2MB Pros and Cons - page 4. | Bitcointalksearch.org

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 12:57:45 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 24, 2016, 09:59:57 AM

I Imagine a future where individual states, universities, governments, corporations, banks are the ones running bitcoin nodes.
China and USA may not agree on a lot of thing, but they will be made to participate in nakamoto consensus!!
I simply do not care if there individual citizens can't run a full node without a 10,000$ investment.
Welcome to the future of money, its a BIG DEAL.

Again, either very foolish or stupid. Bitcoin was always about individual sovereignty and now you're talking about turning it into a government/corporation coin. Nice viewpoint. Roll Eyes

you understand the distinction between controlled by 1 cooperation Vs decentralized amongst all cooperations. right?

the idea of bitcoin running on home computers while its only use is as a settlement layer only large corporations can afford to transact on is either very foolish or stupid.

maybe my point of view isn't "Nice" but at least its realistic.

lets not forget large corporations and banks have already said PASS on the bitcoin bandwagon, and they are on the Bitcoin bandwagon. weather you like it or not the idea of a decentralized "datacentercoin" as some like to call it, is coming. IMO, bitcoin will NOT be able to compete if it hodls desperately to maximal decentralization idealistic roadmap.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 24, 2016, 09:59:57 AM

those people, were once valued members of this community

"Valued" is subjective in this case. Besides, their past is irrelevant.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 24, 2016, 09:59:57 AM

I can't help but point out we are going against the "classical road map"

Doesn't matter. Satoshi's words should not be quoted into arguments of today. Everything was very different back then and he had very limited data to go from.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 24, 2016, 09:59:57 AM

I Imagine a future where individual states, universities, governments, corporations, banks are the ones running bitcoin nodes.
China and USA may not agree on a lot of thing, but they will be made to participate in nakamoto consensus!!
I simply do not care if there individual citizens can't run a full node without a 10,000$ investment.

Again, either very foolish or stupid. Bitcoin was always about individual sovereignty and now you're talking about turning it into a government/corporation coin. Nice viewpoint. Roll Eyes

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 24, 2016, 09:59:57 AM

does peter todd speak for them?
does blockstream? Cheesy

No and no.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 24, 2016, 09:59:57 AM

i guess segwit is such a compromises, but if thats are far as they are willing to go, and attempt to force me off chain in the name of "raspberry pie standards" i will fork off.

You aren't being forced to go off-chain. People don't know the definition of the word 'forced' apparently. The only way in which that word could apply is if there are no way of transacting on the main chain (which isn't the case). Additionally, there's nothing wrong with using a secondary layer. There would be no internet of today if it weren't for the 7 layers that it uses.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 05:09:09 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 06:17:30 PM

this is not somthing new i picked up from the other forum

Yes were negatively influenced by those people.

those people, were once valued members of this community

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 05:09:09 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 06:17:30 PM

in fact i was lead to believe that full node centralization was natural evolution this was the creator's vision as well.

Stop with the appeal to authority bullshit.

I can't help but point out we are going against the "classical road map"

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 05:09:09 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 06:17:30 PM

i'll pick full node centralization....

Then you're an idiot. Bitcoin would be worth nothing if it was centralized. You'd just be left with a inefficient network.

if 1000's of poeple run nodes, and 10,000's connect to pools to mine coins, that is hardly centralized...
I Imagine a future where individual states, universities, governments, corporations, banks are the ones running bitcoin nodes.
China and USA may not agree on a lot of thing, but they will be made to participate in nakamoto consensus!!
I simply do not care if there individual citizens can't run a full node without a 10,000$ investment.
Welcome to the future of money, its a BIG DEAL.

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 05:09:09 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 06:17:30 PM

also i want to feel as tho the devs are on the same page, they will do everything they can to allow mainchain to grow.

Redundant at best.

does peter todd speak for them?
does blockstream? Cheesy

Quote from: DooMAD on March 24, 2016, 09:27:27 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 06:17:30 PM

some node centralization Vs settlement layer prohibitively to expensive to use by everyone
i'll pick full node centralization....

