A Scalability Roadmap

[marcus_of_augustus]

So do we have a roadmap, or is more research needed?

[1714850389]

1714850389

[1714850389]

1714850389

[BitUsher]

So we do we have a roadmap, or is more research needed?

Looks like we have multiple "roadmaps" or proposals to consider now and much more testing ahead, starting with today. Peter Todd had an interesting write up concerning todays stress test - https://gist.github.com/petertodd/8e87c782bdf342ef18fb

We Have Garzik's BIP 100 - http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
Gavin's Proposal - https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/821e223ccc4c8ab967399371761718f1015c766b

A few other proposals that are being discussed and miners looking to form consensus with developers -

“The pool operators could actually make such a change themselves without proposing that the core developers do such a thing. Instead, we would like to express our views and concerns to the core developers, and let the community form a discussion rather than rudely cast a divergence. We are happy to see the consensus on the final improvement plan. After all, a 'forked' community is not what we are chasing after.”

"We do not necessarily consider an 8 MB block size limit a temporary solution, as we cannot predict what will happen years into the future. But we do think 8 MB is enough for the foreseeable future, presumable at least for the next three years. An increase to 20 MB however, is too risky, and we do not like the proposed Bitcoin-Xt alternative either. We do, on the other hand, support BIP 100 as proposed by Jeff Garzik."

Appears 8  may be a lucky number but only after more discussion and testing is done. It isn't clear the exact specifics of which proposal will be selected. From reviewing the 2 above I have concerns with both of them.

[Acidyo]

I'm siding with Gavins proposal all day long. We certainly need the changes he is proposing. They were running a stress test today on the blockchain and it proved that the core needs helps in a number of ways.

[scarsbergholden]

Gavin has now written part 2, Blocksize economics
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/10/blocksize-economics/

New thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=825601.new#new

Thanks good read, i have gotten to see hes perspective on the transaction growth if bitcoin want to be ready for the future where a complete nation can make one transaction a day and the system would still keep up,
now thats the power of a good vision for the future.

[jonny1000]

The game theory idea that miners will keep including more transactions in blocks, which is in each miners own selfish interest but against the interests of a whole industry, is not just a theory, but is happening today in many commodity markets like oil.

http://www.docdroid.net/14gw5/oil.pdf.html

This will eventually destroy the mining industry if the blocksize is too large.  The move by Gavin to push ahead with 8GB blocks at this point is very dangerous.  Who knows what demand will be like in the 2030s?

[NewLiberty]

I'm siding with Gavins proposal all day long. We certainly need the changes he is proposing. They were running a stress test today on the blockchain and it proved that the core needs helps in a number of ways.

Is there some way you think Gavin's proposal is superior to BIP 100?

[Cubic Earth]

I'm amazed this thread was started over 8 months ago!  I am glad to see Gavin forging ahead, and I hope the other CoreDevs eventually come around and will lend their support to the chain with larger blocks.  They may not ever agree it was the best strategic move, but Bitcoin has many other fronts that need work and development, and their extensive knowledge of crypto-systems will be needed moving forward.  I think the "keep-it-small" group is correct, in a very technical sense.  But Bitcoin is more than just technology, it is also a political movement that needs broad support to reach is maximum effect, and I think that Gavin is more savvy, by far, to that side of things than most of the other devs.  Bitcoin does not necessarily need to be designed to withstand large-scale government-style attack.  It could be designed so, and that threat of 'could' alone is a powerful deterrent.  Yes, we have the technology to hide a blocks in tor, with everything encrypted and miners are in secret locations, etc, etc, etc.  But the more widely Bitcoin moves into the main stream, the less such techniques will be required.  Even proof-of-work mining may be altered.  It is a means to a secure system, not an end.  If more efficient ways of having a secure system are devised, perhaps the amount energy used to secure the chain can be safely reduced.

Bitcoin is not secure in the abstract, it is secure against certain threats from certain directions.  As the threat model changes, the security engineering of Bitcoin can, and should, change as well.  Reaching 'mass adoption' quickly is, I believe, a valid way of making Bitcoin more secure.  Not via a 'technical' approach, but through a 'social' one.

[LiteCoinGuy]

[NewLiberty]

I'm amazed this thread was started over 8 months ago!  I am glad to see Gavin forging ahead, and I hope the other CoreDevs eventually come around and will lend their support to the chain with larger blocks. 

If you haven't been keeping up, Gavin has a BIP for Bitcoin XT and there is another BIP for Bitcoin Core.

So both clients have a proposal in progress.

http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/tree/blocksize_fork

[TierNolan]

http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

Technically, they are both potentially proposals for core.

BIP-100 isn't actually being pushed, I think, it is just a suggestion.

There is no proposal that is accepted by all core devs.

[GingerAle]

i don't see why you guys don't work on researching blockrope.

[JeromeL]

So we do we have a roadmap, or is more research needed?

Looks like we have multiple "roadmaps" or proposals to consider now and much more testing ahead, starting with today. Peter Todd had an interesting write up concerning todays stress test - https://gist.github.com/petertodd/8e87c782bdf342ef18fb

We Have Garzik's BIP 100 - http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
Gavin's Proposal - https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/821e223ccc4c8ab967399371761718f1015c766b

A few other proposals that are being discussed and miners looking to form consensus with developers -

“The pool operators could actually make such a change themselves without proposing that the core developers do such a thing. Instead, we would like to express our views and concerns to the core developers, and let the community form a discussion rather than rudely cast a divergence. We are happy to see the consensus on the final improvement plan. After all, a 'forked' community is not what we are chasing after.”

"We do not necessarily consider an 8 MB block size limit a temporary solution, as we cannot predict what will happen years into the future. But we do think 8 MB is enough for the foreseeable future, presumable at least for the next three years. An increase to 20 MB however, is too risky, and we do not like the proposed Bitcoin-Xt alternative either. We do, on the other hand, support BIP 100 as proposed by Jeff Garzik."

Appears 8  may be a lucky number but only after more discussion and testing is done. It isn't clear the exact specifics of which proposal will be selected. From reviewing the 2 above I have concerns with both of them.

And Greg Maxwell said he was going to produce soon a BIP (?) on this promising flexcap proposal. Can't wait to see that.