Bitcoin Forum
March 30, 2020, 01:54:45 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE  (Read 12996 times)
Peter Todd
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1026


View Profile
June 01, 2013, 07:36:31 PM
 #81

It does, however, greatly alleviate the network, storage, and processing requirements for non-mining full nodes, allowing for modest devices (a 3G phone, for example) to operate with some assurance of security. This discussion isn't just about miners.

Absolutely, and I'm glad to hear you are working on it. But essentially it lets us scale down, not up.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2038
Merit: 1058


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2013, 07:40:09 PM
 #82

It does, however, greatly alleviate the network, storage, and processing requirements for non-mining full nodes, allowing for modest devices (a 3G phone, for example) to operate with some assurance of security. This discussion isn't just about miners.

Absolutely, and I'm glad to hear you are working on it. But essentially it lets us scale down, not up.
sometimes I get these feelings like all the people know what they are talking about, except me.

Check out gocoin - my original project of full bitcoin node & cold wallet written in Go.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
maaku
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 905
Merit: 1001


View Profile
June 01, 2013, 07:48:08 PM
 #83

It does, however, greatly alleviate the network, storage, and processing requirements for non-mining full nodes, allowing for modest devices (a 3G phone, for example) to operate with some assurance of security. This discussion isn't just about miners.

Absolutely, and I'm glad to hear you are working on it. But essentially it lets us scale down, not up.

Well, not quite. It lets the argument about scaling up be about mining only. UTXO indices + bloom filters (already implemented) means that miners are the only ones who need to attach themselves to the firehose of transactions on a scaled-up p2p network, or the terrabytes of historical blockchain data. If we scale up to the limits of a beefy desktop PC with a RAID array and >1Mbps network connection, we wouldn't be pushing anyone out from actually using the network.

I'm an independent developer working on bitcoin-core, making my living off community donations.
If you like my work, please consider donating yourself: 13snZ4ZyCzaL7358SmgvHGC9AxskqumNxP
piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2038
Merit: 1058


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2013, 07:52:51 PM
 #84

If we scale up to the limits of a beefy desktop PC with a RAID array and >1Mbps network connection, we wouldn't be pushing anyone out from actually using the network.
Except from the ones who don't know what RAID array and >1Mbps network connection is. Smiley

It just has to run on any PC than can play youtube - then I'm fine with it.
If a PC plays youtube, but cannot keep up with the chain - then the chain is broken.

Check out gocoin - my original project of full bitcoin node & cold wallet written in Go.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
June 01, 2013, 08:08:15 PM
 #85

If we scale up to the limits of a beefy desktop PC with a RAID array and >1Mbps network connection, we wouldn't be pushing anyone out from actually using the network.
Except from the ones who don't know what RAID array and >1Mbps network connection is. Smiley

In fairness, one does not really need to know what such things are to use them.

A much bigger concern in my mind is that one may need, say, 1Mbps of bandwidth which is free of disruption by commercial network carriers.  These players have little ability to act autonomously of government security policies even if they had a desire to do so.

I think it hopeful in the extreme to assume that any political leadership is going to stand idle by while the power inherent in controlling a currency system is eroded.  If distributed crypto-currencies never reaches the stage where it is a eats into existing monetary solutions and supplants some of their function then yes, we are probably safe from such attacks.  It is far from clear to me that such solutions will not achieve such a capability.


Peter Todd
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1026


View Profile
June 01, 2013, 08:39:38 PM
 #86

Absolutely, and I'm glad to hear you are working on it. But essentially it lets us scale down, not up.

Well, not quite. It lets the argument about scaling up be about mining only. UTXO indices + bloom filters (already implemented) means that miners are the only ones who need to attach themselves to the firehose of transactions on a scaled-up p2p network, or the terrabytes of historical blockchain data. If we scale up to the limits of a beefy desktop PC with a RAID array and >1Mbps network connection, we wouldn't be pushing anyone out from actually using the network.

It is not acceptable for mining to be something only a select and non-anonymous few can participate in. You might as well argue the conventional banking system is perfectly acceptable because using it is cheap and easy, who cares about the fact that full participation is highly limited.

maaku
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 905
Merit: 1001


View Profile
June 01, 2013, 09:00:55 PM
 #87

That ship has long since sailed, for reasons that have nothing to do with the block size limit.

