Gavin Andresen Proposes Bitcoin Hard Fork to Address Network Scalability

[Cryddit]

"Only invest what you can afford to lose" applies just as well to any complete technology as it does to something that's still in beta. 

Remember, Bitcoin is the initial implementation of a protocol.  Even if Bitcoin is a mature technology and no longer experimental, you should still invest only what you can afford to lose, because some other implementation of the protocol (yes, an altcoin) may eventually be the one that businesses settle on as being friendlier to their interests. 

[1714815625]

1714815625

[1714815625]

1714815625

[1714815625]

1714815625

[1714815625]

1714815625

[Joe_Bauers]

I would like to hear Satoshi's opinion on this proposal.

[CIYAM]

I would like to hear Satoshi's opinion on this proposal.

I somehow doubt he is going to provide that - there seems to be a few divided opinions about *what is best* for the future but certainly I think nearly all of us can agree that 7tps is not what we want to be saying about Bitcoin in a few years time.

[neurotypical]

Will this cause any disruptions to existing Joe users coins or transactions?

[CIYAM]

Will this cause any disruptions to existing Joe users coins or transactions?

This is only a concern for those running *full nodes* really (which is no *average Joe*) - so Joe is pretty much *fine*.

[QuestionAuthority]

"Only invest what you can afford to lose" applies just as well to any complete technology as it does to something that's still in beta. 

Remember, Bitcoin is the initial implementation of a protocol.  Even if Bitcoin is a mature technology and no longer experimental, you should still invest only what you can afford to lose, because some other implementation of the protocol (yes, an altcoin) may eventually be the one that businesses settle on as being friendlier to their interests. 

I know who you are and I respect your opinion. Do you believe only knowledgable well versed investors are being indoctrinated into Bitcoin? How can we ask even more innocents to buy into a system that they see as a cheap version of a company they trust like Western Union without making it as hardy? Do you believe Hal Finney or Satoshi would have agreed with the rapid spread of Bitcoin without developing solid solutions to issues first? Do you feel this is the solid solution that should be next on the agenda? This has been discussed for a very long time, why is it so important to do it now?

Miners are leaving transactions out of blocks today because the blocks propagate faster (ie, have more odds of being confirmed) if they are <250K.  Odds on losing the block fee exceed the transaction fees available, and the miner leaves the transaction unconfirmed. 

Raising the size of the largest allowed blocks will not change that. 

Do we have an implementation yet of broadcasting only the block header, and then letting the nodes assemble the blocks out of transactions they've already received over the network?  That would reduce miners' disincentives for including transactions, so wouldn't that would be the more immediate means of increasing the number of transactions per block?

I agree that the block size needs to be increased; I'm just saying that increasing the allowed block size won't help if miners still have a financial incentive to limit the actual block size to 250K.

Are you saying this might not even provide the desired effect? A stepped periodic increase is proposed, is that the right way to go?

[tvbcof]

Exchanges are a totally different thing than Bitcoin, and all of the (many) problems I've had in exchange-land have been 100% on the fiat side while the Bitcoin aspect of things has been flawless.

It's not Bitcoin's place to correct hassles with fiat systems, but it is distinctly the place of those steering the Bitcoin solution and network in such a way that such problems will be avoided.
...

I understand and sympathize with your viewpoint. I even agree with it but you and I don't matter. The lead dev works exclusively for big business. TBF is controlled by business and they payed him $200k last year reported in the TBF tax return. Increasing the number of users and selling coin for new money (fiat) is their business model. The profit model is the reason for life to a business. They could care less about libertarian ideals or ending government financial system abuse. They need Bitcoin to grow to make money. This thread is about providing Bitcoin with the ability to grow. The Bitcoin that you and I want is not the one that exists or will exist in the future and we can't change it.

I also don't care much about 'libertarian ideals or ending government financial system abuse'.  I use USD for 99.9% of my economic activity and am reasonably happy with it as it works fine.  For the 0.1% of things it doesn't work well for I appreciate having options.  And again, am willing to pay well for.

The defining characteristic of government backed fiat monetary solutions is that they have the power of the court system behind them.  This is usually more of a blessing than a curse which is why they are most useful to me.  Bitcoin's original design made it useful without support from the court system support which makes it useful in cases where this support is more of a hindrance than a help, and it also made Bitcoin it a compelling backup solution to fiat.

One of the main problems with fiat have to do with financial services industry meddling at the legislative and judiciary level.  There has never been any love lost between me and TBF and the primary reason is that I always sensed that TBF would usher in the same problems to Bitcoin that the various financial services lobbies present for fiat.

The kinds of value proposition that Bitcoin offers to me in it's present (prototype) stage is huge, and there is a vast pool of individuals and their wealth out there who could leverage the solution in it's present form but do not for various reason.  Simply appealing to this market alone argues for a huge net benefit to society and vastly increased valuations over today's numbers.

