Bitcoin Forum
April 01, 2020, 08:45:38 AM *
News: The virus is now s̴͜͠p̶̰͝r̷̰̅e̶̦̽a̵̼͂d̴͉̑ỉ̷̖n̸̙̏g̷̬͝ even online; practice social distancing!
 
   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 ... 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154258 times)
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 08, 2015, 10:38:40 PM
 #921

Am I truly the only one in the world that recognizes the observable reality of this lecture, that is 20 years old (almost nearly perfectly the same year szabo's blog started):
Quote from: Ideal Money
   Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based comparisons. The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the swiss franc, the swedish kronor, etc., can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who may have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened inflationary depreciation in value.”

    “It seems possible and not unlikely, however, that if two states evolve towards having currencies or more stable value as measured locally by national CPI indices that then also these distinct currencies would tend to evolve towards more stable comparative relations of value.

    Then the limiting or “asymptotic” result of such an evolutionary trend would be in effect “ideal money” but this as a result achieved without the adoption of anything like an ICPI index as a basis for the standard of value.”

None of you function in reality.

http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf

Is there anyone that such words do not read like gibberish to? Should we not consult the very literature that created bitcoin?  How long must we continue amidst this insanity?  If none of you understand what is going on and the truth and reality of it, are you sure that makes me the illogical crazy idiot of the bunch?

YOU CANNOT SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS OUTSIDE OF THEIR ORIGINAL TRUE CONTEXT!!!

1585730738
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585730738

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585730738
Reply with quote  #2

1585730738
Report to moderator
1585730738
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585730738

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585730738
Reply with quote  #2

1585730738
Report to moderator
1585730738
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585730738

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585730738
Reply with quote  #2

1585730738
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.
sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1003



View Profile
February 08, 2015, 10:45:42 PM
 #922


So we don't have to fork next time, and we don't go x20 in one tine

If we go x20 in one time it will not make the used space 20x bigger instantaneously. If we had a 20MB limit right now it wouldn't matter because blocks will be filled by the same amount.

The 1MB was antispam mesure, so growing the limit slowly can be good for same reason.

and mostly, as the limit would be calculated by the software, that would mean no need to fork again when 20x will not be suffiscient anymore.

I read somewhere the issue is most with bandwith, I didn't even think of it because where I live, I have fast unlimited cheap connexion
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1001



View Profile
February 08, 2015, 11:11:48 PM
Last edit: February 08, 2015, 11:23:15 PM by hdbuck
 #923

Who controls Bitcoin?
amincd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 772
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 08, 2015, 11:39:05 PM
 #924

None of you function in reality.

Another anti-forker with his own ideas about "reality", a lot vague appeals to first principles and ideology, but no concrete arguments for why Bitcoin should deviate from the vision set out for it from the beginning, in the Bitcoin white paper and in Satoshi's description of the protocol, for an electronic cash that can be transacted peer-to-peer without financial institutions acting as intermediaries, and of a network that handles thousands of transactions per second, when we can get there without sacrificing decentralization, by simply tracking block size limit to the capabilities of technology, which grow over time (e.g. Moore's Law).

RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
February 08, 2015, 11:58:09 PM
 #925


So we don't have to fork next time, and we don't go x20 in one tine

If we go x20 in one time it will not make the used space 20x bigger instantaneously. If we had a 20MB limit right now it wouldn't matter because blocks will be filled by the same amount.

The 1MB was antispam mesure, so growing the limit slowly can be good for same reason.

and mostly, as the limit would be calculated by the software, that would mean no need to fork again when 20x will not be suffiscient anymore.

I read somewhere the issue is most with bandwith, I didn't even think of it because where I live, I have fast unlimited cheap connexion


So raising the limit slowly will stop the blockchain spammers? That makes no sense. If they can spam at 2MB then they can spam at 1MB and at 20MB. We can find measures to live with the spam, but limiting the block size at 1MB isn't a valid solution for this.

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

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 09, 2015, 12:40:12 AM
 #926

why not find ways to detect and block spammy transactions without need of a hard fork?

