Bitcoin Forum
April 04, 2020, 01:00:50 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 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154258 times)
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1044


View Profile
February 17, 2015, 10:07:35 PM
 #1641

Visa seems to get along fine with a peak tx volume that's about 12 times their average tx volume.

STOP COMPARING BITCOIN TO VISA! THEY ARE NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE SAME THING.

You use Visa. Bitcoin uses you.


Seriously.  Quoting yourself, quoting Mircea Popescu?  That's supposed to convince me of anything?  

Why am I even bothering to answer?  

Okay.  Visa and Bitcoin, ideally, are both used by people anywhere to pay people anywhere.  As such, they have to deal with many of the same engineering problems.  

The specific problem under discussion - transaction capacity vs. transaction load - is one of the ones they have in common.

I look at real information from Visa because they have a working system.  If you want us to look at real information from some different working system, present the information; it will be useful.  If you don't want us to look at real information, get the fuck out.  We NEED to be looking at real information.  

If somebody in Mali wants to buy Alpaca socks from somebody in Chile, and can't because there's no data-set that Chilean merchant can use to verify the validity of his Malian unspent txouts, that is what we call a failure of the system.  Maybe you don't like the existence of this large data-set.  That's okay; it works whether you like it or not.   Anything that would be as effective at avoiding failures will also work whether you, or anyone else, likes it or not.  In fact working whether anyone likes it or not is ESSENTIAL to avoiding failures.  

Make a proposal that there is less reason to dislike, or reason for fewer people to dislike, but which will still work whether or not anyone likes it, and it may be valuable.  But if you don't have a better idea, then please shut up.







AWARD-WINNING
CRYPTO CASINO
ASKGAMBLERS
PLAYERS CHOICE 2019
PROUD
PARTNER OF
1500+
GAMES
2 MIN
CASH-OUTS
24/7
SUPPORT
100s OF
FREE SPINS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1586005250
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586005250

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586005250
Reply with quote  #2

1586005250
Report to moderator
1586005250
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586005250

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586005250
Reply with quote  #2

1586005250
Report to moderator
1586005250
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586005250

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586005250
Reply with quote  #2

1586005250
Report to moderator
danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 10:17:36 PM
 #1642

Make a proposal that there is less reason to dislike, or reason for fewer people to dislike, but which will still work whether or not anyone likes it, and it may be valuable.  But if you don't have a better idea, then please shut up.

I don't have to give you a better idea.



If somebody in Mali wants to buy Alpaca socks from somebody in Chile

Yeah let's compromise the soundness of our money so that people can buy socks internationally. As per the my point linked above, your argument has not convinced me that a change should be made. Keep trying, I guess.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
sed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 17, 2015, 10:17:54 PM
 #1643


It took place in #bitcoin-assets, and he relented here.

Thanks, I should have known there would be IRC logs with the actual discussions.  Cheers!

Reading IRC logs makes my brain bleed, but I went and read it because of the extraordinary claim.  As usual for IRC, the  "discussion" amounted to abuse and posturing.  And as usual for extraordinary claims, the evidence does not support it. If you think that Gavin committed to making or not making a hard fork in that log, you have wilfully misinterpreted it.



He relented by just joining. The fact that the great asciilifeform was able to !up him is proof of our victory. The concession is this: you need MP's permission in order to do anything in bitcoin. Gavin admitted this by showing up. Do you see MP on the forum? Nope, didn't think so. The funniest part is that Gavin waited until MP was out to lunch before showing his sorry face.

Isn't this is a bit silly, unless your goal is being ignored?   (If communicating with you is equivalent to agreeing with you and also submitting to you, the only other choice is to ignore you.)   I like #bitcoin-assets also.  Some very interesting things happen there precisely because not everyone is thinking the same thing.  Why encourage groupthink?

It is to Gavin's credit that he is seeking diverse inputs and points of view, and to yours for engaging in that discussion.

I agree here.  Gavin shouldn't be seen as throwing in a towel because he goes on IRC to chat about things.  In my opinion we need folks to work together to create consensus, not try to turn each other into outcasts or whatever.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1001



View Profile
February 17, 2015, 10:20:12 PM
Last edit: February 17, 2015, 10:32:54 PM by hdbuck
 #1644


It took place in #bitcoin-assets, and he relented here.

