Bitcoin Forum
September 26, 2021, 05:06:40 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.
pro
anti
agnostic
DGAF

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 128 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154548 times)
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002



View Profile
February 01, 2015, 10:51:38 PM
Last edit: February 02, 2015, 12:28:18 AM by hdbuck
 #161


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

+1 and it would be interesting to know the same for the lightweight client.

Discussion between Gavin, Peter Todd, and Amir...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2e1ijs/gavin_andresen_explains_how_bitcoin_is_very/

Most developers have a very nuanced view of this hard fork so while amir seems like he is against it here Peter Todd is arguing details and implementations.

ha i was about to ask what amir thinks of it.. Cheesy
1632676000
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632676000

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1632676000
Reply with quote  #2

1632676000
Report to moderator
1632676000
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632676000

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1632676000
Reply with quote  #2

1632676000
Report to moderator
1632676000
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632676000

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1632676000
Reply with quote  #2

1632676000
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
waaat?
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 104


View Profile
February 01, 2015, 11:06:20 PM
 #162

I thought Gavin was intelligent but after reading he's intending to make it inaccessible basically unuseable and centralised aswell as seeing how he has not the slightest idea about consensus principles i had to reevaluate.
He certainly lacks a ton of skills and knowledge outside his professional field.


We should change the titel of the thread to 'turning Bitcoin into clusterfuck'
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1046


Monero Core Team


View Profile
February 01, 2015, 11:09:19 PM
 #163

The reality of this debate is that we need to step back and consider the impact of technological change over a period of say 25 years, 50 years, 75 years, 100 years etc.

Consider the early credit cards issued by Diner's Club and American Express in the early 1950s. The data processing technology of the time was tabulating machines and punch cards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulating_machine This technology was invented in the 1890s and marketed for the most part by IBM.  Does anyone seriously believe that the transaction volumes of Visa and MasterCard today could be supported using 70 year old data processing technology? Limiting Bitcoin's scalability today based on recent technology is equivalent to limiting the total number of credit card transactions to the data processing capabilities of tabulating machines and punch cards in 1945.

Suffice to say I voted in support of Gavin's proposal, but I must add the caveat that it does not go far enough! By the way it was possible to send 1 MB of data over the telegraph network in 1913, if one had the finances of J. P. Morgan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1237


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2015, 11:35:10 PM
 #164

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

What's wrong?

Lets say those million dollar transactions are 250 bytes.  That is 4,000 of them in a 1MB block.

So $40,000 total reward to the miner -- about eight times current block reward.

BUT YOU ARE SECURING TRANSACTIONS WORTH SOMETHING LIKE 2,000 TIMES MORE VALUABLE THAN TODAY'S TRANSACTIONS (estimated average transaction USD value for today's average transaction is about $380). And I GUARANTEE that attackers would have a much easier time pulling off a double-spend of one million-dollar transaction than 1,000 $1,000 transactions.

The math for "large value transactions will generate enough fees to secure the chain" just doesn't work.
The math for "lots of small transactions will generate enough fees to secure the chain" might.

Also:

I still haven't heard a coherent argument on why large value transactions are necessarily also high-fee transactions.

I'd suggest you go research existing high-value-payment networks and see what typical fees are for multi-million dollar transactions. FEDWIRE is running at 6 transactions per second, average transaction value over $6million, with fees per transaction UNDER ONE DOLLAR.

Why? Because if you are giving somebody one million dollars for something, you almost certainly have built up real-world trust, and probably have a longstanding relationship, signed contracts, etc etc.

If you think Bitcoin is different, please explain the scenario where I send a stranger who I don't trust (so have to rely completely on the blockchain) $1million for something.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 01, 2015, 11:50:08 PM
Last edit: February 02, 2015, 12:02:48 AM by inBitweTrust
 #165

Suffice to say I voted in support of Gavin's proposal, but I must add the caveat that it does not go far enough! By the way it was possible to send 1 MB of data over the telegraph network in 1913, if one had the finances of J. P. Morgan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan

It doesn't go far enough but is a prudent step in the right direction and buys developers some time to focus on blockchain bloat and implementing sidechains.
Perhaps 20MB is the limit and we can find other ways to fund security and payment channels like Garzik's proposal impulse begin to take off.

I do empathize with many of the opposition being an anarchist myself , but don't believe that raising the block is that big of a deal because :

1) It may not have much of an immediate impact if at all and by the time blocks start exceeding 1MB , 20MB will be as insignificant as 1MB to us now
2) While the hard fork may add a slight amount of centralization, it may do the opposite as well with cheaper transactions moving from off the chain to on the chain
3) Centralization fears are exaggerated and can be reversed in the future. Mining pool centralization is a much bigger fear regardless. I'm not to comfortable with what essentially amounts to a 3 of 5 multisig to secure us against a 51% attack.


