Small blocks, middle blocks or big blocks?

[BitUsher]

the node count has NOT decreased. luke Jr says there are 100k nodes now.. so stop with the fud about node decrease

In 2017 the number was over 200k at times.

back in 2015 community was happy with a mix of brands. but now the codebase is 99% core..

From 2009 to mid 2011 almost 100% was running a single implementation. Bitcoin or Bitcoin QT.

In 2015 many implementations existed, just like today, but also just like today almost no one uses them. Bitcoin is a consensus network where almost everything must run in lockstep as Satoshi said.  If anything more use of other implementations exist today with miners using custom templates and companies like purse.io using bcoin. Luke's stats don't show this.

[1713575023]

1713575023

[1713575023]

1713575023

[alevlaslo]

there is no decentralization, 80% of mining takes place in China,

This is false, ever since China cracked down on mining off of free hydro in China many ASICs left china. Look at the pool breakdown to get a rough idea.

Also the UASF/Segwit2x fight with these miners proved that the economic majority is really in charge.

bitcoin was created not for the sake of fighting with the government, but in order to prevent the emission in connection with the financial crisis of 2008

It was precisely government regulation and policies that led to this financial crisis. If you don't believe so than go ahead and try and get a government to approve a sovereign cryptocurrency that competes with their fiat and let me know how well you do. Just the banks, right? Governments should be interested in protecting their citizens wealth against these banks by allowing capital flight and safe harbor , right?

BSV does its best to work with government approval

[BitUsher]

BSV does its best to work with government approval

BSV also is not specifically sanctioned by any governments and would not have stopped the economic crisis if it existed back than.

[BitUsher]

Otherwise, the blocksize isn't going to be increased anytime soon.

Blocksize limits are moot, what matters is txs throughput per the resource costs to scale Bitcoin.

Signature aggregation(17-40% more onchain throughput) and more privacy is coming soon to Bitcoin .

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-May/016914.html

Taproot and schnorr would massively increase the fungibility of bitcoin. It would mean that all the smart contracts in use or in development today (Lightning Network, multisig, coinswap, etc) would look exactly the same as a regular single-sig coin. Transaction tracking and surveillance would become much harder because an adversary could never be sure that coins haven't actually gone into a Lightning channel, for example.

In addition this would allow 17% to 40% more tx space in blocks(with signature aggregation as schnorr alone doesn't do this, just allows for this) without increasing the resource demands on nodes like raising the blocksize limit does.

More info - https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-power-of-schnorr-the-signature-algorithm-to-increase-bitcoin-s-scale-and-privacy-1460642496/

Scaling Bitcoin 100% onchain is also extremely silly as we need to bring Bitcoin to the world securely and the math just simply doesn't work out when you scale all onchain.

[BitUsher]

Hopefully that never goes in ever. Nor its next generation, graftroot. Privacy? Trying to keep it a secret someone thefting coins right at the code level?

In fact other alt coins should steer clear of the precursor, segwit, as the code to override the security of the protocol has already been written.

graft root is completely different proposal, this is taproot + schnorr sigs . Good luck with your less fungible coin, may as well use USD, I welcome regulatory arbitrage

[franky1]

back in 2015 community was happy with a mix of brands. but now the codebase is 99% core..

From 2009 to mid 2011 almost 100% was running a single implementation. Bitcoin or Bitcoin QT.

actually 2009-2011 people had their own independant nodes. they all done their own individual bug fixes run them and then passed them around via lines of code on IRC, forums and other places

these days its the opposite. bugs are listed on github, code created on github, tested on a testnet and 'ack' into a central repo before then distributed
if you want proof. pre2011 gavin andresen used github.. satoshi never used github. he used sourceforge.
others had their own forks and then passed on lines of code via this forum mailing lists and irc which devs then added to their own imps
it wasnt until 2011 until people started using github more centrally. but people still had their own forks which they linked to gavins repo
...

