Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2017, 07:08:11 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
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 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ...  (Read 103901 times)
ajareselde
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638

Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 12:49:14 AM
 #361

I'm for 8 because it seems that more people can agree on that. Thus less threat of division.

It's not always about what people want now, it's what those people may need in the future. Isn't it better just to go with the 20 MB, rather than having the possibility of having to make another change soon after?
There is far more damage done by arguing about this, than the 20 MB could of caused, imho.
cheers
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513235291
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513235291

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513235291
Reply with quote  #2

1513235291
Report to moderator
1513235291
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513235291

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513235291
Reply with quote  #2

1513235291
Report to moderator
1513235291
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513235291

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513235291
Reply with quote  #2

1513235291
Report to moderator
ammy009
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 306


★Pi Coin★ [POS+POW] [NO ICO] !


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 07:25:28 AM
 #362

I agree with it  Cheesy

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 11:34:35 AM
 #363

I should just leave this here:


It's quite obvious that 1MB won't be enough pretty soon IMO. However, 20MB might be a bit too much at the moment. Although we might just end up discussing(wasting our time) again.
We are very near to seeing full blocks. It shouldn't take us much longer as we already have an average block size of 0.6MB.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
Muhammed Zakir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560


I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2015, 01:04:00 PM
 #364

I should just leave this here:


It's quite obvious that 1MB won't be enough pretty soon IMO. However, 20MB might be a bit too much at the moment. Although we might just end up discussing(wasting our time) again.
We are very near to seeing full blocks. It shouldn't take us much longer as we already have an average block size of 0.6MB.

We obviously need to increase block size. Many of them doesn't want to increase maximum size to 20MB is because most nodes will go down due to low space but I doubt we will reach 20MB in the near future. However, a limit was placed to prevent a few problems such as DOS and I think Bitcoin has still not overcome that problem. So I guess increasing block size to 8MB(which is accepted by most) would be good.

spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 01:08:54 PM
 #365

We obviously need a bigger block size if we want to challenge the big payment electronic systems. My main concern is that the people running nodes could be severely decreased due the blockchain being bigger than ever.

This is my issue as well.  If the blockchain.. when the block chain reaches 1 TB.. there will be issues with everyone running a node..

IT would appear the size of the blockchain is out pacing the upgrade in harddrives...
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464



View Profile
June 19, 2015, 12:50:14 AM
 #366

We obviously need a bigger block size if we want to challenge the big payment electronic systems. My main concern is that the people running nodes could be severely decreased due the blockchain being bigger than ever.

This is my issue as well.  If the blockchain.. when the block chain reaches 1 TB.. there will be issues with everyone running a node..

IT would appear the size of the blockchain is out pacing the upgrade in harddrives...

No. No. And just no, stop saying this if you don't want to be seen as a intentionally misinforming.

The size of the blocks is, and has always been, bandwidth limited.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 19, 2015, 01:37:09 AM
 #367

We obviously need a bigger block size if we want to challenge the big payment electronic systems. My main concern is that the people running nodes could be severely decreased due the blockchain being bigger than ever.

This is my issue as well.  If the blockchain.. when the block chain reaches 1 TB.. there will be issues with everyone running a node..

IT would appear the size of the blockchain is out pacing the upgrade in harddrives...

No. No. And just no, stop saying this if you don't want to be seen as a intentionally misinforming.

The size of the blocks is, and has always been, bandwidth limited.
One bitcoin buys about 6 TB of hard drive.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464



View Profile
June 19, 2015, 04:22:32 AM
 #368

We obviously need a bigger block size if we want to challenge the big payment electronic systems. My main concern is that the people running nodes could be severely decreased due the blockchain being bigger than ever.

This is my issue as well.  If the blockchain.. when the block chain reaches 1 TB.. there will be issues with everyone running a node..

IT would appear the size of the blockchain is out pacing the upgrade in harddrives...

No. No. And just no, stop saying this if you don't want to be seen as a intentionally misinforming.

The size of the blocks is, and has always been, bandwidth limited.
One bitcoin buys about 6 TB of hard drive.

I'm not sure if you are kidding, being disingenuous or just a simple smart-ass trolling. Buying a hard-drive doesn't get you more bandwidth (did I really just need to say that??) .... now would you like to quantify 'about' how much bandwidth 1 bitcoin buys you?

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 19, 2015, 04:24:51 AM
 #369

We obviously need a bigger block size if we want to challenge the big payment electronic systems. My main concern is that the people running nodes could be severely decreased due the blockchain being bigger than ever.

This is my issue as well.  If the blockchain.. when the block chain reaches 1 TB.. there will be issues with everyone running a node..

IT would appear the size of the blockchain is out pacing the upgrade in harddrives...

