Another solution to transaction limits

[IsaacGoldbourne]

There is a lot of talk of how to increase the amount of supported transactions, most of these say increase the block size.

Would another solution, which would have two positive effects be to increase the rate at which blocks are released but lower the reward. So have a block every two and a half minutes but only a quarter of the reward.

As it would require a hard fork for either of these to take effect we could get two birds with one stone, and it would be an improvement for companies accepting BTC.

Not to mention it would smooth out the bunched transactions we are having and increase decentralization by making smaller pools able to have a more stable income.

[1714019500]

1714019500

[1714019500]

1714019500

[1714019500]

1714019500

[1714019500]

1714019500

[DobZombie]

Hmm.

It's be a hard fork alright.

I think you may be on the right track with your thinking.

[franky1]

There is a lot of talk of how to increase the amount of supported transactions, most of these say increase the block size.

Would another solution, which would have two positive effects be to increase the rate at which blocks are released but lower the reward. So have a block every two and a half minutes but only a quarter of the reward.

As it would require a hard fork for either of these to take effect we could get two birds with one stone, and it would be an improvement for companies accepting BTC.

Not to mention it would smooth out the bunched transactions we are having and increase decentralization by making smaller pools able to have a more stable income.

check the blocks, their only a quarter filled!!!

the problem is not that there are too many transactions, the problem is mining pools getting greedy and implementing protocols to ignore 'free' transactions, and transactions that are using 'used addresses' with the ethos that other pools will pick-up the transactions.

the bitcoin protocol should be for the community benefit. EG only changed to increase efficiency of transactions and remove bugs. the protocol should not be abused to help increase miners profit line.

this is much like a bank having special staff to instantly see rich account holders that pay management fee's and set up appointments for a weeks time for regular customers that dont pay fee's.

bitcoin meant to be moving away from putting people into economic classes, bitcoin is not meant to be biased towards making the rich richer, or hindering anyone  from using their funds. and to be honest we shouldnt even be tinkering around or implementing fee's for atleast 3 decades.

in 2012 the miners 'profit' for their 10 minute work was 50 coins at $6 each =$300 that a mining pool had to share around its 'miners'.
today the miners 'profit' for their 10 minutes work is 25 coins at $800 each =$20,000 that a mining pool has to share around its 'miners'.

if a mining pool decides that $20,000 is not enough to cover their miners, then they should not play around with protocols to force people to pay more, but instead put a limit on how many miners are allowed in each pool.

the result of it is that miners will form new pools. spreading the total hashrate per pool about,, reducing EG BTCGuild stronghold of 28%, thus reducing chances of it ever reaching 51% control of the network.

having 20 pools averaging 3-7% hashrate, as oppose to main 4 pools averaging 11-28% would benefit the hash distribution, would benefit the miners when their block finally comes in as they get a bigger cut. and the users benefit from having a system that doesnt avoid transactions

[IsaacGoldbourne]

There is a lot of talk of how to increase the amount of supported transactions, most of these say increase the block size.

Would another solution, which would have two positive effects be to increase the rate at which blocks are released but lower the reward. So have a block every two and a half minutes but only a quarter of the reward.

As it would require a hard fork for either of these to take effect we could get two birds with one stone, and it would be an improvement for companies accepting BTC.

Not to mention it would smooth out the bunched transactions we are having and increase decentralization by making smaller pools able to have a more stable income.

check the blocks, their only a quarter filled!!!

the problem is not that there are too many transactions, the problem is mining pools getting greedy and implementing protocols to ignore 'free' transactions, and transactions that are using 'used addresses' with the ethos that other pools will pick-up the transactions.

the bitcoin protocol should be for the community benefit. EG only changed to increase efficiency of transactions and remove bugs. the protocol should not be abused to help increase miners profit line.

I know they are currently only 1/4 filled but its a problem we are going to face with higher adoption.

As for ignoring free transactions, that seems justified for me.

A credit card fee can be 4% with a minimum $0,30 charge. Asking for $0.02 for their processing power seems very justified.