I'm an independent developer working on bitcoin-core, making my living off community donations.
If you like my work, please consider donating yourself: 13snZ4ZyCzaL7358SmgvHGC9AxskqumNxP
gglon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 64
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 01, 2013, 09:07:57 PM
Last edit: June 01, 2013, 09:19:02 PM by gglon
 #88

It is not acceptable for mining to be something only a select and non-anonymous few can participate in.
Ultimately its users who will decide what is unacceptable.
You might as well argue the conventional banking system is perfectly acceptable because using it is cheap and easy, who cares about the fact that full participation is highly limited.
The difference is bitcoin users would still own their money. But with high fees, their full participation would indeed be highly limited.
That ship has long since sailed, for reasons that have nothing to do with the block size limit.
It has everything to do, as block size will ultimately determine miners ability to stay anonymous and users ability to process normal txs via blockchain. One needs to find a compromise.
Stampbit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 01, 2013, 09:09:30 PM
 #89

Increase the block size! We need more centralization so we can handle the oncoming billionsPMMMFFFHHHMMPFF!! Sorry why is anyone concerned about this again? There cant be that much demand for gambling and drugs. I mean people certainly arent using them for legitimate things like postage.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
June 01, 2013, 09:21:28 PM
 #90

The difference is bitcoin users would still own their money. But with high fees, their full participation would indeed be highly limited.

If mining is brought under control, you'll likely find your coins tainted/tarnished unless you pay the taxes and other fees which are required by the various powers that be.

These are likely to exceed by a wide margin what you would be paying on a free Bitcoin network, not to mention an off-chain framework built around on top of a free Bitcoin network.


Sukrim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 1002


View Profile
June 01, 2013, 11:06:43 PM
 #91

A much bigger concern in my mind is that one may need, say, 1Mbps of bandwidth which is free of disruption by commercial network carriers.

As already said, a 56k modem can handle 30 MB blocks... Roll Eyes


https://www.coinlend.org <-- automated lending at various exchanges.
https://www.bitfinex.com <-- Trade BTC for other currencies and vice versa.
Mail me at Bitmessage: BM-BbiHiVv5qh858ULsyRDtpRrG9WjXN3xf
paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1003


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2013, 11:10:56 PM
Last edit: June 01, 2013, 11:24:18 PM by paraipan
 #92

A much bigger concern in my mind is that one may need, say, 1Mbps of bandwidth which is free of disruption by commercial network carriers.

As already said, a 56k modem can handle 30 MB blocks... Roll Eyes



^lol, it depends on your definition of handling, take a pick

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
June 01, 2013, 11:17:07 PM
 #93

A much bigger concern in my mind is that one may need, say, 1Mbps of bandwidth which is free of disruption by commercial network carriers.
As already said, a 56k modem can handle 30 MB blocks... Roll Eyes
And you said it again.  Simply saying it twice does not, in and of itself, make it a particularly meaningful statement.


gglon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 64
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 01, 2013, 11:53:51 PM
 #94

If mining is brought under control, you'll likely find your coins tainted/tarnished unless you pay the taxes and other fees which are required by the various powers that be.
These are likely to exceed by a wide margin what you would be paying on a free Bitcoin network, not to mention an off-chain framework built around on top of a free Bitcoin network.
Well, then various powers would compete. Even if they would make some international agreement, I don't believe people would allow their gov's to set high tx taxes, much higher than the free network. Furthermore seeing how the world tackles tax heavens problem, I wouldn't worry about it that much.

Off-chain framework is also vulnerable to control unless it's hidden under tor. But then again it would not be accessible. If it won't be accessible, not many people will use it -> sum of tx fees will be low -> low hashrate -> vulnerable to gov 51% attack with the help of the likes of TMSC. 51% threat is a big one now and can only be deterred by fast growth.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
June 02, 2013, 12:11:17 AM
 #95

...
Off-chain framework is also vulnerable to control unless it's hidden under tor. But then again it would not be accessible. ...

The beauty of off-chain solutions are that they have almost infinite flexibility to adapt to attacks.  Like a starfish, if you cut him to pieces each piece grows a new starfish.  In off-chain solution land, though, this would happen probably literally overnight in a lot of cases.  But it requires an enduring base upon which to ride.  That is, hopefully, a free Bitcoin network.

I found the rest of your note to fantastical to really comment on.  Sorry.


amincd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 772
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 02, 2013, 12:34:01 AM
 #96

Speaking of fantastical, there's nothing I've seen more fantastical than your claim that turn-key engines will be created that will allow anyone to create a secure BTC-accepting site at low cost:

My site doesn't have professional security measures/best-practices in places. It's an experimental site I run on the side so users do not trust it with more than $20 worth of BTC deposits per week cumalatively. With a 1 MB block size limit and $20 transaction fees, my site would not be possible.