In 2015 many implementations existed, just like today, but also just like today almost no one uses them. Bitcoin is a consensus network where almost everything must run in lockstep as Satoshi said.  If anything more use of other implementations exist today with miners using custom templates and companies like purse.io using bcoin. Luke's stats don't show this.

as for differing brands. that does not mean different ACTIVE rules. it means same CURRENT rules and then separately proposing what a new rule should be.(pre-empting the nonsense FUD that differing brands=instant orphan conflicts)

but just having everyone follow 99% core. opens up vulnerabilities where core can without knowing.. or knowingly, add a bug that affects 99% by default.

its like a woman.. if she has HIV, if she then has offspring theres a high chance her offspring will get HIV.. but if she adopts/fosters from other families those future generations have less chance of having HIV
so

[BitUsher]

So you don't deny the code has already been written.

I linked to it... silly man.

sidechains to function - of course, those don't exist,

Liquid, RSK both exist today

GRAFTROOT.

why are you mentioning something offtopic? Taproot involves work from many people.

[BitUsher]

actually 2009-2011 people had their own independant nodes. they all done their own individual bug fixes run them and then passed them around via lines of code on IRC, forums and other places

Bitcoin development was extremely centralized back than as satoshi wrote a lot of the code and even slipped in 2 hard forks without users knowing. Sourceforge wasn't that different than github and a centralized repo people downloaded Bitcoin from.

but just having everyone follow 99% core. opens up vulnerabilities where core can without knowing.. or knowingly, add a bug that affects 99% by default.

There are benefits and drawbacks to node diversification. Best trade offs like I do is to run multiple independent implementations and cross check for consensus. Also keep in mind that there are many different versions of core and a new bug won't necessarily effect older versions of core like we have seen in the past

[BitUsher]

Where did you link to GRAFTROOT?

I don't know why you keep bringing up something completely unrelated to what we are discussing. Graftroot is not being adopted in Bitcoin, Taproot is.

Taproot is what has the privacy improvements I spoke about. You seem to be very confused bringing up unrelated proposals for no reason

[squatter]

and thats the point
using fear of gigabyte blocks to suggest there actually would be gigabyte blocks was the empty argument

No, it isn't the point at all.  The point is that no coin has proven the viability of larger blocks because those coins that supposedly have them are totally unable to fill them on a regular basis.  It doesn't matter if they can fill a large block once.  Or even a few times.  They have to do it consistently over a long period of time without losing nodecount before it proves that it can work.

but that is the point. previous fear is increasing the blocks=instant fill=causing pain.
its better to have a buffer and allow progressive growth. rather then stiffling a limit to pressure people not to grow

It's silly to compare obscure, little-used forks to Bitcoin. The fact that nobody uses an unpopular altcoin with big blocks isn't evidence that big blocks are safe for Bitcoin. These are apples and oranges.

There is a strong contingent of Bitcoin users (and Core developers) that want higher fees. Small blocks are a means to force fees higher through a fee market, which makes the mining incentive much more viable. This way, we aren't completely dependent on growing to a billion users paying who hardly pay any fees at all per capita.

If we keep raising block size beyond demand, then miners can never account for fees in their revenue stream even as the block subsidy disappears because there will never be any fee pressure. Everyone will pay close to 0 and miners will continue subsidizing the entire network despite smaller and smaller revenue. This leads to a situation where we might see large swings in hashpower because mining would be so speculative and unsustainable. Big blocks simply make no sense from an economic standpoint unless you want to switch to a design where inflation continues forever -- i.e. increasing the supply of bitcoins.

[BitUsher]

Where did you link to GRAFTROOT?

I don't know why you keep bringing up

I mentioned something and *you* mentioned it.
Thusly, *you* brought it up.

look at my original post , it only discusses taproot. You brought up graftroot. your quote you took even shows me talking about taproot. you are backpedaling because you are embarrassed you didn't know the difference between the 2 . You also are spreading multiple lies like saying sidechains do not exist.

[franky1]

There is a strong contingent of Bitcoin users (and Core developers) that want higher fees. Small blocks are a means to force fees higher through a fee market, which makes the mining incentive much more viable. This way, we aren't completely dependent on growing to a billion users paying who hardly pay any fees at all per capita.