Thanks, I should have known there would be IRC logs with the actual discussions.  Cheers!

Reading IRC logs makes my brain bleed, but I went and read it because of the extraordinary claim.  As usual for IRC, the  "discussion" amounted to abuse and posturing.  And as usual for extraordinary claims, the evidence does not support it. If you think that Gavin committed to making or not making a hard fork in that log, you have wilfully misinterpreted it.



He relented by just joining. The fact that the great asciilifeform was able to !up him is proof of our victory. The concession is this: you need MP's permission in order to do anything in bitcoin. Gavin admitted this by showing up. Do you see MP on the forum? Nope, didn't think so. The funniest part is that Gavin waited until MP was out to lunch before showing his sorry face.


from: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=21-01-2015:


Code:
02:27:01mircea_popescu:;;sell 1000 Gavin Scamcoins @750 Bitcoin Future delivery. Larger amounts will get you an even better deal. Smaller amounts may be considered.

02:27:02gribble:Error: 'Scamcoins' is not a valid price input.
Grin


Code:
02:31:52mircea_popescu:;;sell 1000 "Gavin Scamcoins" @ 750 Bitcoin Future delivery. Larger amounts will get you an even better deal. Smaller amounts may be considered.

02:31:52gribble:Order id 21920 created.
Cheesy


Code:
03:29:15Luke-Jr:decimation: also, Gavin is no longer the final word for any git repo

03:29:26mircea_popescu:when did that happen ?

03:29:32Luke-Jr:a few months ago IIRC
Shocked


Code:
03:26:10Luke-Jr:(ugh, I'm being unclear: I mean the onus is on him to convince you, and you shouldn't have to convince him)
Roll Eyes


Code:
03:34:44mircea_popescu:Luke-Jr anyway, inasmuch as everyone actually wants bitcoin to prevail, divergence of opinion isn't much of a problem.
however, the conservative rather than the progressive approach must be observed. change doesn't happen just for the sake of changing things.
this isn't a fad or an ipad gizmo. if consensus can't be reached for whatever reason, whoever doesn't like it leaves and starts over, rather than pretending the opposite.

03:36:35Luke-Jr:mircea_popescu: I'm definitely in favour of taking a conservative approach, and I'm pretty sure most of the Bitcoin Core team is as well.
I think Gavin was probably frustrated earlier when it came up in #bitcoin-dev because nobody could give him a straightforward "way to convince everyone"
Lips sealed


Code:
03:38:10Luke-Jr:mircea_popescu: If Gavin wanted to force the hardfork, he wouldn't be frustrated at his inability to convince people ;)
Kiss


Quote
03:51:48Luke-Jr:I find it very hard to believe MPEX is even 1% of bitcoin business

03:52:46mircea_popescu:it's so far 100% of the bitcoin " told the usg to get fucked "  party.
once you digest that you might be in a better position to evaluate who matters and who doesn't,



Code:
17:59:50asciilifeform:!up gavinandresen

18:00:01gavinandresen:howdy y'all




edit:

Code:
gavinandresen:Pierre_Rochard: what do you think of my argument that hash rate and fees are apples and oranges?
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 10:31:27 PM
 #1645

Consensus is the result of quality, not the other way 'round.

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
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1044


View Profile
February 17, 2015, 10:36:26 PM
 #1646

I don't have to give you a better idea.

You're so right.  And I don't have to ignore you either.  But I'm feeling generous, so I probably will anyway.

Yeah let's compromise the soundness of our money so that people can buy socks internationally.

And if I wasn't convinced before that you need to be ignored, I think that will do it.  Seriously?  You don't want people to be able to use Bitcoin to make purchases, but you're still referring to it as money?  You want it to be decentralized, but you want to exclude people who aren't somehow 'local' to each other from making transactions?

You have any idea how much nonsense you're making?





sed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 17, 2015, 10:42:30 PM
 #1647

I thought that the most interesting idea in that log was the one about implementing the fork with a ttl of 2 years.  By the time those two years have passed, everyone will have forgotten that this was such a big issue.
danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 10:45:28 PM
 #1648

Yeah let's compromise the soundness of our money so that people can buy socks internationally.

