Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2017, 07:45:30 PM *
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 99994 times)
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 06:44:27 PM
 #201

For what it's worth: 

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.

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. 
1506023130
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506023130

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506023130
Reply with quote  #2

1506023130
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506023130
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506023130

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506023130
Reply with quote  #2

1506023130
Report to moderator
1506023130
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506023130

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506023130
Reply with quote  #2

1506023130
Report to moderator
1506023130
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506023130

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506023130
Reply with quote  #2

1506023130
Report to moderator
oblivi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
February 07, 2015, 06:56:25 PM
 #202

...

20 mb is nice for a start, it will last as a year or two, three maybe, but it will need to be upgraded eventually as well. We are dangerously close to our limit with 1 my and we can't stay at 1 mb.
Gavins proposal automatically scales 40% per year after the 20mb raise, then stops after 20 years - last time I read up on it.

After 20 years this puts us at ~16.000 mb or 32.000 TX/second. That's more than the VISA network and I think it will last a long time.

I also support Gavin and OP.

Gavin is right, we should do this now before its too late.
Heres a video for noobs that explains it quickly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1KNbgoF-ZY

                ,▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
          ,▄▓▓▓▓▓█▀▀▀▀▀▀█▓▓▓▓▓▄,
       ,▄▓▓▓▀▀              `▀▓▓▓▓▄
     ▄▓▓▓▀       ,▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄,     ▀▓▓▓▄
   ,▓▓▓▀      ▄▓▓▓▓▓█▀██▓▓▓▓▄     ^▓▓▓▄
  ▄▓▓▀       ▓▓▓▓▀       `▓▓▓▌      ╙▓▓▌
 ▐▓▓`       j▓▓▓▌                     ▓▓▌
 ▓▓▀         ▓▓▓▓             ▄▄▄     "▓▓▄
▓▓▓          ╙▓▓▓▓▓▄  ,▄▄▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▀      ▓▓▓
▓▓▌            ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀▀¬          ▐▓▓
▓▓▌      ╓▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▄           ▐▓▓
▓▓▓      ▓▓▀▀▀         '▀▓▓▓▓▓         ▓▓▓
 ▓▓▄                      ▐▓▓▓▌       ╒▓▓▌
 ▀▓▓µ       ▄▄▄µ           ▓▓▓▌       ▓▓▓
  ▀▓▓▄      ▓▓▓▓         ,▓▓▓▓      ╓▓▓▀
   `▓▓▓,     ▀▓▓▓▓▓▄▄▄▄▓▓▓▓▓▀     ,▓▓▓▀
     ▀▓▓▓▄     ^▀▀▀▀▀█▀▀▀▀¬     ▄▓▓▓▀
       `▀▓▓▓▄,              ,▄▓▓▓▓▀
          ╙▀█▓▓▓▓▓▓▄▄▄▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀
               '▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀~
ocial
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
February 07, 2015, 06:56:41 PM
 #203

Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it.

Are you saying that the original plan was to have no limit at all? What would happen if we were just to remove the limit now, instead of making it bigger?

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

Activity: 840


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 07:09:51 PM
 #204

Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it.

Are you saying that the original plan was to have no limit at all? What would happen if we were just to remove the limit now, instead of making it bigger?

The limit wasn't part of Satoshi's original plan, but keep in mind that the original plan was at that time very much a work in progress.  I was only involved for about a month back then.  When Hal and Satoshi started talking about involving more people, I dropped it.
neuronics
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39


satoshkey - activate everything !


View Profile WWW
February 07, 2015, 07:58:39 PM
 #205

Thank you for this interesting resumé D&T, always enjoy to read your posts, they were very helpful since the early days to understand the inner workings of the technology better. I am convinced  Smiley 

www.satoshkey.com  BTC Universal Vending Machines
xDan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 684

ヽ( ㅇㅅㅇ)ノ ~!!


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 09:22:22 PM
 #206

How do we decide what level of security is "required" for the network? What amount of hashing, what $$ spent on mining hardware... Is there a knowable, correct, answer?

Available hashing power must provide more reward when used to gain transaction fees than attacking.... right?

