Bitcoin Forum
April 06, 2020, 05:59:49 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.1 [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 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 ... 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154258 times)
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
February 13, 2015, 02:18:17 PM
 #1301

Raising the block limit isn't fixing something that's broken.

So it's essentially making an altcoin.

So when the block limit changed from none(or 32MB) to 1MB wasn't the equivalent of making an altcoin, but changing from 1MB to 20MB+ is the equivalent of making an altcoin? How come? I don't understand the difference between pre-1MB and post-1MB block limit. Please explain.

Quote
How does that substiate the claim that Bitcoin won't be able to support building on top of it?
Be specific. If you claim that the current max tps rate is insufficient for X, you must at the very least provide an estimate for the tps required by X, and some relevant points about why X is important to Bitcoin, on one hand, and your reasoning behind the target tps rate for X.

I admit that we(I) don't know how much space in a block will the Sicechains (or any other type of layer) need, but since we agree that regular users (coffee users) will not use the blockchain to purchase coffee then we have to agree that the transactions that will take place on the blockchain will be complex transactions which need more space than a regular transaction. A 15-of-15 P2SH transaction needs 1,481 bytes per script round trip. How do you know that there will not be transactions which will need 10k bytes? Or 100k bytes?

How would you feel when you won't be able to do any transactions with your bitcoins unless you enter a fee auction?

As being a part of a sane market.

What type of "market"? Maybe a financial one because that's not how markets work when it comes to technology. Internet is not working that way. Cell phone service providers aren't working that way. Show me an example because I think we have a different understanding of what Bitcoin really is.

H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
1586195989
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586195989

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586195989
Reply with quote  #2

1586195989
Report to moderator
1586195989
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586195989

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586195989
Reply with quote  #2

1586195989
Report to moderator
1586195989
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586195989

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586195989
Reply with quote  #2

1586195989
Report to moderator
Best ratesfor crypto
EXCHANGE
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1586195989
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586195989

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586195989
Reply with quote  #2

1586195989
Report to moderator
1586195989
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586195989

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586195989
Reply with quote  #2

1586195989
Report to moderator
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
February 13, 2015, 02:34:20 PM
 #1302

I really don't get it. You guys in the pro side help me understand your position.
Because for me the choice is very clear:

1) We don't necessarily abandon the microtrasactions (trying to develop them with sidechains) AND keep the security and decentralization;
OR
2) We embrace the microtransations AND centralize hoping this wouldn't be a security issue.
For now I have no doubt in being anti-fork.

Not trying to derailing the debate or anything, but some prominent members of the community are clearly against
sidechains due to the fact that they would undermine btc sound money functions and/or change miners incentives in
a way that would in turns decrease the network security (if you have time just dig into @cypherdoc's Gold thread
starting from here).

Just to say that even side chains are a quite controversial concept.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 13, 2015, 02:40:52 PM
 #1303

Have we tried increasing the block size limit on a test coin yet?  We should make sure the functions operate as expected under high and bursts of saturation workloads.
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
February 13, 2015, 03:00:34 PM
 #1304

Have we tried increasing the block size limit on a test coin yet?  We should make sure the functions operate as expected under high and bursts of saturation workloads.

Here: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html

H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
AMVM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 13, 2015, 03:10:11 PM
 #1305

Quote

Not trying to derailing the debate or anything, but some prominent members of the community are clearly against
sidechains due to the fact that they would undermine btc sound money functions and/or change miners incentives in
a way that would in turns decrease the network security (if you have time just dig into @cypherdoc's Gold thread
starting from here).

Just to say that even side chains are a quite controversial concept.

Nah man it's fine. I needed this material. Thanks!

Plus this is directly connected to this forking decision at least in my point of view, so no derailing at all.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 13, 2015, 03:11:12 PM
 #1306

Have we tried increasing the block size limit on a test coin yet?  We should make sure the functions operate as expected under high and bursts of saturation workloads.

Here: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html

It is good that you point this out to show that there is some work going on to advance it, but...
You do realize that this test is a different experiment, than say trying it in an altcoin, yes?
This is not in an economic environment but in a lab.

Larger max block size limits in an altcoin wouldn't really be the same test either, as there aren't altcoins with more transactions than Bitcoin.

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
forevernoob
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 13, 2015, 03:18:26 PM
 #1307

Have we tried increasing the block size limit on a test coin yet?  We should make sure the functions operate as expected under high and bursts of saturation workloads.

