So they want to hardfork Bitcoin

[zetaray]

DDes are increasing the block size upper limit, not the minimum size. Pools can continue mining 200k blocks as they do now. IMO, it is not a major concern.

[r0ach]

By the way That Mircea Popescu dude is a schizo clown.

More like egomaniac.  He's using this issue to try and draw attention to himself.  The block limits were put there to prevent spam as a short term bandaid.  There's obviously a problem with making block sizes too large, but it would also require an enormous Bitcoin economy to make it a problem, or...lots of people spamming the chain with gambling site nonsense.  As long as you can prevent spam, increasing the upper limit isn't that big of a deal.

I guess it comes down to an issue of, would you rather have fractional reserve bitcoin where everything is off-chain, or non-fractional reserve where everything is on-chain with more bloat.  Some people might ask, if you're doing everything off-chain, then how is it beneficial over the systems we already have?  There's clearly some point there since the Keynesians could still be running wild in an off-chain system.

[SirChiko]

Hardfork to make it bloat more! Centralization, you unable to store the complete blockchain. 20MB blocks. Hardfork without consensus on it. Risk a split of the network. What's going to happen next?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919629.0

trollogic:

WAH! bitcoin is fail because block size too small!

..time passes, block size increases...

WAH! bitcoin is fail because block size too big!

Well you can still use light wallets that don't store whole blockchain.

[knight22]

By the way That Mircea Popescu dude is a schizo clown.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=271711.0

 

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

By the way That Mircea Popescu dude is a schizo clown.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=271711.0

 

Ah, I see pirateat40 in there.


Bitcoin: getting the worst scumbags on the planet together since 2010.

[Amph]

Hardfork to make it bloat more! Centralization, you unable to store the complete blockchain. 20MB blocks. Hardfork without consensus on it. Risk a split of the network. What's going to happen next?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919629.0

calm down it's for testing only, and only the longest blockchain count, this is why a strong miner support is good , otherwise anyone can just run his own chain and fork bitcoin

[btcney]

Bullish news for Litecoin 

[BitCoinNutJob]

That's stupid idea, it's almost impossible to do an hard fork that will make 51%+ move to it.

Just put a post on reddit and gets your mates to thumbs it up, pretty easy

[ElectricMucus]

Bullish news for Litecoin 

Litecoin suffers from the same principle, the increased block rate makes it an issue somewhat later but it doesn't address the root of the problem.

[Eastwind]

That's stupid idea, it's almost impossible to do an hard fork that will make 51%+ move to it.

If you give a notice of a year, then it is possible.

[oda.krell]

Doesn't surprise me, as based on historical transaction sizes Bitcoin can't even handle 5 transactions/sec.

The dumb part about it, after over a year of time from where the issue became apparent, this is the laziest and most unimaginative solution possible. If there is a hardfork anyway there could be done something smarter about it, like that variable block size proposal, or perhaps addressing the cause.
Every node storing every transaction forever is incredibly wasteful. Partial storage with parity would be one approach, colluding smaller transactions into larger one would be another, different kind of nodes or even changing the way the Blockchain stores transactions are all directions to research.

But that would require the will to innovate from the Bitcoin development team, not changing a few hardcoded values.

As usual, EM is both right and sort of nasty about it at the same time

[sgbett]

Doesn't surprise me, as based on historical transaction sizes Bitcoin can't even handle 5 transactions/sec.

The dumb part about it, after over a year of time from where the issue became apparent, this is the laziest and most unimaginative solution possible. If there is a hardfork anyway there could be done something smarter about it, like that variable block size proposal, or perhaps addressing the cause.
Every node storing every transaction forever is incredibly wasteful. Partial storage with parity would be one approach, colluding smaller transactions into larger one would be another, different kind of nodes or even changing the way the Blockchain stores transactions are all directions to research.

But that would require the will to innovate from the Bitcoin development team, not changing a few hardcoded values.

As usual, EM is both right and sort of nasty about it at the same time

Playing devils advocate its a less complex change, easier to test, and more YAGNI.

Having said that I agree with EM. Necessity is the mother of invention though, and right now bloat is a red herring imho, disks are big enough space isn't an issue (for some time yet). A quick change to buy more time whilst the more creative solutions are worked through doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

Think about fossil fuel, government debt & QE, meat farming. All totally unsustainable, all just carry on.

