this thread, consist essentially of the increased utility of Bitcoin, leading to the increased usage of Bitcoin, leading to wider adoption of Bitcoin, leading to the appreciation of my non-insignificant Bitcoin holdings. As I have held consistently.

OTOH, with your being paid to advance the interests of 'gunbot' with paid sig advertising, you are by definition a shill.

As to whether or not I am unwanted.... I guess that sucks to be you.

Strangely enough, until CW and other scammers claimed that the peer-to-peer model was worthless (proxy-to-proxy datacenters seem to be desirable), neither Jonald nor you were diminishing the value of user nodes.

Bull-fucking-shit. Lie, lie, and lie again. As I responded to you the last time you propagated this lie:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1915733.msg19064080#msg19064080

[Lauda]

My mere presence here is 'participating in this community in any possible way'.

You are not participating in any possible way.

Nevertheless, as I have indicated before, I am here looking after my interests.

Interests of your employer? Got it. Your main interest (or that of your employer) is the centralization of Bitcoin and a transition from a peer-to-peer, to a proxy-to-proxy network.

OTOH, with your being paid to advance the interests of 'gunbot' with paid sig advertising, you are by definition a shill.

Which is absolutely wrong. I am not supposed to advance the interest of anyone with the current signature that I am wearing.

As to whether or not I am unwanted....

Per definition, cancer.

Bull-fucking-shit. Lie, lie, and lie again. As I responded to you the last time you propagated this lie:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1915733.msg19064080#msg19064080

The quoted parts have nothing to do with what I wrote. A clear distinction (escalating, are we?) can be seen in your previous statements on non-mining nodes and the recent ones. I wonder why that is.

[jbreher]

My mere presence here is 'participating in this community in any possible way'.

You are not participating in any possible way.

Nevertheless, as I have indicated before, I am here looking after my interests.

Interests of your employer? Got it. Your main interest (or that of your employer) is the centralization of Bitcoin and a transition from a peer-to-peer, to a proxy-to-proxy network.

OTOH, with your being paid to advance the interests of 'gunbot' with paid sig advertising, you are by definition a shill.

Which is absolutely wrong. I am not supposed to advance the interest of anyone with the current signature that I am wearing.

As to whether or not I am unwanted....

Per definition, cancer.

Bull-fucking-shit. Lie, lie, and lie again. As I responded to you the last time you propagated this lie:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1915733.msg19064080#msg19064080

The quoted parts have nothing to do with what I wrote. A clear distinction can be seen in your previous statements on non-mining nodes and the recent ones. I wonder why that is.

Again - quoting fully to avoid any impropriety, and to commemorate your obtuseness, ignorance, and malfeasance:

Again, if you are *unpaid* (not that anyone would believe this after following these threads around) and you are not actively participating in this community in any possible way, and you are likely unwanted, why are you here?

Now you are being a special kind of stupid. My mere presence here is 'participating in this community in any possible way'. Nevertheless, as I have indicated before, I am here looking after my interests. 'My interests', defined herein for the purposes of this thread, consist essentially of the increased utility of Bitcoin, leading to the increased usage of Bitcoin, leading to wider adoption of Bitcoin, leading to the appreciation of my non-insignificant Bitcoin holdings. As I have held consistently.

OTOH, with your being paid to advance the interests of 'gunbot' with paid sig advertising, you are by definition a shill.

As to whether or not I am unwanted.... I guess that sucks to be you.

Strangely enough, until CW and other scammers claimed that the peer-to-peer model was worthless (proxy-to-proxy datacenters seem to be desirable), neither Jonald nor you were diminishing the value of user nodes.

Bull-fucking-shit. Lie, lie, and lie again. As I responded to you the last time you propagated this lie:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1915733.msg19064080#msg19064080

(some emphasis not in original)

OK, I guess it is true that I was not "diminishing the value of user nodes". But that is just because you are evidently incapable of Englishing. I believe the word you were looking for was 'denigrating'. Which indeed is shown by the above quoted material. In case you _still_ can't grasp elementary grammar, it is impossible to 'diminish' an entity without directly interacting with that very entity. Because, English.

[Lauda]

Why are you unable to answer my questions/statements? The interests of your employer are being exposed, aren't they? Paid shilling by jbreher at its finest.

Interests of your employer? Got it. Your main interest (or that of your employer) is the centralization of Bitcoin and a transition from a peer-to-peer, to a proxy-to-proxy network.