Seriously?  You don't want people to be able to use Bitcoin to make purchases, but you're still referring to it as money?

Dollars are considered money despite the fact that I can't use them to make international purchases over the internet. Ditto gold.

When I bought my OpenBSD CD set, some third party converted my USD into CAD.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 17, 2015, 10:50:26 PM
 #1649

I thought that the most interesting idea in that log was the one about implementing the fork with a ttl of 2 years.  By the time those two years have passed, everyone will have forgotten that this was such a big issue.

Well this has been in discussion for almost 2 years anyways, so a hard fork is due about now, but the way the fork is going to be rolled out will probably take some time for miners to get to 95% consensus. So once we decide upon a course of action and deploy the code in the next month or 2 it may take 6 months to 1 year for 95% of miners to upgrade to the newest version anyways.

A simple dynamic solution is sounding better and better (Thus far the discussed cap varies from 3x to 12x average volume) and thus we could see the cap remain the same or only go up to 2MB for the next year simply because there is no need for the transaction volume. The problem I see is some are being stubborn and ignorantly believe that it is a good thing having the network at 99% capacity most of the time which would prove to be a very unstable and unreliable system with consequences IMHO.

danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 10:55:37 PM
 #1650

I thought that the most interesting idea in that log was the one about implementing the fork with a ttl of 2 years.  By the time those two years have passed, everyone will have forgotten that this was such a big issue.

Well this has been in discussion for almost 2 years anyways, so a hard fork is due about now, but the way the fork is going to be rolled out will probably take some time for miners to get to 95% consensus. So once we decide upon a course of action and deploy the code in the next month or 2 it may take 6 months to 1 year for 95% of miners to upgrade to the newest version anyways.

A grep of my debug.log says otherwise. Looks like this "version 2" thing got up to 5% for a time, and then dropped back down to 1%.

And LOL @ "we've been flapping our hands about this for 2 years, so give us our way already!" Go to your room! You're grounded.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 11:01:46 PM
 #1651

I thought that the most interesting idea in that log was the one about implementing the fork with a ttl of 2 years.  By the time those two years have passed, everyone will have forgotten that this was such a big issue.

The ttl of a future block height was the method proposed by satoshi years ago as part of the method of increasing the maxblocksize:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.


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
danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 11:08:35 PM
 #1652

The ttl of a future block height was the method proposed by satoshi years ago as part of the method of increasing the maxblocksize

The WWSD argument has been refuted already.

IV. Satoshi himself envisioned much larger blocks.

The discussion of what "Satoshi himself" did or didn't do, meant or didn't mean, so on and so forth is about as interesting and discussing the Mormon "bible".

This is called "arguing to authority", and it tries to give pecuniary value to that only truly worthless article of all times and places : the esteem of the mob. This may work well in electing United States presidents, ensuring that "while the voting public knows best what it wants, it deserves to get it long and hard". Bitcoin specifically and deliberately does not work in this way.

Bitcoin is not a reflection of your hopes and aspirations, but a check on them. Bitcoin isn't here to make it easier for you to do what you want to do ; Bitcoin is here to make it trivial for others to prevent you from doing what you want to do every time that's stupid. The sooner you comprehend this fundamental difference between Bitcoin and "technology" especially in the "revolutionary & innovative" subsense of that nonsense, the better, for you.

Satoshi probably doesn't even know what's in his code, let alone how to improve it.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1007


Gerald Davis


View Profile
February 17, 2015, 11:18:04 PM
 #1653

A grep of my debug.log says otherwise. Looks like this "version 2" thing got up to 5% for a time, and then dropped back down to 1%.


Do you just parrot what other people say without even understanding the meaning of the words or the context in which they are said?

100% not 1% or 5% of blocks are version 2 because any miner producing version 1 blocks would be on a separate fork for years now.  The sad thing is anyone who does independent thinking could figure this out by simply looking at the block header of any recent block.  Current block? Yup version 2.  The one before that?  Yup version 2.  The one before that?  Yup version 2.  Going back 100,000 blocks in sequence?  Yup all version 2.

