Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[redsn0w]

lol. Microtransactions bloat and Dos attack, here we come. 2.8 GB each day potentially. wow

didn't sync up for a week? Will take you a whole day to catch up.

People downloading the chain first time will leave the computer running for a month later on 

Your internet provider will be outraged and cancel your contract if you're a bitcoin user 

it is simple, if you don't want the fork ... don't *follow* it .

i don't see me downloading 2.8GB every day just to sync up - and i know almost nobody will do that, that's why gavincoin will be the loosing fork (that was the basic point of the thread)

HEY RETARD! YOU WILL NOT NEED TO DOWNLOAD 2.8 GB EVERY DAY JUST TO SYNC UP! IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

[1714023045]

1714023045

[1714023045]

1714023045

[1714023045]

1714023045

[1714023045]

1714023045

[1714023045]

1714023045

[Pecunia non olet]

lol. Microtransactions bloat and Dos attack, here we come. 2.8 GB each day potentially. wow

didn't sync up for a week? Will take you a whole day to catch up.

People downloading the chain first time will leave the computer running for a month later on 

Your internet provider will be outraged and cancel your contract if you're a bitcoin user 

it is simple, if you don't want the fork ... don't *follow* it .

i don't see me downloading 2.8GB every day just to sync up - and i know almost nobody will do that, that's why gavincoin will be the loosing fork (that was the basic point of the thread)

HEY RETARD! YOU WILL NOT NEED TO DOWNLOAD 2.8 GB EVERY DAY JUST TO SYNC UP! IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

we'll see what happens 

[tvbcof]

I aint got time for 42 pages so lets see if someone can answer me this one:

If Satoshi was so smart, why the hell didnt he predict the need of at least 20MB to avoid this big problem later on? did he seriously not calculate this?

Hell yes, he did.  I'm the guy who went over the blockchain stuff in Satoshi's first cut of the bitcoin code.  Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea.  Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB.  Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed.  The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.  But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.

Pretty much anyone can pop up and claim they were key players.  Between your relatively new account and the other two people being AWOL/dead, I'd need something a bit more solid so lay very high odds on you're being something other than full of shit.  Even if things are more or less as you say, Bitcoin didn't always attract the best and the brightest among the dearth of interest in the early days.  That much is clear from people we can verify as having been around back in the day.
 

Several attempted "abuses" of the blockchain under the 1MB limit have proved Hal right about needing the limit at least for launching purposes.  A lot of people wanted to piggyback extraneous information onto the blockchain, and before miners (and the community generally) realized that blockchain space was a valuable resource they would have allowed it.  The blockchain would probably be several times as big a download now if that limit hadn't been in place, because it would have a lot of random 1-satoshi transactions that exist only to encode information for altcoins etc.

At this point I don't think random schmoes who would allow just any transaction are getting a  lot of blocks. The people who have made a major investment in hashing power are doing the math to figure out which tx are worthwhile to include because block propagation time (and therefore the risk of orphan blocks) is proportional to block size. So at this point I think blockchain bloat as such is no longer likely to a problem, and the 1MB limit is no longer necessary.  It has been more-or-less replaced by a profitability limit that motivates people to not waste blockchain bandwidth, and miners are now reliably dropping transactions that don't pay fees. 

I would not expect a highly capable early designer to forget about that IBLT's are pretty much universally accepted as a good thing (though I personally have my doubts) so they will probably make it in.  As you should know, this will obviate the concerns about block propagation times and thus the natural incentive to keep block sizes limited.  This being the case, do you feel like taking the time to elaborate on how spam and utilization by those who wish to exploit the subsidies to use the highly secure system for other projects?

[Cryddit]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=382374.0

[tvbcof]

A little note to my compadres on the 'keep it lite, tight, and defensible' side of the fence:

We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.  A devilish one given the resources of the attackers, but we always knew that such attacks were inevitable.  We also knew that it would not be easy or fun to deal with them.

If we have confidence in the principles of Bitcoin as a defensible solution, we should not fear this attack, but we also should not discount it of course.  I retain enough confidence in the defensibly of Bitcoin to be inclined to put up a fight.  Nowhere does the concept of 'what does not kill us only makes us stronger' better apply and we should try to welcome the attack for that reason.

[pereira4]

Apparently we've had 3 forks already, why this should be any different? lets just cooperate please.

[tvbcof]

Apparently we've had 3 forks already, why this should be any different? lets just cooperate please.

To answer your question, the earlier forks addressed situations which were universally accepted to be problems if not flat-out emergencies.  The 'gavincoin' hard-fork is far from this.  As I mentioned above, I and I think it's safe to say that a fair number of others consider it a significant regression which will lead to the death of the system as something which exists in ways that are important to me.

Bitcoin always has and always will mean different things to different people.  I'm not joking when I say that I believe the hard-fork is a deliberate attack on the part of some people and a stepping-stone toward destroying Bitcoin by destroying fungibility (chiefly through {color}-listing.)

That said, I also don't doubt that a high percentage of people who want the increase in transaction rate are completely earnest in their belief that it is necessary and non-threatening.  But very few people really have the skills and foresight to do system analysis on a complex ecosystem such as Bitcoin which has a strong footprint in diverse fields.  Principally economics, power politics, and network engineering.

  - edits: slight syntax/spelling

[R2D221]

We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

An attack? To remove a constraint that was always meant to be temporary? That's an attack?

