Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 08:55:31 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 [1182] 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804766 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 10:49:16 AM
 #23621

I don't know enough about the block size limits really but is increasing it just kicking the can down the road. Can we just keep doing that? A bit like how USA used to keep increasing the debt ceiling

Increasing block size limits is not solution. It is "brute force" ... we are only buying time.  1B people will require 4 GB block size limit.
1480971331
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971331

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971331
Reply with quote  #2

1480971331
Report to moderator
1480971331
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971331

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971331
Reply with quote  #2

1480971331
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480971331
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971331

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971331
Reply with quote  #2

1480971331
Report to moderator
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 11:02:07 AM
 #23622

I don't know enough about the block size limits really but is increasing it just kicking the can down the road. Can we just keep doing that? A bit like how USA used to keep increasing the debt ceiling

Increasing block size limits is not solution. It is "brute force" ... we are only buying time.  1B people will require 4 GB block size limit.

Buying time allows alternate solutions to be properly reviewed and tested. Downtime and network issues are not conducive to the adoption wave we know is coming with the next price hump.
Spaceman_Spiff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 11:04:09 AM
 #23623

I don't know enough about the block size limits really but is increasing it just kicking the can down the road. Can we just keep doing that? A bit like how USA used to keep increasing the debt ceiling

Increasing block size limits is not solution. It is "brute force" ... we are only buying time.  1B people will require 4 GB block size limit.
Maybe 'buying some time' is quite crucial for coming up with and developing the necessary solutions, and it's not 'kicking the can down the road' knowing the issue will never be properly addressed.
Although I don't fully understand the lightning network and its risks/tradeoffs, the presentation slides suggest 133MB blocks would be sufficient for unlimited transactions for 7 billion users. That would be freaking awesome, and solve the scaling problem imho (but again, I don't understand it deeply enough).

EDIT: Inca beat me to it   Wink

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 11:08:37 AM
 #23624

I don't know enough about the block size limits really but is increasing it just kicking the can down the road. Can we just keep doing that? A bit like how USA used to keep increasing the debt ceiling

Increasing block size limits is not solution. It is "brute force" ... we are only buying time.  1B people will require 4 GB block size limit.
Maybe 'buying some time' is quite crucial for coming up with and developing the necessary solutions, and it's not 'kicking the can down the road' knowing the issue will never be properly addressed.
Although I don't fully understand the lightning network and its risks/tradeoffs, the presentation slides suggest 133MB blocks would be sufficient for unlimited transactions for 7 billion users. That would be freaking awesome, and solve the scaling problem imho (but again, I don't understand it deeply enough).

EDIT: Inca beat me to it   Wink .

Likewise.
And the lightning network is mostly paperwork today, but could be fully operational in 3 years time. Gavin's can-kick would more than cover that period, without a monumental snafu, PR disaster, price collapse, in the meantime.

lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


Bitcoin: The honey badger of currencies


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 11:21:13 AM
 #23625


Likewise.
And the lightning network is mostly paperwork today, but could be fully operational in 3 years time. Gavin's can-kick would more than cover that period, without a monumental snafu, PR disaster, price collapse, in the meantime.

Agree with you guys. I'm really at a loss over this whole discussion. Not extending the limit at some point in the near future is maybe the worst thing we could do.

That being said, why do you figure it will take 3 years for lightning to be operational?

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 11:55:48 AM
 #23626


Likewise.
And the lightning network is mostly paperwork today, but could be fully operational in 3 years time. Gavin's can-kick would more than cover that period, without a monumental snafu, PR disaster, price collapse, in the meantime.

Agree with you guys. I'm really at a loss over this whole discussion. Not extending the limit at some point in the near future is maybe the worst thing we could do.

That being said, why do you figure it will take 3 years for lightning to be operational?

Not being a software engineer, I can only guess. But in the presentations I've listened to, Rusty Russell has said there will be not 1 but 2 soft  forks required to implement lightning. Given Bitcoin's resistance to change it doesn't seem unreasonable that it would take that long even though I agree with you it seems a bit excessive. I'm sure  there  are several other factors as well that prolong the process.
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


Bitcoin: The honey badger of currencies


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 12:01:30 PM
 #23627

I'm not too worried about the blocksize debate now that I know even Peter Todd supports an increase "eventually." To me this says the first sign of actual delays and price impact will see all these guys change their tune.

i seriously hope that we dont see any delays. That would mean we dragged our feet far too long and now have to rush to clean up the mess. I think its really great that Mike and Gavin are getting out ahead of this change to try and get consensus before it might even be a possibility.

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 12:35:27 PM
 #23628


Likewise.
And the lightning network is mostly paperwork today, but could be fully operational in 3 years time. Gavin's can-kick would more than cover that period, without a monumental snafu, PR disaster, price collapse, in the meantime.

