|
Totscha
|
 |
February 16, 2015, 04:11:34 PM |
|
... What about decentralized projects like twister , lighthouse , and openbazaar that have limitations imposed by the 1MB block size? What about them? I don't see them in the WoT. Regardless, do you think we are going to compromise the soundness of our money so that some derpy kickstarter replacement can get a free ride on the blockchain? You're insane. I have to say I agree here. A high max block size is an insane idea. It would open up the blockchain to even more spam from 'derpy kiskstarter replacements' and other startup projects that seem bent on using the blockchain as cloud storage. There should always be a disincentive to spam the blockchain, of course. But the 1MB limit may be an obstacle for legitimate wider adoption, so it shouldn't be dismissed outright. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can see the statistics of your reports to moderators on the "Report to moderator" pages.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:15:33 PM
Last edit: February 16, 2015, 04:26:05 PM by inBitweTrust |
|
What about decentralized projects like twister , lighthouse , and openbazaar that have limitations imposed by the 1MB block size? What about them? I don't see them in the WoT. Regardless, do you think we are going to compromise the soundness of our money so that some derpy kickstarter replacement can get a free ride on the blockchain? You're insane. Ohh, the hypocrisy.... You claim to care about decentralization and than when I point out that decentralized apps which serve a critical function (I.E...fundraising in a censorship free environment) are harmed by the 1MB cap you denounce it as "derpy". If privacy and security are important to you should embrace higher transactions buying innocuous items like coffee to mix, mask and shield the unpopular and illegal transactions that states oppose. A payment network with 2-7tps can more easily be tracked and monitored than one with higher transactions. |
|
|
|
davout
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007
1davout
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:19:45 PM |
|
apps which serve a critical function
Please point me at one of these apps that currently serves a "critical function". |
|
|
|
|
Totscha
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:23:42 PM |
|
...
We agree on the problem, we disagree on the solution. Treating it as a 'production server' replacement, would be the wrong approach.
How many times do you want to replace this 'production server' for the same reason?
If we are going to a dynamic limit, it should be one that isn't going to need to change later, and can be assured that it will be fit for purpose, and without opening up new vulnerabilities.
The problem with that... it isn't simple.
If the limit were say 10x the average size of the last 1000 blocks, it would still provide the anti-spam protection and keep the node distribution from getting too centralized
Not necessarily.  My only point is that a fixed 1MB limit is a bad idea long term. So increasing it makes a lot of sense. What is the formula for the sweet spot? Beats me. We have a year or two to figure that out. The thing is, I don't think there will ever be mass adoption of the system as it exist today. The 'average Joe' will be using some payment processor and not the blockchain directly. So the blockchain will have transactions from payment processors and early adopters/enthusiasts. The rest will be in closed systems and/or side chains that can solve a lot of the volume issues. But still, 1 MB is not enought. |
|
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:26:13 PM |
|
I have to say I agree here. A high max block size is an insane idea. It would open up the blockchain to even more spam from 'derpy kiskstarter replacements' and other startup projects that seem bent on using the blockchain as cloud storage. There should always be a disincentive to spam the blockchain, of course. But the 1MB limit may be an obstacle for legitimate wider adoption, so it shouldn't be dismissed outright.
Pruning should arrive in Bitcoin Core 0.11, allowing people to run a full node with only 1 GB of storage space. |
|
|
|
danielpbarron
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
Daniel P. Barron
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:27:21 PM |
|
I point out that decentralized apps which serve a critical function So says the idiot. And for those of you allergic to clicking trilema links: I guess sooner or later I'll lose, because idiocy has infinite hitpoints. What does this mean, you might ask. How many times do you have to get ripped off by some anonymous "business" before you realize it just cannot work? Infinitely many times, apparently. Sucks. |
Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish |
|
|
NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:30:28 PM |
|
...
We agree on the problem, we disagree on the solution. Treating it as a 'production server' replacement, would be the wrong approach.
