Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[Lauda]

I can't possible be the only concerned with the possibility that Gavin or whoever is in his place in the future wont try to increase the number of coins, the same argument will apply. Hard-forking is a mistake.

This is pure FUD.

The block size cap is temporary, always has been.
The coin supply is permanent, always has been.

There is a Pacific ocean of a difference.

Just ignore such trolls. You can't reason with them.
The worst part of it all is that they are trying to argument to stop the fork using false information, where they clearly don't even understand the underlying technology correctly.

[1582971643]

1582971643

[1582971643]

1582971643

[R2D221]

It's not FUD, its a FOD.

I thought it was FUD.

[Buffer Overflow]

ad hominem everywhere, I'm out this discussion, enjoy your fork.

I don't see why the Bitcoin fork would bother you anyway.
Remember...

there is no reason to use Bitcoin now that Monero is the perfect virtual cash

[kingcolex]

ad hominem everywhere, I'm out this discussion, enjoy your fork.

I don't see why the Bitcoin fork would bother you anyway.
Remember...

there is no reason to use Bitcoin now that Monero is the perfect virtual cash

uh, yes Bitcoin is a ridiculous bad coin for payments, its slow and traceable but the current network effect can render it an electronic gold, you dont use gold to buy coffee, you use it to store value.

You comment is an example, with Bitcoin if I know that an address belong to someone I can go back in time and use its history to perform ad hominem attacks, or worse

Bitcoin is perfect for payments, it can transfer instantly, it has low fees, it is proven, it has payment processors who sell things unlike Monero.

[zimmah]

I’ll try to restate a point from that post that it seems some people are missing: you can’t maximize the total price paid for something by simply limiting the supply of that something, especially if there are substitute goods available to which people can switch.

I can't possible be the only concerned with the possibility that Gavin or whoever is in his place in the future wont try to increase the number of coins, the same argument will apply. Hard-forking is a mistake.

And what makes you think we would agree?

Just because we agree with Gavin when he makes a sane decision doesn't mean we agree with him when he makes an insane one.

[Gavin Andresen]

If I ever go insane and suggest increasing the 21 million coin limit, please put me on your ignore list.

I will remind everybody again of Satoshi's second public post where he talked about scalability:

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

If you didn't do your homework and thought that Bitcoin == 1MB blocks forever, well, that's your fault.

I signed up for a Bitcoin that would scale.

[RoadStress]

If I ever go insane and suggest increasing the 21 million coin limit, please put me on your ignore list.

I will remind everybody again of Satoshi's second public post where he talked about scalability:
<removed quote>

If you didn't do your homework and thought that Bitcoin == 1MB blocks forever, well, that's your fault.

I signed up for a Bitcoin that would scale.

Thank you. Keep doing what you are doing!

[Quantus]

If I ever go insane and suggest increasing the 21 million coin limit, please put me on your ignore list.

I will remind everybody again of Satoshi's second public post where he talked about scalability:

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

If you didn't do your homework and thought that Bitcoin == 1MB blocks forever, well, that's your fault.

I signed up for a Bitcoin that would scale.

How large do you think the blocks need to be?

Edit: Will you be supporting any efforts to kill off the 1mb chain after the fork? Sorry last edit

[tvbcof]

If I ever go insane and suggest increasing the 21 million coin limit, please put me on your ignore list.

I will remind everybody again of Satoshi's second public post where he talked about scalability:

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

If you didn't do your homework and thought that Bitcoin == 1MB blocks forever, well, that's your fault.

I signed up for a Bitcoin that would scale.

I signed up for a Bitcoin that wasn't controlled by those who already have power.  I knew fuckin good and well that it wouldn't scale in a simplistic transaction rate manner while preserving almost anything about it that I liked (and which were highly marketed) and so did a lot of other of the more experienced early adopters I'll bet.

I'll lay 50/50 odds that Satoshi found that much of his early interest were starry-eyed fundamentalists and fed you folks a load of bullshit when he was caught patching in the 1MB.  He picked you as 'lead' for your Pillsbury Doughboy nature.  Hearn was one of the few guys who actually saw what was going on, but for whatever reason or set of reasons his wishes for the solution are that it be brought under control and somehow he caught your ear.