[Muuurrrrica!]

blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:

-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex

[tvbcof]

We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

An attack? To remove a constraint that was always meant to be temporary? That's an attack?

Did I stutter?

Lot's of things that were hypothesized such as pruning have yet to happen.  Also it was very unclear who would be embracing the system and why in the early times.  With six years of history and ecosystem evolution it is perfectly relevant to re-evaluate certain things.  And, as always, it would be simplistic to assume that everyone who was involved were always fully transparent and accurate with their thoughts.  Satoshi had to make the best use of the resources he found at his disposal, and he himself may not have had a God-like understanding of all of the factors anyway.

[benjamindees]

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

Alts will continue to evolve and make Bitcoin pointless with time.

Two!  Two alt-coin shills!  Aah, aah, aah!

/lightning

[redsn0w]

blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:

-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex

Lol What? You mean the people who aren't trolling or spamming for anti fork?

I think Muuurrrrica is not a fan of decentralization, let wait this fork and we will see who *follow* it and who not  .

[Muuurrrrica!]

blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:

-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex

Lol What? You mean the people who aren't trolling or spamming for anti fork?

I think Muuurrrrica is not a fan of decentralization, let wait this fork and we will see who *follow* it and who not  .

lol, how full of shit some people are 

[redsn0w]

blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:

-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex

Lol What? You mean the people who aren't trolling or spamming for anti fork?

I think Muuurrrrica is not a fan of decentralization, let wait this fork and we will see who *follow* it and who not  .

lol, how full of shit some people are 

...or we can name this "freedom of speech" , what do you think ? If you will not like the 20 Mb fork "stay" in the other chain, and don't update your client.

[R2D221]

We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

An attack? To remove a constraint that was always meant to be temporary? That's an attack?

Did I stutter?

Lot's of things that were hypothesized such as pruning have yet to happen.  Also it was very unclear who would be embracing the system and why in the early times.  With six years of history and ecosystem evolution it is perfectly relevant to re-evaluate certain things.  And, as always, it would be simplistic to assume that everyone who was involved were always fully transparent and accurate with their thoughts.  Satoshi had to make the best use of the resources he found at his disposal, and he himself may not have had a God-like understanding of all of the factors anyway.

That still fails to explain why you think raising the limit is an attack.

[Buffer Overflow]

blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:

-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex

You know it boggles the mind why you are even on this thread in the first place due to this quote:

The future of cryptocurrency will be not bitcoin

If your predicting this why all the hand wringing over the bitcoin update as it won't effect you in the slightest?

[Buffer Overflow]

We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

Yeah your going hit a brick wall attempting this angle. Ain't gonna work.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin always has and always will mean different things to different people.  I'm not joking when I say that I believe the hard-fork is a deliberate attack on the part of some people and a stepping-stone toward destroying Bitcoin by destroying fungibility (chiefly through {color}-listing.)

As you seem to be the only person in the thread who sees a connection between a higher block size and blacklisting coins, perhaps you could walk us down the logic path you took to reach that conclusion?  Sounds like an attempt at scaremongering to me.  Either that, or the anti-fork crowd are running out of legitimate arguments and are getting desperate.

[Stephen Gornick]

If there is no hardfork, will even UTXOs with just 0.001 bitcoins (one millibit) become economically unspendable?

Let's say with blocks filling we have fees rising to about 0.001 per 1K of data (on average).   So with that you have fees totaling about 1 bitcoin per block.  That's about 144 bitcoins per day.  (in addition to the block reward subsidy of 3,600 bitcoins per day).   So even with fees of 0.001 per 1K miners are still earning less than 4% of total revenue from fees, with the rest of their income being the block reward subsidy.

But here's here I'm seeing the problem.  With space becoming scarce, the fees make a whole lot of UTXOs economically unspendable.  A 1K transaction might be something like six inputs and two outputs.  So with a fee of 0.001 means the marginal cost for each UTXO input is about 0.0001  (roughly 300 bytes for the trx and two outputs, and ~120 bytes for each input [Edit: rough guess, but in the ballpark I believe]).  That means the fee at  0.001 per 1K costs about 10% for each UTXO of one millibit.

This wasn't something that concerned me previously because fees had only been dropping over time.  If fees on those UTXOs were costly then you simply don't spend them and you could wait for the next drop in fees.  With blocks filling causing rising fees (to 0.001 bitcoin per 1K size) then the penalty for retaining UTXOs of one millibit or less can be 10% (or more!).

And that's only with the required fees rising 0.001 bitcoin per 1K.   What if it rises to 0.01 bitcoin per 1K size.  Now your marginal cost for each UTXO input is about 0.001 which means each and every UTXO of 0.001 or less has become completely worthless (i.e., it costs as much in fees to spend as it is worth).

The argument against Bitcoin value rising being a problem was that with divisibility we could just transact in smaller and smaller amounts.   We even saw a push to start using the term "bits" (0.000001 bitcoin).  But if any UTXO not significantly above 0.001 bitcoin becomes economically unspendable then "divisibility to 8 decimals" as being something that solves the deflationary problem is no longer rational counterargument.

I don't know what is worse -- monetary inflation causing a 4% devaluation per-year, or each year rising fees causing 4% of the funds in your wallet to become unspendable.

[master sato]

pro , We need it and we will see it at some point. The earlier we start the transition the better.