Agree with you guys. I'm really at a loss over this whole discussion. Not extending the limit at some point in the near future is maybe the worst thing we could do.

That being said, why do you figure it will take 3 years for lightning to be operational?

OK. Complex systems always have unexpected delays, and 3 years is a guesstimate. LN needs to be coded, tested, and installed on a global network of servers, primed with payment nodes (not sure how it bootstraps), and then actually taking a useful tx loading off the main-chain (leaving aside the politics behind soft-forks). This is not a quick task. Perhaps it will surprise and be available sooner.

edit: got the details on the soft-forks:

Quote
Note that the scheme requires some solution to malleability to allow chains of transactions to be built (this is a common theme, so likely to be mitigated in a future soft fork), but Gregory Maxwell points out that it also wants selective malleability, so transactions can be replaced without invalidating the HTLCs which are spending their outputs.  Thus it proposes new signature flags, which will require active debate, analysis and another soft fork.
http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=477

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 02:52:06 PM
 #23629

from gmax's response this morning:

"Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with
not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to
people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they
were reading too much into it.

So please forgive me for the more than typical disorganization in this
message; I've been caught a bit flatfooted on this and I'm trying to
catch up. I'm juggling a fair amount of sudden pressure in my mailbox,
and trying to navigate complex discussions in about eight different
forums concurrently."


anyone who is even half aware of his surroundings could see that Gavin' proposal was coming.  wasn't i on this thread talking about this immediately after this video last month?:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

but even way before then it was entirely clear that there was a schism developing btwn Gavin, who has been pushing for an even more radical progressive block size increase, and the rest of the Blockstream devs looking to continue capping at 1MB while at the same time pushing their version of SC's.  it was clear, to me at least, that he would have to pull rank at some point.  and that is not a bad thing; that is what leaders do.  he is the lead dev after all.

gmax is exhibiting typical behavior when someone suddenly finds their back up against the wall defending what clearly is a minority opinion.  "poor me, they suddenly sprung this upon me with absolutely no warning!"
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 03:21:28 PM
 #23630

dow up 275.. i guess dip is over
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 03:52:48 PM
 #23631

i see that alot of the 1MB proponents are attempting to use the excuse of "digital gold as a reserve currency" or as a "settlement currency" to argue for their cap.

as one of the first, if not the first, to have made the conceptual switch from physical gold to what i consider digital gold (Bitcoin), AND act on it, i think i am qualified to comment on this excuse:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35956.msg443129#msg443129

my argument against leaving the limit at 1MB to guide Bitcoin's future towards being a reserve or settlement currency is that it is too early to claim Bitcoin as a gold substitute.  Bitcoin is unknown by probably greater than 60-70% of the world's population.  those African kids digging gold out of mine shafts 3ft wide and down 100 yds have no idea that something like Bitcoin even exists.  otoh, they obviously know about the value of gold.  i'd argue they even understand why; that it can't be debased by their gvts by legalized counterfeiting.  they also understand that they can hold the metal in their hands.  it's hard, it's physical, they can break it up, it doesn't seem to lose it's value, and they can instantly transact with it with their local peers.  this is possible b/c gold has been around for thousands of years and has had the benefit of time and usage to spread itself along with it's sound money properties to all corners of the Earth.  the hivemind around gold is set, it's mature, it's universal, it's accepted by gvts and central banks; it's a given.

contrast that with Bitcoin that has maybe a couple of hundred thousand dedicated users.  that is not enough.  there are very few of us, mostly those of this in this thread, that understand that Bitcoin is actually a superior form of gold, ie, digital gold.  it can be transmitted across the internet in fractions of a second.  it's supply is harder and more fixed than gold ever can be by the laws of mathematics.  it isn't under threat of further debasement by asteroid mining or ocean gold.  it's more easily transportable and crosses guarded borders seamlessly and effortlessly.  it certainly can replace gold.  but it is too early to make the claim.

b/c Bitcoin is digital, there exists a burden of proof that is higher than just proving mathematically that the supply is fixed.  that involves proving it's worth as a payment network. this is not only b/c Bitcoin has the unique ability to be the best payment network the world has ever seen but also b/c it is necessary to prove it's worth as a gold substitute.  it will do so by proving to be a reliable payment network which will allow BTC units to be disseminated widely to places like Africa.  b/c those kids in Africa can't touch Bitcoin, admire it's color, wear it, transact with it (no smartphones), they will never accept Bitcoin until these things happen:  