Here: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html



Quote
After consensus reached: replace MAX_BLOCK_SIZE with a size calculated based on starting at 2^24 bytes (~16.7MB) as of 1 Jan 2015 (block 336,861) and doubling every 6*24*365*2 blocks -- about 40% year-on-year growth. Stopping after 10 doublings.

Forgive me for being stupid but does this mean that the maximum block size will increase automatically? 40% every year and then it will stop after reaching 20MB^10?
I'm not good at math...


DooMAD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1535


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
February 13, 2015, 03:25:33 PM
 #1308

@RoadStress
I'd feel like using something else to move the value.
I'm quite positive I wouldn't feel like "omg the BTC dream has ended".



I really don't get it. You guys in the pro side help me understand your position.
Because for me the choice is very clear:

1) We don't necessarily abandon the microtrasactions (trying to develop them with sidechains) AND keep the security and decentralization;
OR
2) We embrace the microtransations AND centralize hoping this wouldn't be a security issue.


For now I have no doubt in being anti-fork.

The question you have to ask yourself is, will you ever actually get sidechains if you stay on the 1MB chain?  The anti-fork crowd have gone on record as saying they'd like to set up a bunch of nodes running the current version that can be left running and basically forgotten about, so if there are new features people want to see added, you'll be out of luck if the network isn't updated to support that new feature.  

People might be paranoid about the supposed "threat" from the new fork,  but at least that new fork will be prepared to adapt and make changes if the situation calls for it.  It seems like the anti-fork crowd just want to freeze this present moment in time as the pinnacle of Bitcoin's development and leave it like it is now for the remainder of time.  Yet another reason why you're going to get left behind if you stay on the old 1MB limited chain.  If they don't innovate, they won't stay relevant.

sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1003



View Profile
February 13, 2015, 03:26:58 PM
 #1309

There are a lot of choices between the actual fork proposal and do nothing
amincd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 772
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 13, 2015, 03:31:15 PM
 #1310

Forgive me for being stupid but does this mean that the maximum block size will increase automatically? 40% every year and then it will stop after reaching 20MB^10?
I'm not good at math...

It will stop after doubling 10 times, meaning at 16.8 MB * 2^10. The maximum maximum block size will become 16 GB on Jan 1 2035. It won't increase any more after that.
spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 13, 2015, 03:33:11 PM
 #1311

If the blockchain gets ~ 2 000 000 000 GB Bitcoin WILL FAIL.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1001



View Profile
February 13, 2015, 03:33:30 PM
 #1312

Have we tried increasing the block size limit on a test coin yet?  We should make sure the functions operate as expected under high and bursts of saturation workloads.

Here: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html

Why exactly is this thread titled "20 MB fork" when what he is really talking about is :
- 25 MB blocks next year
- 35 MB blocks in two years
- 100 MB blocks in 5 years
- ~500 MB blocks in 10 years

Ask gavin.
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1044


View Profile
February 13, 2015, 04:43:33 PM
 #1313


The question you have to ask yourself is, will you ever actually get sidechains if you stay on the 1MB chain?  The anti-fork crowd have gone on record as saying they'd like to set up a bunch of nodes running the current version that can be left running and basically forgotten about, so if there are new features people want to see added, you'll be out of luck if the network isn't updated to support that new feature.  

No.  You won't get side-chains if you stay on the 1MB block chain, because the 1MB block chain will not move fast enough to support them.  If anyone at all stays with a 1MB block chain after the fork, then either they will have to have another hard fork to reset the difficulty, or they'll have to adapt and cope with a chain that gets a block less often than once per day.  It would be at least a decade and more probably a lifetime before that network recovered to the extent of being able to handle even one transaction per second. 

It will be quite amazing if enough people stick to it for long enough that even one of its coinbases matures and becomes spendable.  That will take at least four months, but is likely not to happen at all unless there are a whole lot of people with a whole lot of hashing power who don't care about making coins on the main branch of the fork.   I am tempted to maintain a pre-fork full node just out of morbid curiosity, but it would be madness to devote resources to mining it.

Cryddit
Buffer Overflow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015



View Profile
February 13, 2015, 05:03:57 PM
 #1314


The question you have to ask yourself is, will you ever actually get sidechains if you stay on the 1MB chain?  The anti-fork crowd have gone on record as saying they'd like to set up a bunch of nodes running the current version that can be left running and basically forgotten about, so if there are new features people want to see added, you'll be out of luck if the network isn't updated to support that new feature.  
No.  You won't get side-chains if you stay on the 1MB block chain, because the 1MB block chain will not move fast enough to support them.

