Bitcoin Forum
February 29, 2020, 10:09:42 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Gavin Andresen Proposes Bitcoin Hard Fork to Address Network Scalability  (Read 18149 times)
TheFootMan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 04:37:14 AM
 #61

Note that with the "compressed blocks" idea we'd be able to handle 50 txs/sec with the current 1MB limit.

Is that your idea? Have you written an explanation about how it's done, and have others chimed in to verify it's possible? Does Gavin know about that suggestion? Did he comment on it?

1582970982
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582970982

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582970982
Reply with quote  #2

1582970982
Report to moderator
1582970982
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582970982

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582970982
Reply with quote  #2

1582970982
Report to moderator
1582970982
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582970982

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582970982
Reply with quote  #2

1582970982
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1582970982
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582970982

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582970982
Reply with quote  #2

1582970982
Report to moderator
1582970982
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582970982

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582970982
Reply with quote  #2

1582970982
Report to moderator
1582970982
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582970982

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582970982
Reply with quote  #2

1582970982
Report to moderator
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
October 17, 2014, 04:43:37 AM
Last edit: October 17, 2014, 05:20:24 AM by CIYAM
 #62

Note that with the "compressed blocks" idea we'd be able to handle 50 txs/sec with the current 1MB limit.

Is that your idea? Have you written an explanation about how it's done, and have others chimed in to verify it's possible? Does Gavin know about that suggestion? Did he comment on it?

Actually I am pretty sure that it was *his idea* called "O(n) blocks" or something like that Huh (I just use the term "compressed blocks" as I think that is more "intuitive"). As stated one major thing that would need to be resolved is "transaction malleability" for this idea to be a "goer" (and see my posts in the previous page for the explanation).

Funnily enough I had *come up with the same idea* (I am using it in my own blockchain design) about six months ago - but I never thought to suggest it for use with Bitcoin at the time.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
zinger
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 05:25:07 AM
 #63

Note that with the "compressed blocks" idea we'd be able to handle 50 txs/sec with the current 1MB limit.

Is that your idea? Have you written an explanation about how it's done, and have others chimed in to verify it's possible? Does Gavin know about that suggestion? Did he comment on it?


Its a pretty great idea for me. Smiley I hope Gavin can read it.
Kprawn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1068


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 07:03:37 AM
 #64

Well this is the GREAT thing about BTC If something fails or it's not working, it can be changed. The new changes will only apply to those who FORKS to the new changed protocol.

The others are left behind, holding a ALT coin.  Grin

I see this as a improvement on something that might fail in future. Those who are not happy, can mine the new ALT coin.  Wink
 

THE FIRST DECENTRALIZED & PLAYER-OWNED CASINO
.EARNBET..EARN BITCOIN: DIVIDENDS
FOR-LIFETIME & MUCH MORE.
. BET WITH: BTCETHEOSLTCBCHWAXXRPBNB
.JOIN US: GITLABTWITTERTELEGRAM
LeMiner
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 08:37:15 AM
Last edit: October 17, 2014, 08:57:15 AM by LeMiner
 #65

Great decision, enabling more transactions over the network is one of Bitcoins core necessities as the project grows. Especially removing the stupid 7tps limit imposed right now.

Don't forget that as more transactions would be allowed per block it's very likely that if these changes are implemented right now would mean that all broadcast transactions would be immediately included into the very next mined block, this would in turn also SIGNIFICANTLY lower mining fees since miners will want to include as many as possible transactions per block.

Also, it would be easy to hard fork this since you can technically give nodes time to update, for example the new Bitcoin-QT/bitcoind is rolled out and the block change doesn't go into effect for another 6000 blocks. This way there would be time for everyone to update their clients.

And scaling all this at half of Moore's law looks more fair as well to keep the costs of storage down. This would however be even better if combined with a more compressed version of the blockchain.

Perfect change, here's to hoping they will implement it soon.
Pulley3
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 25
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 09:41:11 AM
 #66

Note that with the "compressed blocks" idea we'd be able to handle 50 txs/sec with the current 1MB limit.