If you think Bitcoin is different, please explain the scenario where I send a stranger who I don't trust (so have to rely completely on the blockchain) $1million for something.

The only possible purpose I can come up with to fit such scenario is illicit high stakes transaction payment rail to facilitate drug lords, covert organizations like the CIA,corrupt banksters, kingpins , mobsters and dictators who need to transfer wealth in the millions between each other.

Isn't exactly what I had envisioned for bitcoin to solely be a tool for. Additionally, there aren't enough of them in the world to perform a continuous 7tps to support the network security if bitcoin was used for that purpose.

RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876
Merit: 1006


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 12:00:15 AM
 #166

A mix between pro and DGAF as I don't care but it will need to happen eventually so why not now?

Not a tech-dude here, but i, on the contrary, feel that this is somehow of a crucial matter.
Personally I like bitcoin the way it is now.

I just started reading this thread, but let me show you my point of view regarding this.

In order for bitcoin to succeed as a protocol, not as a currency it needs services running on top of it. Either centralized or decentralized bitcoin is here for everyone(not only for those paying the higher fees)! A first service would be the Lighthouse project which is supposed to be a decentralized way of raising funds Kickstarter-style but which is already limited by the 1MB block size cap (see https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse/faq#max-pledges). Having a 1MB block size limit hinders innovation and tech development in my view and don't forget that I'm also a miner, but I agree and support Gavin in this matter. I view the blockchain as a decentralized and neutral informational highway. Let data flow freely if you want a higher value of the whole ecosystem. Let's find solutions to the potential problems like blockchain bloat by innovating, not by rejecting and imposing limits.

Consider bitcoin as the internet. Everyone is using it whether he is poor (free wi-fi) or wealthy (Google, Facebook etc). There are a lot of great things built on free services (twitter, instagram, facebook etc). I bet that you wouldn't like it if your ISP would have a 100MB/s download speed and would action it for the highest bidder. Forcing fees hinders evolution!

So please let's fork already so we can see some real services coming to life!

bambou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 12:16:54 AM
 #167

A mix between pro and DGAF as I don't care but it will need to happen eventually so why not now?

Not a tech-dude here, but i, on the contrary, feel that this is somehow of a crucial matter.
Personally I like bitcoin the way it is now.

I just started reading this thread, but let me show you my point of view regarding this.

In order for bitcoin to succeed as a protocol, not as a currency it needs services running on top of it. Either centralized or decentralized bitcoin is here for everyone(not only for those paying the higher fees)! A first service would be the Lighthouse project which is supposed to be a decentralized way of raising funds Kickstarter-style but which is already limited by the 1MB block size cap (see https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse/faq#max-pledges). Having a 1MB block size limit hinders innovation and tech development in my view and don't forget that I'm also a miner, but I agree and support Gavin in this matter. I view the blockchain as a decentralized and neutral informational highway. Let data flow freely if you want a higher value of the whole ecosystem. Let's find solutions to the potential problems like blockchain bloat by innovating, not by rejecting and imposing limits.

Consider bitcoin as the internet. Everyone is using it whether he is poor (free wi-fi) or wealthy (Google, Facebook etc). There are a lot of great things built on free services (twitter, instagram, facebook etc). I bet that you wouldn't like it if your ISP would have a 100MB/s download speed and would action it for the highest bidder. Forcing fees hinders evolution!

So please let's fork already so we can see some real services coming to life!

hum, you should keep reading,

i'm not sure a full consensus is reachable at that point.
i hear both sides but it is the centralization part that bugs me.
im a long term speculator and thus more incline to keep my coins 'out of it' until the market settles.

anyhow you better start packing on popcorn, bitcoin is such a great adventure! Smiley





Non inultus premor
BitUsher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1031


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 12:22:16 AM
 #168

A first service would be the Lighthouse project which is supposed to be a decentralized way of raising funds Kickstarter-style but which is already limited by the 1MB block size cap (see https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse/faq#max-pledges). Having a 1MB block size limit hinders innovation and tech development in my view

Excellent point I never thought of. This is a perfect example of how having a 1MB cap hurts decentralization by limiting projects like lighthouse, open bazaar and twister.

The fact that lighthouse only can allow for 684 pledges with the possibility of up to 1k means that it is severely limited. Popular crowdfunding platforms will sometimes get 20-50k pledges for a fundraiser or project .

So I suppose a 20MB block will allow for up to 20k pledges with optimizations which is much better.


zimmah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1005



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 12:32:01 AM
 #169

Upgrade the limit sooner rather than later.