FrankenSegwit and absurdly big blocks are an attack on Bitcoin which is going to attempt to weaken it with further centralization. Undeniable truths.

[hv_]

What is the effect of the Nash equilibrium in terms of block size and centralization?

[jbreher]

Why are you unable to answer my questions/statements? The interests of your employer are being exposed, aren't they? Paid shilling by jbreher at its finest.

What the hell are you bawling about? The only questions from you I can find in your last several posts is two rhetorical questions. To wit:

Interests of your employer?

and

(escalating, are we?)

As to the first, the only thing I do for my employer with respect to Bitcoin is act as Principal Representative to ANSI/INCITS's US national peer to ISO's committee on Blockchain Standardization. As to the second - yes, no, whatevs - doesn't matter.

[jonald_fyookball]

segwit is already franken-bitcoin with its technical debt, radical changes, anyone can spend outputs, deletable signatures (that you arent supposed to delete) , and perverse economic incentives.

[franky1]

when lauda cant prove anything he just cries shill or screams "nonsensical" or ad-hom

nothing new

anyway he cant explain the maths of the graphic and instead just attacks with "shill"
i think lauda should go back to scamming people by charging them fee's to be an escrow just to recover their own funds. rather than do anything actually technical to fix issues.
yep lauda cant even be arsed to report bugs that earn him money, he prefers bugs because he can scam money out of people through it

lauda cant even answer or even realise that the BScartel he adores so much are the ones linked to the banks

ask blockstream to speak to their boss barry silbert about his brother allen
ask bloq to speak to their boss barrysilbert about his brother allen

lauda cant even explain the ram calculations and even independantly thinkk for himself why that images maths of ram usage is wrong

all this segwit drama and finger pointing of social drama and lauda cant even wade through it to see whats hidden beneath. all he does is post his empty spoonfed crap from his "friends" becuase he trusts them

[franky1]

I wonder whether franky agrees with the idea of $20k as the entry cost for nodes. Franky, show yourself.

$20k entry costs.. pfft.. (im laughing)

oh lauda u are drinking the reddit "gigabytes my midnight" koolaid again

PLLLEEAAASSSEEE learn consensus
hint. if majority of nodes cant cope with XXXmb they wont upgrade to it. thus the network wont accept XXXmb blocks

no one is saying gigabytes by midnight rationally (apart from your FUD'Friends)

the network can grow naturally OVERTIME using consensus. it does not need blockstream halting blocksizes and using fud
the network can grow naturally OVERTIME using consensus. it does not need blockstream avoiding consensus and trying to slip in corporate code in via soft exploits

ask yourself why are your friends screaming scripts repeatedly about gigabytes by midnight but avoiding rational thoughts of 2mb this year and natural growth over time...

as for segwit.
go ask the litecoinpools that 'supposedly' support segwit, why are they too afraid to even use segwit keypairs themselves

please put ur ego aside and learn consensus
and next time you get an image lauda,, dont just spam it.. read it, study it, understand it and realise its flaws... i did try to teach you this lesson with segwit back in early 2016

[Mergesort]

I want to keep Bitcoin decentralized. Companies trying to decide which way to go and developing their own secret code is a super nogo. You can talk about segwit and segwit2x all you want. It's not what technology is going to be implemented it's who is behind it and who wants bitcoin to be decentralized and open.

[dinofelis]

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here. As someone who has been really out of the loop on the technical side of things and I also have really no idea of the politics behind these factions... but I want to ask what is the problem with big blocks exactly.

In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size(which is extremely unlikely but lets go with that) 1MB or 2MB or 3MB or 4 MB or 10 MB.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 MB blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there would not be a storage issue, for the average person. The average person(western) can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bucks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period. (I note that this number may be higher as others point out).

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mb(mega bits) and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS.

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that means almost everyone in the world would be using BTC to make 100MBblocks full every 10 minutes every day every week every year...


So what is the issue? Please lay it out for me, I have been away for awhile.  Am I missing something? Maybe poorer people cant afford to host a node is the issue? But are they hosting it now anyways, probably not...

Please note I did edit some things as I realized I did not word some things correctly and some things were exclamatory for no reason. Thank you below for the great responses about the spam attacks, did not consider that. I guess that changes my mind then on what the real solution is, this may have made me more confused than before I posted to be honest.

