Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2017, 03:26:30 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 [1355] 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1977644 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 22, 2015, 02:52:07 PM
 #27081

Somebody made a video describing the effect of a block size limit back in 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVq5oh3-JXc
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1505964390
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505964390

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505964390
Reply with quote  #2

1505964390
Report to moderator
bassclef
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 02:59:10 PM
 #27082

Quote from: TPTB_need_war
Because I really must discipline myself to focus where I can make the most impact, which is coding and not talking.

Yes, please. Your ego has inflated well beyond the walls of this humble thread. Time to start your own.

Here's a working title: Anonymint's pedantic pontifications.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 03:39:14 PM
 #27083

interesting.  stress test confirm times falling off already:

https://bitcoinfees.github.io/#1m
necrita
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49


View Profile
June 22, 2015, 04:18:22 PM
 #27084

Peter Todd's bearish posturing.
Quote
, similar to how it might be years, if ever, before you'll be able to buy 1BTC for $1 again.
https://gist.github.com/petertodd/8e87c782bdf342ef18fb

I wish every core dev had a substantial BTC position.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 04:20:49 PM
 #27085

ouch:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 04:50:01 PM
 #27086

interesting.  stress test confirm times falling off already:

https://bitcoinfees.github.io/#1m

fascinating.  what a dud.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 04:50:53 PM
 #27087

interesting.  stress test confirm times falling off already:

https://bitcoinfees.github.io/#1m

fascinating.  what a dud.

lotsa full blks tho:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 04:54:23 PM
 #27088

yes, there is no NWO or mass conspiracy.  banksters can't trust each other:

http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/innovation/safello-and-barclays-partner-on-poc-bitcoin-payments-for-donations/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 05:18:50 PM
 #27089

that's interesting.  anyone have an idea why the blocks are coming so quickly after the dud stress test?:

macsga
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Strange, yet attractive.


View Profile
June 22, 2015, 05:20:09 PM
 #27090

that's interesting.  anyone have an idea why the blocks are coming so quickly after the dud stress test?:



Routed altogether after the bottleneck maybe?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 05:32:18 PM
 #27091

that's interesting.  anyone have an idea why the blocks are coming so quickly after the dud stress test?:



Routed altogether after the bottleneck maybe?

i think related to this is the zero tx blocks that came within 1 min after large blks during the first stress test.  i never got an explanation for why that was either altho to me it is somewhat similar to this.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 06:00:59 PM
 #27092

Smooth, you've made a good point about spam however how do we weigh up the trade offs between limiting money velocity and spam?

I think you may have slightly misunderstood my point. It isn't that spam itself needs to be limited, it is that the system is vulnerable to a sort of denial of service from having too much data (whether that happens to be spam or "real" data, although obviously spam is less desirable) stuffed into it. Satoshi made a judgement at one time that 1 MB was an appropriate limit based on that vulnerability, considering the state of the technology, storage, propagation, etc.. What is the evidence for that vulnerability being sufficiently smaller now or in the near future that a 8x or 20x or 1000x is appropriate instead?

I'm sorry but I just see a lot of wishful thinking going on. Of course, we all want it to scale, but instead of actually improving how it scales, the proposal today is to simply push back the safety limit and change not much else. (A bit like ripping out the airbags and safety belts from a car to cut weight and make it go faster.)


I like the car analogies they've worked well for me. So "spam " just being a term for denial of service or an overload of inappropriately priced transaction data, leaves me thinking it isn't quite wishful thinking making room for it.

Reflecting on the  issue has lead real smart people to find solution that I think are nonsense (picking on Sidechains here) in my experience sometimes jumping in the deep end and being overwhelmed leaving one focused on solving the issue as they happen necessity is the mother of invention and I think allowing it is a great way to do RnD, something I feel is partly in keeping with the spirit of Bitcoin.



I mean heck, if the "spam" is paying full TX fees, how can you fault that? How do you even tell it's spam? Either way the miners will be made healthy.

"full TX fees" is a meaningless concept given that there is no set fee, it can be arbitrarily low. Just paying enough to motivate one (who happens to be the most accommodating) miner doesn't cover the entire cost to everyone on the network. Vitalik wrote about this once. Let me find it...okay here you go:

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/02/01/on-transaction-fees-and-the-fallacy-of-market-based-solutions/

Adrian-x: I'll agree there is some merit to your idea of jump into the deep end and then figure out how to swim. Dangerous as fuck, but definitely a strong motivation to Get It Done.


I will agree that market based fees are a fallacy while block subsidies are so high, but we're talking Bitcoin not just the situation today.  Vitalik isn't the best free market economics annalist I've ever read.  Bitcoin fees are set up to be a market system and its not a fallacy. Miners today can ignore the market because there reward is subsidized by 25BTC, but once this diminishes significantly the fees become all important. I've also pondered long and hard as to why fees are a monetary unit and not a percent, and I've come to the same conclusion as satoshi that it needs to be a free market fee ranging from 0 to the total value of the economy. 