Its human nature to kick the can down the road. Why would BTC be any different, especially when thats how everything has always worked since forever. Forecasting that bigger blocks=> unsustainable bloat => 'the end of BTC' is the same mindset the peak oil folks, the stackers and the doomsday preppers.

I'm not saying any of these people are wrong, I'm saying that pragmatism generally wins out.

20MB blocks maxed out is roughly a terabyte a year. 3TB drives are already down to $100. 6TB is top end 8-10TB are already in the pipeline. its going to be several years at least before blockchain size outstrips storage capacities. So lets put this 'bloat' myth to bed.

[BCwinning]

Doesn't surprise me, as based on historical transaction sizes Bitcoin can't even handle 5 transactions/sec.

The dumb part about it, after over a year of time from where the issue became apparent, this is the laziest and most unimaginative solution possible. If there is a hardfork anyway there could be done something smarter about it, like that variable block size proposal, or perhaps addressing the cause.
Every node storing every transaction forever is incredibly wasteful. Partial storage with parity would be one approach, colluding smaller transactions into larger one would be another, different kind of nodes or even changing the way the Blockchain stores transactions are all directions to research.

But that would require the will to innovate from the Bitcoin development team, not changing a few hardcoded values.

As usual, EM is both right and sort of nasty about it at the same time

20MB blocks maxed out is roughly a terabyte a year. 3TB drives are already down to $100. 6TB is top end 8-10TB are already in the pipeline. its going to be several years at least before blockchain size outstrips storage capacities. So lets put this 'bloat' myth to bed.

who the hell wants to dedicate an entire hard drive to a blockchain? Oh wait who is rational in the digital currency world.

[fat buddah]

more mindfuck and buttrape, that's all.

But since we are heading to 50cents-prices we shouldn't care that much about it. Let Gavin play in his sandbox.

[matt4054]

who the hell wants to dedicate an entire hard drive to a blockchain? Oh wait who is rational in the digital currency world.

Let's be rational indeed.

If Average Joe ever uses a bitcoin wallet, it will be SPV at best, possibly just a client connected to his bank, using some yet-to-be defined upper layers on top of it (or something Ripple-ish) to make the UX smooth and 'secure'.

The point being, Average Joe won't store the blockchain at all. Other big players upstream (something Google-ish) will provide the service and find a way to monetize them.

Sources: my own experience of the internet evolving from 1994 to 2015

[BCwinning]

who the hell wants to dedicate an entire hard drive to a blockchain? Oh wait who is rational in the digital currency world.

Let's be rational indeed.

If Average Joe ever uses a bitcoin wallet, it will be SPV at best, possibly just a client connected to his bank, using some yet-to-be defined upper layers on top of it (or something Ripple-ish) to make the UX smooth and 'secure'.

The point being, Average Joe won't store the blockchain at all. Other big players upstream (something Google-ish) will provide the service and find a way to monetize them.

Sources: my own experience of the internet evolving from 1994 to 2015

So are we trying to centralize bitcoin than to just a few big players? or is this supposed to be
a currency away from the major banks. Because the big players who run a 6tb blockchain will be the new banks.
as an avg joe. I don't trust any of the wallets yet. I prefer core/wallet currently and 30gb block chain is stupid now.
Great we both have the same experience big woop
except I cut my teeth on a trs-80 so I guess I could count the 80's too

[sgbett]

who the hell wants to dedicate an entire hard drive to a blockchain? Oh wait who is rational in the digital currency world.

Let's be rational indeed.

If Average Joe ever uses a bitcoin wallet, it will be SPV at best, possibly just a client connected to his bank, using some yet-to-be defined upper layers on top of it (or something Ripple-ish) to make the UX smooth and 'secure'.

The point being, Average Joe won't store the blockchain at all. Other big players upstream (something Google-ish) will provide the service and find a way to monetize them.

Sources: my own experience of the internet evolving from 1994 to 2015

So are we trying to centralize bitcoin than to just a few big players? or is this supposed to be
a currency away from the major banks. Because the big players who run a 6tb blockchain will be the new banks.
as an avg joe. I don't trust any of the wallets yet. I prefer core/wallet currently and 30gb block chain is stupid now.
Great we both have the same experience big woop
except I cut my teeth on a trs-80 so I guess I could count the 80's too

Who's "we"?