[BitMos]

there is only one satoshi, and it ain't gavin...  so why should I care 

[bigasic]

Gavin basically took over satoshis spot, so I think a lot of people listen to him (as we should) we shouldn't follow him like blind sheep, but do what we have always done, look at what needs to be done, discuss the pros and cons and then go forward. Its not like Gavin makes all the decisions, hes the core developer lead (I think thats his title). He knows his shit and I would listen to him.

[tvbcof]

There are 7 billion people in the world, and with a 1 MB block size limit, it means everybody on the planet is allowed to use Bitcoin once every 33 years.

That's never going to happen - if Bitcoin transactions stay rationed, then it will die because everybody will switch to a better currency.

A foundation is an integral part of a house.  Just because on rarely sees it and it does not keep the rain off does not mean that it is not 'being used.'  Indeed, it is probably the most important aspect of a house system since everything else would collapse and fail without it.

Just because every individual's Skittles purchase is not transmitted around the world within seconds and becomes part of a permanent record on multiple storage systems would not necessarily mean that Bitcoin, when used as a foundation upon which other systems are built, would not be 'being used.'  Quite the opposite really.

Not only that, but the foundation of a building structure often derives various benefits and protections by the structure itself.  For instance, those living in the structure take pains to make sure that water flows and pests don't threaten the foundation because it would, in turn, threaten the whole house.

As far as I'm concerned a network of various kinds of off-chain solutions based on a solid foundation is not only about the only chance that Bitcoin has for long-term survival, but also by far the best way to achieve a robust and flexible ecosystem which can adapted to a variety of threats and distributes the benefits to the largest number of end-users.

[BittBurger]

A foundation is an integral part of a house.  Just because on rarely sees it and it does not keep the rain off does not mean that it is not 'being used.'  Indeed, it is probably the most important aspect of a house system since everything else would collapse and fail without it. Just because every individual's Skittles purchase is not transmitted around the world within seconds and becomes part of a permanent record on multiple storage systems would not necessarily mean that Bitcoin, when used as a foundation upon which other systems are built, would not be 'being used.'  Quite the opposite really.  Not only that, but the foundation of a building structure often derives various benefits and protections by the structure itself.  For instance, those living in the structure take pains to make sure that water flows and pests don't threaten the foundation because it would, in turn, threaten the whole house. As far as I'm concerned a network of various kinds of off-chain solutions based on a solid foundation is not only about the only chance that Bitcoin has for long-term survival, but also by far the best way to achieve a robust and flexible ecosystem which can adapted to a variety of threats and distributes the benefits to the largest number of end-users.

This is an interesting post.  And it conveys one major side of the argument.  For those who TL;DR .....

"Bitcoin doesn't have to do faster transaction times.  Bitcoin is a foundation which can be built on top of.  And a foundation needs to be stable."

My response:  The general public doesn't know that, and is looking at Bitcoin itself to perform these functions.  Then again, there could be a "Visa" for Bitcoin.  After all ... Visa is not the US Dollar.   Visa is a company providing services on a layer above the US Dollar. And it is Visa that is processing 2,000 transactions per second. So there we have a perfect example.

But does that mean Bitcoin itself shouldn't be enhanced?  That's really the question.  If a service layer appeared which provided 2,000 Bitcoin transactions per second, would there be "too much risk" for them to stay in business, with the sometimes 1 hour wait for 6 confirmations?  In the end, that really is the question.  Can a service layer exist on top of bitcoin that meets this need, and still function effectively with the slow speed of Bitcoin itself?  If the answer is yes, then you're right.  No point in messing with the 'foundation'.  If the answer is that slow Bitcoin speed creates extensive risk for any service layer hoping to to 2,000 transactions "off blockchain" .... then Bitcoin needs to be enhanced.

Andreas A. always comments that this is the first programmable money.  Its able to evolve.  Unlike fiat.  So do we make it like fiat and refuse to evolve it?  Or do we take advantage of its programmable qualities?  Obviously change introduces risk of bugs, hacks, etc.  

As for the public currently "expecting Bitcoin itself to do all this stuff" ... we would need to make sure that the "Visa" analogy above is introduced into the public conversation about Bitcoin.  Assuming its a valid analogy.  The fact that "What Bitcoin can't do, can be done as a service layer on top of it"... is just a public education thing.  

The more adventurous side of me says:  Enhance Bitcoin. Make it fucking awesome(r). I think its silly to assume it'll never change over the next hundred years....

-B-

[tvbcof]

...
Andreas A. always comments that this is the first programmable money.  Its able to evolve.  Unlike fiat.  So do we make it like fiat and refuse to evolve it?  Or do we take advantage of its programmable qualities?  Obviously change introduces risk of bugs, hacks, etc.  

As for the public currently "expecting Bitcoin itself to do all this stuff" ... we would need to make sure that the "Visa" analogy above is introduced into the public conversation about Bitcoin.  Assuming its a valid analogy.  The fact that "What Bitcoin can't do, can be done as a service layer on top of it"... is just a public education thing.  

