Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2020, 09:57:31 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.
pro
anti
agnostic
DGAF

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 ... 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154258 times)
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1044


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 09:33:26 PM
 #1021

Look, I'm ready to vote with my feet. 

Where can I download the source (or patch, or signed executable) for a bitcoind / bitcoin-qt / bitcoin-cli that has the 20MB block limit + annual growth?  I will start running it, immediately.

After all, it's not going to reject any blocks that current versions accept.  When a larger block comes along, I don't want to be one of the nodes that rejects it.

1585389451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585389451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585389451
Reply with quote  #2

1585389451
Report to moderator
1585389451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585389451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585389451
Reply with quote  #2

1585389451
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1585389451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585389451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585389451
Reply with quote  #2

1585389451
Report to moderator
1585389451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585389451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585389451
Reply with quote  #2

1585389451
Report to moderator
amincd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 772
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 12:09:33 AM
Last edit: February 10, 2015, 12:49:17 AM by amincd
 #1022

Yes, we have effective spam/bloat countermeasures.  That's why at present most blocks aren't full.

And Bitcoin certainly sees sudden spurts in adoption.  Thus my concern with the ultimate form of bloat: widespread actual usage.   Shocked

We need to understand how the system reacts to heavy actual usage.

Will anything break, or rather, what will degrade/break first?  How will the markets react?  What can be optimized and/or substituted given proper incentives such as the removal of free riders and their subsidized blockchain space?

It's nice we agree on a geometric increase, but wouldn't it be great to have actual data on which to better determine the optimum initial increase and eventual rate of increase?

Before changing the max_blocksize constant, we should know what happens to the BTC function at (and over) the 100% limit of the tx/block variable.

We do have some data on what happens when blocks hit a limit, as they've hit a soft limit at 250 KB before. It wasn't an extended experiment, but it did give us an idea what happens at the outset. What happened is that people had to wait a few blocks to get a confirmation, which was inconveniencing people.

Doing a longer experiment on block subsidy would provide with even more data, and create incentives to come up with off-chain solutions. However, I don't think it's wise to run such an experiment, because it comes with some pretty big risks. Here's why I don't think now is the time for a block subsidy experiment:

1. it could turn a lot of people away from Bitcoin as they have difficulty getting txs to confirm.

2. off-chain solutions might not get invented. We actually don't know if there are adequate off-chain solutions for scalability. We hope there are, but it's possible they are all inadequate. If that's the case, then during the entire block scarcity experiment, users would be left without a way to transact in bitcoin

3. due to 1 and 2, it could hurt Bitcoin's momentum. Deploying a technology and achieving mass adoption is about maintaining momentum. Eventually a technology will fade from the public consciousness, so it's important the opportunity to achieve mass adoption is seized. Further, governments are creating new legislation all the time put Bitcoin under greater restrictions. Mass adoption is the best defense against new legislation, as we saw with the internet.

4. we have plenty of opportunities to conduct scarcity experiments when we actually need to limit block sizes. There will come a time when Bitcoin blocks simply cannot get larger without harming decentralization. At that point, blocks will have to be artificially limited in size, and then we will get all of that experimental data you want on how a system behaves under scarcity.

In conclusion: at 1 MB, 4 MB, or 5 MB, is absolutely not the right time to conduct a block subsidy experiment. Additionally, we don't need a hard limit to run a scarcity experiment. A hard limit is a crude and dangerous way to limit block space, because if we find the experiment is harmful, a hard limit is difficult to quickly remove. Experiments with block scarcity should be done with soft limits, not with unchangeable protocol rules.
forevernoob
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 12:52:14 AM
 #1023

Lets implement a maximum block size that can adjust to what is needed rather than just guessing at what might be needed?  Lets build a protocol for the next 100 years, not the next 100 weeks?  I think we can do better, and we currently have the time to do so. 

Yes, I agree with this. This seems a bit rushed. And why 20MB? Seems like an odd number. Anyone willing to explain?


amincd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 772
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 02:45:58 AM
 #1024

^ Gavin is actually proposing increasing the limit to ~16.8 MB, and then having it increase by 1.4X every year, for 20 years.

He picked this number after running experiments to see how a full node would function with 20 MB blocks, and seeing that it could easily handle it.
mayax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1004


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 02:47:34 AM
 #1025

^ Gavin is actually proposing increasing the limit to ~16.8 MB, and then having it increase by 1.4X every year, for 20 years.