B.. Bu.. But.. But... Anti-fork brigade told me side-chains would solve everything. I feel so lied to. Cheesy

AMVM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 13, 2015, 05:06:00 PM
 #1315


(...) You won't get side-chains if you stay on the 1MB block chain, because the 1MB block chain will not move fast enough to support them. (...)

Can you elaborate? First person I hear making this claim.
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1044


View Profile
February 13, 2015, 05:43:33 PM
 #1316


(...) You won't get side-chains if you stay on the 1MB block chain, because the 1MB block chain will not move fast enough to support them. (...)

Can you elaborate? First person I hear making this claim.

Even after a new version of the software containing a hard fork is deployed, the new protocol does not actually go into effect (the hard fork does not actually happen) until more than 95% of the hashing power is ready to go onto the new protocol.  

That leaves less than 5% of the hashing power on the old protocol, meaning a new block on the old protocol could be found less than once every 3 hours.  Because that's clearly a loss and a failure, at least 90% of the remaining people would abandon it immediately, leaving it getting one block about every 33 hours.  Making it even more a loss and a failure, but assuming that last half-percent of the hashing power can be an irrational lunatic fringe who never ever leave, then with that amount of constant hashing power....  

The transaction rate on the old chain is one transaction per 86 seconds.  

Most transactions never get into a block on the old chain, because the blocks are only 1MByte and only happen once per 33 hours.  

If a transaction does happen to get into a block on the old chain, it will be ten days before it gets to confirmation depth.

A coinbase from finding a block on the old chain would take four and a half months to become spendable.

And 2016 blocks, which is the time between difficulty adjustments, flies by in just seven years and eight months.  The maximum adjustment an unforked bitcoin will allow is for the block speed to quadruple.  Therefore the time to each new difficulty adjustment is a quarter the time needed for the previous one.  Again assuming hashing power stays constant, which it won't:

You spend seven and two-thirds years getting blocks once per 33 hours.      (1 tx per ~86 seconds)
You spend a year and nine-tenths getting blocks once every 8 1/3 hours.        (1 tx per ~21 seconds)
You spend five months and 20 days getting blocks once every 2 1/12 hours.   (1 tx per ~5 seconds)
You spend a month and twelve days getting blocks once every half-hour.         (1 tx per second)

And after that difficulty adjustment works "normally".  It takes ten years to get back to handling 1 tx per second.


zvs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1000


House Nogleg


View Profile WWW
February 13, 2015, 05:44:40 PM
 #1317

I see a fair amount of 900KB+ blocks now, so, yeah, the max needs to increase.  Dunno about how 20MB was chosen, though.  Why not 5MB and fork it again in a couple years?

Your 'average home user' likely hasn't been running a bitcoin node for a year or longer.   I mean, damn, one person downloading blockchain from me = saturated (768kbps).  Not only that, you wouldn't want to be stuck downloading the blockchain from me, because it'd be slow as hell.  It's better for me not to run a node, or at least not listen to incoming connections.

imo, a portion of transaction fees should be distributed to full nodes based on some criteria.  though unsure what that criteria would be to stop people from exploiting it.    but i digress

yes, block size needs to be increased

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1007


Gerald Davis


View Profile
February 13, 2015, 05:55:23 PM
Last edit: February 13, 2015, 06:31:39 PM by DeathAndTaxes
 #1318

Cryddit's scenario also only considers a neutral scenario where the two networks go their separate ways.  Users who have coins prior to the fork have the same coins on both sides of the fork as well.  If one believes that the minority fork will die and thus the coins on that fork have no value they could be used to pay txn fees to buy up all the block space and help that inevitability occur much quicker.

Pre-fork coins however are valid on both networks which would mean making worthless transactions would result in losing coins on both forks due to fees.  One would obviously want to ensure these high fee transactions are valid only on the minority network.  The first thing would be to get a single output which is only valid on one chain.  Either the majority or the minority works so lets just look at the minority network.  The newly mined coins after the fork are only valid that chain.  For example at say block height 400,000 there will be two blocks 400,000a and 400,000b.  The coins from the coinbase reward in 400,000a can't be spent on the b network because they don't exist.  Even a single satoshi of post-fork coins can be used to turn pre-fork coins into post-fork coins.  A transaction which has as its inputs any number of pre-fork inputs plus at least one post fork input will create outputs which are spendable only on one of the forks.

100 BTC of prefork coins + 1 satoshi of post fork minority coinbase coins = 100.00000001 BTC worth of minority only coins.

Since this transaction can't exist on the majority network any txns which occur 'downstream' from it also can't exist on the majority network.  You could now spend this 100 BTC in fees on the minority network and still have the 100 BTC on the majority network.