Why don't you do one simple thing:  Say clearly where you want to see the solution end up, compute the size you need to do so, and do the hard fork one time.

If 140 tps is where you want to stop, say so.  If 2000 tps is where you want to stop, say and do that.  If 20,000, say that.  Now you are playing both ends by leaving this value open.  You let people say 'oh, we can handle 140 and remain decentralized.' and also 'oh, we can scale as needed.'  It's slimy and it sucks and you should be ashamed.

I think you won't do this for the same reason you gently pull a hooked fish into the dip-net rather than jerk it around which scares it and risks a broken fishing line.  There is very little other reason if you are going to demand a fork before any real transaction fees happen.

Initial examples of sidechains will probably be out in a few months.  Long before the 1MB becomes a problem (if it ever really would.)  A properly implemented two-way-peg makes a sidecoin an excellent proxy for a bitcoin and offers a true potential to both scale and to keep Bitcoin lite and defensible.  It also provides the potential to keep proof-of-work happening on Bitcoin even if as the simplistic economics fail (as they are now from what I read.)  I have not heard much from you about that, and I have every expectation that you are fully able to see through the nonsense of the idiots here on trolltalk.  All I see is you working double-time to hard-fork, and it's awfully tempting to believe that sidechains have you in a panic for fear that they would work great.

For my part even as the one of the more vocal of the small blockchain crowd, I worry that 4-7 tps isn't enough even when penny-ante micro-transactions are happening off on some sidechain or another.  If I saw a clear and well constructed path to real scaling and 1MB simply wasn't sufficient and it was demonstrated with something resembling rigor I'd change my tune about a fork.  As it is, all you bloatchain guys are doing is herding a bunch of drooling sheep with simplistic fundamentalism, faith-based decentralization, nebulous claims about scaling, scare tactics and such-like.  That's how I see it.

---

I'm pretty sure I'm right and you are wrong, and the more I think about it (from tapping out an earlier post on this thread), I think there is a damn good chance that 'mpcoin' could come out on top in the end.  I'm actually kind of looking forward to a battle to say the truth.  As I said, such a thing would be a really good way to really harden the system in a form where it is actually worth having around on planet earth.

[CoinCidental]

If I ever go insane and suggest increasing the 21 million coin limit, please put me on your ignore list.

I will remind everybody again of Satoshi's second public post where he talked about scalability:

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

If you didn't do your homework and thought that Bitcoin == 1MB blocks forever, well, that's your fault.

I signed up for a Bitcoin that would scale.

I signed up for a Bitcoin that wasn't controlled by those who already have power.  I knew fuckin good and well that it wouldn't scale in a simplistic transaction rate manner while preserving almost anything about it that I liked (and which were highly marketed) and so did a lot of other of the more experienced early adopters I'll bet.

I'll lay 50/50 odds that Satoshi found that much of his early interest were starry-eyed fundamentalists and fed you folks a load of bullshit when he was caught patching in the 1MB.  He picked you as 'lead' for your Pillsbury Doughboy nature.  Hearn was one of the few guys who actually saw what was going on, but for whatever reason or set of reasons his wishes for the solution are that it be brought under control and somehow he caught your ear.

Why don't you do one simple thing:  Say clearly where you want to see the solution end up, compute the size you need to do so, and do the hard fork one time.

If 140 tps is where you want to stop, say so.  If 2000 tps is where you want to stop, say and do that.  If 20,000, say that.  Now you are playing both ends by leaving this value open.  You let people say 'oh, we can handle 140 and remain decentralized.' and also 'oh, we can scale as needed.'  It's slimy and it sucks and you should be ashamed.

I think you won't do this for the same reason you gently pull a hooked fish into the dip-net rather than jerk it around which scares it and risks a broken fishing line.  There is very little other reason if you are going to demand a fork before any real transaction fees happen.