He picked this number after running experiments to see how a full node would function with 20 MB blocks, and seeing that it could easily handle it.

good. create Bitcoin 2. it will be fun Smiley
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 04:31:12 AM
 #1026

Lets implement a maximum block size that can adjust to what is needed rather than just guessing at what might be needed?  Lets build a protocol for the next 100 years, not the next 100 weeks?  I think we can do better, and we currently have the time to do so. 

The frustration with arguing with many of you is that you come at this issue as though it were an economic problem.  It's not an economic problem.  Economically, the block size should not be artificially limited.

What it is, instead, is a technical problem, or a political problem, or an existential problem.  The problem is not whether miners will continue to get paid.  That hasn't been a problem for years.  Mining is so ridiculously huge at this point that any "security" achieved by marginal increase in hashing power pales in comparison to other, much larger, existential threats to Bitcoin.  And those *do* exist.  What Bitcoin is attempting will not be a cakewalk.

Gavin has done a good job of laying out the technical limitations, which, frankly, are few.  He says the technical limit is somewhere beyond 16.7GB.  I have no reason to dispute this.  And I have seen no one actually attempt to dispute it.  If you think 20MB blocks are too large, you probably have sub-standard internet service.  I'm right there with you.  Most people probably have sub-standard internet service.

Which brings us to the real issue.  No one has done a decent job of laying out the political problems, and the existential threats posed by a block size increase.  A lot of people have made various insinuations that there is a plot against Bitcoin, which, if you read my posts, I would even tend to agree with.  Yet there is little concrete discussion of what that threat even is.  The threat is usage?  The threat is growth?  The threat is voluntary centralization?

*One* person has suggested that 2MB blocks are acceptably large.  Come on, be realistic.  2MB or 1MB, really just doesn't matter at all.  Such a limit is simply laughable.  What an idiotic hill to choose to die on.  Anyone who insists on such a limit would be part of the real "plot" against Bitcoin, as far as I'm concerned.  For all of your crying about "decentralization," to insist on crippling Bitcoin at a rate that is only useful for gigantic financial institutions is just embarrassing.  At that point, if that's the best you all can come up with, then it will be time to move on to plan B, because this iteration of Bitcoin will have failed.

This is just not a serious discussion, at all.  There are a dozen different possible outcomes, here.  There are a dozen different ways that Bitcoin can evolve in the future.  So far we have explored three, maybe four of them.  Please try to think a little outside the box.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1002

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 04:38:23 AM
 #1027

Don't forget, there are altcoins with 1MB blocks every minute. They don't seem to be complaining about bandwidth problems.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
sed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 06:42:34 AM
 #1028

I'm following this topic closely nevertheless.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 07:05:05 AM
 #1029

Lets implement a maximum block size that can adjust to what is needed rather than just guessing at what might be needed?  Lets build a protocol for the next 100 years, not the next 100 weeks?  I think we can do better, and we currently have the time to do so. 

The frustration with arguing with many of you is that you come at this issue as though it were an economic problem.  It's not an economic problem.  Economically, the block size should not be artificially limited.
...

Neither Gavin nor you nor any of the hard-fork crowd seem anxious to answer this.

"We are targeting the top {n}% of world population by gross income being able to perform {n} native Bitcoin transactions per year and pay {x}% of their transaction values to miners as fees.  Here is our roadmap."

It seems unrealistic to complain about a lack of decent analysis without such a basic goal being stated.


theskillzdatklls
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 972
Merit: 525


MintDice.com | TG: t.me/MintDice


View Profile WWW
February 10, 2015, 08:19:05 AM
 #1030

who is the #1 most credible poster or human in favor of keeping 1mb?




.




  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▄████████▀▀▀▀███▄
███████▀     ████
███████   ███████
█████        ████
███████   ███████
▀██████   ██████▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀

  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄
██    ▄▄▄▄▄ ▀  ██
██   █▀   ▀█   ██
██   █▄   ▄█   ██
██    ▀▀▀▀▀    ██
▀██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

            ▄▄▄
█▄▄      ████████▄
 █████▄▄████████▌
▀██████████████▌
  █████████████
  ▀██████████▀
   ▄▄██████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀

    ██  ██
  ███████████▄
    ██      ▀█
    ██▄▄▄▄▄▄█▀
    ██▀▀▀▀▀▀█▄
    ██      ▄█
  ███████████▀
    ██  ██