Once 750 of the last 1000 blocks the block height rules started being enforced in version 2 blocks and once 950 of the last 1000 blocks were version 2 then version 1 blocks were considered invalid. That happened over three years ago.  

Version 3 blocks are currently a low percentage but version 3 blocks first became available as an option to miners in v0.10 of bitcoind which was release a whole two days ago.  The idea that it won't eventually reach both the 75% and 95% thresholds is just silly.  Non-enforcement of DER encoding just enables txn malleability.  There is no purpose to it.  The network currently treats non DER signatures as valid but non-standard.  It is very rare for any block to have a txn with non DER encoding anyways.   Last time I checked it wasn't even 0.1% of transactions with non-standard encoding.  The election of version 3 would simply make this existing behavior a permanent part of the consensus rules.

Of course neither of these versions have anything to do with raising the block limit.
Version 2 - enforces recording block height in coinbase txn (BIP 34)
Version 3 - enforces DER encoding of signatures (BIP 66)

The first possible version which would integrate a new block limit would be version 4.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0066.mediawiki
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 18, 2015, 12:11:33 AM
 #1654

The ttl of a future block height was the method proposed by satoshi years ago as part of the method of increasing the maxblocksize

The WWSD argument has been refuted already.

IV. Satoshi himself envisioned much larger blocks.

The discussion of what "Satoshi himself" did or didn't do, meant or didn't mean, so on and so forth is about as interesting and discussing the Mormon "bible".

This is called "arguing to authority", and it tries to give pecuniary value to that only truly worthless article of all times and places : the esteem of the mob. This may work well in electing United States presidents, ensuring that "while the voting public knows best what it wants, it deserves to get it long and hard". Bitcoin specifically and deliberately does not work in this way.

Bitcoin is not a reflection of your hopes and aspirations, but a check on them. Bitcoin isn't here to make it easier for you to do what you want to do ; Bitcoin is here to make it trivial for others to prevent you from doing what you want to do every time that's stupid. The sooner you comprehend this fundamental difference between Bitcoin and "technology" especially in the "revolutionary & innovative" subsense of that nonsense, the better, for you.

Satoshi probably doesn't even know what's in his code, let alone how to improve it.

Sure... except this was not an appeal to an authority.

In case the point of this comment was lost to you, it was this:
The part of the conversation that was interesting to sed (what was referred to as the ttl) was not novel to the #bitcoin-assets discussion but was discussed in 2010 when the maxblocksize was initially created.

But since you brought it up, why are you attacking someone here that isn't going to be able to respond? (satoshi)  What satoshi would or wouldn't do, or what he does or does not understand, is not part of this discussion. 

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
sed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 12:43:11 AM
 #1655

The ttl of a future block height was the method proposed by satoshi years ago as part of the method of increasing the maxblocksize

The WWSD argument has been refuted already.

IV. Satoshi himself envisioned much larger blocks.

The discussion of what "Satoshi himself" did or didn't do, meant or didn't mean, so on and so forth is about as interesting and discussing the Mormon "bible".

This is called "arguing to authority", and it tries to give pecuniary value to that only truly worthless article of all times and places : the esteem of the mob. This may work well in electing United States presidents, ensuring that "while the voting public knows best what it wants, it deserves to get it long and hard". Bitcoin specifically and deliberately does not work in this way.

Bitcoin is not a reflection of your hopes and aspirations, but a check on them. Bitcoin isn't here to make it easier for you to do what you want to do ; Bitcoin is here to make it trivial for others to prevent you from doing what you want to do every time that's stupid. The sooner you comprehend this fundamental difference between Bitcoin and "technology" especially in the "revolutionary & innovative" subsense of that nonsense, the better, for you.

Satoshi probably doesn't even know what's in his code, let alone how to improve it.

Sure... except this was not an appeal to an authority.

In case the point of this comment was lost to you, it was this:
The part of the conversation that was interesting to sed (what was referred to as the ttl) was not novel to the #bitcoin-assets discussion but was discussed in 2010 when the maxblocksize was initially created.

But since you brought it up, why are you attacking someone here that isn't going to be able to respond? (satoshi)  What satoshi would or wouldn't do, or what he does or does not understand, is not part of this discussion. 

