Bitcoin Forum
November 14, 2019, 08:00:24 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [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 ... 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154234 times)
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 01, 2015, 08:18:25 PM
 #141

Isn't there a theory out there, that the more space you have, the more you use. The more that's available, the more that will be used in the future, and you'll always fill it up at some point, so you always need more?

That's just one of the reasons I would think would be used in an argument against making it bigger... versus figuring out another way to get done what has to be done (such as using an alt coin specifically for large transactions).

Perhaps , given enough time(keep in mind that it doesn't hold true now with 15-20% fill avgs) ... but that is the whole point. We want transaction fees to slowly start to cover the cost of network security as block rewards drop every 4 years.

Your choice is to do that with extremely expensive fees on a network that can handle 7tps or for the same price or cheaper on a network that can handle 140 tps.

So what do you think is more attractive 4.00 usd per tx or 0.02 usd per tx? What would you be willing to pay and what would others be willing to pay?

Despite all my involvement and investment in Bitcoin if fees grew to that high I would sell all my stake and start using an alt overnight.

The Bitcoin Forum is turning 10 years old! Join the community in sharing and exploring the notable posts made over the years.
newIndia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1032


View Profile
February 01, 2015, 08:20:43 PM
 #142


Bitcoin is the backbone, not reddit's pocket change.

You said it man... those who can read this message knows where the money is Wink

MakingMoneyHoney
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 01, 2015, 08:25:18 PM
 #143

Isn't there a theory out there, that the more space you have, the more you use. The more that's available, the more that will be used in the future, and you'll always fill it up at some point, so you always need more?

That's just one of the reasons I would think would be used in an argument against making it bigger... versus figuring out another way to get done what has to be done (such as using an alt coin specifically for large transactions).

Perhaps , given enough time(keep in mind that it doesn't hold true now with 15-20% fill avgs) ... but that is the whole point. We want transaction fees to slowly start to cover the cost of network security as block rewards drop every 4 years.

Your choice is to do that with extremely expensive fees on a network that can handle 7tps or for the same price or cheaper on a network that can handle 140 tps.

So what do you think is more attractive 4.00 usd per tx or 0.02 usd per tx? What would you be willing to pay and what would others be willing to pay?

Despite all my involvement and investment in Bitcoin if fees grew to that high I would sell all my stake and start using an alt overnight.

Changing the fees to be higher for Bitcoin, is going against what people like to say are some of the best things about Bitcoin, it's like changing what Bitcoin is.

Example: Those ads around Christmas against Western Union for having $5 fees, and saying Bitcoin has $0.02 fees. If you change Bitcoin to $4.00 fees, it's not much of an incentive to use Bitcoin over Western Union. Yes, if fees got too large, Bitcoin wouldn't be the same Bitcoin that others were applauding over Christmas... 
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2015, 08:35:07 PM
 #144

True but Bitcoin simply wont scale to the kind of volumes needed to cover every transaction globally and that's only likely to rise with the convenience of programmable money. There's plenty of options to cover it, alts, sidechains, some kind of parallelism and as the need arises it will be covered, open source will likely find solutions and if that's slow happening its a commercial opportunity.

We're back at square one. Bitcoin is fine.

inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 01, 2015, 08:39:17 PM
 #145

Changing the fees to be higher for Bitcoin, is going against what people like to say are some of the best things about Bitcoin, it's like changing what Bitcoin is.

Example: Those ads around Christmas against Western Union for having $5 fees, and saying Bitcoin has $0.02 fees. If you change Bitcoin to $4.00 fees, it's not much of an incentive to use Bitcoin over Western Union. Yes, if fees got too large, Bitcoin wouldn't be the same Bitcoin that others were applauding over Christmas...  

If you are against the Fees increasing than you should be for the hard fork increasing the blocksize to 20MB.

How do you plan on securing the network once we have to depend upon Tx fees and we are capped at 7tps? Is 12k dollars a day going to be able to pay for all the security? No, of course not... Tx fees will start to increase once blocks get fuller.

davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2015, 08:50:39 PM
 #146

How is 1/20th of the potential capacity fine? And that's a very lowball figure.

You seriously fail to see the massive trade-off?

davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2015, 09:05:16 PM
 #147

Yes. We had an imposed 250KB limit for ages that was raised to 1MB with a soft fork, the same can happen with a 20MB or more limit with a 1MB imposed limit.

There's 3 priorities, enough from fees to secure the network, an efficient and uncongested network and incentive for the network to grow. Imho that needs dynamic limits but the limits have to be reached to see how that would work in the real world.

There was no soft-fork for the 250kB default block-size limit.

Currently the fees are very, very, very far from being anywhere near of an amount sufficient to secure the network.
We're all having a free lunch right now, due to coins still being minted, but if that was to stop tomorrow, the network would be in an extremely shitty state.

What's the problem with paying 10 bucks instead of 10 cents to securely transfer a million dollars?