               ▄
       ▄  ▄█▄ ▀█▀      ▄
      ▀█▀  ▀   ▄  ▄█▄ ▀█▀
███▄▄▄        ▀█▀  ▀     ▄▄▄███       ▐█▄    ▄█▌   ▐█▌   █▄    ▐█▌   ████████   █████▄     ██    ▄█████▄▄   ▐█████▌
████████▄▄           ▄▄████████       ▐███▄▄███▌   ▐█▌   ███▄  ▐█▌      ██      █▌  ▀██    ██   ▄██▀   ▀▀   ▐█
███████████▄       ▄███████████       ▐█▌▀██▀▐█▌   ▐█▌   ██▀██▄▐█▌      ██      █▌   ▐█▌   ██   ██          ▐█████▌
 ████████████     ████████████        ▐█▌    ▐█▌   ▐█▌   ██  ▀███▌      ██      █▌  ▄██    ██   ▀██▄   ▄▄   ▐█
  ████████████   ████████████         ▐█▌    ▐█▌   ▐█▌   ██    ▀█▌      ██      █████▀     ██    ▀█████▀▀   ▐█████▌
   ▀███████████ ███████████▀
     ▀███████████████████▀
        ▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀
FIND OUT MORE AT MINTDICE.COM
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1002

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 09:55:05 AM
 #1031

Lets implement a maximum block size that can adjust to what is needed rather than just guessing at what might be needed?  Lets build a protocol for the next 100 years, not the next 100 weeks?  I think we can do better, and we currently have the time to do so. 

The frustration with arguing with many of you is that you come at this issue as though it were an economic problem.  It's not an economic problem.  Economically, the block size should not be artificially limited.
...

Neither Gavin nor you nor any of the hard-fork crowd seem anxious to answer this.

"We are targeting the top {n}% of world population by gross income being able to perform {n} native Bitcoin transactions per year and pay {x}% of their transaction values to miners as fees.  Here is our roadmap."

It seems unrealistic to complain about a lack of decent analysis without such a basic goal being stated.

It's interesting you use "roadmap" as your analogy. You are thinking in two dimensions. Bitcoin isn't about money management. Bitcoin will open transit systems (to extend your analogy) never thought possible. Bitcoin doesn't need to replace coinage because I imagine material scientists will design very difficult to counterfeit physical bills and tokens. Bitcoin doesn't need to replace lending or credit, because trust is how people help each other. Instead it will create trustless contracts between normally unreliable and even hostile producers and consumers. It will be a tool for economic expansion, not bean counting. So to answer your fast-food managerial level question about who gets paid: it isn't how big the block reward or fees are, it's how much you save and allow to deflate that will pay the biggest dividends.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1001



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 10:16:34 AM
 #1032

Wow 56 pages and 500ish votes laters..
Still no clear view about the issue.

Good.. i'm sure bitcoin's anti-fragility will empower US even more. Cool


PS: but try to keep it civilized and healthy debate folks Smiley
Feri22
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 748
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 10:20:29 AM
 #1033

Guys i am trying to understand the whole thing, but please ELI5 how will be my coins, stored in paper wallets affected??? I will have to sell them and buy new coins on the new fork or i will be able to use my coins on both blockchains....? I don't get it  Huh If this is the case, that we will have to sell our coins and buy new ones, i don't want that....
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1002

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 10:23:00 AM
 #1034

Wow 56 pages and 500ish votes laters..
Still no clear view about the issue.

Good.. i'm sure bitcoin's anti-fragility will empower US even more. Cool


PS: but try to keep it civilized and healthy debate folks Smiley

This is a designated troll thread. The original debate thread was over and closed.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1002

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 10:26:02 AM
 #1035

Guys i am trying to understand the whole thing, but please ELI5 how will be my coins, stored in paper wallets affected??? I will have to sell them and buy new coins on the new fork or i will be able to use my coins on both blockchains....? I don't get it  Huh If this is the case, that we will have to sell our coins and buy new ones, i don't want that....
Bitcoin will always remain backwards compatible to cold storage. This change will only affect miners and nodes.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 10, 2015, 11:07:58 AM
 #1036

Lets implement a maximum block size that can adjust to what is needed rather than just guessing at what might be needed?  Lets build a protocol for the next 100 years, not the next 100 weeks?  I think we can do better, and we currently have the time to do so. 

The frustration with arguing with many of you is that you come at this issue as though it were an economic problem.  It's not an economic problem.  Economically, the block size should not be artificially limited.

We agree on this, or were you just strawmanning? Wink


What it is, instead, is a technical problem, or a political problem, or an existential problem.  The problem is not whether miners will continue to get paid.  That hasn't been a problem for years.  Mining is so ridiculously huge at this point that any "security" achieved by marginal increase in hashing power pales in comparison to other, much larger, existential threats to Bitcoin.  And those *do* exist.  What Bitcoin is attempting will not be a cakewalk.