If we keep raising block size beyond demand, then miners can never account for fees in their revenue stream even as the block subsidy disappears because there will never be any fee pressure. Everyone will pay close to 0 and miners will continue subsidizing the entire network despite smaller and smaller revenue. This leads to a situation where we might see large swings in hashpower because mining would be so speculative and unsustainable. Big blocks simply make no sense from an economic standpoint unless you want to switch to a design where inflation continues forever -- i.e. increasing the supply of bitcoins.

dont rebut that 'non-mining full nodes on bitcoins network are being cautious and not permitting larger increases'.. as the foolish notion that nodes are being economic majors and wanting to aid mining pools to earn more fee's by having a fee market.. when mining pools if they really wanted to earn more would only accept tx's of $1 and force users to pay more. but instead some pools throw any transactions in randomly and some do empty bocks which mean pools dont care about fee's

i predicted a core defender would come out with the stupid 'core defenders want a fee war to benefit miners' .. it was tooo obvious it was gonna come up
again if MINING POOLS cared and wanted a fee war they would only accept transactions of X fee no matter what the blocksize was or transaction count was.
seems its only core defenders that want a fee war, not mining pools.. yet its the mining pools that get the funds so why oh why should core be pushing a fee war pretending to help mining pools if mining pools are not interested....
hint: cor dont care about mining pools. after all core have been loudly fighting against mining pools.. core only care about deburdening bitcoin of utility to promote alternate networks.
core devs are in DEBT to a tune of a few hundred million and need to promote commercial networks so that core investors can get some returns.. its nothing to do with aiding mining pools. its about getting core devs out of VC funded debt

[Wind_FURY]

guys, stop swearing, we need all three types of bitcoins at the same time: small blocks BTC, medium blocks BCH and large blocks BSV

I don't mean to nit-pick, or is it a nit-pick, but there's no "three types of Bitcoin", there only one Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Cash SV are altcoins.

I'm confident even franky1 would agree.

Plus the debate of needing Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Cash SV is not against Bitcoin, but against other altcoins like Litecoin or Dogecoin.

[franky1]

guys, stop swearing, we need all three types of bitcoins at the same time: small blocks BTC, medium blocks BCH and large blocks BSV

I don't mean to nit-pick, or is it a nit-pick, but there's no "three types of Bitcoin", there only one Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Cash SV are altcoins.

I'm confident even franky1 would agree.

Plus the debate of needing Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Cash SV is not against Bitcoin, but against other altcoins like Litecoin or Dogecoin.

the way i used to view it was 2009-2015 there was only 1 international bitcoin. then developer wars broke out
the way i used to view it was 1600-1800 there was only 1 dollar. then civil wars broke out

then came about US dollar ((main 'reserve petrol dollar) btc)
then came about canadian dollar (vers(he canadian) bch)
then came about australian dollar (wright(hes aussie) bsv)

but in common communication when people say 'dollar' the auto/default is to think of U.S
but in common communication when people say 'bitcoin' the auto/default is to think of BTC

but its still best to clarify which nation people are referring to especially if they refer to the less popular ones

the reason i compare it to nations, is the same reason that CORE should NOT own 'brand bitcoin' no one should own 'bitcoin'

[nutildah]

the way i used to view it was 2009-2015 there was only 1 international bitcoin. then developer wars broke out
the way i used to view it was 1600-1800 there was only 1 dollar. then civil wars broke out

then came about US dollar ((main 'reserve petrol dollar) btc)
then came about canadian dollar (vers(he canadian) bch)
then came about australian dollar (wright(hes aussie) bsv)

but in common communication when people say 'dollar' the auto/default is to think of U.S
but in common communication when people say 'bitcoin' the auto/default is to think of BTC

but its still best to clarify which nation people are referring to especially if they refer to the less popular ones

the reason i compare it to nations, is the same reason that CORE should NOT own 'brand bitcoin' no one should own 'bitcoin'

1. Canada and Australia never had civil wars with the U.S. so your analogy is invalid.

2. Right, so most of the time a dollar is USD as bitcoin is BTC. If you're talking about a less popular currency, you should distinguish its name for the sake of clarity. That way nobody will think you are trying to trick them into buying BCH or CAD. You can't just try to sell CAD or AUD under the name "dollar," as that would be highly misleading. You cant claim "but we're dollar too" as your defense.