Don't be the one to say things like these famous quotes:

  "We will never make a 32-bit operating system." -- Bill Gates, speaking at the launch of MSX in 1983

"Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet's continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." -- Robert Metcalfe, 3Com founder and inventor of Ethernet, 1995

 “There will never be a bigger plane built.” — A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people

Don't assume 1mb is enough just because it is now. If another boom comes, we are likely going to shattered 1mb, and we don't want it to crash just because the network can't handle it do we?

Better to be prepared.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 12:35:40 AM
 #170

This thread makes the centralisation issue clearer:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0

lol this is from feb 2013.. ^^
zimmah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1005



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 12:39:14 AM
 #171

blockchain security will be weakend with this a lot

(less fees for miner which is important after rewards decrease, larger chain, more central mining) = blockchain security to your anus
How do you work that one out? 20x the transactions means 20x the fees.

On the fence, low block size encourages payment infrastructures to build around the limitations but the 10min interval is enough incentive for that anyway and pruning can keep the bloat down but hard drive space is cheap even at 1TB a year anyway... if Gavin reckons go for it then +1, his anorak is much cooler than mine Smiley

Since more transactions will fit, the fee per transaction will be lower because most of the time there is room left in the block to include your transaction. But even though the fee per transaction is lower, the total sum of fees is larger because there are more transactions.

inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 02:01:27 AM
 #172

This thread makes the centralisation issue clearer:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0

lol this is from feb 2013.. ^^


I remember reading that very interesting thread, excellent read back in the day .

This is why I laugh at all the hero members making claims that Gavin is trying to rush this through and it is too quick when we have been discussing it for years.

Perhaps there may be a compromise(not really because we also want decentralization too) made and we implement some change in the hardfork which addresses privacy or centralization concerns at the same time?

altcoin hitler
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 02:03:17 AM
 #173

let's be honest: Gavins' proposal is bullshit and there needs to be other solutions found

King of the real Bitcoin Foundation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=934517.0
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 02:06:45 AM
Last edit: February 02, 2015, 03:54:57 AM by Peter R
 #174

Since more transactions will fit, the fee per transaction will be lower because most of the time there is room left in the block to include your transaction. But even though the fee per transaction is lower, the total sum of fees is larger because there are more transactions.

Is this true?  We can try to answer this question empirically using the data we already have.  

The chart below shows the correlation that exists between the number of transactions per day and the total daily fees paid to the bitcoin miners.  This reveals that indeed the total fees have in fact increased with the increased transaction volume.  



We can take our analysis further.  Let F be the daily fees paid to bitcoin miners, and let N be the number of transactions per day.  Performing a least-squares regression between log F and log N reveals that the total daily fees have actually grown as N raised to the power of 2.7.  What this means is that the fees have historically grown much faster than the number of transactions per day; a doubling of the number of transactions has on average resulted in a 6.5x increase in the total daily fees paid to the miners.  The correlation between the two time series, log F and log N, is 0.92 (strong coupling).

If this correlation continues to hold moving forward in time, the total fees collected by miners will increase sharply with increased transaction volume.  (EDIT: I'm not suggesting that this correlation will necessarily continue--I'm just describing what's happened so far and projecting that into the future.)

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 02:18:09 AM
 #175

Another interesting correlation that exists is the one between Bitcoin's market cap and the number of transactions per day1,2.  If the correlation continues to hold, it suggests that the 1 MB blocksize limit may also limit Bitcoin's future market cap.   



1Actually between the square of the number of transactions and the market cap (Metcalfe's Law).

2I've plotted the number of transactions excluding popular addresses to remove the on-chain gambling bubble of 2012/2013.  This has only a minor effect on the 2014/2015 portion of the data.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3696
Merit: 1213


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 02:22:32 AM
 #176

let's be honest: Gavins' proposal is bullshit and there needs to be other solutions found

An amazing assortment of the most respected and active developers are working on 'sidechains'.  It looks to me like this fits the bill.  I couldn't be more delighted with things going in this direction since it seemed like a logical way of scaling to me since shortly after I read the whitepaper and saw the problem.