How many times do you want to replace this 'production server' for the same reason?
If we are going to a dynamic limit, it should be one that isn't going to need to change later, and can be assured that it will be fit for purpose, and without opening up new vulnerabilities.
The problem with that... it isn't simple.
If the limit were say 10x the average size of the last 1000 blocks, it would still provide the anti-spam protection and keep the node distribution from getting too centralized
Not necessarily. My only point is that a fixed 1MB limit is a bad idea long term. So increasing it makes a lot of sense. What is the formula for the sweet spot? Beats me. We have a year or two to figure that out. The thing is, I don't think there will ever be mass adoption of the system as it exist today. The 'average Joe' will be using some payment processor and not the blockchain directly. So the blockchain will have transactions from payment processors and early adopters/enthusiasts. The rest will be in closed systems and/or side chains that can solve a lot of the volume issues. But still, 1 MB is not enought. We're probably in agreement on this then. I don't like the 'exponential best guess' approach. I'd favor either a new static limit, maybe 8MB to give a bit more time for a real solution, or... a real solution. A real solution would be a limit that right-sizes as blocks are added that both prevents abuse, and allows for transaction growth so that we don't get queued transactions that are chipping in reasonable fees and accounts for days destroyed. We aren't anywhere close to mass adoption. |
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:30:47 PM |
|
apps which serve a critical function
Please point me at one of these apps that currently serves a "critical function". We probably disagree on what is critical. I believe that censorship resistant apps like lighthouse where people can crowdfund objectionable and illegal projects serves and important function. You probably are content to have Bitcoin function as an antiquated payment protocol that is only capable of 2-7 tps. Any payment protocol that can only handle that transaction volume is going to be centralized by design because the vast amount of participants simply won't be allowed to use it. |
|
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007
1davout
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:32:04 PM |
|
Pruning should arrive in Bitcoin Core 0.11, allowing people to run a full node with only 1 GB of storage space.
Please answer this simple question: "how does one bootstrap a full node once everybody's pruning?". |
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:36:17 PM |
|
Pruning should arrive in Bitcoin Core 0.11, allowing people to run a full node with only 1 GB of storage space.
Please answer this simple question: "how does one bootstrap a full node once everybody's pruning?". That's not a valid question as it assumes that everyone will be running a pruned full node. |
|
|
|
danielpbarron
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
Daniel P. Barron
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:39:36 PM |
|
I believe that censorship resistant apps like lighthouse where people can crowdfund objectionable and illegal projects serves and important function. Look at the muppet pretending that MPEx doesn't exist. For those of you that need a reminder: My name is Daphna Waxman and I am an attorney with the Enforcement Division of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Commission staff would like to speak with you concerning the listing of shares of SatoshiDICE on MPEx.
I would appreciate if you would contact me directly by email or telephone. Please see my contact information below. |
Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish |
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007
1davout
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:43:02 PM |
|
That's not a valid question as it assumes that everyone will be running a pruned full node.
It is a perfectly valid question, because why should one *not* prune? Altruism? Especially on a chain that adds 1 TB/year... |
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:44:13 PM |
|
I believe that censorship resistant apps like lighthouse where people can crowdfund objectionable and illegal projects serves and important function. Look at the muppet pretending that MPEx doesn't exist. For those of you that need a reminder: My name is Daphna Waxman and I am an attorney with the Enforcement Division of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Commission staff would like to speak with you concerning the listing of shares of SatoshiDICE on MPEx.
I would appreciate if you would contact me directly by email or telephone. Please see my contact information below. I am familiar with MPEx and some of its history. Those are centralized solutions that serve different purposes and that have added fees associated with them and counterparty risks with some untrustworthy operators. No thanks. |
|
|
|
danielpbarron
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
Daniel P. Barron
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:47:44 PM |
|
I believe that censorship resistant apps like lighthouse where people can crowdfund objectionable and illegal projects serves and important function. Look at the muppet pretending that MPEx doesn't exist. For those of you that need a reminder: My name is Daphna Waxman and I am an attorney with the Enforcement Division of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Commission staff would like to speak with you concerning the listing of shares of SatoshiDICE on MPEx.