Cryddit assumes after the fork occurs some miners will abandon it but lets be generous and assume that the full 5% continue to use the original network (if more than 5% do not support the fork it won't happen).  Lets also be generous and assume all build nothing but 1MB blocks (something miners today don't even do).  That would be only 7.2MB per day in block space.  To create paying txns which use up the entire block would only be 0.72 BTC per day in fees.  So just keep creating txns sending coins back to yourself paying a fee and use ensure all blocks are full.  Legitimate users however can pay higher than the minimum fee so it is just a question of how high you want to push the fees.   If you make txns with 10x the normal fee then everyone else will need to pay more than 10x the normal fee to get confirmations and that would only cost 7.2 BTC per day in fees.  

In the "1MB is a great idea" post I pointed out that if txn demand exceeds block capacity by some significant margin it will occur off-chain on centralized systems and those centralized systems will eventually consume all the block space for settlement transactions.  Since they can outpay direct users in txns fees they will squeeze out the direct users.  The high fee txns is a good way to illustrate that at no cost on the minority fork.  I think someone in this thread said Bitcoin would be great even if it cost $5 per transaction.  If the average txn is 500 bytes then $5 per txn would be $10,000 per MB or 288 BTC spent in fees per day.  That might be much for a single user to do but a group of users working together could do it.  No legitimate txn would ever be confirmed no matter how long they waited unless they paid more.

DISCLAIMER: This is more an academic exercise than a practical suggestion.  Despite all the FUD I think when the fork happens the other chain will simply die off.  I would strongly discourage performing this unless you completely understand the concept of transaction validity across parallel forks.  If you think Bitcoin works on addresses and balances you will probably lose your Bitcoins on both forks by creating txns which are valid on both forks.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 13, 2015, 06:14:19 PM
 #1319


(...) You won't get side-chains if you stay on the 1MB block chain, because the 1MB block chain will not move fast enough to support them. (...)

Can you elaborate? First person I hear making this claim.

Even after a new version of the software containing a hard fork is deployed, the new protocol does not actually go into effect (the hard fork does not actually happen) until more than 95% of the hashing power is ready to go onto the new protocol.  

That leaves less than 5% of the hashing power on the old protocol, meaning a new block on the old protocol could be found less than once every 3 hours.  Because that's clearly a loss and a failure, at least 90% of the remaining people would abandon it immediately, leaving it getting one block about every 33 hours.  Making it even more a loss and a failure, but assuming that last half-percent of the hashing power can be an irrational lunatic fringe who never ever leave, then with that amount of constant hashing power....  

The transaction rate on the old chain is one transaction per 86 seconds.  

Most transactions never get into a block on the old chain, because the blocks are only 1MByte and only happen once per 33 hours.  

If a transaction does happen to get into a block on the old chain, it will be ten days before it gets to confirmation depth.

A coinbase from finding a block on the old chain would take four and a half months to become spendable.

And 2016 blocks, which is the time between difficulty adjustments, flies by in just seven years and eight months.  The maximum adjustment an unforked bitcoin will allow is for the block speed to quadruple.  Therefore the time to each new difficulty adjustment is a quarter the time needed for the previous one.  Again assuming hashing power stays constant, which it won't:

You spend seven and two-thirds years getting blocks once per 33 hours.      (1 tx per ~86 seconds)
You spend a year and nine-tenths getting blocks once every 8 1/3 hours.        (1 tx per ~21 seconds)
You spend five months and 20 days getting blocks once every 2 1/12 hours.   (1 tx per ~5 seconds)
You spend a month and twelve days getting blocks once every half-hour.         (1 tx per second)

And after that difficulty adjustment works "normally".  It takes ten years to get back to handling 1 tx per second.

If you assume your conclusion, why bother with the proof?

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
wilth1
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 13, 2015, 07:31:40 PM
 #1320

VISA and religion aside, difficulty optimizes mining for an ideal market condition. What desirable mining environment should block markets maximize?

A)Potential for inclusion of any and all transactions always
B)Immediate space for 40x current volume with a blind increase and another eventual hard limit
C)Inclusion of most non-spam* transactions most of the time, based on necessity
D)A scarcity magnifying limit that caps transaction volume and velocity starting soon

Most users don't want D. Non-generating nodes don't want A or probably B. Generating nodes want the most profitable [valuable] thing possible. Adversaries want A or D

*Most would agree that creating volume to intentionally fill blocks and slow the network qualifies as "spam"
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 ... 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!