3. Nobody is saying Core owns the term bitcoin except you. Its just highly misleading and deceptive to call things that aren't bitcoin "bitcoin." You're free to do it and we're free to point out your deceptive practices. Besides, the market has already spoken on which coin is bitcoin and it's bitcoin.

[ðºÞæ]

If your wage is cut in halve every 4 years, how long before you look for a new income source.

Big block miners have ability to generate alternative income thorough increasing transaction fees. Ultimately it is the main source.

A modern farmer can not survive just with his products, it is only possible with subsidy's.

[Wind_FURY]

guys, stop swearing, we need all three types of bitcoins at the same time: small blocks BTC, medium blocks BCH and large blocks BSV

I don't mean to nit-pick, or is it a nit-pick, but there's no "three types of Bitcoin", there only one Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Cash SV are altcoins.

I'm confident even franky1 would agree.

Plus the debate of needing Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Cash SV is not against Bitcoin, but against other altcoins like Litecoin or Dogecoin.

the way i used to view it was 2009-2015 there was only 1 international bitcoin. then developer wars broke out
the way i used to view it was 1600-1800 there was only 1 dollar. then civil wars broke out

then came about US dollar ((main 'reserve petrol dollar) btc)
then came about canadian dollar (vers(he canadian) bch)
then came about australian dollar (wright(hes aussie) bsv)

but in common communication when people say 'dollar' the auto/default is to think of U.S
but in common communication when people say 'bitcoin' the auto/default is to think of BTC

but its still best to clarify which nation people are referring to especially if they refer to the less popular ones

the reason i compare it to nations, is the same reason that CORE should NOT own 'brand bitcoin' no one should own 'bitcoin'

Then Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Cash SV are not altcoins, but are also Bitcoin? How should we define what makes Bitcoin "Bitcoin"? Is another minority forking away again, and calling their coin "Bitcoin", also another "Bitcoin"?

Because if I call my fork a "Bitcoin", and sell it to someone that expected to get Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a scam? Or because I call my coin also "Bitcoin", I can justify that he received a Bitcoin?

[nutildah]

If your wage is cut in halve every 4 years, how long before you look for a new income source.

Big block miners have ability to generate alternative income thorough increasing transaction fees. Ultimately it is the main source.

A modern farmer can not survive just with his products, it is only possible with subsidy's.

You're assuming the price of bitcoin remains static. It does not. The last bitcoin won't be mined for over a hundred years so the problem of miners having to rely solely on fees isn't exactly "pressing."

[franky1]

the way i used to view it was 2009-2015 there was only 1 international bitcoin. then developer wars broke out
the way i used to view it was 1600-1800 there was only 1 dollar. then civil wars broke out

then came about US dollar ((main 'reserve petrol dollar) btc)
then came about canadian dollar (vers(he canadian) bch)
then came about australian dollar (wright(hes aussie) bsv)

but in common communication when people say 'dollar' the auto/default is to think of U.S
but in common communication when people say 'bitcoin' the auto/default is to think of BTC

but its still best to clarify which nation people are referring to especially if they refer to the less popular ones

the reason i compare it to nations, is the same reason that CORE should NOT own 'brand bitcoin' no one should own 'bitcoin'

1. Canada and Australia never had civil wars with the U.S. so your analogy is invalid.

2. Right, so most of the time a dollar is USD as bitcoin is BTC. If you're talking about a less popular currency, you should distinguish its name for the sake of clarity. That way nobody will think you are trying to trick them into buying BCH or CAD. You can't just try to sell CAD or AUD under the name "dollar," as that would be highly misleading. You cant claim "but we're dollar too" as your defense.

