Bitcoin Forum
October 20, 2017, 05:01:00 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 102377 times)
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610


View Profile
February 05, 2015, 02:47:35 PM
 #81


A limit with thousands of tps will undoubtedly produce more fees for miners than a limit capping the network at 3 tps.


This is only true if the per transaction fee is not zero.
In absence of a block size limit, there is no incentive to pay fee. Any positive fee would have to be enforced by a cartel of miner.

There will be lots of services/people that will want to include fees for various reasons.

iCEBREAKER is a troll! He and cypherdoc helped HashFast scam 50 Million $ from its customers !
H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Nancarrow
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 494


View Profile
February 05, 2015, 02:49:45 PM
 #82

YOO HOO! GRAU!!! HELLO THERE, GRAU!


The OP gives a valid technical argument for raising block size limit, but is neglecting a financial argument against it.

The miners' income has to be greater than the cost of their work. Miners' income is inflation now, but is expected to be replaced by fees,
since inflation halves every four years. Purchasing power of new coins might be sustained for a while but must converge to zero in the limit.

Transaction fees exist only because there is a competition for block space. Eliminating that competition eliminates the fees and with that mining.

Therefore block space has to become and remain a scarce asset.


Your second and third paragraph contradict each other.

Transaction fees don't ONLY exist because there is a competition for block space. They ALSO exist to pay the miners to secure the network, as you clearly understood before you implicitly denied it. Fees are not an either/or thing. It absolutely ISN'T a case of lifting block limit->eliminates fees->eliminates mining.

We have instead a *feedback* process. LOWER fees (not ZERO fees) means LESS mining (not NO mining) which in turn means LONGER confirmation times (not COMPLETE COLLAPSE) which leads to MORE FEES which leads to mining power switching back on. It's what engineers call a negative feedback loop, designed to keep the hashing rate broadly stable, or at least oscillating within a fairly narrow range.

People really must stop thinking of all the causes and effects in the world as being ON/OFF switches. They aren't. They're analogue dials.

[If you're on board with the idea of bitcoin, you've probably had to deal with people saying a deflationary money supply can't work because NOBODY would ever spend ANY MONEY AT ALL. Same problem. "Less" is not the same as "none". Especially when "Less X" induces "Less Y" which induces "More X".]
 

If I've said anything amusing and/or informative and you're feeling generous:
1GNJq39NYtf7cn2QFZZuP5vmC1mTs63rEW
uvt9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 301


View Profile
February 05, 2015, 02:59:55 PM
 #83

can someone put on a TL;DR of original post for a lazy and non-technical reader like me  Cry
amincd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 772


View Profile
February 05, 2015, 03:00:51 PM
 #84


A limit with thousands of tps will undoubtedly produce more fees for miners than a limit capping the network at 3 tps.


This is only true if the per transaction fee is not zero.
In absence of a block size limit, there is no incentive to pay fee. Any positive fee would have to be enforced by a cartel of miner.

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
February 05, 2015, 03:04:47 PM
 #85

In absence of a block size limit,

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638


GUNBOT Licenses -10% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2015, 03:06:42 PM
 #86

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 could take us years before we reach this limit. Besides the cost per GB of storage is pretty low these days.
What would be very beneficial is including more options into the fork. If the fork happens, this could be our last one. Once we reach a few million users doing so will be almost impossible (it is hard already).
Thank you for going out of your way to not be deterred when they keep falsely stating it will grow to 20mb over night and centralize and to keep on posting the info. I know it has to have been posted at least 50 times now but I guess if each post teaches a person it's worth it.

Free (literally) space will be filled, no worries. Very fast.  
What makes you think that? Miners won't include spam transactions without fee's or dusting.
I'm just doing my part. Also I'm realizing just how limited and stubborn people here can be.
Do not answer to that guy, he is a trolling shill.

The problem isn't a limit in general but that 1MB is so low that under any meaningful adoption scenario it will push all individual users off the blockchain to rely on trusted third parties.

This statement is just *wrong* (and is itself a straw-man argument).

With other blockchains that also work trustlessly why on earth is anyone being pushed to rely on trusted 3rd parties?

Of course they are not (OP should fix that IMO).

You're not just limiting the amount of transactions per block, you're limiting the development of potential services of tomorrow.

          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
.
|
.
|
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
unthy
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2015, 03:08:35 PM
 #87


The problem isn't a limit in general but that 1MB is so low that under any meaningful adoption scenario it will push all individual users off the blockchain to rely on trusted third parties.

This statement is just *wrong* (and is itself a straw-man argument).

With other blockchains that also work trustlessly why on earth is anyone being pushed to rely on trusted 3rd parties?

Of course they are not (OP should fix that IMO).

You're not just limiting the amount of transactions per block, you're limiting the development of potential services of tomorrow.

Sorry - but that makes *zero* sense (especially as I stated that I am not against raising the 1 MB limit in the first place).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
grau
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 836


bits of proof


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2015, 03:09:16 PM
 #88

We have instead a *feedback* process. LOWER fees (not ZERO fees) means LESS mining (not NO mining) which in turn means LONGER confirmation times (not COMPLETE COLLAPSE) which leads to MORE FEES which leads to mining power switching back on.

This is not how Bitcoin works.
Instead: Less mining power leads to difficulty adjustment that restores confirmation time.

Lower mining income simply leads to less security that will lead to less use and less fees -> less mining power.
A positive feedback loop wrecking the ecosystem.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638


GUNBOT Licenses -10% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2015, 03:12:52 PM
 #89

Sorry - but that makes *zero* sense (especially as I stated that I am not against raising the 1 MB limit in the first place).