Buffer Overflow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015



View Profile
February 01, 2015, 09:10:37 PM
 #148

What's the problem with paying 10 bucks instead of 10 cents to securely transfer a million dollars?
Nothing. The problems start when you try to securely transfer 5 bucks paying 10 bucks instead of 10 cents.

acoindr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1001


View Profile
February 01, 2015, 09:12:05 PM
 #149

"pro" widening its lead Wink
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 01, 2015, 09:13:20 PM
 #150

What's the problem with paying 10 bucks instead of 10 cents to securely transfer a million dollars?

A majority of the transactions are not 1 million. If you are suggesting a sliding scale where 95% of transactions are 4 cents a peice than that also doesn't pay to secure the network.

You are being way too optimistic if you believe bitcoin can survive alone on many large wires transferring large sums of BTC for 10 usd a pop.

And no , I will not pay 10 usd to transfer 1 million dollars between my wallets or for every large purchase. I would rather sell all my bitcoin and work supporting an alt that offered reasonable fees.

Convincing others that 10usd fee is an improvement is going to be very difficult as well as most people don't care about security or privacy, but about saving money. I'm sorry that bitcoin is growing to become more popular than you prefer but that was always the plan ... go big or fail .

pawel7777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1086


We're all gonna make it


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2015, 09:15:17 PM
 #151


There was no soft-fork for the 250kB default block-size limit.

Currently the fees are very, very, very far from being anywhere near of an amount sufficient to secure the network.
We're all having a free lunch right now, due to coins still being minted, but if that was to stop tomorrow, the network would be in an extremely shitty state.

But shouldn't the goal be to encourage activity and number of txs, so those small fees could cumulate into more significant rewards?

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

P O K E R
▄▄▄███████▄▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄█████████████████████▄
▄██████████▄▄▄██████████▄
▄█████████████████████████▄
████████▄▄▄▀█▀▄▄▄████████
▐███████████████████████████▌
████████▀▀▀▐█▌▀▀▀████████
▀██████████▄███▄██████████▀
▀███████████████████████▀
▀█████████████████████▀
▀█████████████████▀
▀▀▀███████▀▀▀





██████
███▀▀▀
███
███




███
███
███▄▄▄
██████
Bad Beat Jackpot
Multiple Clients
New Software
NLH Tournaments
Krill Rakeback
Run It Twice

██████
▀▀▀███
   ███
   ███




   ███
   ███
▄▄▄███
██████

.♣ Play Now! ♣.
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2015, 09:21:42 PM
 #152

What's the problem with paying 10 bucks instead of 10 cents to securely transfer a million dollars?

Nothing. The problems start when you try to securely transfer 5 bucks paying 10 bucks instead of 10 cents.

Using SWIFT, gold coins, or special drawing right to transfer 5 bucks isn't very smart.
But if you really insist on it for some ideological reason, it'll be 10 bucks thank you very much.


And no , I will not pay 10 usd to transfer 1 million dollars between my wallets or for every large purchase. I would rather sell all my bitcoin and work supporting an alt that offered reasonable fees.

So you're saying that there could be an alt that would allow you to benefit from the same advantages of Bitcoin, but none of its shortcomings. Please tell me how that magical alt coin might work.


But shouldn't the goal be to encourage activity and number of txs, so those small fees could cumulate into more significant rewards?

20 times epsilon is still not much bigger than epsilon, especially if you need to pay for 20 times the bandwidth and hard drive space.

If the blocks never fill up there can not be a sane transaction fee market supporting an abundant hashing power.


We're a long way from regular 5000btc transactions and we wont get there without 500btc, 50, 5... everyone seems to expect instant gratification these days, get things built up and the million dollar transactions will come but that wont happen if folks try to send $5 and have wait half a day for a confirmation, they'll give it up as a shitty little open source plaything and go elsewhere.

Nobody is expecting instant gratification, and certainly not those that are against some random change that supposedly will bring moar adopshun, more moons, more prices.


If dollars in miners pocket's is what you're really worried about then the exchange rate should be of more concern, how come $100 showed every sign of being sustainable but after all the good news and increased usage $200 is having a hard time? Those exchanges playing by the rules or are they trading fake coins? Not on the chain so no way of knowing.

I care about decentralization and security. Not about your inability to demand a proof of reserves.

inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 01, 2015, 09:34:33 PM
 #153

So you're saying that there could be an alt that would allow you to benefit from the same advantages of Bitcoin, but none of its shortcomings. Please tell me how that magical alt coin might work.


Ahhhh ...so you think bitcoin is perfect and doesn't have any problems.
No use discussing change with you anymore as you are impervious to the discussion as you have already found perfection.

davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2015, 09:40:32 PM
 #154

Does your exchange have it? How do I know the coins on it are real? And is that decentralisation for all or just a select few with that need to move millions? Your not giving any constructive answers, thoughts on addressing the issues of a hitting a hard limit, thoughts on expansion, anything. Sounds like subterfuge.

If you're a customer, ask about it in a support request, if you don't like the answer, make the free market work.
Decentralization is a good thing, and like all good things it has a price tag, whether you come to terms with it or not is entirely up to you.
And no, I'm not going to give 'insight' on the imaginary issues that reside in your head.