3. Nobody is saying Core owns the term bitcoin except you. Its just highly misleading and deceptive to call things that aren't bitcoin "bitcoin." You're free to do it and we're free to point out your deceptive practices. Besides, the market has already spoken on which coin is bitcoin and it's bitcoin.

1. your getting to historically anal with the analogy rather than taking it as a simple context example of something different to explain it in different terms even a grandma could cope with
2. aussie dollar is dollar too. australians do not scream out AUD they just say dollar.. canadians dont shout out CAD they just say dollar. but general international communication when saying dollar is default u.s
it seems your too anal wanting core to be the only 'bitcoin'
by the way, i personally am not interested in the alts/forks like bch bsv.. so dont even try acting like im the one misleading or selling or tricking..

3.as for 'what is bitcoin' the general guide is if it contains 'satoshi's stash' of coins and has code history that leads back to satoshis 2009 code. then it deserves to atleast be in the family.
if however the blockhistory was wiped back to the genesis block and had no similar chain history then it wouldnt deserve to be in the family

TL:DR no one is saying that other coins are "THE" bitcoin. but trying to infer that cores controlled protocol should be "THE ONLY bitcoin" is just more totalitarian. so relax and just put it into the same context as 'dollar' which even grandma can understand the difference between australian and u.s without big debate/stress

[thecodebear]

Bitcoin obviously needs big blocks. It is quite a bit worrisome to me that no blocksize increase was made during the "slow" period in late 2019 or early 2019. The down part of the market would be the least contentious time to implement a hard fork to give bitcoin room to grow on the next bitcoin boom. Looks like we are going to head into the next boom with the same transaction capacity (well a tiny little bit higher thanks to greater segwit adoption) as what was hurting bitcoin during the last boom. This is a serious problem.

Bitcoin doesn't need to go crazy and have 32mb or 128mb blocks or whatever the bitcoin-altcoin-forks have, but it very clearly needs to increase its transaction throughput capacity, and soon! I really thought there would be a concerted effort to increase that during the downtime of the market this cycle. Sadly there was no effort whatsoever.

Even if you think LN is gonna be the main use for everyday transactions in the future for bitcoin, that future is not now, and bitcoin needs more space in its blocks right now, and especially in the next couple of years as the bull market heats up. No amount of segwit adoption or exchange transaction batching is gonna keep blocks open and fees low during this bull run. Again, even if you are of the mind that LN is THE answer for bitcoin, the blocksize puts a severe restriction on getting money into the LN. For LN onboarding alone bitcoin needs larger blocksizes, and even if LN is the vast majority of transactions in the future, bitcoin txs need more blockspace NOW and even later when LN takes over normal on-chain non-LN-onboarding/offboarding txs will still be around of course, for moving between wallets or moving around large amounts of money or just one offs so even during LN non-LN associated onchain txs will need more space.

The only answer is to increase blocksize. The number of hard forks of bitcoin should be limited to a very small number very close to one, so bitcoin doesn't become some absurd untrustable constantly changing thing like BCH. I think either there needs to be a single hard fork that implements some automated blocksize increases or a very small number of increases in the future.

I haven't ever heard of an automated blocksize increase discussed, I've only ever heard of one-offs bitcoin discussed, but I think the automated increase is the way to go. That way only one hard fork is ever needed and blocksize increases become a stable thing that doesn't need to be debated anymore. I think the way to do it would be at every halving there is also some blocksize increase, perhaps starting at a 4x this next halving, and then each halving the blocksize increase itself halves, so it'd be 400% increase, 200%, 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5%, and so on. Or adjust these numbers however you see fit, the numbers I put in here would have bitcoin blocksize (blockweight) reach a limit at around 19x the current capacity, though it should probably be a bit higher than that if bitcoin is going to become globally used in the decades to come. This would also allow blocksize to increase as network speeds increase so that propagation wouldn't be a problem so bitcoin would never be in danger of not being decentralized, and it would also storage tech time to keep up so that the bitcoin blockchain continues to be relatively small compared to a reasonable cost of storing the blockchain.