Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2017, 01:51:40 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 ... 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 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1995686 times)
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:02:40 PM
 #27801

. In fact by not clearing transactions in blocks and causing the memory pool to increase beyond what it should, the 1MB limit is probably more stressful on nodes than simply letting larger blocks get processed....

This is a very valid point not many have talked about yet. I'd like to see what the 'nodemongers' have to say about this?
1508377900
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508377900

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508377900
Reply with quote  #2

1508377900
Report to moderator
1508377900
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508377900

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508377900
Reply with quote  #2

1508377900
Report to moderator
1508377900
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508377900

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508377900
Reply with quote  #2

1508377900
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508377900
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508377900

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508377900
Reply with quote  #2

1508377900
Report to moderator
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:03:33 PM
 #27802


Also ZH is practically pumping bitcoin these days  Shocked

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-30/fiat-faith-falters-bitcoin-surges-12-post-greferendum
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:08:47 PM
 #27803

dammit.  here we go again upon just checking.  unconf tx's over 7000:


any chances of an on going stress test ?

i doubt it as yesterday's scheduled test didn't conform to it's stated plan.  

and really, does it matter?  how can you tell in most circumstances unless spam tx's are coming from a single address?  and if the tx's are paying the regular fees, which they are, who cares?  the miners will make hay and be more profitable.  actually, i do care b/c that means ordinary users that might square the network effect (Metcalfe) wanting in from places like Greece might not be able to get in.  yes, the 1MB'ers will say that they're just coming in thru places like Coinbase, which they are, but i'd counter argue that in the medium to long run Coinbase has to buy supply from the mainchain to keep their reserves high.  so it does feed through.

I agree, I've asked only because I know you're active on reddit, that usually is a better source for this kind of events.

that said I was wondering if another thing we could do is limiting max tx size. Did you rember that no more than a one or two months ago Peter Todd said that chain someone put an entire book on the blockchain?

maybe not an absolute limit but a progressive fee per kb... just a thougth.

at least those books aren't getting into the UTXO set.  simply a blockchain storage problem which is easily addressed with storage growth.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes/release-notes-0.9.0.md
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:15:44 PM
 #27804


I think replace by fee is good. It is a way to unstick a transaction that is stuck with too low fee, when you are in a hurry.  It does not change the protocol in any way, it is just the miner chooses the transaction with the higher fee, making the old one illegal. It does not fill up blocks, only the network.

On the other hand, I don't think it is critically important, necessary or even specially useful. I think the market will sort out fees, making normal high-paying transactions fill up only half the space available in blocks.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:27:29 PM
 #27805

Electrum servers also having problems:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bmb5r/stress_test_in_full_effect/csnfl2x
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:32:27 PM
 #27806

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?

what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined.  maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary.  that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner.  

and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means.

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

As of 12:03pm eastern time blockchain.info is reporting 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions and 1.95BTC in fees (mostly from minimum fees).

Is there another stress test going on? Or did a bunch of guys decide to flood the network to push for larger blocks...

Not sure but as I understand it an increase in value is new information and new information results is market players adjusting and I imagine that means moving their BTC around as a result of changes in behavior.  

I'm not expecting a pop just yet but I don't think maintaining as we are with relatively full blocks is an indication that we'll cope with an increase of tx's if we see the growth the market is anticipating.

If this is a true demand situation based on the recent price movement, then if we have a real bubble move the network is simply going to not be able to handle demand. Increasing fees is not an option because there isn't enough space for everyone regardless of the fees they offer.

What is happening right now shows that P2P nodes can in fact handle larger blocks, they are processing the transaction volume fine and have enough BW to forward transactions. In fact by not clearing transactions in blocks and causing the memory pool to increase beyond what it should, the 1MB limit is probably more stressful on nodes than simply letting larger blocks get processed....[/b]

absolutely.  look here.  guys reporting their bitcoind shut down from memory overload.  that sucks:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bmb5r/stress_test_in_full_effect/csniofb

They cannot handle 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions then how will they handle 20 MB blocks with 200 MB uncorfirmed transactions ?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:32:54 PM
 #27807


If this is a true demand situation based on the recent price movement, then if we have a real bubble move the network is simply going to not be able to handle demand. Increasing fees is not an option because there isn't enough space for everyone regardless of the fees they offer.

What is happening right now shows that P2P nodes can in fact handle larger blocks, they are processing the transaction volume fine and have enough BW to forward transactions. In fact by not clearing transactions in blocks and causing the memory pool to increase beyond what it should, the 1MB limit is probably more stressful on nodes than simply letting larger blocks get processed....

Fantastic!  Some incentive to deal with memory exhaustion (which is hardly an unheard of problem in computer-land.)

If I were doing a system from scratch, one would have to do several things (with analogs taken from the real world.)

  • pay to get in (e.g., a ticket at the festival gate.  Some sort of real infrastructure support as opposed to useless SPV wallet 'support'.)
  • pay to get in the queue (e.g., to get a _chance_ to buy your cheese-dog.)
  • pay at least enough for the raw materials an labor for your cheese-dog when you get through the queue.
  • periodically clense the queue of those who, for whatever reason, not making sufficient progress.