I would appreciate if you would contact me directly by email or telephone. Please see my contact information below. Those are centralized solutions that serve different purposes and that have added fees associated with them and counterparty risks with some untrustworthy operators. No thanks. You have to trust someone. Your "decentralized everything" doesn't eliminate trust; you have to trust the guy that's getting the funding. You have to trust that he won't just run off once the check clears. That's where people like MP come in: to personally kill those who intend to defraud their customers. |
Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish |
|
|
|
onemorebtc
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:48:47 PM |
|
That's not a valid question as it assumes that everyone will be running a pruned full node.
It is a perfectly valid question, because why should one *not* prune? Altruism? Especially on a chain that adds 1 TB/year... because if everybody prunes 100% the network will collapse - thats the reason why no one would prune all (yes this is a dillema, but as most people will run the "official" bitcoin-core its just a matter of good design - and that this works can be seen with miners: they would just mine empty blocks if they would be only interested in coins). i'd say what would happen is that every node keeps about 10% of "other" transactions which would help bootstrapping in a real p2p manner. DnD made a nice reply to me as i was having the same concern a long time ago.. sorry i cant find it anymore ;( |
transfer 3 onemorebtc.k1024.de 1
|
|
|
|
NxtChg
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:50:44 PM |
|
What about them? I don't see them in the WoT.
What is wrong with this guy and his "WoT"?  This is clinical. Dude, I don't see your name in here: http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/So how about you stop pretending like you and your little stupid club matter? |
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:51:48 PM |
|
That's not a valid question as it assumes that everyone will be running a pruned full node.
It is a perfectly valid question, because why should one *not* prune? Altruism? Especially on a chain that adds 1 TB/year... Why do you insist on spreading the lie of 1TB a year? It is idiotic to assume that raising the block limit to 20MB will insure that all blocks instantly and continuously remain full; most blocks now are only 1/3 full. I will be happy to carry on this conversation when you can admit that your claim that we will see 1TB a year is simply fear mongering and it unlikely to be realized anytime soon. Until than you credibility has been shot as evidenced by your repeated attempts of spreading FUD despite being corrected through this thread. Yes, I and other will be happy to continue to host full non-pruned nodes for free. This is in our selfish best interest as we want bitcoin to remain decentralized to succeed. |
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:58:18 PM |
|
You have to trust someone. Your "decentralized everything" doesn't eliminate trust; you have to trust the guy that's getting the funding. You have to trust that he won't just run off once the check clears. That's where people like MP come in: to personally kill those who intend to defraud their customers. So you link to a picture of your "savior" getting high and suggest you trust him because he acts like a tough bully on the internet and offers to murder people to defend his flock of followers. No thanks, your hero worship for a psychopathic murderer? doesn't impress me. Drugs can be dangerous and if you are consuming too many like your "god" MP you should probably seek some addiction counseling. |
|
|
|
danielpbarron
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
Daniel P. Barron
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:59:04 PM |
|
What about them? I don't see them in the WoT.
What is wrong with this guy and his "WoT"? This is clinical. Dude, I don't see your name in here: http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/So how about you stop pretending like you and your little stupid club matter? Sorry. I thought this was bitcointalk.org; not fiattalk.org. My mistake. |
Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish |
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007
1davout
|
|
February 16, 2015, 05:06:56 PM |
|
Yes, I and other will be happy to continue to host full non-pruned nodes for free. This is in our selfish best interest as we want bitcoin to remain decentralized to succeed.
That's very nice indeed, but I'd rather have the value of my stash rely on correctly aligned incentives than on the goodwill of a few hobbyist derps. |
|
|
|
|
Poll