They can block email spam and DDOS attacks without changing the internet protocol, I think with BTC it might be possible to do the same.

Don't?
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 12:44:00 AM
 #927

So raising the limit slowly will stop the blockchain spammers? That makes no sense. If they can spam at 2MB then they can spam at 1MB and at 20MB. We can find measures to live with the spam, but limiting the block size at 1MB isn't a valid solution for this.

Correct. Let's say the block limit becomes 20MB and some spammer was capable of filling up three of them in a row, delaying confirmations for 1/2 an hour. In which case, the same spammer could right now, fill up 60 blocks at 1MB, and delay confirmations for 10 hours!  Worse, once the 1MB blocks are normally 75% full, any spammer with that capability could probably cripple tx confirmations for a whole week!

davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
February 09, 2015, 12:48:20 AM
 #928

Correct. Let's say the block limit becomes 20MB and some spammer was capable of filling up three of them in a row, delaying confirmations for 1/2 an hour. In which case, the same spammer could right now, fill up 60 blocks at 1MB, and delay confirmations for 10 hours!  Worse, once the 1MB blocks are normally 75% full, any spammer with that capability could probably cripple tx confirmations for a whole week!

Transaction fees. Duh.

theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3710
Merit: 7650


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 12:52:33 AM
 #929

I haven't read this thread much at all, so maybe this has already been said, but I've been noticing a lot of people saying things like, "If the block size isn't raised, then that would be bad because ..." But just wanting larger blocks isn't a good argument for increasing the max block size. By far the most important issue is what the network can support. We're just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that the network's capacity is limited and fees will probably always be larger than many people want.

Exactly what block size the network can support is very much debatable. I currently think that 10 MB would be fine and 50 MB would be too much, though these are mostly just feelings. There should be more rigorous study of the actual limits of the network. (Gavin's done some nice work on the software/hardware front, though I'm still worried about the capabilities of typical Internet connections, and especially how they'll increase over time.)

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1018


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 12:56:59 AM
 #930

why not find ways to detect and block spammy transactions without need of a hard fork?

They can block email spam and DDOS attacks without changing the internet protocol, I think with BTC it might be possible to do the same.

Don't?

Because yes your solution may help in the short term but longer term the 1 BTC block size will need to increase for legitimate transactions that start to push that limit as bitcoin gains popularity.


███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.                  History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 01:02:14 AM
 #931

Here, from the article:
Quote
The real issue is not precisely how a Bitcoin fork could actually be implemented, but merely the understanding of how events would play out in such a situation. Hypothetical situations affect reality today. When two armies meet, if they can determine who would win without actually fighting one another, then the battle is over without having begin. This is a similar situation. If a Bitcoin upgrade were known to be unpopular to investors, then its proponents, knowing who would win if push came to shove, would tend to back down before causing that much disruption. Thus, the investors are still in control even for real-life Bitcoin upgrades that never reach the point of creating such contention.

And now we must be suggesting this has nothing to do with game theory, nothing to do with Nash equilibrium, and not so relevant to the one person who understand the role of games the best in relation to technologies implication on our society.


Another anti-forker with his own ideas about "reality", a lot vague appeals to first principles and ideology, but no concrete arguments for why Bitcoin should deviate from the vision set out for it from the beginning, in the Bitcoin white paper and in Satoshi's description of the protocol, for an electronic cash that can be transacted peer-to-peer without financial institutions acting as intermediaries, and of a network that handles thousands of transactions per second, when we can get there without sacrificing decentralization, by simply tracking block size limit to the capabilities of technology, which grow over time (e.g. Moore's Law).