You want to run a node? go right ahead. As I said, for the foreseeable future - even with a bigger block size - it only takes commodity hardware.

Mundane truth vs hyperbolic speculation. On BTC the latter seems to count more than the former :/

[BCwinning]

who the hell wants to dedicate an entire hard drive to a blockchain? Oh wait who is rational in the digital currency world.

Let's be rational indeed.

If Average Joe ever uses a bitcoin wallet, it will be SPV at best, possibly just a client connected to his bank, using some yet-to-be defined upper layers on top of it (or something Ripple-ish) to make the UX smooth and 'secure'.

The point being, Average Joe won't store the blockchain at all. Other big players upstream (something Google-ish) will provide the service and find a way to monetize them.

Sources: my own experience of the internet evolving from 1994 to 2015

So are we trying to centralize bitcoin than to just a few big players? or is this supposed to be
a currency away from the major banks. Because the big players who run a 6tb blockchain will be the new banks.
as an avg joe. I don't trust any of the wallets yet. I prefer core/wallet currently and 30gb block chain is stupid now.
Great we both have the same experience big woop
except I cut my teeth on a trs-80 so I guess I could count the 80's too

Who's "we"?

You want to run a node? go right ahead. As I said, for the foreseeable future - even with a bigger block size - it only takes commodity hardware.

Mundane truth vs hyperbolic speculation. On BTC the latter seems to count more than the former :/

we=community "face palm" ppl act all fucking smart on here than play stupid with their responses.

[matt4054]

So are we trying to centralize bitcoin than to just a few big players? or is this supposed to be
a currency away from the major banks. Because the big players who run a 6tb blockchain will be the new banks.
as an avg joe. I don't trust any of the wallets yet. I prefer core/wallet currently and 30gb block chain is stupid now.
Great we both have the same experience big woop
except I cut my teeth on a trs-80 so I guess I could count the 80's too

I know what you mean, but I had to learn the hard way to dissociate between my ideals and reality.

The internet was supposed to be peer-to-peer, and for a long time, I was putting the blame on NAT, providers, IPv4 address space depletion, failure to embrace IPv6 correctly etc. That was before I realized that Average Joe didn't care all that much about the peer-to-peer internet. Same goes for net neutrality.

I'm still using my own mail server on my own domain name, and for many years I was maintaining a dedicated network infrastructure for the company I was working for. Then came the cloud computing era, and it became increasingly difficult to justify maintaining our own mail servers, the even the web servers were virtualized into some cloud services, etc. Eventually, as a sysadmin, I was fired because I wasn't useful anymore, all the services that I did provide internally were redundant with Google, Amazon, Rackspace etc.

So be it, I've learnt it the hard way. You can have a dream, ideals, and tons of reason to believe in it, but the reality check is coming sooner and later to sweep it right in front of your eyes. Better learn to adapt and foresee, that was my lesson.

[sgbett]

who the hell wants to dedicate an entire hard drive to a blockchain? Oh wait who is rational in the digital currency world.

Let's be rational indeed.

If Average Joe ever uses a bitcoin wallet, it will be SPV at best, possibly just a client connected to his bank, using some yet-to-be defined upper layers on top of it (or something Ripple-ish) to make the UX smooth and 'secure'.

The point being, Average Joe won't store the blockchain at all. Other big players upstream (something Google-ish) will provide the service and find a way to monetize them.

Sources: my own experience of the internet evolving from 1994 to 2015

So are we trying to centralize bitcoin than to just a few big players? or is this supposed to be
a currency away from the major banks. Because the big players who run a 6tb blockchain will be the new banks.
as an avg joe. I don't trust any of the wallets yet. I prefer core/wallet currently and 30gb block chain is stupid now.
Great we both have the same experience big woop
except I cut my teeth on a trs-80 so I guess I could count the 80's too

Who's "we"?

You want to run a node? go right ahead. As I said, for the foreseeable future - even with a bigger block size - it only takes commodity hardware.

Mundane truth vs hyperbolic speculation. On BTC the latter seems to count more than the former :/

we=community "face palm" ppl act all fucking smart on here than play stupid with their responses.

What would be stupid is to think that what *you* think is entirely representative of what everyone else thinks.

I run a node. It costs me virtually nothing. Adding more storage isn't going to change that materially.

I'm not being smart. I don't need to be smart, this is *really simple*.