Why does it have to be either/or? Why not aim for a balance where the costs for the settlement layer will increase slightly and the resources required to run a node increase slightly. Sacrificing one to bolster the other will always leave someone at a disadvantage, so if the costs have to go up, it should be spread as equally as possible between the two.

this is a sensible compromises i can go along with happily.

i guess segwit is such a compromises, but if thats are far as they are willing to go, and attempt to force me off chain in the name of "raspberry pie standards" i will fork off.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 06:17:30 PM

some node centralization Vs settlement layer prohibitively to expensive to use by everyone
i'll pick full node centralization....

Why does it have to be either/or? Why not aim for a balance where the costs for the settlement layer will increase slightly and the resources required to run a node increase slightly. Sacrificing one to bolster the other will always leave someone at a disadvantage, so if the costs have to go up, it should be spread as equally as possible between the two.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 06:17:30 PM

this is not somthing new i picked up from the other forum

Yes were negatively influenced by those people.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 06:17:30 PM

in fact i was lead to believe that full node centralization was natural evolution this was the creator's vision as well.

Stop with the appeal to authority bullshit.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 06:17:30 PM

i'll pick full node centralization....

Then you're an idiot. Bitcoin would be worth nothing if it was centralized. You'd just be left with a inefficient network.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 06:17:30 PM

also i want to feel as tho the devs are on the same page, they will do everything they can to allow mainchain to grow.

Redundant at best.

Quote from: hv_ on March 24, 2016, 02:35:30 AM

I wonder if there could be some incentive to empty the mempool ... does that make sense?

Not really, no. If you are too cheap to include the adequate fee, the miners shouldn't bother with your TX.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: exstasie on March 24, 2016, 02:39:23 AM

Quote from: hv_ on March 24, 2016, 02:35:30 AM

Quote from: ingiltere on March 23, 2016, 09:43:44 PM

This max block size is still a hot discussion but I think we also need to talk about min block size. We see a lot of blocks found with only 1 transaction in it, mostly these are coming from Chinese pools.
+1 for 2 MB or even more block size and we should do something for empty blocks.

I wonder if there could be some incentive to empty the mempool ... does that make sense?

Yeah..... it's called..... FEES! Grin

Unfortunately blocks are only 70% full and fees are something like 1% of block reward (99% being the 25btc subsidy). So for instance SPV miners don't give a shit about fees, they only want the subsidy.

for now...

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: hv_ on March 24, 2016, 02:35:30 AM

Quote from: ingiltere on March 23, 2016, 09:43:44 PM

This max block size is still a hot discussion but I think we also need to talk about min block size. We see a lot of blocks found with only 1 transaction in it, mostly these are coming from Chinese pools.
+1 for 2 MB or even more block size and we should do something for empty blocks.

I wonder if there could be some incentive to empty the mempool ... does that make sense?

Yeah..... it's called..... FEES! Grin

Unfortunately blocks are only 70% full and fees are something like 1% of block reward (99% being the 25btc subsidy). So for instance SPV miners don't give a shit about fees, they only want the subsidy.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: ingiltere on March 23, 2016, 09:43:44 PM

This max block size is still a hot discussion but I think we also need to talk about min block size. We see a lot of blocks found with only 1 transaction in it, mostly these are coming from Chinese pools.
+1 for 2 MB or even more block size and we should do something for empty blocks.

I wonder if there could be some incentive to empty the mempool ... does that make sense?

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: ingiltere on March 23, 2016, 09:43:44 PM

This max block size is still a hot discussion but I think we also need to talk about min block size. We see a lot of blocks found with only 1 transaction in it, mostly these are coming from Chinese pools.
+1 for 2 MB or even more block size and we should do something for empty blocks.

Just throwing this out there: Empty blocks aren't going away with Classic. Gavin actually wrote SPV mining into the software, to make all miners engage in non-validating mining, rather than just the [Chinese] pools we know about. He tried to code in some node-enforced 30-second time limit on it, but current miner code is already patched to ignore such limits, and they can just patch it again to maximize their chances of finding a block without validating the prior.

ingiltere

legendary

Activity: 2982

Merit: 1485

This max block size is still a hot discussion but I think we also need to talk about min block size. We see a lot of blocks found with only 1 transaction in it, mostly these are coming from Chinese pools.
+1 for 2 MB or even more block size and we should do something for empty blocks.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 06:17:30 PM

Quote from: Lauda on March 23, 2016, 04:44:33 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 03:12:29 PM

if anything the barrier to entry on running a full node should be raised to make it easier to hear the voice of Serious participants, participants that matter like bitpay, bitfinex, or tiger direct.