Is that your idea? Have you written an explanation about how it's done, and have others chimed in to verify it's possible? Does Gavin know about that suggestion? Did he comment on it?


Its a pretty great idea for me. Smiley I hope Gavin can read it.
Well this is the GREAT thing about BTC If something fails or it's not working, it can be changed. The new changes will only apply to those who FORKS to the new changed protocol.

The others are left behind, holding a ALT coin.  Grin

I see this as a improvement on something that might fail in future. Those who are not happy, can mine the new ALT coin.  Wink
 
Well this is the GREAT thing about BTC If something fails or it's not working, it can be changed. The new changes will only apply to those who FORKS to the new changed protocol.

The others are left behind, holding a ALT coin.  Grin

I see this as a improvement on something that might fail in future. Those who are not happy, can mine the new ALT coin.  Wink
 

The thing is we really dont know what will happen next.
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1027


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
October 17, 2014, 04:02:17 PM
 #67

...basically the blocks just contain the txids - which can be matched with those in each nodes memory pool (assuming they are present - they may need to "request" txs if they don't already know about them).

I think you're reinventing Matt's fast block relay code.  See:
  https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/08/a-bitcoin-backbone/

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
October 17, 2014, 04:05:46 PM
 #68

I think you're reinventing Matt's fast block relay code.  See:
  https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/08/a-bitcoin-backbone/

I actually had thought it was your invention (sorry Matt) - but yes - I do remember hearing about it before.

The real question is do you think it is feasible to do this before the "hard-fork"?

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1027


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
October 17, 2014, 04:15:33 PM
 #69

The real question is do you think it is feasible to do this before the "hard-fork"?

It is already being done, so yes. Optimizations to how transactions or blocks are communicated between peers don't require any sort of fork.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
October 17, 2014, 04:21:32 PM
 #70

The real question is do you think it is feasible to do this before the "hard-fork"?

It is already being done, so yes. Optimizations to how transactions or blocks are communicated between peers don't require any sort of fork.

That is great news - I am very supportive of where this is going!

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
LeMiner
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 18, 2014, 08:56:46 AM
 #71

The real question is do you think it is feasible to do this before the "hard-fork"?

It is already being done, so yes. Optimizations to how transactions or blocks are communicated between peers don't require any sort of fork.

Hi Gavin,

Is there a time schedule for future updates/upgrades or a list with the high priority items for future updates?

LeMiner
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 18, 2014, 09:25:48 AM
 #72

Can someone post a non technical dummies guide to what the changes will be?

Do the changes mean less miners reward?



Explain it like I'm 5 version:


The size of the "closet" (block) that is "created" (mined) every 10 minutes will be increased so that more "clothes" (transactions) can fit in each "closet" (block).

Of course bigger "closets" (blocks) also need more space to "store" (MB's per block) all those created closets.

This does not necessarily mean that miners will get paid less, but it will be easier for them to include more "clothes" (transactions) into each "closet" (block). Miners will always charge what they want for a transaction, the market will take care of the rest.
=====================================================================

Each block will still reward 25 bitcoins to the miner that generates the block (that continues to lower per halvening as scheduled). The only thing can MIGHT change is how much transaction fee is paid per transaction.
mnmShadyBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 151
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 18, 2014, 09:31:30 PM
 #73

Can someone post a non technical dummies guide to what the changes will be?

Do the changes mean less miners reward?
Any time you send a TX, it must be included in a block that is found by the miners. The TX that you create takes up a certain amount of space in the block based on how many addresses you are sending the money to and how many different people sent you the money you are spending.

As it is now there is a 1 MB limit as to how much space each block can hold. This limits the number of transactions to roughly 7 per second as if more transactions are sent there would not be enough space in each block.

The change being proposed is to gradually increase the maximum block size so that more transactions can fit in each confirmed block

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
PRIMEDICE
The Premier Bitcoin Gambling Experience - PRIMEDICE 3 HAS LAUNCHED @PrimeDice
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1044


View Profile
October 18, 2014, 10:32:40 PM
 #74



The number of tx per second (and the amount of storage required) is limited by two things; block size and block frequency.  We could double tx per second by doubling blocksize or by doubling block frequency.   Or we could do both and quadruple it.  Of course if we doubled block frequency we'd need to halve block rewards to stay on the same money supply curve.

A lot of the motivation for the 1MB limit was a fear that if it weren't limited we'd have people building gigantic blocks just to clog up the system.  If someone with major hashing power started building giant blocks every time he got a block, he  could DoS the system just by making the block chain too large for most people to store. 

A lot of the motivation for the ten-minute intervals was limiting the amount of storage devoted to block headers.
BTCmoons
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 173
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 19, 2014, 02:54:22 AM
 #75



The number of tx per second (and the amount of storage required) is limited by two things; block size and block frequency.  We could double tx per second by doubling blocksize or by doubling block frequency.   Or we could do both and quadruple it.  Of course if we doubled block frequency we'd need to halve block rewards to stay on the same money supply curve.

A lot of the motivation for the 1MB limit was a fear that if it weren't limited we'd have people building gigantic blocks just to clog up the system.  If someone with major hashing power started building giant blocks every time he got a block, he  could DoS the system just by making the block chain too large for most people to store. 

A lot of the motivation for the ten-minute intervals was limiting the amount of storage devoted to block headers.

Increasing block frequency would be beyond a bad idea. It would increase the number of orphaned blocks and reduce the security of the network. It would also do nothing to address the size of the total blockchain.

IMO if you are looking for a shorter block time you should look at the many failed altcoins that have much shorter block times
Jamie_Boulder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
October 19, 2014, 09:54:44 AM
 #76

Has this actually been set in stone or is Gavin just pondering ideas?

Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1027


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
October 19, 2014, 02:39:26 PM
 #77

Has this actually been set in stone or is Gavin just pondering ideas?

I am trying to get consensus. The process will look like:

Get rough consensus. I need to write some code to find out what size blocks the current code can handle, but other than that I think we're close to rough consensus on the approach.

Note: Getting consensus that we actually need to change something NOW will be harder; it will be much easier to get consensus after we hit the 1MB blocksize limit and transaction fees spike up. It would be lovely to avoid that panic/pain.

Implement the change / Write a BIP (these happen at about the same time).

Submit a pull request, after code is reviewed pull it into the reference implementation.

... wait until there is a release containing the change...

... wait until supermajority of miners have upgraded to the new release...

Voila, the possibility of bigger blocks.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
santaClause
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 183
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 19, 2014, 02:50:48 PM
 #78

Note: Getting consensus that we actually need to change something NOW will be harder; it will be much easier to get consensus after we hit the 1MB blocksize limit and transaction fees spike up. It would be lovely to avoid that panic/pain.
Have you run any tests on the testnet (or a scamcoin/altcoin) to get some kind of idea as to just how much TX fees will increase when the 1 MB block size limit has reached? I would have the same question with how TX fees would change after the block size is increased?

I think this would be valuable evidence to provide to help your argument to increase the block size. I think it is more or less agreed upon that the block size limit will eventually be reached as it stands, however I think the disagreement is what effects both not raising the limit and raising the limit will have on the network and on TX fees
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1027


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
October 19, 2014, 02:57:26 PM
 #79

... I think the disagreement is what effects both not raising the limit and raising the limit will have on the network and on TX fees

Is there really any disagreement? Everybody I have talked with believes that transaction fees will rise if Bitcoin is successful and the 1MB limit is kept.

How much we won't know-- that depends on how much demand for transactions moves somewhere else (fiat currency, altcoin, or some off-blockchain solution).

There is a small minority of people who believe that it would be BETTER if transactions moved to fiat currency, an altcoin, or some more-centralized off-blockchain solution. I strongly disagree.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
Patel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005



View Profile WWW
October 19, 2014, 03:00:33 PM
 #80

Bitcoin has been marketed as a payment network with little to no transaction fees, from the start. I think it is a good idea to raise the block size.

With the block size increasing, and the block relay code being merged. Miners will not have to worry about the block size taking too long to propogate and being beaten. So the incentive is there to include as many transactions as possible in that block and collect miners fee even if it is small amount. I think this is good for consumers, because it will keep transaction fees at a minimum.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »  All
  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!