We all agree on 8MB. Let's do it already!
You and me are none to say what the community agree on. It must be reflected through node voting.
Although someone definitely needs to work on that pruning feature soon.
Topic: 5 Chinese mining pools propose 8MB block size - page 3. (Read 5465 times)
You and me are none to say what the community agree on. It must be reflected through node voting.
Although someone definitely needs to work on that pruning feature soon.
well at least they are willing to negotiate. 8MB is fine for now, but im sure some of the venture capital behind bitcoin has other plans
There are real issues to discuss, but storage cost isn't one of them.
I don't think the "cost" is the main issue with storage either. I personally am annoyed at verification times for large blockchains but the real problem, as I see it, is all of these solutions to issues have the effect of centralising operation of the network into large, resource rich, enterprises.
We are already in the situation where miners are dedicated large organisations (some even have more than 51% hashing power) with enormous resources. The barrier to entry for mining is significant and has been for some time. We are also discussing large scale storage and having "Data Centers" that have the full block chain and everyone else having thin clients. This is centralising the network and at some point the miners will merge with the data centers and you will have a small number of large commercial organisations that can hold the entire network to ransom and dictate terms. Sound familiar?
We all agree on 8MB. Let's do it already!
You and me are none to say what the community agree on. It must be reflected through node voting.
We all agree on 8MB. Let's do it already!
I think this is a mandatory change that must be done soon, It is creating many problems in blocks and why is this creating so much controversia?
Increasing the block size is good for increasing the volume of bitcoin, however everyone's bitcoin program may grow by more than 1GB per day (8MB*144 blocks/day=1152MB/day) because of this, which is a waste of storage (and that's why I don't install the bitcoin core on my computer).
Dude - you can buy a 2TB drive for almost nothing. By the time the blockchain gets to 2TB - you'll be able to buy a 200TB for next to nothing. Drive space isn't the problem.
You have to store the data in a ordinary hard disk, not SSD.
Bandwidth is a problem though. Where I'm from, there are usually data caps and the reasonably priced plans on my provider are up to about 40 to 50GB. Going for anything higher is just unreasonable.
I don't have any problem with the block size increase though. It would be much nicer if there was no hard limit on the block size, with a configurable soft limit.
The current price of storage is extremely expensive if you are thinking of changing to a 20mb block.
Let's set aside the fact that switching to a max of 20MB does not mean that every (or even ANY) block will be 20MB. Let's jump straight into the 20MB per block, every single block. It's still cheap. 6TB drives are $250 today. Six solid years of 20MB blocks will fit on that single drive. Following current trends, when you run out of space in six years, that next 6TB will cost you about $40. Anyone spouting off that the storage is "extremely expensive" hasn't done the math.
There are real issues to discuss, but storage cost isn't one of them.
Sidechains could be the answer, perhaps we should stick to 1MB blocks and start other solutions asap.
Even those arguing against the 20MB change freely admit that 1MB is not enough. Yes, even with sidechains/the lightning network/etc. They're only questioning whether we need it sooner rather than later.
Besides, speedtest.net is going to try and pick the best server available for you. I'm not sure that his results are accurate though. I've just tested Bejing myself and the results aren't good.
No, speedtest will test with whichever server you select, if you select one. As I did.Connecting to a server in China isn't the same as making a connection from China.
It is, in fact, a proper test of bandwidth - upload and download. HTTP connections are two-way streets. If you're speaking about connection latency, there may be a significant difference. However, bandwidth is bandwidth. 
Finally we have a resolution. The bosses of Bitcoin have spoken.
Why is 8M rather than other size?
We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.
We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.
Oh, this. This x1000. This x1,000,000
I keep hearing about these bodges in the protocol. It's like listening to the ECB kicking the can down the road for Greece. This coupled with some mining groups clearly achieving enough hashing power to subvert the network when, only a year or two ago, it was being poo, poo'd that it was possible; means these issues need to be put to bed once and for all - sooner rather than later.
Sidechains could be the answer, perhaps we should stick to 1MB blocks and start other solutions asap.
Why is 8M rather than other size?
We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.
The current price of storage is extremely expensive if you are thinking of changing to a 20mb block. It is done to allow the technology to improve and possibly allow everyone to be able to have a copy of blockchain on their computer without too much cost. Besides, the current transaction volume would make this permanent solution redundant. We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.
Are the peoplw who suggest that we solve this once and for all not being a bit over the top here?
America doesn't start printing $1mill bills because at some point in the future they might be required. The also raise the debt ceiling little by little, rather than just getting rid or maiking it $9999 trillion to get rid of the problem forever!
I think a practical response for the next 10 years or so would be the 8mb block size. That is doable at the moment, if a bit big for downloading, but it will become ever more manageable over time.