The more adventurous side of me says:  Enhance Bitcoin. Make it fucking awesome(r). I think its silly to assume it'll never change over the next hundred years....

I've voiced modest (for me) negativity about certain fairly valuable of the developments, but mostly because I am somewhat allergic to complexity.  Ultimately I DO favor developments which can further Bitcon's usefulness in a mediation or backing capacity.  Specifically those which allow providers to pass on the counterparty-free aspects of Bitcoin to their clients and use it in their interactions with one another.  Fortunately there has been some good work in these areas (e.g, p2sh) in addition to the talking paperclip garbage that gets most users and some of our dear friends in the development community all aroused.

The win from successfully attacking Bitcoin is pretty big so there are many skilled people working on the problem and the more features Bitcoin has the less defensible it is.  Mostly being blindsided by some attack mode which was not thought of, and permutations of such attacks grow exponentially with increasing complexity.

To me Bitcoin's biggest strengths are exactly those which bother most people.  The 'batch mode' aspect with highly variable block times, and the tiny messaging size and volumes make it a fiendishly difficult system to mount an enduring attack on (from the infrastructure perspective which is the playing field of state regulators...particularly the U.S. ones.)  Also, it really is a very simple system at the end of the day and this makes it very likely that most realistic attacks would be thwarted quite quickly because the solution would (and could) adapt.  All of these things things could go out the window pretty readily if the solution balloons and/or tries to fill a niche which is at variance with it's native design properties (e.g., near real-time behavior necessary for buying coffee and the like.)

[Balkhole]

Gavin basically took over satoshis spot, so I think a lot of people listen to him (as we should) we shouldn't follow him like blind sheep, but do what we have always done, look at what needs to be done, discuss the pros and cons and then go forward. Its not like Gavin makes all the decisions, hes the core developer lead (I think thats his title). He knows his shit and I would listen to him.

I agree. I think a lot of people have followed satoshi like a religion and this is a liability to Bitcoin. I don't think the same will be true with Gavin.

I think what he is doing is trying to get a conscious of what the community and Bitcoin stakeholders think would be best instead of trying to get the code changed without any input from anyone else

[lunarboy]

So assuming some sort of hard fork will happen here. What timeframe are we looking at?

[solex]

So assuming some sort of hard fork will happen here. What timeframe are we looking at?

Ideally the software version which enables scaling should be available a long time before older versions are incompatible, 6 months or even a year, to ensure as many nodes as possible have upgraded before the changes take effect.

[lunarboy]

So assuming some sort of hard fork will happen here. What timeframe are we looking at?

Ideally the software version which enables scaling should be available a long time before older versions are incompatible, 6 months or even a year, to ensure as many nodes as possible have upgraded before the changes take effect.

So this is still pie in the sky stuff? probably a year off, or something like that?

[solex]

So assuming some sort of hard fork will happen here. What timeframe are we looking at?

Ideally the software version which enables scaling should be available a long time before older versions are incompatible, 6 months or even a year, to ensure as many nodes as possible have upgraded before the changes take effect.

So this is still pie in the sky stuff? probably a year off, or something like that?

Yes, but the pie is falling closer to our faces while time is passing and volumes climb steadily. This could have been done in 2012 with 3 years delay, or 2013 with 2 years delay...

A hard-fork, where nearly everyone has upgraded first, is a big fat non-event, like January 2000 after the Y2K changes.

[slaveforanunnak1]

WWNSD?

What would Nick Szabo do?

[asdf]

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. 

How exactly would this be done? Where are these transactions coming from? Could this "bloating" attack be detected and these blocks rejected?

It would be better to prevent this some other way and remove the limit entirely.

[LeMiner]

The lead dev works exclusively for big business.

Please stop trolling. I think what I think and do what I do because I want the Bitcoin Project to be even more wildly successful.

If I was motivated by greed I would have a much higher salary. And lots of stock options.

The majority of Bitcoin users here want transaction fees less than a penny; I want them to be as low as practical. The only way to get there is to increase the block size.

I'm not trolling that's what I really believe. You are being paid by an organization that has proven its not responsive to the people and it makes really bad decisions.

I don't think your motivated by greed I think your controlled by business.

Increasing the block size allows an increase in the number of transactions. Do you disagree that this favors increased business adoption? Aren't you the one that continuously calls Bitcoin expermental and advises people to only invest what they can afford to lose? How will increasing adoption favor a system in Beta that shouldn't be trusted?

This is absolutely ridiculous, your logic is that making bitcoin more widely available for business in general is a bad thing? Supporting more transactions is a bad thing? A growing community is a bad thing? Having bitcoin successful is a bad thing?

As long as the protocol maintains it's decentralization no external businesses can influence the protocol in any bad way. Read up how all this works and then get back and reply.