1. they first have to be able to access it:  this first challenge is easily foreseeable as long as we let the Bitcoin expand; smartphone penetration is coming.  all data analyses point to this.  as we speak, thousands of miles of fiber optic cable is being laid across Africa.  Benedict Evans of a16z regularly talks about this.  this eventually will solve the problem of these ppl accessing the internet which will make transacting in Bitcoin possible.  actually, as an aside, i was the first i know to have talked publicly about M-Pesa being a great foreseeable example of how Bitcoin could take over Africa.  here is where i first talked about it.  someone correct me if they know of someone else who talked about it earlier than this:

https://bitcoin-forums.net/index.php?topic=6322.20

2. since those kids can't touch or feel Bitcoin, these kids have to be able to use it reliably; no payment delays, no double spending, no loss of tx's in a queue, no loss in value. this is necessary to develop confidence in Bitcoin as a gold substitute.  this is a few years off even with a block size increase.  but Bitcoin won't even get to them with the 1MB cap as this will prevent the worldwide dissemination necessary for this level of confidence to occur.

capping at 1MB will cause unacceptable confirmation delays, lost tx's, loss of revenues, loss of user base, loss of confidence, loss of exchange value, and generalized degradation of Bitcoin.  it will then never reach the status of digital gold we all aspire to.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 04:17:03 PM
 #23632

Boom
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 05:13:18 PM
 #23633

can a op_return have a 0 output?  i thought it had to at least spend a satoshi.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 05:24:10 PM
 #23634

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

Single transaction can contain 10 kB of script  => 10 kB of data

so, i'm getting bits and pieces of how this works.

these bloated tx's are confined to p2sh from what i'm told.  it sounds like the 10kB script of data is applicable to each public key involved in the p2sh tx up to a maximum of 10kB, is that right?  that means 10 addresses max.  what if i wanted to include 20 public keys/addresses in a p2sh?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 06:06:20 PM
 #23635

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

Single transaction can contain 10 kB of script  => 10 kB of data

so, i'm getting bits and pieces of how this works.

these bloated tx's are confined to p2sh from what i'm told.  it sounds like the 10kB script of data is applicable to each public key involved in the p2sh tx up to a maximum of 10kB, is that right?  that means 10 addresses max.  what if i wanted to include 20 public keys/addresses in a p2sh?

Seems, you can insert "value into script" (any data up to 520 bytes).  Looks like there is not size limit for transaction (only block size is the limit). If I understand it right then you can insert 201 * 520 bytes into script for one output.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses

These are protocol rules built to prevent DoS:

    Restricts the block size to 1 megabyte.
    Restricts the maximum number of signature checks a transaction input may request
    Limits the size of each script (up to 10000 bytes)
    Limits the size of each value pushed while evaluating a a script (up to 520 bytes)
    Limits the number of expensive operations in a script (up to 201 operations). All but pushs are considered expensive. Also each key argument of signature checking in multi-signature checking (OP_CHECKMULTISIG) is considered an additional operation.
    Limits the number of key arguments OP_CHECKMULTISIG can use (up to 20 keys)
    Limits the number of the stack elements that can be stored simultaneously (up to 1000 elements, in standard and alt stacks together)
    Limits the number of signature checks a block may request (up to 20000 checks)

These are the Satoshi client protections added in version 0.8.0:

    Transactions greater than 100 Kbytes are considered non-standard (protects from variations of the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140078.0 attack).

Edit: only 20 * 520 bytes because of  "Limits the size of each script (up to 10000 bytes)"
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 06:56:22 PM
 #23636

I don't know enough about the block size limits really but is increasing it just kicking the can down the road. Can we just keep doing that? A bit like how USA used to keep increasing the debt ceiling

Yes, it's kicking the can down the road. But nothing else is ready and hitting the limit might spell big trouble.

EDIT: sorry, this got already answered 10 times or so. I should read threads from back to front...

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 07:11:27 PM
 #23637

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

Single transaction can contain 10 kB of script  => 10 kB of data

Does maxing out that data limit impact the TX fee? Like including many inputs requires a fee.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 07:19:56 PM
 #23638

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

Single transaction can contain 10 kB of script  => 10 kB of data

Does maxing out that data limit impact the TX fee? Like including many inputs requires a fee.

Yes.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 07:25:02 PM
 #23639

I'm not too worried about the blocksize debate now that I know even Peter Todd supports an increase "eventually." To me this says the first sign of actual delays and price impact will see all these guys change their tune.

I don't think it will change much, lots of resistance is routed in fear of what could happen, also based on subjective assertions.
There are legitimate concerns and efforts should be focused there.

Why we need to change now is to kill the FUD, so developers can work on the real issues.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 07:36:03 PM
 #23640


Limits the size of each value pushed while evaluating a a script (up to 520 bytes)
Limits the number of expensive operations in a script (up to 201 operations). All but pushs are considered expensive.

i need some definitions of the bolded terms:

value means BTC?
expensive means what?
pushs means what in this context?
Pages: « 1 ... 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 [1182] 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 ... 1560 »
  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!