America doesn't start printing $1mill bills because at some point in the future they might be required. The also raise the debt ceiling little by little, rather than just getting rid or maiking it $9999 trillion to get rid of the problem forever!
I think a practical response for the next 10 years or so would be the 8mb block size. That is doable at the moment, if a bit big for downloading, but it will become ever more manageable over time.
I think nobody is really arguing, that it is the final solution, besides some people, who might not really have looked into the whole discussion.
But I also don't think, the increase is just to buy us time. Even with other solutions already ready(which is currently not the case) the 1 MB-limit wouldn't be enough, once we reach mainstream(unless you do nearly everything off-blockchain, which destroys the whole purpose of Bitcoin)
Actually you'd be surprised how many people think that this could be a final solution.But I also don't think, the increase is just to buy us time. Even with other solutions already ready(which is currently not the case) the 1 MB-limit wouldn't be enough, once we reach mainstream(unless you do nearly everything off-blockchain, which destroys the whole purpose of Bitcoin)
I already had stated this in the thread that I was referring too. 1MB blocks won't be enough even for bigger transactions only (in case we are using side chains). At some point it is just not going to be enough.
Take a look here:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size
We've had a huge spike in the size, which I believe isn't natural at all. We shouldn't be concerned yet, however if the price keeps up a positive trend we might have a backlog of transactions pretty soon.
Just to reiterate, the mining farm can connect to a pool near China to mine, one with faster internet. It shouldn't matter much. Also, you are just testing one server from the entire country not to say that you are testing from US. I'm sure it would be better at the mining farms but again, stratum requires little bandwidth and speed.
Besides, speedtest.net is going to try and pick the best server available for you. I'm not sure that his results are accurate though. I've just tested Bejing myself and the results aren't good. 
The ping was around 300. My usual download speed is above 20 Mbps and upload around 3-4.
Why is 8M rather than other size?
We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.
Obviously you don't see the picture clearly. The debate isn't really about 8 or 20 MB blocks, it is actually about how the problem of transactions is going to be solved. Increasing the block size can't be the final solution as I've argued in another thread. We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.
If that was the case then Gavin should enable "infinite" block size and problem solved.
But I also don't think, the increase is just to buy us time. Even with other solutions already ready(which is currently not the case) the 1 MB-limit wouldn't be enough, once we reach mainstream(unless you do nearly everything off-blockchain, which destroys the whole purpose of Bitcoin)
Just to reiterate, the mining farm can connect to a pool near China to mine, one with faster internet. It shouldn't matter much. Also, you are just testing one server from the entire country not to say that you are testing from US. I'm sure it would be better at the mining farms but again, stratum requires little bandwidth and speed.
Besides, speedtest.net is going to try and pick the best server available for you. I'm not sure that his results are accurate though. I've just tested Bejing myself and the results aren't good. The ping was around 300. My usual download speed is above 20 Mbps and upload around 3-4.
Why is 8M rather than other size?
We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.
Obviously you don't see the picture clearly. The debate isn't really about 8 or 20 MB blocks, it is actually about how the problem of transactions is going to be solved. Increasing the block size can't be the final solution as I've argued in another thread. We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.
If that was the case then Gavin should enable "infinite" block size and problem solved.
Will they please stop trying to blame the great firewall of china?
15 MBit = 11 seconds to transfer a 20 MB block. Additionally, for every block mined outside of China that needs to traverse this "bottleneck", there's one mined inside China that needs to migrate out. With over 50% of blocks now mined inside China, a larger block size stands to benefit them on average, albeit by a tiny amount.
Connecting to a server in China isn't the same as making a connection from China. 15 MBit = 11 seconds to transfer a 20 MB block. Additionally, for every block mined outside of China that needs to traverse this "bottleneck", there's one mined inside China that needs to migrate out. With over 50% of blocks now mined inside China, a larger block size stands to benefit them on average, albeit by a tiny amount.
I thought they don't care about bitcoin future at all. Gavin and Hearn should accept their propose, so Bitcoin XT can be implanted faster 
I hope there won't be any war in future
I hope there won't be any war in future
Why is 8M rather than other size?
We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.
We still don't know how big size of the block. The most important thing is we should solve this problem forever. We can't do it again after several years later for the same reason.
Oh, this. This x1000. This x1,000,000
I keep hearing about these bodges in the protocol. It's like listening to the ECB kicking the can down the road for Greece. This coupled with some mining groups clearly achieving enough hashing power to subvert the network when, only a year or two ago, it was being poo, poo'd that it was possible; means these issues need to be put to bed once and for all - sooner rather than later.
Jump to: