Once again, what about the scalability issue?

[Come-from-Beyond]

Once again, I don't see you proposing any solution to this objective problem.

Does it change anything?

[R2D221]

Once again, I don't see you proposing any solution to this objective problem.

Does it change anything?

Of course it does, because you show yourself as an arrogant person, and with that attitude people will be less likely to help.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Of course it does, because you show yourself as an arrogant person, and with that attitude people will be less likely to help.

What post sounds arrogant?

[Velkro]

Can anyone explain me recent Gavin Andresen post on bitcoinfoundation page about increasing transaction size? Before he talked on blog about increasing it for scalability, but now im confused, don't understand and this text is veeery long. Its still planned or he don't want to do it anymore.

[tl121]

The present block size is at most an inconvenience, not a problem.  And future predictions of larger block sizes being problems are just predictions, not an objective problem today.  A simple analysis of the facts on the ground today shows that the block chain size is at most an inconvenience, not an objective problem.

1. Size of block chain.  
A check of Amazon.com shows that the cost of 1 GB of hard drive storage ranges around $0.04 to $0.06.  Using the higher figure, at the 27 GB block chain size this amounts to a storage cost of less than $2.00.

2. Initial downloading of block chain.
My Internet connection is a typical rural DSL sevice, with about 15 mbps download speed. Allowing for protocol overhead, call it 1.5 MBPS. This means transmission time downloading is about 5 hours if downloading from a fast node (or from multiple slow nodes running the bootstrap.dat torrent).

3. Initial verification of block chain.
My 2 year old core i5 took about 18 hours to do this. Actually, I cloned the entire block chain across my LAN from another machine in this time.  

This situation strikes me as an inconvenience, not an objective problem.

There presently is a problem, but it's related to the inefficient way that bitcoin core initially acquires the block chain. This is a matter of downloading speed, not blockchain size.  The problem arises because the client downloads from only one full node at a time and makes no attempt to find fast nodes. As a result, the downloader may see a slow speed.  When I was running a full node, I had to limit my upload speed to 50 KBps so I could continue to use my network for other purposes.  That's because I have a slow DSL upload speed.  It takes about 6 days to upload the entire block chain at this speed.  Taking 6 days to download the block chain is definitely a problem, and restarting it in the hopes of finding a faster node for the download is perhaps an even worse problem, since it requires attention from the newbie. However, there is another way around this and that is to use the torrent.  This will enable downloading at one's full download Internet bandwidth.

[Come-from-Beyond]

The present block size is at most an inconvenience, not a problem.  And future predictions of larger block sizes being problems are just predictions, not an objective problem today.  A simple analysis of the facts on the ground today shows that the block chain size is at most an inconvenience, not an objective problem.

1. Size of block chain.  
A check of Amazon.com shows that the cost of 1 GB of hard drive storage ranges around $0.04 to $0.06.  Using the higher figure, at the 27 GB block chain size this amounts to a storage cost of less than $2.00.

2. Initial downloading of block chain.
My Internet connection is a typical rural DSL sevice, with about 15 mbps download speed. Allowing for protocol overhead, call it 1.5 MBPS. This means transmission time downloading is about 5 hours if downloading from a fast node (or from multiple slow nodes running the bootstrap.dat torrent).

3. Initial verification of block chain.
My 2 year old core i5 took about 18 hours to do this. Actually, I cloned the entire block chain across my LAN from another machine in this time.  

This situation strikes me as an inconvenience, not an objective problem.

There presently is a problem, but it's related to the inefficient way that bitcoin core initially acquires the block chain. This is a matter of downloading speed, not blockchain size.  The problem arises because the client downloads from only one full node at a time and makes no attempt to find fast nodes. As a result, the downloader may see a slow speed.  When I was running a full node, I had to limit my upload speed to 50 KBps so I could continue to use my network for other purposes.  That's because I have a slow DSL upload speed.  It takes about 6 days to upload the entire block chain at this speed.  Taking 6 days to download the block chain is definitely a problem, and restarting it in the hopes of finding a faster node for the download is perhaps an even worse problem, since it requires attention from the newbie. However, there is another way around this and that is to use the torrent.  This will enable downloading at one's full download Internet bandwidth.

Sorry if it wasn't clear enough. The point of this thread is to get a solution to a problem that exists objectively. Not to argue with those who don't agree that the problem does exist.

[R2D221]

Of course it does, because you show yourself as an arrogant person, and with that attitude people will be less likely to help.

What post sounds arrogant?

Good old BitcoinTalk... Ok, I'll come back when we cross 30 GB mark, maybe you'll have a solution by that time.

[Come-from-Beyond]

What post sounds arrogant?

Good old BitcoinTalk... Ok, I'll come back when we cross 30 GB mark, maybe you'll have a solution by that time.

Read that post as "Bitcoin zealots don't want to face the reality, ok, maybe 30 GB will make some of them to accept the reality." It's not arrogant, there is just no point to waste time on fanatics.

[Minecache]

Blockchain size and the confirmation times are the most critical issues bitcoin needs to resolve today. If the problem is confirmation time then I'd request all bitcoin servers increase their system memory to at least 8Gb if you want to host. Then increase hard disk space to cope with the increased blockchin size.