Miners that ignore the macro economic data will not optimize and will either go bankrupt here are just the obvious ways fees will be optimized:  mining no free transactions (blocking free transactions = less velocity and lover value fees), or mining too many free transactions (subsidizing the Bitcoin velocity = less income and marginal benefit in value of fees) or mining block with insufficient transactions (over priced transaction fees = blocks too small) or mining blocks with too many transactions (under priced on average = blocks too big and orphaned) the market will find an equilibrium and it will happen at a pace that miners can plan and test, basically miners have a constant view of the situation as the urgency for planing is kept in sight by the forced block halving every 4 years.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 22, 2015, 06:18:05 PM
 #27093

I will agree that market based fees are a fallacy while block subsidies are so high, but we're talking Bitcoin not just the situation today.  Vitalik isn't the best free market economics annalist I've ever read.  Bitcoin fees are set up to be a market system and its not a fallacy. Miners today can ignore the market because there reward is subsidized by 25BTC, but once this diminishes significantly the fees become all important. I've also pondered long and hard as to why fees are a monetary unit and not a percent, and I've come to the same conclusion as satoshi that it needs to be a free market fee ranging from 0 to the total value of the economy. 

Miners that ignore the macro economic data will not optimize and will either go bankrupt here are just the obvious ways fees will be optimized:  mining no free transactions (blocking free transactions = less velocity and lover value fees), or mining too many free transactions (subsidizing the Bitcoin velocity = less income and marginal benefit in value of fees) or mining block with insufficient transactions (over priced transaction fees = blocks too small) or mining blocks with too many transactions (under priced on average = blocks too big and orphaned) the market will find an equilibrium and it will happen at a pace that miners can plan and test, basically miners have a constant view of the situation as the urgency for planing is kept in sight by the forced block halving every 4 years.
The block subsidy really does distort mining, just like every other subsidy does in its respective market. The economics of Bitcoin mining are going to make a lot more sense once the block reward shrinks to negligable levels, or once the transaction volume grows large enough to render the reward negligable and thus the distortion insignifigant.

The first criteria is something over which we have no control - we just have to wait.

The second is something we can do something about.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
June 22, 2015, 06:21:54 PM
 #27094

gavin has just posted a bip on the btc dev mailing list

  BIP: ??
  Title: Increase Maximum Block Size
  Author: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
  Status: Draft
  Type: Standards Track
  Created: 2015-06-22

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/blocksize/bip-8MB.mediawiki

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 06:30:15 PM
 #27095

gavin has just posted a bip on the btc dev mailing list

  BIP: ??
  Title: Increase Maximum Block Size
  Author: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
  Status: Draft
  Type: Standards Track
  Created: 2015-06-22

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/blocksize/bip-8MB.mediawiki


Nice! 

Cypherdoc: did you capture an image of the last poll prior to changing it?  It seems that approval for the increase is higher than ever now.


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 06:30:54 PM
 #27096

Quote from: TPTB_need_war
Because I really must discipline myself to focus where I can make the most impact, which is coding and not talking.

Yes, please. Your ego has inflated well beyond the walls of this humble thread. Time to start your own.

Here's a working title: Anonymint's pedantic pontifications.

tbh: I would probably subscribe. It'd be nice to read his ramblings (which contain many intersting things) concentrated in one thread, not copy-pasted all over the place.

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

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 22, 2015, 06:32:16 PM
 #27097


Satoshi made a judgement at one time that 1 MB was an appropriate limit based on that vulnerability, considering the state of the technology, storage, propagation, etc.. What is the evidence for that vulnerability being sufficiently smaller now or in the near future that a 8x or 20x or 1000x is appropriate instead?


The evidence is the 3.5 billion market cap as compared to 0 back then (or the most optimistic estimate maybe 5M).  The network can support a LOT more "spam" today and still be considered valuable and useful by its users.

And also experience has shown us that there is not much spam.  If there was, blocks would be 100% full all the time.  When we switch to 8, 20 MB or whatever blocks, its going to be much ado about nothing.  If the network was going to use that bandwidth right away, it would be using the full 1MB now.  

And unlike the case of email, blockchain spam is not even read by human beings so the inconvenience to the network per message is very small (esp. when pruning, etc starts).  You are trading the promise of a worldwide currency against the fear that some people might issue some frivolous txns!  Bitcoin is unlikely to stay at its current adoption level.  It is in a grow or die situation.

Someday there WILL be a fee market.  When there are 100x more users and 1000x more txns.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 06:34:44 PM
 #27098

gavin has just posted a bip on the btc dev mailing list

  BIP: ??
  Title: Increase Maximum Block Size
  Author: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
  Status: Draft
  Type: Standards Track
  Created: 2015-06-22

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/blocksize/bip-8MB.mediawiki


Nice! 

Cypherdoc: did you capture an image of the last poll prior to changing it?  It seems that approval for the increase is higher than ever now.



no, unfortunately i forgot to do that but iirc the yes was around 73% before the switch to current poll
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 06:37:04 PM
 #27099

gavin has just posted a bip on the btc dev mailing list

  BIP: ??
  Title: Increase Maximum Block Size
  Author: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
  Status: Draft
  Type: Standards Track
  Created: 2015-06-22

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/blocksize/bip-8MB.mediawiki


so is this a BIP to Core?  giving current core devs an opportunity to adopt into Core?
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
June 22, 2015, 06:42:34 PM
 #27100

gavin has just posted a bip on the btc dev mailing list

  BIP: ??
  Title: Increase Maximum Block Size
  Author: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
  Status: Draft
  Type: Standards Track
  Created: 2015-06-22

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/blocksize/bip-8MB.mediawiki


so is this a BIP to Core?  giving current core devs an opportunity to adopt into Core?

Yes it is. the XT patch/pull request is cited as a demo implementation.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Pages: « 1 ... 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 [1355] 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 ... 1558 »
  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!