Do you even realize what you're saying? Were you already corrupted by the people on that other (horrible) forum? The option to run a node should always remain as cheap as possible.

this is not somthing new i picked up from the other forum
i never expected that devs would make such an effort to keep node requirements low enough to run on a raspberry pi.
in fact i was lead to believe that full node centralization was natural evolution
this was the creator's vision as well.

Quote from: DooMAD on March 23, 2016, 04:56:42 PM

Indeed. I'm not sure how you thought such a view would be received, adamstgBit, but even as someone who supports a larger blocksize, that's just plain wrong in my view. "Participants that matter"? That sounds equally as horrid as the elite-chain fans who think that only the whales and early adopters matter. The voice that should carry the most weight is the one talking the most sense, not just whoever happens to be a big company.

some node centralization Vs settlement layer prohibitively to expensive to use by everyone
i'll pick full node centralization....

its not like not running a node will prevent anyone from participating in the development or discussion
i'm just point out that by keeping requirements low, makes node count MEANINGLESS
just look at classic nodes, if we go by that metric classic is the favored implementation.
if it cost 1000$ a year to run a node, node count would actually mean somthing.

clearly there is a balance to be stuck between keeping node requirements low and allowing the main chain to grow.

1MB isn't it.

segwit + 1MB is a good start but I want MORE!

also i want to feel as tho the devs are on the same page, they will do everything they can to allow mainchain to grow.

you need to seek someone intelligent who can explain these things to you. clearly you have failed at educating yourself properly. now everytime you open your mouth you look like an idiot.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Lauda on March 23, 2016, 04:44:33 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 03:12:29 PM

if anything the barrier to entry on running a full node should be raised to make it easier to hear the voice of Serious participants, participants that matter like bitpay, bitfinex, or tiger direct.

Do you even realize what you're saying? Were you already corrupted by the people on that other (horrible) forum? The option to run a node should always remain as cheap as possible.

this is not somthing new i picked up from the other forum
i never expected that devs would make such an effort to keep node requirements low enough to run on a raspberry pi.
in fact i was lead to believe that full node centralization was natural evolution
this was the creator's vision as well.

Quote from: DooMAD on March 23, 2016, 04:56:42 PM

Indeed. I'm not sure how you thought such a view would be received, adamstgBit, but even as someone who supports a larger blocksize, that's just plain wrong in my view. "Participants that matter"? That sounds equally as horrid as the elite-chain fans who think that only the whales and early adopters matter. The voice that should carry the most weight is the one talking the most sense, not just whoever happens to be a big company.

some node centralization Vs settlement layer prohibitively to expensive to use by everyone
i'll pick full node centralization....

its not like not running a node will prevent anyone from participating in the development or discussion
i'm just point out that by keeping requirements low, makes node count MEANINGLESS
just look at classic nodes, if we go by that metric classic is the favored implementation.
if it cost 1000$ a year to run a node, node count would actually mean somthing.

clearly there is a balance to be stuck between keeping node requirements low and allowing the main chain to grow.

1MB isn't it.

segwit + 1MB is a good start but I want MORE!

also i want to feel as tho the devs are on the same page, they will do everything they can to allow mainchain to grow.

busybee7

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

well the main pros for me is that the problem of block size would be solved and there would be no need to pay higher fees

i cant find any cons of that though i heard something that if the hard fork happened there is a possibility to create two bitcoins

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: Lauda on March 23, 2016, 04:44:33 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 03:12:29 PM

if anything the barrier to entry on running a full node should be raised to make it easier to hear the voice of Serious participants, participants that matter like bitpay, bitfinex, or tiger direct.

Do you even realize what you're saying? Were you already corrupted by the people on that other (horrible) forum? The option to run a node should always remain as cheap as possible.

Indeed. I'm not sure how you thought such a view would be received, adamstgBit, but even as someone who supports a larger blocksize, that's just plain wrong in my view. "Participants that matter"? That sounds equally as horrid as the elite-chain fans who think that only the whales and early adopters matter. The voice that should carry the most weight is the one talking the most sense, not just whoever happens to be a big company.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 03:12:29 PM

i think its worth noting segwit will have the same effect on node count as 2MB, it will increase requirement to nodes in more or less the same way.