This person is my exactly point.  Let it be known I couldn't care less what the decision on this issue is.  I simply point out people like this that are unknowleadgeable are leading these conversations, and eventually one would expect rather we could have some dialogue that functions with knowledge and logic as a basis.  Satoshi is a religion and not the reality of how bitcoin was created.  Anyone that can't see the obviousness of this needs to be removed from any conversations that peoples wish to not be born and based on religious belief.


solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 01:05:30 AM
 #932

I haven't read this thread much at all, so maybe this has already been said, but I've been noticing a lot of people saying things like, "If the block size isn't raised, then that would be bad because ..." But just wanting larger blocks isn't a good argument for increasing the max block size. By far the most important issue is what the network can support. We're just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that the network's capacity is limited and fees will probably always be larger than people want. (However, I do believe that the network could very likely support 10 MB blocks right now, though probably not 50 MB blocks, for example.)

Indeed. Which is why Matt's relay system and IBLT are needed, and will massively improve the situation for block propagation. People arguing for 1MB forever ignore this, yet when 20MB blocks finally appear they will take less than 1MB to broadcast through the network. It will only be bootstrapping new nodes and re-sync which will need the full blocks transmitted.

Bandwidth is the limiting factor, disk space less so.

You proposed increasing the limit to 2MB in 2 years. This is what should have been done in Feb 2013 when this debate last came up in earnest. Unfortunately, this is now too little too late. IBLT was not considered at that time, but it is something we are aware of now.

TradeFortress 🏕
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1023


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 01:15:26 AM
 #933

Exactly what block size the network can support is very much debatable. I currently think that 10 MB would be fine and 50 MB would be too much, though these are mostly just feelings. There should be more rigorous study of the actual limits of the network. (Gavin's done some nice work on the software/hardware front, though I'm still worried about the capabilities of typical Internet connections, and especially how they'll increase over time.)

Exactly. 30 kBps upload is common in Australia, and you sure should be able to run a full node in a typical internet connection in Australia, or Brazil, or Philippines, or whatever. The block size needs to be useful for the (lowest reasonable) common denominator, not the median.

IMO 10 MB is too much, maybe 5 MB.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3710
Merit: 7650


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 01:17:11 AM
 #934

Indeed. Which is why Matt's relay system and IBLT are needed, and will massively improve the situation for block propagation. People arguing for 1MB forever ignore this, yet when 20MB blocks finally appear they will take less than 1MB to broadcast through the network. It will only be bootstrapping new nodes and re-sync which will need the full blocks transmitted.

Those things help, but all full nodes still need to download all new transactions. Even with all proposed optimizations, you'll still need to download about 20 MB and upload 20*x MB (where x is some number that depends on but is probably less than the number of peers you have) for every 20 MB block you receive. This is better than the current network, which probably requires more than twice as much bandwidth for both download and upload. But it's not a magic bullet.

You proposed increasing the limit to 2MB in 2 years. This is what should have been done in Feb 2013 when this debate last came up in earnest. Unfortunately, this is too little too late. Of course IBLT was not considered at that time.

If 2 MB is all that can be agreed on now, then it's better to schedule that hard fork ASAP rather than agree on something marginally higher in 6-12 months. I personally think that 10 MB would probably be fine, though I know that there are many people who would disagree with me.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 01:21:09 AM
Last edit: February 09, 2015, 01:32:19 AM by RoadStress
 #935

I haven't read this thread much at all, so maybe this has already been said, but I've been noticing a lot of people saying things like, "If the block size isn't raised, then that would be bad because ..." But just wanting larger blocks isn't a good argument for increasing the max block size. By far the most important issue is what the network can support. We're just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that the network's capacity is limited and fees will probably always be larger than many people want.

Exactly what block size the network can support is very much debatable. I currently think that 10 MB would be fine and 50 MB would be too much, though these are mostly just feelings. There should be more rigorous study of the actual limits of the network. (Gavin's done some nice work on the software/hardware front, though I'm still worried about the capabilities of typical Internet connections, and especially how they'll increase over time.)

It's not just wanting bigger blocks. There is a reason behind that. The bigger blocks are needed if we want a bigger bitcoin net-worth overall. That brings a lot of good things to the ecosystem in form of development and innovation.