How do we know that existing coin minting even does this? (apart from it vaguely seeming like a very large amount, and no attacks really having happened)

HODLing for the longest time. Skippin fast right around the moon. On a rocketship straight to mars.
Up, up and away with my beautiful, my beautiful Bitcoin~
topminingcontracts
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


TaaS is a closed-end fund designated to blockchain


View Profile WWW
February 07, 2015, 11:15:25 PM
 #207

Well another grate post of D&T

I am not a big fan of increasing the Blocksize to 20MB

Having said that.

We see a huge concentration in mining environment 4-5 hands control 75%+ of mining power (Pools and Large Ops)

If the Blocksize increase exponentially the numbers or nodes may drop in a significant way just because they require to much disk, actually the network increase but there are not so many full nodes (nodes sharing the blocks)

With centralized mining and few nodes Bitcoin will be weaker.

I understand the reasons of Gavin A. to increase the Blocksize but we need to find a solution for the problem and an analysis that includes all the players in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Lately I read many times that "The value is in the Blockchain" is true but without truly decentralized mining and a huge nodes constellation in line with the P2P Crypto Decentralized there is no Blockchain or Bitcoin (as currency)

Core Developers are a crucial part of all this, but also miners invest lot of money (more than all the VCs combined) and nodes add really decentralization to the system, we need an improvement that will generate more miners (not pools) more nodes and a healthy Bitcoin Network.

Regards

Juan


 
 
           ▄████▄
         ▄████████▄
       ▄████████████▄
     ▄████████████████▄
    ████████████████████      ▄█▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄████████████████▀   ▄██████████

  ▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄     ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀                   ██
▄█████▄▀▀▀▄██████▄▀▀▀▄█████▄     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀        ▄█▄          ▀██████████████▄
████████████████████████████       ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀          ▀█▀                        ██
 ▀████████████████████████▀          ▀██▄ ▄██▀             ▀██▄ ▄██▀     ▄█▄     ▀██▄ ▄██▀                                       ██
   ▀████████████████████▀              ▀███▀                 ▀███▀       ▀█▀       ▀███▀      ▄███████████████████████████████████▀
     ▀████████████████▀
       ▀████████████▀
         ▀████████▀
           ▀████▀
║║


║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
║║


║║
amincd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 772


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 11:44:19 PM
 #208

We see a huge concentration in mining environment 4-5 hands control 75%+ of mining power (Pools and Large Ops)

If the Blocksize increase exponentially the numbers or nodes may drop in a significant way just because they require to much disk, actually the network increase but there are not so many full nodes (nodes sharing the blocks)

The dominance of large mining pools is not due to the cost of running a node. There are thousands of full nodes, and yet the top 4-5 pools direct the majority of the network hashrate, as you note. The reason large pools have high hashrates is that pool size reduces the payout variance to miners, so miners prefer to use large pools.

So you need to be clear what you're trying to solve, and what is the cause of the problem. Because keeping the block size at 1 MB forever is not going to reduce the dominance of mining pools.
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 11:57:55 PM
 #209

If the Blocksize increase exponentially the numbers or nodes may drop in a significant way just because they require to much disk, actually the network increase but there are not so many full nodes (nodes sharing the blocks)

Have you read all post from this thread? The "much disk" will not be needed! We have blockchain pruning.

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
chaoman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 225


View Profile
February 08, 2015, 12:18:01 AM
 #210

The issue is not whether or not a larger block is technically advantageous, it clearly is.

The issue is that many people will not update or go with the new fork, thus creating mass chaos.
wilth1
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile
February 08, 2015, 12:52:35 AM
 #211

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.

It would be great if Satoshi would chime in.  Maybe if the coin does indeed begin to snap in two?
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
February 08, 2015, 01:06:54 AM
 #212

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.

It would be great if Satoshi would chime in.  Maybe if the coin does indeed begin to snap in two?