[masyveonk]

There presently is a problem, but it's related to the inefficient way that bitcoin core initially acquires the block chain. This is a matter of downloading speed, not blockchain size.  The problem arises because the client downloads from only one full node at a time and makes no attempt to find fast nodes. As a result, the downloader may see a slow speed.  When I was running a full node, I had to limit my upload speed to 50 KBps so I could continue to use my network for other purposes.  That's because I have a slow DSL upload speed.  It takes about 6 days to upload the entire block chain at this speed.  Taking 6 days to download the block chain is definitely a problem, and restarting it in the hopes of finding a faster node for the download is perhaps an even worse problem, since it requires attention from the newbie. However, there is another way around this and that is to use the torrent.  This will enable downloading at one's full download Internet bandwidth.

I have to agree, sometimes the progress stops because your connected only to very slow nodes (or nodes not sending blocks). When this happens, to speed things up I had to disconnect from internet and reconnect again. It then finds new nodes.

Downloading and storing 30GB of data is no problem today, just lil more inteligent downloading is necessary

[tl121]

Sorry if it wasn't clear enough. The point of this thread is to get a solution to a problem that exists objectively. Not to argue with those who don't agree that the problem does exist.

You have failed to articulate an "objective problem".  If you had, then you would not be getting the objections you have been getting or you would be making intelligent responses to those objections.  If one wants to get a problem solved, the first step, and usually the most important step, is to make a precise statement of the problem, including a detailed analysis of why it is a problem.  You have not done this.

Please stop using words like "objective" which are nothing but a thinly veiled put down of people who have different views.  This type of argumentation  is not a way to get something done unless one is the "boss" in an authoritarian pyramid, which you are not.

[Come-from-Beyond]

You have failed to articulate an "objective problem".

English was the 3rd language I learned. Could you paraphrase this, plz?

[lovely89]

You have failed to articulate an "objective problem".

English was the 3rd language I learned. Could you paraphrase this, plz?

He wants you to clearly identify the issue and an analysis as to why it is a issue.

E.g. The issue is that the blockchain is growing exponentially with bitcoin growth. This is an issue because the average (even above average) user doesn't have internet bandwidth and hdd capacity that grows at the same rate and therefore there will be(and for some, already is) a scalability issue.

[Come-from-Beyond]

He wants you to clearly identify the issue and an analysis as to why it is a issue.

The problem is well-known, no need to waste bytes and repeat the same words.

[R2D221]

He wants you to clearly identify the issue and an analysis as to why it is a issue.

The problem is well-known, no need to waste bytes and repeat the same words.

You link to a blog where they state they are already working on a solution, yet you still complain nobody thinks on a solution.

Also, it's not “wasting bytes”, it's giving references to your claims.

[tl121]

You have failed to articulate an "objective problem".

English was the 3rd language I learned. Could you paraphrase this, plz?

He wants you to clearly identify the issue and an analysis as to why it is a issue.

E.g. The issue is that the blockchain is growing exponentially with bitcoin growth. This is an issue because the average (even above average) user doesn't have internet bandwidth and hdd capacity that grows at the same rate and therefore there will be(and for some, already is) a scalability issue.

I will add more.  The problem statement needs to include numbers, not just "too big".  And the problem statement needs to include specific assumptions, e.g. the average size of a transaction and the expected volume of bitcoin transactions, forecasted performance and cost figures for computer processors and memory, network bandwidth, etc...  There is nothing "objective" in saying that the block chain is too large and is growing exponentially.  This may be true, but it is not a useful statement when it comes to evaluating proposed engineering solutions.

Now if anyone puts some assumptions down, expect debate as to the numbers.  And if you show columns of numbers, expect people to complain if they don't add up or if they are adding apples to oranges.  This is the way engineering progress is made. (BTW I was a very senior level engineering manager in a large computer company some while back, so I know how these arguments go.  I also know how they must go if there is to be progress.)

[Minecache]

This thread appears to be more focused on discussing the point of discussing threads.

[FattyMcButterpants]

He wants you to clearly identify the issue and an analysis as to why it is a issue.

The problem is well-known, no need to waste bytes and repeat the same words.

The same issue exists with every other scam coin that is out there. There is no scalability issue now as TXs are not being rejected because there are too many TXs for the nodes/miners to handle.

The block size (max) is being discussed to be increased which would resolve this issue.

[Come-from-Beyond]

You link to a blog where they state they are already working on a solution, yet you still complain nobody thinks on a solution.

Also, it's not “wasting bytes”, it's giving references to your claims.

They have been "working" on a solution since 2009.

The problem of ever-growing blockchain is a common knowledge. I don't see a point to add anything to the description.

[FattyMcButterpants]

You link to a blog where they state they are already working on a solution, yet you still complain nobody thinks on a solution.

Also, it's not “wasting bytes”, it's giving references to your claims.

They have been "working" on a solution since 2009.

The problem of ever-growing blockchain is a common knowledge.

Wikipedia is not a credible source as anyone can make an edit to a wikipedia entry. As of now scalability is not an issue and will not be for some time. Therefore the devs have some time to come up with a solution (likely increase block size).