What the network can support is subject to technological development and innovation. This is not a mechanical issue where you try to fit a square into a round hole. While technology also has its limitations, there is a lot of room for improving it. Just a few years ago we were all watching low quality youtube clips, while now we can watch 1080p videos. Playing heavy 3d graphics games on our smartphones is another example of technology that is developing and that hasn't hit its cap.

Also since I'm also a hobbyist miner please give me full 10MB blocks right now and I will invest part of my earnings in setting up full nodes with tons of HDD space available Smiley

Not raising the block limit because of a technical reason which can be solved is simply wrong in my view.

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

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 01:29:40 AM
 #936

20 years of lectures about bitcoin you are all ignoring, about how bitcoin shall come about and what it should be...

Who will bring sanity to this community?

No one who doesn't address the topic of Ideal Money should be given a voice in ANY of these matters.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
February 09, 2015, 02:14:29 AM
 #937

I haven't read this thread much at all, so maybe this has already been said, but I've been noticing a lot of people saying things like, "If the block size isn't raised, then that would be bad because ..." But just wanting larger blocks isn't a good argument for increasing the max block size. By far the most important issue is what the network can support. We're just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that the network's capacity is limited and fees will probably always be larger than many people want.

Exactly what block size the network can support is very much debatable. I currently think that 10 MB would be fine and 50 MB would be too much, though these are mostly just feelings. There should be more rigorous study of the actual limits of the network. (Gavin's done some nice work on the software/hardware front, though I'm still worried about the capabilities of typical Internet connections, and especially how they'll increase over time.)

It's not just wanting bigger blocks. There is a reason behind that. The bigger blocks are needed if we want a bigger bitcoin net-worth overall. That brings a lot of good things to the ecosystem in form of development and innovation.

What the network can support is subject to technological development and innovation. This is not a mechanical issue where you try to fit a square into a round hole. While technology also has its limitations, there is a lot of room for improving it. Just a few years ago we were all watching low quality youtube clips, while now we can watch 1080p videos. Playing heavy 3d graphics games on our smartphones is another example of technology that is developing and that hasn't hit its cap.

Also since I'm also a hobbyist miner please give me full 10MB blocks right now and I will invest part of my earnings in setting up full nodes with tons of HDD space available Smiley

Not raising the block limit because of a technical reason which can be solved is simply wrong in my view.

Oh look, RoadStress suddenly dropped his previous ad hom attack strategy when addressing the sysop!  I'm shocked...I expected RS to accuse Thermos of being a master scammer (because his forum advertises/discusses ASICs, Ponzis, etc), as well as being an altcoin shill (because he once said something nice about Monero).

Bitcoin's net-worth overall will increase regardless of transaction volume simply because it has the 1st mover, digital reserve currency advantages and status.  It doesn't need, nor should we seek, a monopoly on digital currency, because a Nash distribution is of more economic utility than top-heavy ones.  Bitcoin has a natural monopoly on high-value wealth preservation and transfers, not retail point-of-sale, paywalls, or tipping.

The hubristic Bitcoin2 project seeks to sacrifice current use cases and users for the hope of gaining future uses and users.

That is trading a bird in hand for two in the bush, and fixing what is not broken.  Two famously bad ideas.

Relying of the desirability of future pruning/compression mechanisms still in the vapor stage to fix 20MB blocks' undesirable effects is also a bad idea.

This logic of "we have to break the network to save the network" is appalling.  We need to get this right, not rush and act in haste.

First, we must wait and see how the infrastructure and ecosystem react/adapt to scarcity.   Without this crucial empirical data, we cannot make informed future decisions about ideal block sizing.  We cannot risk a civil war between BTC1 and BTC2 camps by forcing the issue prematurely (but if I were actually anti-BTC and pro-alt, I'd relish such a Great Schism).

Second, we must use the results of the experiment with 1MB scarcity to decide on a preliminary blocksize increase, to somewhere between 2MB and 10MB.

20MB blocks can then be considered, if and only if the community, pruning/compression mechanisms, and TOR/DSL are ready to support them.