Agree, thanks for pointing that out to me (about satoshi's suggestion for using a sort of min blockchain height to do a time-to-live sort of delay).
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1002

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 01:02:22 AM
 #1656

Visa seems to get along fine with a peak tx volume that's about 12 times their average tx volume.

STOP COMPARING BITCOIN TO VISA! THEY ARE NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE SAME THING.
I weary of this comparison. Bitcoin isn't about becoming the singularity of payments. Bitcoin is about Fair Money. Indebtedness should be a choice, not forced upon by governments.

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

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 01:24:40 AM
Last edit: February 18, 2015, 03:22:43 AM by solex
 #1657

I thought that the most interesting idea in that log was the one about implementing the fork with a ttl of 2 years.  By the time those two years have passed, everyone will have forgotten that this was such a big issue.

Fantastic! It is now only 4 days until two years since I was concerned enough to post a topic and poll on the 1MB issue. Only 4 days until everyone forgets about it and maybe Gavin can do what he thinks is best without any blowback?  Grin

The poll result in Feb 2013 was:

Leave as one megabyte - 20 (21.5%)
Let Core Dev decide   - 34 (36.6%)
Agree to increase   - 39 (41.9%)

Looks like the vote to leave as 1MB is still just 20% and unchanged in 2 years.  

Note: this topic was posted when Litecoin was the only alt with any real potential. There are 1000 alts issued since then, and some do have the potential of making Bitcoin the Myspace of cryptocurrency, if it trips up. Also, the prediction of running out of block space in 2013 was based upon SatoshiDice pumping out 50% of the transactions and only getting bigger. Erik Voorhees slowed it down and Core Dev increased fees to eliminate a lot of spam. That is how we have reached 2015 with the 1MB limit still intact and not yet being consistently hit.

Max Block Size Limit: the community view [Vote - results in 14 days]

Satoshi Nakamoto decided upon a one megabyte block size limit for Bitcoin. He viewed it as a temporary measure, but because it has remained fixed for so long it can reasonably be considered by some as a permanent limit. This means currently that the Bitcoin blockchain can not grow faster than 1Mb every 10 minutes.

If the limit remains fixed then Future A will be the road ahead. If the limit is raised or set by an algorithm, then Future B lies ahead.

Future A: Bitcoin will never handle more than 7 transactions per second. This is a tiny fraction of that handled by major payment systems. Evenutally 99+% will need to be handled by third-party services (such as Coinbase), bitcoin "banks", trusted transfer layers or even alt-chains. Only large transactions (with high fees) get included on the main blockchain. Bitcoin never makes large payment systems obsolete (Visa, Mastercard, PayPal) but full nodes can be run by individuals with moderate computing power and bandwidth. People can personally verify the integrity of the bitcoin network, even though it operates analogously to an internet backbone, but for currency, and people's transactions and holdings are held elsewhere. Mining the main blockchain will remain a niche business,

Future B: Bitcoin grows to handle hundreds or thousands of transactions per second. Perhaps Moore's Law can keep up so that some individuals can run full nodes, although lightweight nodes will be necessary for nearly all. Big companies run nodes. All transactions which people want to have on the main blockchain (with low fees) are supported. Third-party services do not have to be used unless they add value, faster confirmations, etc. Existing large payment systems will wither. Mining the main blockchain will become a big business.

It is fair to say that this subject has been exhaustively discussed in many threads. There are many arguments for and against, so people are invited to wade through the history of the debate before deciding to vote.

Any change will require a hard-fork i.e. everyone will need to upgrade their software. It will likely be necessary before the end of 2013 based upon transaction growth rates. Of course, if no change is decided upon then the limit will become a real constraint, fees will rise, zero-fee transactions will no longer be processed, third-party services must fill the gap.

Jgarzik > [PATCH] increase block size limit
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0

caveden >  Block size limit automatic adjustment
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1865.0

barbarousrelic > Max block size and transaction fees
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96097.0

Jeweller > The MAX_BLOCK_SIZE fork
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.0

Misterbigg > Why do people pay fees? Why are free transactions accepted by miners?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144421.0

Retep  > How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0

notig > The fork
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145072.0

hazek  > Why the Bitcoin rules can't change (reading time ~5min)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145475.0

NxtChg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000


Simcoin Developer


View Profile WWW
February 18, 2015, 10:23:33 AM
Last edit: February 18, 2015, 12:01:47 PM by NxtChg
 #1658

So I would suggest a block size limit set once every 2016 blocks at the same time as difficulty retargeting, at 12 times the average for the previous 2016 blocks.  