There is no need for Satoshi to chime in (although if he did reappear I have a list of questions).   The first version of the client had no block size limit.   The second version of the client had no block size limit.  The next 146 commits to the repo had no block size limit.  The source code is the proof.   The block size limit wasn't added as an anti-spam mechanism until more than 21 months after the genesis block.
topminingcontracts
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


TaaS is a closed-end fund designated to blockchain


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2015, 01:11:50 AM
 #213

We see a huge concentration in mining environment 4-5 hands control 75%+ of mining power (Pools and Large Ops)

If the Blocksize increase exponentially the numbers or nodes may drop in a significant way just because they require to much disk, actually the network increase but there are not so many full nodes (nodes sharing the blocks)

The dominance of large mining pools is not due to the cost of running a node. There are thousands of full nodes, and yet the top 4-5 pools direct the majority of the network hashrate, as you note. The reason large pools have high hashrates is that pool size reduces the payout variance to miners, so miners prefer to use large pools.

So you need to be clear what you're trying to solve, and what is the cause of the problem. Because keeping the block size at 1 MB forever is not going to reduce the dominance of mining pools.

I am just saying there are some issues to be solved more relevant than the size of the block.

Juang


 
 
           ▄████▄
         ▄████████▄
       ▄████████████▄
     ▄████████████████▄
    ████████████████████      ▄█▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄████████████████▀   ▄██████████

  ▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄     ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀                   ██
▄█████▄▀▀▀▄██████▄▀▀▀▄█████▄     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀        ▄█▄          ▀██████████████▄
████████████████████████████       ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀          ▀█▀                        ██
 ▀████████████████████████▀          ▀██▄ ▄██▀             ▀██▄ ▄██▀     ▄█▄     ▀██▄ ▄██▀                                       ██
   ▀████████████████████▀              ▀███▀                 ▀███▀       ▀█▀       ▀███▀      ▄███████████████████████████████████▀
     ▀████████████████▀
       ▀████████████▀
         ▀████████▀
           ▀████▀
║║


║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
║║


║║
amincd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 772


View Profile
February 08, 2015, 01:13:12 AM
 #214

They can be solved simultaneously. In the mean time, Bitcoin needs to seize the opportunity it has to attain mass adoption, which I believe cannot happen with a limit of 1,800 txs per block, due to the basic constraint it places on access per user.
topminingcontracts
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


TaaS is a closed-end fund designated to blockchain


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2015, 01:13:57 AM
 #215

If the Blocksize increase exponentially the numbers or nodes may drop in a significant way just because they require to much disk, actually the network increase but there are not so many full nodes (nodes sharing the blocks)

Have you read all post from this thread? The "much disk" will not be needed! We have blockchain pruning.

Well if the size of the block rise the size of blockchain database may rise or the upgrade is useless, bigger size more disk space and in my opinion full nodes are not so many.

Regards

Juan


 
 
           ▄████▄
         ▄████████▄
       ▄████████████▄
     ▄████████████████▄
    ████████████████████      ▄█▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄████████████████▀   ▄██████████

  ▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄     ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀                   ██
▄█████▄▀▀▀▄██████▄▀▀▀▄█████▄     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀        ▄█▄          ▀██████████████▄
████████████████████████████       ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀          ▀█▀                        ██
 ▀████████████████████████▀          ▀██▄ ▄██▀             ▀██▄ ▄██▀     ▄█▄     ▀██▄ ▄██▀                                       ██
   ▀████████████████████▀              ▀███▀                 ▀███▀       ▀█▀       ▀███▀      ▄███████████████████████████████████▀
     ▀████████████████▀
       ▀████████████▀
         ▀████████▀
           ▀████▀
║║


║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
║║


║║
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596


View Profile
February 08, 2015, 01:28:13 AM
 #216

If the Blocksize increase exponentially the numbers or nodes may drop in a significant way just because they require to much disk, actually the network increase but there are not so many full nodes (nodes sharing the blocks)

Have you read all post from this thread? The "much disk" will not be needed! We have blockchain pruning.

Well if the size of the block rise the size of blockchain database may rise or the upgrade is useless, bigger size more disk space and in my opinion full nodes are not so many.

Regards

Juan


Ok you are unable to read what people post here. Let me spell it for you:

B-L-O-C-K-C-H-A-I-N  P-R-U-N-I-N-G + cheapening of $/TB

Maybe now you get it!

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
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
February 08, 2015, 04:45:13 AM
 #217

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.