You are perfectly right.

The real issue is that one wants to push agendas, and uses this false problem to do so.

While it is true that making bigger blocks makes a bigger block chain that is not to be afforded to be downloaded by the most modest of potential bitcoin users, one forgets to mention:

1) that to be a bitcoin user, one doesn't need the block chain in its whole, and a light client is perfect.
2) that the number of full nodes that do not mine has nothing to do with the decentralization of bitcoin.

The nasty thing about bitcoin is that it has lost most of its ideal decentralization, but not because of the size of block chains, but rather because of the economies of scale of proof of work.  Bitcoin's design was exactly made such that "full nodes" have nothing to say, and only MINERS decide on consensus (of chain history and protocol).  Only proof of work is a "credential" in bitcoin, exactly because Satoshi wanted to avoid the number of full nodes to play any role (it is too easy to sybil it).

And the mining entities, that make the decisions, are the mining pools and there are essentially 20 of them.  That's the real state of "decentralization" of bitcoin (the majority is even in the hands of only 5 of them which may be sock puppets of 1 or 2 people).

In order to hide that ugly face, a lot of wind is made concerning the importance of "Joe with his full node in his basement",  but that node has nothing to say.  Joe's node can only download whatever single block chain the miners mine, or stop.  If Joe's node stops, it is as if Joe switched off his node.

A light client can check that one isn't serving bullshit by just downloading the header chain, which contains all the proof of work ; and once that header chain is verified, any specific transaction can be checked by verifying the Merkel tree branch in the block at hand.  A light client doesn't have to check for double spends, because the miners already did so, and if the miners decided amongst themselves to include a double spend in the consensus and continue to keep consensus over that (continue to build blocks on top of that), then in any case, you cannot do anything about it, and that double spend is now in any case part of bitcoin.

So the raw truth of bitcoin is that as a user, you are in any case at the mercy of what the miner pool consortium decides (it has full consensus decision power), whether that is "according to the rules of bitcoin you thought were in place or not", and once you accept those decisions (and you can't do anything about it), a light client is sufficient to check whether a given transaction has been decided by that pool consortium or not (nobody can fake it).

There are some advantages to running a full node, and one has to find out for oneself whether those advantages are sufficient to spend the needed modest investment of such a node is worth it or not.  But it has nothing to do with the "decentralization" of bitcoin.  Because bitcoin was exactly designed for it not to matter.

That ugly truth cannot be heard, and that's why a lot of fuzz is made by bitcoin evangelists about the importance of full nodes.  But they are about as useful for the decentralization of bitcoin, as hanging a talisman around your neck is against car accidents.

[Lauda]

-snip-

Tl;dr: The shill, jbreher, tries to defend the interests of his employer by wanting to centralize Bitcoin.

when lauda cant prove anything he just cries shill or screams "nonsensical" or ad-hom

I have pretty debunked anything you've ever written. There is no need to repeat my statements ad naseum.

I wonder whether franky agrees with the idea of $20k as the entry cost for nodes. Franky, show yourself.

$20k entry costs.. pfft.. (im laughing)

oh lauda u are drinking the reddit "gigabytes my midnight" koolaid again

Are you brain dead? It does seem like you are. The $20k has nothing to do with reddit (other that the video was shared on both r/bitcoin and r/btc). That's the number that Craig Wright mentioned in a recent "scaling conference" in the Netherlands (sponosred by Bitcoin.com and Bitmain of course). This is the same number that shills like jbreher and jonald agree with. I am asking you, whether you agree with $20k as an entry cost for a node.
The full video was removed ( ) but this snippet should be enough for reference: https://vid.me/frzw.
Answer this clearly (don't write useless walls of text). Do you, or do you not agree with $20k as the entry cost for a node (as mentioned by C. scammer Wright)?

[jbreher]

-snip-

Tl;dr: The shill, jbreher, tries to defend the interests of his employer by wanting to centralize Bitcoin.

lie...

the only thing I do for my employer with respect to Bitcoin is act as Principal Representative to ANSI/INCITS's US national peer to ISO's committee on Blockchain Standardization.

and lie again...

The $20k ... is the same number that shills like jbreher ... agree with.

Unless of course you can point to me actually saying that.

On top of being a proven shill for gunbot even.

You just don't know when to stop digging, do you?

[hv_]

... blob ...