So you're saying that there could be an alt that would allow you to benefit from the same advantages of Bitcoin, but none of its shortcomings. Please tell me how that magical alt coin might work.


Ahhhh ...so you think bitcoin is perfect and doesn't have any problems.
No use discussing change with you anymore as you are impervious to the discussion as you have already found perfection.

Didn't I mention "its shortcomings", like in the very text you quoted?
Aren't you the one that wants to avoid discussion by putting words in my mouth?

Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 01, 2015, 09:49:49 PM
 #155

...
Currently the fees are very, very, very far from being anywhere near of an amount sufficient to secure the network.
We're all having a free lunch right now, due to coins still being minted, ...
...


Yeah, and when block reward shrinks enough that miners start getting squeezed, they'll stop including transactions with fees that are too small for the transaction-inclusion to be profitable to the miner.

This is how it would play out if the blocksize had no limit at all. There'd be a genuine free-market for block space. Denial-of-service and propagation-time concerns are at least worth discussing, but the economic argument against the blocksize increase is silly.

https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 01, 2015, 09:56:11 PM
 #156

Didn't I mention "its shortcomings", like in the very text you quoted?
Aren't you the one that wants to avoid discussion by putting words in my mouth?

You are correct, I apologize.. The answer to your question would be a fork of bitcoin with some of the improvements we have been discussing. If we lived in a hypothetical parallel universe where our side was in the minority and fees increased to 10 usd and most miners stayed with your preferred fork than I would have to modify the fork to add a TaPoS layer ontop of PoW to prevent a 51 % attack.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3024
Merit: 1051


View Profile
February 01, 2015, 10:08:16 PM
 #157

sorry for the stupid question but if a block today is 1mb, after the hard fork, will it still be 1mb? or will they all be 20?
...

Depends on what fork you choose to follow...if you are sophisticated enough to choose one rather than having one chosen for you.

20MB blocks will be accepted by those who are running the 'gavincoin' fork.  1MB will be the maximum accepted by those running what some people would call 'bitcoin' and others would call 'mpcoin'.

If you are using an on-line wallet service like blockchain.io, or an SPV client like Multibit, it would be good to pay a little bit of attention to what sort of behavior one might expect.  Getting on the wrong fork (whichever it happens to be) could be costly if you are sending or receiving (or think you are receiving) BTC.  The hard fork promises to create some very 'interesting times.'


davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2015, 10:15:49 PM
 #158

Got to put some in there, there's not a whole lot coming out other than a network that can't work to its full ability is good because then only rich people can use it. How those rich people are going to be attracted to said crippled network and how long they'll stay when they realise its crippled and needs a major change to fix remains a mystery.

What is this "full capacity" magic number?
Are you saying that because I'm a meanie I don't want to share that Bitcoin goodness, that would be available to everyone to transact with, if only we increased the block size?
Do you genuinely think that I was somehow smart enough to go all-in on Bitcoin in 2010, and yet, too dumb to not keep my interests aligned with those of Bitcoin as a whole?


Yeah, and when block reward shrinks enough that miners start getting squeezed, they'll stop including transactions with fees that are too small for the transaction-inclusion to be profitable to the miner.

Not really, the thing that you fail to see, is that when deciding to include a transaction or not in a block, the miner is already working on a block.
He doesn't compute the gain from including the transaction by comparing its fees with the average cost of a transaction in that block, but with the marginal cost of including that particular one. Let that sink in for a minute.


The answer to your question would be a fork of bitcoin with some of the improvements we have been discussing. If we lived in a hypothetical parallel universe where our side was in the minority and fees increased to 10 usd and most miners stayed with your preferred fork than I would have to modify the fork to add a TaPoS layer ontop of PoW to prevent a 51 % attack.

That's not very clear... And I don't think it has that much to do with the discussion at hand anyway.
Betamax and VHS...

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 01, 2015, 10:18:53 PM
 #159

sorry for the stupid question but if a block today is 1mb, after the hard fork, will it still be 1mb? or will they all be 20?
...

Depends on what fork you choose to follow...if you are sophisticated enough to choose one rather than having one chosen for you.

20MB blocks will be accepted by those who are running the 'gavincoin' fork.  1MB will be the maximum accepted by those running what some people would call 'bitcoin' and others would call 'mpcoin'.

If you are using an on-line wallet service like blockchain.io, or an SPV client like Multibit, it would be good to pay a little bit of attention to what sort of behavior one might expect.  Getting on the wrong fork (whichever it happens to be) could be costly if you are sending or receiving (or think you are receiving) BTC.  The hard fork promises to create some very 'interesting times.'



but one is 'irreversible' right?
like you wont be able to go back to 'mpcoin' once you enter the 'gavincoin'.


inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 01, 2015, 10:25:39 PM
 #160

It will be interesting to see how many of the 275 contributing developers to bitcoin core don't support the 20MB fork and I would certainly want to use the chain with the most competent and distributed dev community backing it.

Are there any of those 275 who have contributed to core willing to speak out against the fork?

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 ... 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!