As a compromise, I'll support an increase to 2MB ASAP, on the condition that we then maintain that limit until facts about market reaction to block real estate scarcity are ascertained.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 02:26:15 AM
 #938

Ideal Money

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_money

Quote from: Wikipedia
in other words, people are used to measuring the value of goods by money, but due to some reasons the value of money itself changes, which causes the value of silver or gold changes. We can't tell the constant value of the metal, and the fixed mind-sets can not easily be changed.

Gold attains its value only from the far future, from a time when it is needed to consume and is expected to be found in short supply.  In the mean time, the value of gold can fluctuate wildly, because gold is not a good currency for day-to-day transactions.  It is not useful next week.  It is only useful in the long term.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, can be useful *both* next week *and* a thousand years from now.  Bitcoin is, in this sense, gold without the limitations.

Quote from: Nash
"A possible nonpolitical basis for a value standard that could be used for money would be a good industrial consumption price index(ICPI) statistic. This statistic could be calculated from the international price of commodities such as copper, silver, tungsten, and so forth that are used in industrial activities."

Bitcoin can rely on the CPI only in the sense that Bitcoin *becomes* the CPI.  Like I've said before, if this type of thinking (which has been in use since WWII, at least;  it's not a new idea) worked, then all of Alan Greenspan's attempts to peg the US dollar to the price of scrap steel would have worked.  They didn't work.  They were fundamentally flawed.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 02:31:47 AM
 #939



Bitcoin can rely on the CPI only in the sense that Bitcoin *becomes* the CPI.  Like I've said before, if this type of thinking (which has been in use since WWII, at least;  it's not a new idea) worked, then all of Alan Greenspan's attempts to peg the US dollar to the price of scrap steel would have worked.  They didn't work.  They were fundamentally flawed.
You did not read the lecture and you do not know what you are talking about.  I am not attacking you, I am pointing out something logical.  You spoke about something you didn't READ first:
Quote from: Ideal Money
   Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based comparisons. The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the swiss franc, the swedish kronor, etc., can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who may have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened inflationary depreciation in value.”

    “It seems possible and not unlikely, however, that if two states evolve towards having currencies or more stable value as measured locally by national CPI indices that then also these distinct currencies would tend to evolve towards more stable comparative relations of value.

    Then the limiting or “asymptotic” result of such an evolutionary trend would be in effect “ideal money” but this as a result achieved without the adoption of anything like an ICPI index as a basis for the standard of value.

"Satoshi" your jesus, is what happens when the world won't listen to you for 20 years, so you figure out a way to do what you know is going to work anyways.

I am telling you that you are not understanding what I am saying.  You don't come in a thread, and not read any literature and tell Nash or Satoshi how economics, cryptography, math, gold etc. works.

Nash has been explaining EVERYTHING, and people like you have been drowning out the peoples that have been reading his vast works.  Can someone translate my words, I don't know what language I am speaking:  A man toured the world for 20 years telling us of a new currency technology that is going to revolutionize the money printing systems...and you all are worshiping a FAKE NAME!!!
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 02:35:55 AM
 #940

Exactly what block size the network can support is very much debatable. I currently think that 10 MB would be fine and 50 MB would be too much, though these are mostly just feelings. There should be more rigorous study of the actual limits of the network. (Gavin's done some nice work on the software/hardware front, though I'm still worried about the capabilities of typical Internet connections, and especially how they'll increase over time.)

Exactly. 30 kBps upload is common in Australia, and you sure should be able to run a full node in a typical internet connection in Australia, or Brazil, or Philippines, or whatever. The block size needs to be useful for the (lowest reasonable) common denominator, not the median.

IMO 10 MB is too much, maybe 5 MB.

If you come within 1/3 (and probably much less) of maxing out your network connection, your ability to run Bitcoin is dependent on the government NOT telling your network providers to interfere with certain kinds of traffic.  A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.  If Bitcoin depends on this not happening on a fairly wide scale globally at some point in the future, then it is simply not a very strong solution to me.  Maybe it is to others.  Fine.  I'm not going to be putting a lot of my eggs into that basket however.


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 ... 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!