THIS THREAD WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CLOSED WHEN IT HAS REACHED 1MB OF SIZE

... blob ...

 

[Lauda]

-snip-

There is no lie. You are most definitely a shill; the pattern is very obvious. You remind me of a scammer from this forum, he's exactly like a pest. Literally near zero people want him around, yet he refuses to leave. Unwanted cancer that sticks around.

Unless of course you can point to me actually saying that.

And what number, do you *cough*, agree is *acceptable* as a entry cost for a node (and not the non-listening ones)?

THIS THREAD WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CLOSED WHEN IT HAS REACHED 1MB OF SIZE

In case you wanted a decentralized BTCT, then it possibly should. Since this is a centralized forum, it does not need to.

[hv_]

THIS THREAD WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CLOSED WHEN IT HAS REACHED 1MB OF SIZE

In case you wanted a decentralized BTCT, then it possibly should. Since this is a centralized forum, it does not need to.

No - other 'forks' have lower quality and less to disagree..

[Lauda]

No - other 'forks' have lower quality and less to disagree..

Both Bitcoin forks and forks of this forum (e.g. Bitcoin.com) are much worse than the original, indeed. Status quo wins in pretty much any aspect (besides a few policies that I do not agree with, I guess).

[hv_]

No - other 'forks' have lower quality and less to disagree..

Both Bitcoin forks and forks of this forum (e.g. Bitcoin.com) are much worse than the original, indeed. Status quo wins in pretty much any aspect (besides a few policies that I do not agree with, I guess).

Hahaha - at least we agree that it needs a central forum to agree centrally about decentralization needs.

[franky1]

Answer this clearly (don't write useless walls of text). Do you, or do you not agree with $20k as the entry cost for a node (as mentioned by C. scammer Wright)?

this early in the industry no,
in a couple decades, probably.. but more so due to hyper inflation where $20k may be equivalent to $500 purchase power today(EG a loaf of bread being $80, standard pc $20k in a couple decades)

as for you debunking anything, no
all you ever shout is "nonsensical" "wrong" "adhom" "i didnt read your walls of text"

saying such as the things above do not amount to you debunking anything
it really is time you learn consensus. it will help you
then run independant tests and scenarios

then when your handed images. actually read understand test and fully grasp what its telling you and work out if what it is telling you is valid, correct and realistic. dont just paste it because you trust your "friends"

[Lauda]

No - other 'forks' have lower quality and less to disagree..

Both Bitcoin forks and forks of this forum (e.g. Bitcoin.com) are much worse than the original, indeed. Status quo wins in pretty much any aspect (besides a few policies that I do not agree with, I guess).

Hahaha - at least we agree that it needs a central forum to agree centrally about decentralization needs.

Pretty much, yeah. However, certain shills will cry about censorship et. al. if the majority of the users do not side with their (obviously faulty) views.

Answer this clearly (don't write useless walls of text). Do you, or do you not agree with $20k as the entry cost for a node (as mentioned by C. scammer Wright)?

this early in the industry no,
in a couple decades, probably.. but more so due to hyper inflation where $20k may be equivalent to $500 purchase power today(EG a loaf of bread being $80, standard pc $20k in a couple decades)

There you have it. As long as you do not support scammers who are trying to push an idea of $20k nodes today (this includes anyone who supports C. Wright, e.g. Ver, Jihan), you are not as bad as the shills like Jonald.

as for you debunking anything, no

Grow up and admit being wrong, idiot. The number of times that you've been debunked is converging to infinity. Do I have to remind you of your FUD with the sigops limit in recent versions of Bitcoin Core?

[hv_]

Answer this clearly (don't write useless walls of text). Do you, or do you not agree with $20k as the entry cost for a node (as mentioned by C. scammer Wright)?

this early in the industry no,
in a couple decades, probably.. but more so due to hyper inflation where $20k may be equivalent to $500 purchase power today(EG a loaf of bread being $80, standard pc $20k in a couple decades)

as for you debunking anything, no
all you ever shout is "nonsensical" "wrong" "adhom" "i didnt read your walls of text"

saying such as the things above do not amount to you debunking anything
it really is time you learn consensus. it will help you
then run independant tests and scenarios

then when your handed images. actually read understand test and fully grasp what its telling you and work out if what it is telling you is valid, correct and realistic. dont just paste it because you trust your "friends"

We should rather agree that the bitcoin price of such a node should be stable.  