As far as validation time is concerned, it doesn't. Additionally, a 2 MB block size limit is unsafe without additional limitations placed upon it.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 03:12:29 PM

and i think we can all agree maximizing node count shouldn't be a major concern, classic nodes are popping up left and right on AWS. keeping full node requirements very low, only opens the door to a sybil attack, and makes it easy to drown out the voices of real participants dependent on the system.

Those nodes are useless due to their concentration.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 03:12:29 PM

if anything the barrier to entry on running a full node should be raised to make it easier to hear the voice of Serious participants, participants that matter like bitpay, bitfinex, or tiger direct.

Do you even realize what you're saying? Were you already corrupted by the people on that other (horrible) forum? The option to run a node should always remain as cheap as possible.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Lauda on March 20, 2016, 04:35:36 AM

Quote from: pawel7777 on March 19, 2016, 04:23:26 PM

Keeping small max block size doesn't solve the decentralisation issue (decline in node count). At very best it only slows it down.

Correct. I never implied that it does solve it. However, an increased block size limit could only make it worse.

i think its worth noting segwit will have the same effect on node count as 2MB, it will increase requirement to nodes in more or less the same way.

and i think we can all agree maximizing node count shouldn't be a major concern, classic nodes are popping up left and right on AWS. keeping full node requirements very low, only opens the door to a sybil attack, and makes it easy to drown out the voices of real participants dependent on the system.

if anything the barrier to entry on running a full node should be raised to make it easier to hear the voice of Serious participants, participants that matter like bitpay, bitfinex, or tiger direct.

Doc Martin

newbie

Activity: 36

Merit: 0

Quote from: pawel7777 on March 19, 2016, 04:23:26 PM

Keeping small max block size doesn't solve the decentralisation issue (decline in node count). At very best it only slows it down.

I think thats the idea + eventually more security features like fraud proofs to make lite nodes safer. Bandwidth-saving features in 0.12 also help to address the issue.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: pawel7777 on March 19, 2016, 04:23:26 PM

Keeping small max block size doesn't solve the decentralisation issue (decline in node count). At very best it only slows it down.

Correct. I never implied that it does solve it. However, an increased block size limit could only make it worse.

Quote from: pawel7777 on March 19, 2016, 04:23:26 PM

People who run nodes don't get any direct incentive + most newcomers will go straight to lightweight clients or online wallets for convenience, so here's the real problem.

Well, I don't think that the majority needs to bother with using non lightweight clients. However, they should have the option to easily use one if they wanted to.

Quote from: pawel7777 on March 19, 2016, 04:23:26 PM

Yes. But to be fair, the main concern in blocksize debate is network bandwidth capacity rather than just storage.

Both are a concern.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: pawel7777 on March 19, 2016, 04:23:26 PM

Yes. But to be fair, the main concern in blocksize debate is network bandwidth capacity rather than just storage.

It always amuses me when the youngsters have no scope of the march of technology. From my associate Tom Coughlin:

Quote

At the Open Computer Summit Facebook’s Jason Taylor said that six years ago 1 Gbps Ethernet data center rack connections were common. Today, he said that 40 Gbps and even 100 Gbps networks are cost effective. By 2017 Facebook plans to have 100 Gbps network infrastructure in all their data centers. In addition to seeing an end to data center network speeds issues for some time to come many new innovations introduced at the Summit could change the way we store and share content.

These hyperscale datacenters are leading the charge to cheap mass bandwidth for us all.

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: Lauda on March 19, 2016, 01:29:10 PM

..., but I tend to disagree because there aren't even that many people who run nodes these days.

Keeping small max block size doesn't solve the decentralisation issue (decline in node count). At very best it only slows it down.

People who run nodes don't get any direct incentive + most newcomers will go straight to lightweight clients or online wallets for convenience, so here's the real problem.

Quote from: pedrog on March 19, 2016, 02:31:37 PM

Just to show how silly this argument is, right now you can buy a 6 TB hard disk for 270 euros, any computer you buy comes with at least 1 TB hard disk, 10 years of 2 MB blocks are approximately 1 TB, I think, right now, at least when it comes to storage we can afford 8 MB blocks...

Imagine how cheap storage will be in 5 years, in 10 years, plus optimizations made to the protocol.

People bitching about block chain size and delaying adoption because of this is just silly.

Yes. But to be fair, the main concern in blocksize debate is network bandwidth capacity rather than just storage.

Topic: 2MB Pros and Cons - page 4. (Read 9735 times)