Of course if Bitcoin had been designed like that from the get-go, it would not have gotten to first base.  It needed a pretty face to attract the following of Utopians such as fap.doc and the multitude of other mouth-breathers that got the system going.

Now we are at a point where there can safely be free cheese-dogs for all in the form of sidechains.  That means that the backing store can safely eject the welfare bums and they won't starve to death.  Very humanitarian.


chriswilmer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


View Profile WWW
June 30, 2015, 05:33:37 PM
 #27808


They cannot handle 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions then how will they handle 20 MB blocks with 200 MB uncorfirmed transactions ?

It would be dramatically more expensive to spam the network with 200 MB of transactions.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:38:25 PM
 #27809


They cannot handle 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions then how will they handle 20 MB blocks with 200 MB uncorfirmed transactions ?

It would be dramatically more expensive to spam the network with 200 MB of transactions.

It will be more expensive with 1 MB block. The bigger block the cheaper spam.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:39:53 PM
 #27810


They cannot handle 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions then how will they handle 20 MB blocks with 200 MB uncorfirmed transactions ?

It would be dramatically more expensive to spam the network with 200 MB of transactions.

plus, miners have the power to choose to process the spam or not.  process it, make lotsa fee income thus strengthening themselves (which is the last thing a spammer wants), but also risk getting orphaned with given today's connectivity rates.  or choose not to, protecting themselves from an orphan, and continue processing small efficient blocks for maximum propagation. 
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:41:30 PM
 #27811


They cannot handle 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions then how will they handle 20 MB blocks with 200 MB uncorfirmed transactions ?

It would be dramatically more expensive to spam the network with 200 MB of transactions.

Those were 1.2GB DRAM nodes, which are very limited VM instances with only a couple 100MB for the memory pool.

The poster said that his 2GB and 4GB DRAM nodes were fine, and they should be through 200MB blocks.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:42:15 PM
 #27812


They cannot handle 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions then how will they handle 20 MB blocks with 200 MB uncorfirmed transactions ?

It would be dramatically more expensive to spam the network with 200 MB of transactions.

It will be more expensive with 1 MB block. The bigger block the cheaper spam.

but also way more expensive for Bitcoin's growth prospects as new users get turned away or fed up.  Cripplecoin, in the long run, fails to the benefit of Blockstreams SC project.

you keep ignoring the fact that miners can filter spam; if they want.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:46:01 PM
 #27813


If this is a true demand situation based on the recent price movement, then if we have a real bubble move the network is simply going to not be able to handle demand. Increasing fees is not an option because there isn't enough space for everyone regardless of the fees they offer.

What is happening right now shows that P2P nodes can in fact handle larger blocks, they are processing the transaction volume fine and have enough BW to forward transactions. In fact by not clearing transactions in blocks and causing the memory pool to increase beyond what it should, the 1MB limit is probably more stressful on nodes than simply letting larger blocks get processed....

Fantastic!  Some incentive to deal with memory exhaustion (which is hardly an unheard of problem in computer-land.)

If I were doing a system from scratch, one would have to do several things (with analogs taken from the real world.)

  • pay to get in (e.g., a ticket at the festival gate.  Some sort of real infrastructure support as opposed to useless SPV wallet 'support'.)
  • pay to get in the queue (e.g., to get a _chance_ to buy your cheese-dog.)
  • pay at least enough for the raw materials an labor for your cheese-dog when you get through the queue.
  • periodically clense the queue of those who, for whatever reason, not making sufficient progress.

Of course if Bitcoin had been designed like that from the get-go, it would not have gotten to first base.  It needed a pretty face to attract the following of Utopians such as fap.doc and the multitude of other mouth-breathers that got the system going.

Now we are at a point where there can safely be free cheese-dogs for all in the form of sidechains.  That means that the backing store can safely eject the welfare bums and they won't starve to death.  Very humanitarian.



you being a socialist, of course you come up with these bizarre conclusions that disadvantage the masses.

the ideal situation would be that there is NO LIMIT.  this would give miners the incentive to filter spam based on their own internal analyses that the core devs can't possibly ever factor in, and then construct block sizes accordingly with the assistance of user tx fee feedback.  in other words, a free market that gets the core dev apparatchiks out of the way.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:55:39 PM
 #27814


They cannot handle 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions then how will they handle 20 MB blocks with 200 MB uncorfirmed transactions ?

It would be dramatically more expensive to spam the network with 200 MB of transactions.

It will be more expensive with 1 MB block. The bigger block the cheaper spam.

no,look at the current spam attacks.  

they are small tx's with the minimum fee.  if that spam wants to actually get included in the next block or 2, it has to increase the amount of fees it pays which would cause the attack budget to skyrocket.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:58:44 PM
 #27815


Fantastic!  Some incentive to deal with memory exhaustion (which is hardly an unheard of problem in computer-land.)