EDIT: It also does not really make sense to 'serve' high high end miners with a Rasp PI - that does note really fit into a 'stable' hardware picture to me, rather shows that there might be (hard- AND software) bottlenecks for high end scaling ?

[franky1]

We should rather agree that the bitcoin price of such a node should be stable.  

EDIT: It also does not really make sense to 'serve' high high end miners with a Rasp PI - that does note really fit into a 'stable' hardware picture to me, rather shows that there might be (hard- AND software) bottlenecks for high end scaling ?

i do not agree that we should stick to Raspi specs.. but i do not believe the fud of $20k servers this next decade
same as
i do not agree that we should stick to 1mb base blocks... but i do not believe the fud of "gigabytes by midnight"

normal natural growth, where obviously nodes that cant handle it wont run the software and as such new rules wont activate due to consensus.

the issues arise is when bypassing consensus and then go fud extremes to blame others when things dont go to plan by those trying to force an issue

dynamics can work and keep things on a healthy natural growth, without devs or corporations control and without things going to extremes or stalling due to fear/fud

[franky1]

as for you debunking anything, no

Grow up and admit being wrong, idiot. The number of times that you've been debunked is converging to infinity. Do I have to remind you of your FUD with the sigops limit in recent versions of Bitcoin Core?

ha ha ha
seriously, you need to READ

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1897557.140

read it properly, thoroughly and completely.

i mean actually take some time and read it properly. no excuses about how you dont need to waste time on walls of text.

EG
i said it NEEDS low sigop limit to solve quadratics..
not the cludgy math crap

you went on a rant that there is no txsigops because its in policy and done by maths of segwit.

meaning you agree there is no low txsigops in consensus, but you didnt want to admit as much. so wanted to pretend a new argument where you thought i said that core already had a low txsigops.

i repeated "this is why REAL rules. real code, should be used.. not bait and switch hope and faith cludgy maths crap"

you ignored

i repeated "by saying nodes can by pass the fee math cludge is correct.
but thats why real rules need to be placed in the consensus header file. rather than the cludge
P.S the blocksigop limit is in the consensus. but from a network wide overview. where the maths cludge of core can be by passed. my initial arguments still stand."

you ignored so I  repeated
"a txsigops limit of <4k in consensus header file solves the native quadratics.!!"
you ignored and you said
"No. You didn't even admit that you were wrong about the in-existence of the 4k limit per TX, as that's a policy rule. How sad."

the policy rule and validation.cpp is where i REPEATEDLY referred to as segwits "math cludge"

i then tried to highlight
"thats maths cludge is CORE centric... not NETWORK consensus "
and
"there needs to be a proper RULE of 4k sigops that does not change."
and
"thats why having <4 maxtxsigops in the consensus.h header file would solve the issue so easily"

...

really go read it properly. you debunked nothing!!!!

[Darkbot]

Ahh.. look at all those BU noobs like Jbreher, Hv and above all the biggest copy/paste noob+BU troll   ****rolling drums****   paid shill Franky1.

The raw low intellect from those shills are unbelievable.

[Lauda]

i said it NEEDS low sigop limit to solve quadratics..

Those limits do not solve anything. Limiting n does not solve the complexity problem. You are a true, and delusional shill as you can't admit to being wrong. This is often see with jonald as well, but rarely with other members (not trolls or other mentally challenged individuals).

Ahh.. look at all those BU noobs like Jbreher, Hv and above all the biggest copy/paste noob+BU troll   ****rolling drums****   paid shill Franky1.

The raw low intellect from those shills are unbelievable.

As I've told you, it's always a few *people* who do not participate in this community in any way other than shill for attacks on Bitcoin and spread misinformation.

[jbreher]

-snip-

You are most definitely a shill; the pattern is very obvious.

What 'pattern', exactly, are you referring to? An opinion which does not comport to your preconceived notions, which in turn have been inculcated bereft of critical thought?

You have absolutely no basis for your slander.

Further, your proofless slanderous attacks only reduce your credibility even further. Even your (former) acolytes have to be WTF-ing by now. You, Lauda, are an insignificant gnat.

Meanwhile, you still are acting as a definitive shill for gunbot. Shameful, really.

Unless of course you can point to me actually saying that.

And what number, do you *cough*, agree is *acceptable* as a entry cost for a node (and not the non-listening ones)?