Initial examples of sidechains will probably be out in a few months.  Long before the 1MB becomes a problem (if it ever really would.)  A properly implemented two-way-peg makes a sidecoin an excellent proxy for a bitcoin and offers a true potential to both scale and to keep Bitcoin lite and defensible.  It also provides the potential to keep proof-of-work happening on Bitcoin even if as the simplistic economics fail (as they are now from what I read.)  I have not heard much from you about that, and I have every expectation that you are fully able to see through the nonsense of the idiots here on trolltalk.  All I see is you working double-time to hard-fork, and it's awfully tempting to believe that sidechains have you in a panic for fear that they would work great.

For my part even as the one of the more vocal of the small blockchain crowd, I worry that 4-7 tps isn't enough even when penny-ante micro-transactions are happening off on some sidechain or another.  If I saw a clear and well constructed path to real scaling and 1MB simply wasn't sufficient and it was demonstrated with something resembling rigor I'd change my tune about a fork.  As it is, all you bloatchain guys are doing is herding a bunch of drooling sheep with simplistic fundamentalism, faith-based decentralization, nebulous claims about scaling, scare tactics and such-like.  That's how I see it.

---

I'm pretty sure I'm right and you are wrong, and the more I think about it (from tapping out an earlier post on this thread), I think there is a damn good chance that 'mpcoin' could come out on top in the end.  I'm actually kind of looking forward to a battle to say the truth.  As I said, such a thing would be a really good way to really harden the system in a form where it is actually worth having around on planet earth.

WTF IS A BLOATCHAIN ?
youve completely missed the entire argument the blocks will stay the same size as now until there is another big rally and transactions to support such.....

[R2D221]

Where are you storing the sidechain? My question still applies.

[R2D221]

I'm pretty sure I'm right and you are wrong,

Also, this is pretty arrogant.

[Lauda]

-snip-
For my part even as the one of the more vocal of the small blockchain crowd, I worry that 4-7 tps isn't enough even when penny-ante micro-transactions are happening off on some sidechain or another.  If I saw a clear and well constructed path to real scaling and 1MB simply wasn't sufficient and it was demonstrated with something resembling rigor I'd change my tune about a fork.  As it is, all you bloatchain guys are doing is herding a bunch of drooling sheep with simplistic fundamentalism, faith-based decentralization, nebulous claims about scaling, scare tactics and such-like.  That's how I see it.
---

I'm pretty sure I'm right and you are wrong, and the more I think about it (from tapping out an earlier post on this thread), I think there is a damn good chance that 'mpcoin' could come out on top in the end.  I'm actually kind of looking forward to a battle to say the truth.  As I said, such a thing would be a really good way to really harden the system in a form where it is actually worth having around on planet earth.

Basically your post is nicely written nonsense. The problem lies in power and control.
140 TPS might be enough in the upcoming years, but later it will not be. What you've also understood wrong is that the current TPS is not 4-7, it will average even less (which is horrible).

B: That "I'm pretty sure I'm right and you are wrong" is a hilarious logical fallacy. Using your proposition as proof for your conclusion. You're not right because you've said that you're right.
Here's a quote for the 'bloatchain'..

We still have people thinking that increasing the block size limit by a factor of 20 will increase the blockchain size by the same factor.
This is FALSE.
The blockchain will grow slowly over time. It will take us years before we reach this limit. Besides the cost per GB of storage is pretty low these days.

By the time the chain starts becoming huge we would probably develop some pruning/compression techniques.

[solex]

Edit: Will you be supporting any efforts to kill off the 1mb chain after the fork? Sorry last edit

I am sure he won't. He has load of important stuff to move onto.

The problem with the 1MB chain is that difficulty will be so high for the few miners left on it that it will take a year for diff to fall until 10 minute blocks are happening again.
Every 2016 blocks the diff can only fall 75%, so it won't be usable for several adjustments, and these will take massive amounts of time.

[hdbuck]

Gerald Davis is wrong. Here's why:

http://trilema.com/2015/gerald-davis-is-wrong-heres-why/

To fork or not to fork? That's not even the question..

[Buffer Overflow]

Gerald Davis is wrong. Here's why:

http://trilema.com/2015/gerald-davis-is-wrong-heres-why/

To fork or not to fork? That's not even the question..