If I were doing a system from scratch, one would have to do several things (with analogs taken from the real world.)

  • pay to get in (e.g., a ticket at the festival gate.  Some sort of real infrastructure support as opposed to useless SPV wallet 'support'.)
  • pay to get in the queue (e.g., to get a _chance_ to buy your cheese-dog.)
  • pay at least enough for the raw materials an labor for your cheese-dog when you get through the queue.
  • periodically clense the queue of those who, for whatever reason, not making sufficient progress.

Of course if Bitcoin had been designed like that from the get-go, it would not have gotten to first base.  It needed a pretty face to attract the following of Utopians such as fap.doc and the multitude of other mouth-breathers that got the system going.

Now we are at a point where there can safely be free cheese-dogs for all in the form of sidechains.  That means that the backing store can safely eject the welfare bums and they won't starve to death.  Very humanitarian.

you being a socialist, of course you come up with these bizarre conclusions that disadvantage the masses.

I very much want people to be able to use distributed crypto-currencies which is, I'm sure, left over from my socialist days.

As a practical matter, it is not necessary nor desirable to serve every hungry mouth with caviar on a silver platter (which they can take home and put in their own cabinet.)  Even the most impractical of the socialist dreamers would never entertain an idea so stupid.


the ideal situation would be that there is NO LIMIT.  this would give miners the incentive to filter spam based on their own internal analyses that the core devs can't possibly ever factor in, and then construct block sizes accordingly with the assistance of user tx fee feedback.  in other words, a free market that gets the core dev apparatchiks out of the way.

The only technically knowledgeable people who support this inane system design do so because they see clearly that it will consolidate the infrastructure into a form that is as easily controlled as fiat money is currently.  To many many people, this consolidation of control is a good thing.  Most people love Big Brother whether they realize it or not and have the reflexes trained to support him.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:03:16 PM
 #27816

The only technically knowledgeable people who support this inane system design do so because they see clearly that it will consolidate the infrastructure into a form that is as easily controlled as fiat money is currently.  To many many people, this consolidation of control is a good thing.  Most people love Big Brother whether they realize it or not and have the reflexes trained to support him.



this is precisely why we disagree on everything.  i believe that the internet can allow the ppl to take back control of their money as it should be.  don't forget that central banks are still a relatively new concept in the modern age.  with that, i mean, going back 100 yrs or so. 

maybe it's naive, maybe not.  but it certainly is worth the effort and risk to try.  which is why i support lifting the block limit just to see what happens.  i believe we will cope.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:17:10 PM
 #27817


I think replace by fee is good. It is a way to unstick a transaction that is stuck with too low fee, when you are in a hurry.  It does not change the protocol in any way, it is just the miner chooses the transaction with the higher fee, making the old one illegal. It does not fill up blocks, only the network.

On the other hand, I don't think it is critically important, necessary or even specially useful. I think the market will sort out fees, making normal high-paying transactions fill up only half the space available in blocks.


There are two versions of replace-by-fee: "first-seen safe" and "full."  Peter Todd is pushing "full" replace-by-fee which breaks the security of zero-confirm transactions.  When F2Pool added replace-by-fee, they initially used the full version, but then switched to the first-seen safe version when the recognized the problem.

Which version do you think is good?  What does replace-by-fee do that child-pays-parent can't?

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:19:38 PM
 #27818

we are consistently above the 2.3 TPS level that the Tradeblock ppl have defined as the level where the network experiences delays.

from Tradeblock:

(2): It appears transaction confirmation will begin to experience notable delays at roughly 2.3 TPS – the rate at which average transaction processing time begins to exceed 1 block.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:24:10 PM
 #27819

Go India!

https://twitter.com/unocoin/status/615866780905422848

more new users. 
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:35:17 PM
 #27820

remember that, if i'm right, and full blocks are indicating additional incremental demand due to currency crises, this is going to be a more regular thing.  this is what we've theorized about for years.  the network HAS to be ready if you want to Moon.

1MB isn't going to cut it.  right now, unconf tx's are now up to 10000 with now >5TPS delays.

To be clear, I agree. Smoothly adjusting fees are another tool in the scaling toolbox, though, and should be ready for use as well. Where we're going, a 8 or 20x increase all by itself might not cut it. I'm eyeing a 500x price increase for the next bubble (peak, crashing afterward to 5-10x lower: ~$10-20K/BTC), which will mean a pretty big increase in transaction volume and may overrun even the 20MB blocks if we don't even have a fee market up yet.

We need as many scaling solutions in place as possible to enable the next bull run.

The nice thing about this debate is it's incentivizing them all. I'm confident we'll have the blocksize cap increase, hopefully in advance and not as a reaction to a stalled rally, but also a lot of other things. It's worth pushing against the small-blockers not because they have any real power to stop the increase, but because it lights a fire under them to do their part in making those optimizations to try to prove we can get by with smaller blocks. It's a futile effort on their part, but it ends up helping with large blocks, too.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 ... 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!