Actually I am even more interested in 'treechains' in principle than I am in sidechains, but even if that can be made to work at all it still seems entirely unlikely that it could every be put under the hood of Bitcoin.  Certainly it could form the functional core of some of the sidechain attempts though.  I'll look forward to playing with some of these.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
viboracecata
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000


Varanida : Fair & Transparent Digital Ecosystem


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 02:29:17 AM
 #177

let the block size increase, I've hard to be tolerant to the database resident in c harddisk, I thought the fork is necessary, otherwise, the nodes number will decrease in long time

iBuilding A Better Interneti
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

 
 █b
▐█=
║█
██                                         ¡▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄┌
██M                                  ╒▄▄▄▄█▀    ▂▂ ╙▀▀▆▄
██▌                                ╓, ,██╨      ▀▀▀    ╜▀█▌
███                                ▀▀██╙     ▄▄▄▄▄      ╓█L
█ █▌                            ▄▄▄▄█▀          └▀▀▀▀█Φ█▀"
█▌ █▄                            ██▀           ▄█▀
▐▌  ▀▌                       ▀▄██▀            ▄▀
▐█     ▂▂▂                ▄  ▄█▀           ▄▄▀
 █▌  ╙▀▀▀▀▀█▄         ▄   ███▀     ▁▂▃▄▄▄█▀▀
  █▄        █▌    █▄  ██▄█▀        ▔▔╙▀▐█
   █▄       █▌ ▀▀████▀▀▀               ▐▌
    ▀█     █▀                          ▐▌
     ╙█▄  ▄▌                        ╓█ ▐█
       └▀██  ╓▄▄µ╓▄▄µ            ,▄█▀┘  █▌    ▄▄ ╓▄▄µ
         ██▄█▀▀███▀▀█▄       ╓▄▄█▀▀      ▀█▄█▀▀▀██▄╙▀█▄▄
          ▀╙    ▀▀▀  ▀▀▀  ▀▀▀▀╙           `      "▀▀  └╙
You Can See Me Now, Hi :}
VARANIDA

 
 
 
 
               ▄██   ▄███▄
              ▄███████  ██
              ██    ▀████▀
             ██
  ▄▄  ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▄▄
▄███████████████████████████▄
█████████████████████████████
▀███████    █████    ███████▀
  ▀█████    █████    █████▀
   ███████████████████████
    █████▄  ▀▀▀▀▀  ▄█████
     ▀█████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀
        ▀▀█████████▀▀
|Hello Again
GWhitePaperG
GAnn ThreadG
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3696
Merit: 1213


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 02:35:55 AM
 #178

Since more transactions will fit, the fee per transaction will be lower because most of the time there is room left in the block to include your transaction. But even though the fee per transaction is lower, the total sum of fees is larger because there are more transactions.

Is this true?  Rather than guessing, we can try to answer this question empirically using the data we already have.  

The chart below shows the correlation that exists between the number of transactions per day and the total daily fees paid to the bitcoin miners.  This reveals that indeed the total fees have in fact increased with the increased transaction volume.  



We can take our analysis further.  Let F be the daily fees paid to bitcoin miners, and let N be the number of transactions per day.  Performing a least-squares regression between log F and log N reveals that the total daily fees have actually grown as N raised to the power of 2.7.  What this means is that the fees have historically grown much faster than the number of transactions per day; a doubling of the number of transactions has on average resulted in a 6.5x increase in the total daily fees paid to the miners.  The correlation between the two time series, log F and log N, is 0.92 (strong coupling).

If this correlation continues to hold moving forward in time, the total fees collected by miners will increase sharply with increased transaction volume.    


Even with tx/day logarithmic it doesn't look like a linear fit is very appropriate.  Looks like the whole upper half is flat which would negate your point completely as I understand it.  In fact, I don't really see a good reason to plot this on the log scale in either axis.  Plot it without logs, with data for a reasonably modern time-frame (say, after the unspendable output stuff went in), and knock off the absurd outliers (the only reason to go logarithmic in the first place) and let's see what she looks like.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
February 02, 2015, 02:58:31 AM
Last edit: February 02, 2015, 03:47:26 AM by Peter R
 #179

Even with tx/day logarithmic it doesn't look like a linear fit is very appropriate.  Looks like the whole upper half is flat which would negate your point completely as I understand it.  

I don't expect the F ~ N2.7 relation to hold forever; I think the coefficient in the exponent will decrease over time and perhaps that's what we're already seeing.  I do expect the correlation to remain positive, however.  But that's speculation about the future.  I wanted to look at the facts as of today.  And as of today, the fees have, on average, increased faster than the square of the number of transactions [the correlation is 0.92 (strong)].

Quote
In fact, I don't really see a good reason to plot this on the log scale in either axis.

The total fees range from sub $1 to $10,000+.  On a linear scale, only the recent data over the last few years is clearly visible (and indeed looks flatter as you point out).  But the purpose of this exercise was to inspect the relationship between F and N over as long a time frame as possible (why not use all the data?).  Once again, this doesn't preclude a change in the relationship between fees and transaction volume moving forward in time.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 02, 2015, 03:47:47 AM
 #180

Many of the arguments being presented are so poor that I feel compelled to argue against my position for the sake of elevating the discussion.

+1

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
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 ... 128 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!