Why once? Why can't it be a sliding window of 2016 blocks?

So here are some changes I propose:

1. A sliding window of, say, 2016 blocks.

2. We track median block size in this window. (Median makes it impossible to game unless you can generate 51% of blocks and is also more conservative to occasional random spikes).

3. We set the block limit to something a bit smaller than VISA, again to be conservative, because blockchain has a cost. So, say, x10 or x8, not x12.

4. We track median transaction fee in each block and then the median of those inside the window to get Median Tx Fee.

5. We impose a line of minimal tx fee for each new block. It starts at 10% Median Tx Fee (to protect from spam and unimportant txs) and raises slowly to something like x2 at the block limit. The exact parameters can be tweaked, but the general idea is to put additional pressure on miners not to blow up block size.

It would also be nice to put both block size and median tx fee for this block into the block header, so it's easier to validate chains or calculate min tx fee required.

Here's a graph to illustrate.



If a miner wants to add Sample Tx at that point, he must make sure it has the fee that will be above minimum tx fee imposed by the red line.

The farther into the block you go, the larger the minimum fee must be.

Simcoin: https://simtalk.org:444/ | The Simplest Bitcoin Wallet: https://tsbw.io/ | Coinmix: https://coinmix.to | Tippr stats: https://tsbw.io/tippr/
--
About smaragda and his lies: https://medium.com/@nxtchg/about-smaragda-and-his-lies-c376e4694de9
onemorebtc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 12:06:43 PM
 #1659

So I would suggest a block size limit set once every 2016 blocks at the same time as difficulty retargeting, at 12 times the average for the previous 2016 blocks. 

Why once? Why can't it be a sliding window of 2016 blocks?

So here are some changes I propose:

1. A sliding window of, say, 2016 blocks.

2. We track median block size in this window. (Median makes it impossible to game unless you can generate 51% of blocks and is also more conservative to occasional random spikes).

3. We set the block limit to something a bit smaller than VISA, again to be conservative, because blockchain has a cost. So, say, x10 or x8, not x12.

4. We track median transaction fee in each block and then the median of those inside the window to get Median Tx Fee.

5. We impose a line of minimal tx fee for each new block. It starts at 10% Median Tx Fee (to protect from spam and unimportant txs) and raises slowly to something like x2 at the block limit. The exact parameters can be tweaked, but the general idea is to put additional pressure on miners not to blow up block size.

It would also be nice to put both block size and median tx fee for this block into the block header, so it's easier to validate chains or calculate min tx fee required.

Here's a graph to illustrate.



If a miner wants to add Sample Tx at that point, he must make sure it has the fee that will be above minimum tx fee imposed by the red line.

The farther into the block you go, the larger the minimum fee must be.


i'd prefer something like ema over median because it reacts faster in case of changes. but i still think we dont need any limit at all.

(this works even if one miner tries to outcompete others by producing one 1tb block - just think about the why for yourself)

transfer 3 onemorebtc.k1024.de 1
NxtChg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000


Simcoin Developer


View Profile WWW
February 18, 2015, 12:13:35 PM
 #1660

...but i still think we dont need any limit at all.

(this works even if one miner tries to outcompete others by producing one 1tb block - just think about the why for yourself)

There is a grey area where the sizes are somewhat "reasonable", and since miners are essentially paid per byte and everybody else isn't, having some additional pressure on them would be good.

There are also indirect costs, like risks of centralization, difficulties with TOR, etc., which are not priced in for miners.

Simcoin: https://simtalk.org:444/ | The Simplest Bitcoin Wallet: https://tsbw.io/ | Coinmix: https://coinmix.to | Tippr stats: https://tsbw.io/tippr/
--
About smaragda and his lies: https://medium.com/@nxtchg/about-smaragda-and-his-lies-c376e4694de9
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 »
  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!