No. No. And just no, stop saying this if you don't want to be seen as a intentionally misinforming.

The size of the blocks is, and has always been, bandwidth limited.
One bitcoin buys about 6 TB of hard drive.

I'm not sure if you are kidding, being disingenuous or just a simple smart-ass trolling. Buying a hard-drive doesn't get you more bandwidth (did I really just need to say that??) .... now would you like to quantify 'about' how much bandwidth 1 bitcoin buys you?
My reply was actually directed at spazzdla but I quoted your post too since I couldn't tell if you were serious or sarcastic.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 19, 2015, 05:24:58 PM
 #370

.... now would you like to quantify 'about' how much bandwidth 1 bitcoin buys you?

Here in British Columbia, and according to these numbers from 2013 ($0.45 / GB), 1 bitcoin buys you about half a TB of bandwidth.

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

Activity: 2464



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 11:10:59 AM
 #371

.... now would you like to quantify 'about' how much bandwidth 1 bitcoin buys you?

Here in British Columbia, and according to these numbers from 2013 ($0.45 / GB), 1 bitcoin buys you about half a TB of bandwidth.

Unfortunately not all bitcoin nodes are located in British Columbia, as lovely as it is.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 08:18:31 PM
 #372

.... now would you like to quantify 'about' how much bandwidth 1 bitcoin buys you?

Here in British Columbia, and according to these numbers from 2013 ($0.45 / GB), 1 bitcoin buys you about half a TB of bandwidth.

Unfortunately not all bitcoin nodes are located in British Columbia, as lovely as it is.

Does anyone know of a comprehensive summary of bandwidth costs across the world, as well as typical upload and download bit rates?

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

Activity: 2464



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 11:47:50 PM
 #373

.... now would you like to quantify 'about' how much bandwidth 1 bitcoin buys you?

Here in British Columbia, and according to these numbers from 2013 ($0.45 / GB), 1 bitcoin buys you about half a TB of bandwidth.

Unfortunately not all bitcoin nodes are located in British Columbia, as lovely as it is.

Does anyone know of a comprehensive summary of bandwidth costs across the world, as well as typical upload and download bit rates?

Well that would be the real research that needs to be done wouldn't it ... so probably not, at least I haven't seen it. And you would then need to see how that translates into real bitcoin data being passed around on the real bitcoin network.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 01:04:16 AM
 #374

.... now would you like to quantify 'about' how much bandwidth 1 bitcoin buys you?

Here in British Columbia, and according to these numbers from 2013 ($0.45 / GB), 1 bitcoin buys you about half a TB of bandwidth.

Unfortunately not all bitcoin nodes are located in British Columbia, as lovely as it is.

Does anyone know of a comprehensive summary of bandwidth costs across the world, as well as typical upload and download bit rates?

Well that would be the real research that needs to be done wouldn't it ... so probably not, at least I haven't seen it. And you would then need to see how that translates into real bitcoin data being passed around on the real bitcoin network.

I found some excellent data.  Ookla has been empirically measuring upload and download speeds for over a decade and from all over the world, based on its speed test results:

http://explorer.netindex.com/maps

The pricing information is lacking, however.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
BitUsher
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 01:30:43 AM
 #375

I found some excellent data.  Ookla has been empirically measuring upload and download speeds for over a decade and from all over the world, based on its speed test results:

http://explorer.netindex.com/maps

The pricing information is lacking, however.  

Price hasn't changed much over the years once people transitioned from dialup to broadband in many places.

Here is a breakdown I did elsewhere -

http://explorer.netindex.com/maps?country=United%20States

1/2008      5.86 Mbps
12/2008    7.05 Mbps
12/2009    9.42  Mbps
12/2010    10.03  Mbps
12/2011    12.36   Mbps
12/2012    15.4   Mbps
12/2013    20.62   Mbps
12/2014    31.94  Mbps


Except, keep in mind those speed are the total combined upload and download speeds so 31.94 Mbps average means 21.88MBps download and 9.86MBps upload in 12/2014 thus the situation is worse than what you are even suggesting.

When you look at many other countries the growth is much slower as well. I was deliberately taking one of the better case scenarios to be generous.

all these numbers I am citing are only considering Broadband as well, and not mobile which is much slower and with much lower soft caps.

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 01:41:44 AM
 #376


I found some excellent data.  Ookla has been empirically measuring upload and download speeds for over a decade and from all over the world, based on its speed test results:

http://explorer.netindex.com/maps

The pricing information is lacking, however.  

Wow, nice find. Interesting to see some of the 'backwaters' are the leaders and wonder what that will do for their economic prospects. e.g. Kansas, MO is leader in the USA!

Edit: There is some pricing info there, you can select "Value" (or Upload) as your metric.