I anticipate that what will develop will be a selection of turn-key engines which will gaurentee to people like me that people like you are running a service which is highly likely to be legitimate and will achieve the result I want.

And retep's claim that if block sizes are large, governments would identify all miners in the world and force them to use their hashing power to attack a parallel block size limited blockchain:

If censorship was a problem, that would be because hashing power was under the control of authorities, who would simply use that hashing power to 51% attack the censorship resistant Bitcoin.

The fact remains that with existing technology, my site, btctip.com, and others like it which have low volume would not be possible with $20 transaction fees. Bitcoin's low transaction fees are what make most of what Bitcoin is used for possible.

Claiming that as of yet non-existent technologies will be created that will solve all of these problems created by $20 transaction fees is fantastical.
behindtext
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
June 02, 2013, 12:59:12 AM
 #97

If a >50% attack is a problem, it won't matter what the block size is, unless you're suggesting a mechanism by which larger blocks leads to authorities getting hold of hashing power..?

Larger blocks lead to it being increasingly difficult to mine anonymously, thus making it easier to authorities to control those mining.

we run a few tor exit nodes at our colo and either (A) our colo provider or (B) the USG have substantially down-regulated our tor exit node bandwidth in the past couple month. we are capable of pushing up to ~1 Gbps of tor traffic but can only push ~20 Mbps at the moment.

i would expect to see a lot more manipulation of tor exit nodes in the future.

edmundedgar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 352
Merit: 250


https://www.realitykeys.com


View Profile WWW
June 02, 2013, 03:19:29 AM
 #98

Absolutely, and I'm glad to hear you are working on it. But essentially it lets us scale down, not up.

Well, not quite. It lets the argument about scaling up be about mining only. UTXO indices + bloom filters (already implemented) means that miners are the only ones who need to attach themselves to the firehose of transactions on a scaled-up p2p network, or the terrabytes of historical blockchain data. If we scale up to the limits of a beefy desktop PC with a RAID array and >1Mbps network connection, we wouldn't be pushing anyone out from actually using the network.

It is not acceptable for mining to be something only a select and non-anonymous few can participate in. You might as well argue the conventional banking system is perfectly acceptable because using it is cheap and easy, who cares about the fact that full participation is highly limited.

This discussion is obviously going to go on and on, so a request that would make it a bit clearer and more meaningful:

When we talk about who will and won't be able to mine under what circumstances, can we be clear on whether we're talking about being able to do it at all or whether we're talking about being able to do it _competitively_, and thus at a profit rather than a loss? They're both potentially important in different contexts, but the latter is what drives who controls 51%+ of the network.
xcsler
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 227
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 02, 2013, 03:25:31 AM
 #99

What the world desperately needs is a better store of value. We need a way of combating the inflationary policies of central banks worldwide.
Although gold has historically served this role, with the advent of the paper market, gold's true value has been obscured and manipulated by bankers. Bitcoin provides us with a new tamper-resistant way of saving our purchasing power over time.
Any increase in the blocksize will marginally decentralize and weaken this store of value property.
Personally, I'm all for storing my retirement savings "on the chain" and doing small, low-risk, day to day purchases "off the chain".

I'd love to hear what guys like Tuur D., Andreas A., Voorhees, and Surda think about the blocksize limit. I believe that ultimately this is more of an economic issue than a technical one.
edmundedgar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 352
Merit: 250


https://www.realitykeys.com


View Profile WWW
June 02, 2013, 03:47:39 AM
 #100

What the world desperately needs is a better store of value. We need a way of combating the inflationary policies of central banks worldwide.
Although gold has historically served this role, with the advent of the paper market, gold's true value has been obscured and manipulated by bankers. Bitcoin provides us with a new tamper-resistant way of saving our purchasing power over time.
Any increase in the blocksize will marginally decentralize and weaken this store of value property.
Personally, I'm all for storing my retirement savings "on the chain" and doing small, low-risk, day to day purchases "off the chain".

I'd love to hear what guys like Tuur D., Andreas A., Voorhees, and Surda think about the blocksize limit. I believe that ultimately this is more of an economic issue than a technical one.


Let's assume the transaction fees go up to $20 and Wordpress, Mega, Silkroad and all BitPay's clients sod off to LiteCoin or some other coin without this restriction, as they obviously would, so you were no longer able to actually buy anything with your Bitcoins.

Do you think the value of your Bitcoins would go up or down?

I'm thinking it would go down, and more than marginally.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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