The main benefit of what I pointed out is that it will ensure that mining does not become centralized. If the blocks are more frequent then it will quadruple the chance that a smaller pool with find a block, which may only be weekly/monthly. This would encourage people to go to other pools.

[jdbtracker]

Hmm , no choice, we must start our own pool with a fairer distribution, all transactions accepted here.. unless you pay more.. hahahaha!

but in all seriousness, as far as I know the blockchain limit creates an incentive to mine and can also serve as a signal to rev up ASIC farms, if the transaction volume is there. Currently with the block reward that is not possible, It'll be another 3 years before the reward gets halved, no hard fork required.
   It all depends on the growth of the network, currently the system is creating a conglomeration of ASIC miners, offset by the control of giant mining pools doing what is in their self interest; But as ASIC manufacturers rev up and Alt-coin establishment is pursued it will diversify and accelerate stabilization of decentralization, ie. the ecosystem will stabilize bitcoin by sheer ownership distribution and accesibility...

don't worry about it, in a few years the ASIC distribution will spread, the lack of a block reward will shut down over extended miners... as the block reward halves and Alt-coins thin out the wealth of the network, mining will  need to be leaner meaner to properly take care of transactions. ASICs will not be a problem once everyone can order one. the balanced solution of the network is found through trial and error and through the entrepeneuring and courageous acts of individuals striking to find the best solution.

Make your mark man... just do it, find the coders, to test this solution, you never know if you could find the winning solution.

The halving of the block solution is there for a reason... the network has to spread but it has to be able to survive on it's own eventually.

[IsaacGoldbourne]

Hmm , no choice, we must start our own pool with a fairer distribution, all transactions accepted here.. unless you pay more.. hahahaha!

but in all seriousness, as far as I know the blockchain limit creates an incentive to mine and can also serve as a signal to rev up ASIC farms, if the transaction volume is there. Currently with the block reward that is not possible, It'll be another 3 years before the reward gets halved, no hard fork required.
   It all depends on the growth of the network, currently the system is creating a conglomeration of ASIC miners, offset by the control of giant mining pools doing what is in their self interest; But as ASIC manufacturers rev up and Alt-coin establishment is pursued it will diversify and accelerate stabilization of decentralization, ie. the ecosystem will stabilize bitcoin by sheer ownership distribution and accesibility...

don't worry about it, in a few years the ASIC distribution will spread, the lack of a block reward will shut down over extended miners... as the block reward halves and Alt-coins thin out the wealth of the network, mining will  need to be leaner meaner to properly take care of transactions. ASICs will not be a problem once everyone can order one. the balanced solution of the network is found through trial and error and through the entrepeneuring and courageous acts of individuals striking to find the best solution.

Make your mark man... just do it, find the coders, to test this solution, you never know if you could find the winning solution.

The halving of the block solution is there for a reason... the network has to spread but it has to be able to survive on it's own eventually.

I don't want the solution to be an alt coin, it would be easy enough to implement. Just some food for thought here

[jdbtracker]

the alt coins, balance everything, they spread the coin in different ways, this is good. Bitcoin is the premier coin it is designed to the limit of it's designers understanding. I've looked at satoshi's work and I must say this team/or person did not do things lightly, the design was deliberate... a honey pot to bring the worlds top 1% in intelligence towards it.

I am pretty darn sure, if all parameters are taken into effect...(the spread, the fact the software is open source, the fact that pools sprang up so quickly in bitcoins upstart)  that this is experimental, but it was counted on that the community would solve the problems within the coin... any coin can update with any other coin free. In fact I think a lot of the flaws within bitcoin were deliberate, to see if people cared enough to fix them.

Bitcoin will spread, it is designed to spread, just slowly weans off the miners into reacting properly to the fee signal... but probably not until ASIC manufacturers are well established and there are exchanges across the planet that atomize the spread of Bitcoin... once it is sufficiently spread, the network effects of mining will show up.

if you only have Fees to survive on how is a Miner going to react... a diffused deceleration of conglomeration? complete control of the network by a monopolizing agent? or complete distributed control of the networks hash power?... what happens if everyone connects to a 100 percent decentralized mining agent? Going beyond the 51% attack... doing the 99% attack.