Yeah, same old story though. 99% of the post is trying to be witty, insulting people, score browny points, telling us how great he is etc...
I read through a few paragraphs and stopped. Which is shame because there is probably some good arguments buried deep in there somewhere inside.
If he wants to people to take him seriously, he'll need to up his game to a more professional level.

[bambou]

Gerald Davis is wrong. Here's why:

http://trilema.com/2015/gerald-davis-is-wrong-heres-why/

To fork or not to fork? That's not even the question..

Yeah, same old story though. 99% of the post is trying to be witty, insulting people, score browny points, telling us how great he is etc...
I read through a few paragraphs and stopped. Which is shame because there is probably some good arguments buried deep in there somewhere inside.
If he wants to people to take him seriously, he'll need to up his game to a more professional level.

Not sure what he wants, besides for bitcoin to succeed, obviously. But then that notion is subjective, again and again..
Should read it entirely and not take offense personally, be more mature.
Still it's quite fun imho. ^^

[Buffer Overflow]

Should read it entirely and not take offense personally, be more mature.

So not wanting to wade through a bog of cheap shot point scoring scrawl to extract the real content is immature?

Mmmmmmmm.....  
 

[amincd]

Just a reminder, from DeathAndTaxes' excellent post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

Code:

Maximum supported users based on transaction frequency.
Assumptions: 1MB block, 821 bytes per txn
Throughput:  2.03 tps, 64,000,000 transactions annually

Total #        Transactions per  Transaction
direct users     user annually    Frequency
       <8,000       8760          Once an hour
      178,000        365          Once a day
      500,000        128          A few (2.4) times a week
    1,200,000         52          Once a week
    2,600,000         24  Twice a month
    5,300,000         12  Once a month
   16,000,000          4  Once a quarter
   64,000,000          1          Once a year
  200,000,000          0.3        Less than once every few years
1,000,000,000          0.06       Less than once a decade

As you can see even with an average transaction frequency of just once a week or once a month the network can't support more than a token number of users.  When someone advocates a permanent cap of 1MB what they are saying is I think Bitcoin will be great if it is never used by more than a couple million users making less than one transaction per month.  Such a system will never survive even as a store of value as it is eclipsed by alternatives which are more inclusive.  

1MB doesn't can't even keep up with existing non-retail payment networks.
Going back to that coffee meme, the implied message is that 1MB is fine unless for everything else.  You know substantial stuff like paying your mortgage, business deals, major capital expenditures, or paying a supplier for inventory.  This just isn't the case though.  Do you know anyone who pays for coffee with a bank wire? The FedWire service (run by US federal reserve) processes ~150 million bank wires annually.   The FedWire service only operates in the US.  Internationally the largest clearinghouse is SWIFT and it processes more than 5 billion transfers annually.  The US ACH network is even larger with 19 billion transactions annually (excluding converted checks).  There are also about 2 billion international remittances annually (western union, moneygram, and other networks).  A 1MB restricted Bitcoin network couldn't even keep up with these transfer networks even if you forget about retail sales completely.  The idea keeping the 1MB restriction, only keeps limits the utility of small payments is simply incorrect.

Code:

Bitcoin block size to reach comparable network volume based on average txn size
Network    txn volume        Average transaction size
           annually (mil)    373 bytes   560 bytes   833 bytes
FedWire       150               1.1 MB      1.7 MB      2.3 MB
Remittance  2,000              14.2 MB     21.3 MB     31.7 MB
SWIFT       5,000              35.5 MB     53.3 MB     79.3 MB
ACH        19,000             134.8 MB    202.4 MB    301.0 MB

This completely settles the 'debate' over WHETHER the 1 MB restriction should be lifted. The only question is what should replace it.

[Buffer Overflow]

Will you be supporting any efforts to kill off the 1mb chain after the fork?

If the minority end up using the 1MB chain, it will become just another altcoin. To my knowledge Gavin doesn't actively engage in destroying altcoins that I'm aware of, unless others know different.
Of course if the minority choose the 20MB, that will become the altcoin.