Nice deflection. In other words, you did indeed lie - as proofed by your inability to support you libelous claim.

That shown, I'll even give you an answer. As much money as it takes to not choke off usage.

Ahh.. look at all those BU noobs like Jbreher...

The raw low intellect from those shills are unbelievable.

You have no fucking idea. Even when evidence of your absurdity is but a click or three away. Cocksure in your ignorance - a perfect representation of your ilk.

[franky1]

lauda all you ever say is wrong.. then make up some fake argument or just some comment like adhom, wall of text, shill, wrong simply because wrong

you have never had a valid argument

we know your only expertise is scamming a few percent off people through all your little money swapping escrow PM stuff.. you should just concentrate on that. go play with your sig campaigns

it seems unless you willing to understand and learn the code you should try not to get involved in code discussion. and instead just make a bot that repeats "nonsensical so wrong", as that would save you time

anyway, putting lauda failed attempts to the side
8-10mb is safe so anything below that is super safe. and borderline anal safe. there is no reason to stick with 1mb base.
al thats required is to drop the txsigops to below 4k or ensure it never goes above 4k and make it a proper consensus rule instead of the cludge core made

[Lauda]

What 'pattern', exactly, are you referring to?

Good question.

Further, your proofless slanderous attacks only reduce your credibility even further. Even your (former) acolytes have to be WTF-ing by now. You, Lauda, are an insignificant gnat.

Whining does not help when things are obvious even to the average reader. Of course, when some other users mention your unwanted shilling you use ad hominem against them (e.g. Darkbot) or call them a X/Y/Z shill.

As much money as it takes to not choke off usage.

Vague statement; not surprising. Any increase in cost will choke off a part of the usage, thus you do not support any increase in costs?

8-10mb is safe so anything below that is super safe. and borderline anal safe. there is no reason to stick with 1mb base.

Which is an absolute lie and has nothing to do with reality. 10 MB isn't even remotely safe. You're pulling numbers out of your behind. I am not generally against a well planned hard fork, but comparing Segwit to a rushed block size increase is nonsensical. The latter is useless in comparison.
The number of people arguing nonsense such as yourself is very low. The number of people with any relevant contributions arguing these positions on bitcointalk: 0.

[nagobinga]

Some large companies want to raise the block size by 8 MB to facilitate traffic flow of Blockchain transactions.

[Meuh6879]

Some large companies want to mine incompatible blocks to push BitcoinCash token.
Some large companies want to mine dynamic blocks to push AsicBoost Contract for priorize exchanges transactions.
Some large companies want to centralise blocks production to offer a mastercard/visa/swift network for bank for free.








You see, it work for many pattern ... 

[hv_]

Some large companies want to raise the block size by 8 MB to facilitate traffic flow of Blockchain transactions.

They want to generate user flow - good!

This will attract more users

This will attract more companies (running decent nodes since the need to ensure been paid in time)

This will attract more users

This will attract more companies (running decent nodes since the need to ensure been paid in time)

This will attract more users

This will attract more companies (running decent nodes since the need to ensure been paid in time)

This will attract more users

This will attract more companies (running decent nodes since the need to ensure been paid in time)




nice pattern for all users - do not need RASP Pis any more - buy themselves bitcoin !

[jbreher]

What 'pattern', exactly, are you referring to?

Good question.

So you are accusing me of being a shill, without presenting any supporting evidence. You, shitty kitty, are a cad.

Further, your proofless slanderous attacks only reduce your credibility even further. Even your (former) acolytes have to be WTF-ing by now. You, Lauda, are an insignificant gnat.

when some other users mention your unwanted shilling you use ad hominem against them (e.g. Darkbot) or call them a X/Y/Z shill.

Let me get this straight. Darkbot straight up accuses me of being a shill, with no evidence presented, and you assert that I am using ad hominem against Darkbot? idonthtinkthatwordmeanswhatyouthinkitmeans.png I merely used an epithet against Darkbot.

Further, I did not accuse Darkbot of being a shill. I accused you of being a shill. For it is evident for all to see. You are shilling gunbot right in your signature.

As much money as it takes to not choke off usage.

Vague statement; not surprising. Any increase in cost will choke off a part of the usage, thus you do not support any increase in costs?

You are exactly wrong. An increase in hardware cost will not choke off usage. It will allow the network to handle more capacity. Therefore allowing more usage.