It would be great if Satoshi would chime in.  Maybe if the coin does indeed begin to snap in two?

There is no need for Satoshi to chime in (although if he did reappear I have a list of questions).   The first version of the client had no block size limit.   The second version of the client had no block size limit.  The next 146 commits to the repo had no block size limit.  The source code is the proof.   The block size limit wasn't added as an anti-spam mechanism until more than 21 months after the genesis block.

I think Satoshi was worried about rapid improvements in hashing power giving one rogue miner the ability to bloat the blockchain with a series of large (32MB?) blocks. The first mention of using FPGAs that I can find on Bitcointalk is July 2010, three months before the 1MB change. At the time Bitcoin was gaining traction with a community behind it, and a serious spam attack would have damaged its progress.

Thanks for the hashing analysis from a much more experienced perspective! I am still interested in how this little processor can do... even if I was off by a factor of about 10, it might still be competitive with much more expensive and energy intensive desktop processors. I can get about 2100 khash/sec using all 4 cores of my 64 bit machine when the system is otherwise idle, and that certainly makes the fans blow a lot of hot air. I though it might be possible for VIA to overcome because custom circuits (FPGA or ASIC) for some cryptographic functions have in the past proved orders of magnitude faster than general desktop processors or even GPUs.

(my bold emphasis)

topminingcontracts
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


TaaS is a closed-end fund designated to blockchain


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2015, 06:38:48 PM
 #218

If the Blocksize increase exponentially the numbers or nodes may drop in a significant way just because they require to much disk, actually the network increase but there are not so many full nodes (nodes sharing the blocks)

Have you read all post from this thread? The "much disk" will not be needed! We have blockchain pruning.

Well if the size of the block rise the size of blockchain database may rise or the upgrade is useless, bigger size more disk space and in my opinion full nodes are not so many.

Regards

Juan


Ok you are unable to read what people post here. Let me spell it for you:

B-L-O-C-K-C-H-A-I-N  P-R-U-N-I-N-G + cheapening of $/TB

Maybe now you get it!


I read and...?

Did I have to agree with the solution?

The main issue for me is we need to promote and secure the decentralization, and now Bitcoin is more centralized than the banking system. A single guy not a company or a group single people controls 1%+ of the system and most of the system is in a very small club of people this is not decentralized at all and that makes us a weak system simple to attack.

Juan



 
 
           ▄████▄
         ▄████████▄
       ▄████████████▄
     ▄████████████████▄
    ████████████████████      ▄█▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄████████████████▀   ▄██████████

  ▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄     ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀                   ██
▄█████▄▀▀▀▄██████▄▀▀▀▄█████▄     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀        ▄█▄          ▀██████████████▄
████████████████████████████       ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀          ▀█▀                        ██
 ▀████████████████████████▀          ▀██▄ ▄██▀             ▀██▄ ▄██▀     ▄█▄     ▀██▄ ▄██▀                                       ██
   ▀████████████████████▀              ▀███▀                 ▀███▀       ▀█▀       ▀███▀      ▄███████████████████████████████████▀
     ▀████████████████▀
       ▀████████████▀
         ▀████████▀
           ▀████▀
║║


║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
║║


║║
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
February 08, 2015, 07:07:52 PM
 #219

The main issue for me is we need to promote and secure the decentralization, and now Bitcoin is more centralized than the banking system. A single guy not a company or a group single people controls 1%+ of the system and most of the system is in a very small club of people this is not decentralized at all and that makes us a weak system simple to attack.

Juan

So, Bitcoin is more centralized than the banking system? So, that means I can no longer make a BTC1000 transaction without explaining myself why and how I would do such a thing?

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

Activity: 1596


View Profile
February 08, 2015, 09:58:42 PM
 #220

I read and...?

Did I have to agree with the solution?

The main issue for me is we need to promote and secure the decentralization, and now Bitcoin is more centralized than the banking system. A single guy not a company or a group single people controls 1%+ of the system and most of the system is in a very small club of people this is not decentralized at all and that makes us a weak system simple to attack.

Juan

So you are against rasing the block limits because of the space problem and you don't agree with the blockchain pruning solution? Ok. That makes a lot of sense.

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
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!