BitUsher
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 01:55:48 AM
 #377

Wow, nice find. Interesting to see some of the 'backwaters' are the leaders and wonder what that will do for their economic prospects. e.g. Kansas, MO is leader in the USA!

Google fiber started rolling out in Kansas primarily after a small test run in Standford. Kansas was selected for multiple reasons but primarily to avoid regulation and redtape and because legislators indicated they would expedite permits and get out of the way .
2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 03:16:14 AM
 #378

I found some excellent data.  Ookla has been empirically measuring upload and download speeds for over a decade and from all over the world, based on its speed test results:

http://explorer.netindex.com/maps

The pricing information is lacking, however.  
The data are far from "excellent". They are mostly bullshit numbers measured using short-term bursts. I checked several markets that I'm very familiar with and those all were successfully gamed by the DOCSIS cable providers using the equipment with "powerboost" (or similar marketing names).

"Powerboost" is a ultra-short-term (few to few-teen or sometimes few-ty seconds) bandwidth increase made available to the modems of the customers that haven't maxed out their bandwidth in previous minutes.

The configuration details are highly proprietary and vary by market and by time of day&week. But the overall effect is that that the DOCSIS modem seriously approaches 100Mbps LAN performance for a few packets in bursts.

On some markets that I know the VDSL2 competitors (that optimize average bandwidth over periods of weeks) didn't even rank on the "TOP ISPS". In reality of the non-burst-y loads the VDSL2 providers outperform DOCSIS providers, especially on the upload side as the VDSL2 technology is a fundamentally symmetric technology that's being sold as asymmetric only for market-segmenting reasons.

I'm not even going to delve into further restrictions on consumer broadband where the providers explicitly limit number of packet flows that can be handled by the customer's equipment. OOKLA (and almost everyone else) measures a 2-flow single-tcp connections, which have really nothing in common with peer-2-peer technologies like Bitcoin or Bittorrent.

Executive summary:

Bullshit marketing numbers, divide by 3-5-10 to get real number achievable with P2P technologies and continuous operation.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 03:25:52 AM
 #379

I found some excellent data.  Ookla has been empirically measuring upload and download speeds for over a decade and from all over the world, based on its speed test results:

http://explorer.netindex.com/maps

The pricing information is lacking, however.  
The data are far from "excellent". They are mostly bullshit numbers measured using short-term bursts. I checked several markets that I'm very familiar with and those all were successfully gamed by the DOCSIS cable providers using the equipment with "powerboost" (or similar marketing names).

"Powerboost" is a ultra-short-term (few to few-teen or sometimes few-ty seconds) bandwidth increase made available to the modems of the customers that haven't maxed out their bandwidth in previous minutes.

The configuration details are highly proprietary and vary by market and by time of day&week. But the overall effect is that that the DOCSIS modem seriously approaches 100Mbps LAN performance for a few packets in bursts.

On some markets that I know the VDSL2 competitors (that optimize average bandwidth over periods of weeks) didn't even rank on the "TOP ISPS". In reality of the non-burst-y loads the VDSL2 providers outperform DOCSIS providers, especially on the upload side as the VDSL2 technology is a fundamentally symmetric technology that's being sold as asymmetric only for market-segmenting reasons.

I'm not even going to delve into further restrictions on consumer broadband where the providers explicitly limit number of packet flows that can be handled by the customer's equipment. OOKLA (and almost everyone else) measures a 2-flow single-tcp connections, which have really nothing in common with peer-2-peer technologies like Bitcoin or Bittorrent.

Executive summary:

Bullshit marketing numbers, divide by 3-5-10 to get real number achievable with P2P technologies and continuous operation.

The statistical data is based on all the users that run http://www.speedtest.net/ .

According to your explanation, if one were to run speed-test over and over, they should begin to get worse results, as the "powerboost" wouldn't be available [because they've been maxing out their bandwidth in previous minutes].  Is this correct?

I'm not doubting you.  Just wondering if we can test this somehow, because there's a lot of comprehensive data that I hope we can learn from there (http://explorer.netindex.com/maps).

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

Activity: 2352


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 03:34:06 AM
 #380

...
Executive summary:

Bullshit marketing numbers, divide by 3-5-10 to get real number achievable with P2P technologies and continuous operation.
...
I'm not doubting you.  Just wondering if we can test this somehow, because there's a lot of comprehensive data that I hope we can learn from there (http://explorer.netindex.com/maps).

This guy and I have had our run-ins over the years, but I am confident to say that he knows his shit in these matters better than almost anyone around these parts, and probably better than most of the core Bitcoin developers.  Absolutely better than the 'chief scientist' of Bitcoin who seems only slightly more knowledgeable than the average consumer.


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 »  All
  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!