I misunderstood your post, sorry.
My post does however make sense, also I was referring to the like of the Lighthouse project.

          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
.
|
.
|
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
unthy
grau
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 836


bits of proof


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2015, 03:13:16 PM
 #90

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2015, 03:15:19 PM
 #91

Sorry - but that makes *zero* sense (especially as I stated that I am not against raising the 1 MB limit in the first place).

I misunderstood your post, sorry.
My post does however make sense, also I was referring to the like of the Lighthouse project.

No problem but perhaps it would make more sense if you could expand on what you posted a bit.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
homo homini lupus
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
February 05, 2015, 03:18:46 PM
 #92

can someone put on a TL;DR of original post for a lazy and non-technical reader like me  Cry

the tl,dr - version is here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10364386#msg10364386
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
February 05, 2015, 03:20:07 PM
 #93

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

What maths are required to prove that 20MB limit = no limit?

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
Nancarrow
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 494


View Profile
February 05, 2015, 03:20:31 PM
 #94

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

This is a valid point. As far as incentivising fees goes, a block limit that is always just a bit bigger than it needs to be, is functionally equivalent to no block limit at all.

And actually, I think I see your point that IF this were the only mechanism in play regarding how much people pay in fees, it could pose a problem. My counter is that it is NOT the only mechanism in play.

ETA: R2D221, hope this clarifies it for you too.

If I've said anything amusing and/or informative and you're feeling generous:
1GNJq39NYtf7cn2QFZZuP5vmC1mTs63rEW
amincd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 772


View Profile
February 05, 2015, 03:21:50 PM
 #95

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

It's not a binary option. Raising the limit at a moderate pace, so that fees don't have to increase a substantial amount with increasing adoption, is a middle ground solution, that will lead to average fees remaining affordable but not-zero.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638


GUNBOT Licenses -10% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2015, 03:23:40 PM
 #96


No problem but perhaps it would make more sense if you could expand on what you posted a bit.

Well one of the 'anti' arguments is that there is time and that this should be done in the future (if at all according to them). What they do not realize that it's not just the amount of transactions for the users that are limited.

Quote
Currently you cannot accept more than 684 pledges for your project. This is due to limitations in the Bitcoin protocol - the final contract that claims the pledges is a single Bitcoin transaction, and thus is limited to 500 kilobytes by the Bitcoin block size and protocol relay rules. Lighthouse therefore enforces a minimum pledge size of whatever the goal amount is, divided by the max number of pledges. The more you try and raise, the larger the minimum buy-in becomes.

A future version of Lighthouse could optimise its usage of transaction space to bump up the maximum number of pledges by another few hundred. But ultimately, the fundamental limit is imposed by the Bitcoin block size.
That's taken right from the FAQ of the project itself. This is just 1 example of potential services that won't be able to get developed completely (if at all).

https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse

          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
.
|
.
|
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
unthy
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2015, 03:30:14 PM
 #97

That's taken right from the FAQ of the project itself. This is just 1 example of potential services that won't be able to get developed completely (if at all).

They just haven't designed it right (so the Bitcoin limits are not really an issue).

Although let's not go off-topic my AT project will be launching "crowdfund" very soon and that could actually work on Bitcoin if Bitcoin were to adopt AT (with no limits for the number of pledges).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
grau
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 836


bits of proof


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2015, 03:30:48 PM
 #98

And actually, I think I see your point that IF this were the only mechanism in play regarding how much people pay in fees, it could pose a problem. My counter is that it is NOT the only mechanism in play.

ETA: R2D221, hope this clarifies it for you too.

What else would make people pay a fee? I do not think alturism would pay for an infrastructure of 300 mio USD and increasing.

It's not a binary option. Raising the limit at a moderate pace, so that fees don't have to increase a substantial amount with increasing adoption, is a middle ground solution, that will lead to average fees remaining affordable but not-zero.

There are quite a few constants in Bitcoin that one could argue with, that is what we do. It is however important to do it for the right reason.
Avoid paying fees is not a right reason.
grau
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 836


bits of proof


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2015, 03:42:10 PM
 #99

It's not a binary option. Raising the limit at a moderate pace, so that fees don't have to increase a substantial amount with increasing adoption, is a middle ground solution, that will lead to average fees remaining affordable but not-zero.

There are quite a few constants in Bitcoin that one could argue with, that is what we do. It is however important to do it for the right reason.
Avoid paying fees is not a right reason.

Exending on above:

It is rather difficult to substantiate an algorithm that would set course for the future, given the huge amount of unkown parameters a constant we have is preferred by occam's razor.
Nancarrow
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 494


View Profile
February 05, 2015, 04:04:10 PM
 #100

What else would make people pay a fee? I do not think alturism would pay for an infrastructure of 300 mio USD and increasing.

What else, is that the miners don't mine if it's not profitable. And it's NOT altruism to pay a fee to the miners. You can't use bitcoin without miners, so if you want to use bitcoin, you pay a fee. If you DON'T want to use bitcoin, then surely the question of whether or not you WOULD choose to pay a fee is irrelevant?

There are TWO incentives to pay fees - getting your transaction in a block, and having a bitcoin currency at all. Increasing the blocksize may attenuate the first incentive but doesn't remove the second at all.

If I've said anything amusing and/or informative and you're feeling generous:
1GNJq39NYtf7cn2QFZZuP5vmC1mTs63rEW
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!