Gavin has done a good job of laying out the technical limitations, which, frankly, are few.  He says the technical limit is somewhere beyond 16.7GB.  I have no reason to dispute this.  And I have seen no one actually attempt to dispute it.  If you think 20MB blocks are too large, you probably have sub-standard internet service.  I'm right there with you.  Most people probably have sub-standard internet service.

Which brings us to the real issue.  No one has done a decent job of laying out the political problems, and the existential threats posed by a block size increase.  A lot of people have made various insinuations that there is a plot against Bitcoin, which, if you read my posts, I would even tend to agree with.  Yet there is little concrete discussion of what that threat even is.  The threat is usage?  The threat is growth?  The threat is voluntary centralization?

*One* person has suggested that 2MB blocks are acceptably large.  Come on, be realistic.  2MB or 1MB, really just doesn't matter at all.  Such a limit is simply laughable.  What an idiotic hill to choose to die on.  Anyone who insists on such a limit would be part of the real "plot" against Bitcoin, as far as I'm concerned.  For all of your crying about "decentralization," to insist on crippling Bitcoin at a rate that is only useful for gigantic financial institutions is just embarrassing.  At that point, if that's the best you all can come up with, then it will be time to move on to plan B, because this iteration of Bitcoin will have failed.

This is just not a serious discussion, at all.  There are a dozen different possible outcomes, here.  There are a dozen different ways that Bitcoin can evolve in the future.  So far we have explored three, maybe four of them.  Please try to think a little outside the box.

Gavin has made a good start but it is only a beginning.  He's run some software testing and made some proposals.
He also looked up the historic data network growth rates in North America and decided that that pattern is good enough to base the protocol upon.  Nielson's law.   That is where we diverge.

Gavin would argue that since it is an upper boundary, it can only be "too low" and never "too high".  Where his reasoning fails is that there is a cost to the transaction data set and this cost is borne out by the number of times it must be replicated across the network.

There are pernicious effects of permitting too large blocks to be confirmed.  Increased orphaning, bandwidth attacks on smaller nodes, excessive spamming would be a few of these.

We agree that his proposal is 'the simplest that could possibly work'.  However, it is not so much to ask for better than 'could possibly'?  We'll end up settling for 'the best we can do by the time we need to do something', and a number of folks would agree that his proposal isn't the best we can do.  It is merely an expedient one.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1041


#Free market


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 11:12:23 AM
 #1037

So at the end what are the real problems with the hard-fork ?

- Bandwidth
- Download/upload (of all the users)
- The reward fee for the  Pools (miners).
..
...
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 11:48:58 AM
 #1038

^ Gavin is actually proposing increasing the limit to ~16.8 MB, and then having it increase by 1.4X every year, for 20 years.

He picked this number after running experiments to see how a full node would function with 20 MB blocks, and seeing that it could easily handle it.

I think increasing the limit to 20MB is ok .... but will refuse to support a hardfork that includes an algo that automatically increases the limit every 1.4 years... It is one thing to test up to 200MB and another thing to assume that is the future we want when we could easily have other solutions along the way.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1001



View Profile
February 10, 2015, 01:38:02 PM
 #1039

Good paper..

The Economics of Bitcoin Transaction Fees: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519

Quote
We study the economics of Bitcoin transaction fees in a simple static partial
equilibrium model with the specificity that the system security is directly linked to
the total computational power of miners. We show that any situation with a fixed
fee is equivalent to another situation with a limited block size. In both cases, we
give the optimal value of the transaction fee or of the block size. We also show that
making the block size a non binding constraint and, in the same time, letting the fee
be fixed as the outcome of a decentralized competitive market cannot guarantee the
very existence of Bitcoin in the long-term...
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1002

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 01:59:09 PM
 #1040

Good paper..

The Economics of Bitcoin Transaction Fees: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519

Quote
We study the economics of Bitcoin transaction fees in a simple static partial
equilibrium model with the specificity that the system security is directly linked to
the total computational power of miners. We show that any situation with a fixed
fee is equivalent to another situation with a limited block size. In both cases, we
give the optimal value of the transaction fee or of the block size. We also show that
making the block size a non binding constraint and, in the same time, letting the fee
be fixed as the outcome of a decentralized competitive market cannot guarantee the
very existence of Bitcoin in the long-term...
A myopic dissertation of double-entry accounting era thinking. He's criticizing a startup company, not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is about breaking paradigms in economics. At least he admits using simple statistics, but his conclusion has been debunked. Then I noticed this paper was written a year ago when the FUD machine was on overdrive.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 ... 131 »
  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!