Bigger blocks coming in release 0.11 - page 2.

okae

legendary

Activity: 1401

Merit: 1008

northern exposure

Quote from: Mikestang on May 04, 2015, 11:52:47 AM

Get ready, it's coming...

http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks

Quote

I’m going to submit a pull request to the 0.11 release of Bitcoin Core that will allow miners to create blocks bigger than one megabyte, starting a little less than a year from now.

ty for the link i didnt read it before;

well i think it will scaled slowly, yes, but i think i will need to start buying more hdds right now lol, just to use the btc core wallet Tongue

and yes i love to use the btc core wallet, so... xD

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Let's play a game. Lets see who can spot all the Popescu sockpuppets that will inevitability pop up in this thread.
They'll turn up, oh yes, you can be sure of that. Cheesy

redsn0w

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1043

#Free market

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: redsn0w on May 05, 2015, 01:13:04 PM

For me it would be a nice feature, and it is very needed if bitcoin 'wants' to be mainstream. Because if we compare it with the credit card system we will see that 7 transactions per second - against - 2'000 transactions per second (visa). In this way we will have a lot of transaction in one block and it will speed up the send of bitcoin.

I'm waiting to see this feature in the next releases and I am sure the majority will choose the right thing Wink

.

I thought that too but in the last thread about this there were people who were so against this they started name calling and then it was "Gavincoin". I even got negative trust for saying I it would fork and carry on.

Are you serious? Negative trust for saying your personal opinion

(amazing). When the feature will be released, everyone of us will choose if 'upgrade' his bitcoin core version or not (this is the good thing in a 'decentralization).

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: bambou on May 05, 2015, 01:41:08 PM

http://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea

Thanks for linking me to some great information from a very reasonable guy who has been critical to Bitcoins development. I will check it out.

bambou

sr. member

Activity: 346

Merit: 250

lol @ the sneaky little "kudos" buttons that mislead people into "liking" all his fallacies.

sounds like an Agent to me:

Quote

If any of the other proposed scaling solutions were tested, practical and already rolling out onto the network and being supported by all the various Bitcoin wallets then, indeed, there would be no hurry to schedule a maximum block size increase.

Unfortunately, they’re not; read Mike Hearn’s blog post for details. We are years away from a time when we can confidently tell a wallet developer “use this solution to give your users very-high-volume, very-low-cost, very-low-minimum-payment instant transactions.

http://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea

redsn0w

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1043

#Free market

For me it would be a nice feature, and it is very needed if bitcoin 'wants' to be mainstream. Because if we compare it with the credit card system we will see that 7 transactions per second - against - 2'000 transactions per second (visa). In this way we will have a lot of transaction in one block and it will speed up the send of bitcoin.

I'm waiting to see this feature in the next releases and I am sure the majority will choose the right thing Wink

.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: Bitcoin_BOy$ on May 05, 2015, 01:06:51 PM

Bigger blocks Huh

I think the block reward decrasing every year , can you please explain more what's coming

Kind Of Respect ,
Bitcoin Boy .

Block reward decreasing approx every 4 years...this proposed fork is intended to allow more transactions to be processed per second to help bitcoin grow and pay for the security.

jl2012

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1111

Quote from: Bitcoin_BOy$ on May 05, 2015, 01:06:51 PM

Bigger blocks Huh

I think the block reward decrasing every year , can you please explain more what's coming

Kind Of Respect ,
Bitcoin Boy .

It's about having more data stored in the block. It has noting to do with the block reward

jl2012

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1111

Quote from: Mikestang on May 05, 2015, 01:04:46 PM

Quote from: DarkHyudrA on May 05, 2015, 06:31:46 AM

but the blockchain is getting more and more centralized, what kills the initial concept o Bitcoin.

Uh, what? Substantiate your claim, provide proof. There are over 6100 full nodes, and more added every day. Making blocks bigger has no correlation with "centralization".

My home PC is one of those 6100 and I will have absolutely no problem to maintain it even the block size becomes 100MB

Bitcoin_BOy$

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 503

|| Web developer ||

Bigger blocks Huh

I think the block reward decrasing every year , can you please explain more what's coming

Kind Of Respect ,
Bitcoin Boy .

Mikestang

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

Quote from: DarkHyudrA on May 05, 2015, 06:31:46 AM

but the blockchain is getting more and more centralized, what kills the initial concept o Bitcoin.

Uh, what? Substantiate your claim, provide proof. There are over 6100 full nodes, and more added every day. Making blocks bigger has no correlation with "centralization".

HI-TEC99

legendary

Activity: 2772

Merit: 2846

Quote from: Meuh6879 on May 04, 2015, 03:54:10 PM

If 20MB block size comes with pruning feature, i'm OK for this. Wink

i want a counterparty ... Grin

Satoshi said it would make sense to introduce pruning when the blockchain got too big. If a 20MB block size is going to be introduced it would be stupid to delay introducing pruning too.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Reminder-

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6306

Quote from: satoshi

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

Quote from: bytemaster on July 28, 2010, 08:59:42 PM
Besides, 10 minutes is too long to verify that payment is good. It needs to be as fast as swiping a credit card is today.
See the snack machine thread, I outline how a payment processor could verify payments well enough, actually really well (much lower fraud rate than credit cards), in something like 10 seconds or less. If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3819

I don't predict that we will need to become this centralized but this was the initial plan.
One reason-Merkle tree Pruning scheduled for next bitcoin release(Core 0.11) allowing full nodes that are 1GB.

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

I think it's about time we change. we need to be future proof, and this is one big step towards that.

As for storage, the GB per $ price is quite cheap and is declining in the long run, for both mechanical and flash disks. I think the blockchain size is a bit of a non-issue. Also, the fact that the new limit is set at 20mb won't suddenly make the blockchain triple in size. The block sizes will remain the same. Our usage and the amount of transactions per block are the ones who will make the blockchain bigger, and I think more transactions is a good thing...

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: DarkHyudrA on May 05, 2015, 11:39:58 AM

The problem is, even a 1Mb needs 3 minutes to download one 20MB block.
Uploading a block with such connection takes more than 10 minutes, and downloading even only the headers will be frustrating.

Although today I have a 10Mb connection(its decent, could be better), I do worry about other people where internet connection is expensive.

Why worry? Nobody is forced to run a full node. The number of users who have bandwidth and storage to spare is nontrivial. We are in no danger of a lack of users willing to run full nodes due to those concerns.

DarkHyudrA

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1000

English <-> Portuguese translations

Quote from: R2D221 on May 05, 2015, 10:15:49 AM

Quote from: Klestin on May 05, 2015, 09:42:09 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on May 05, 2015, 09:34:41 AM

But no! The problem is not storage, but bandwidth. At least that's what many claim.

Bandwidth becomes a problem at over 1 MB every 10 minutes? My moderate Internet connection can download 1 MB every 1/8th of a second.

Yes, but apparently there are people with 56k connection that want to run full nodes...

And now that I think about it, it's still enough to handle 20 MB every 10 minutes, isn't it?

The problem is, even a 1Mb needs 3 minutes to download one 20MB block.
Uploading a block with such connection takes more than 10 minutes, and downloading even only the headers will be frustrating.

Although today I have a 10Mb connection(its decent, could be better), I do worry about other people where internet connection is expensive.

cellard

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1252

But didn't satoshi predict that this wouldn't be a problem? I remember reading emails of satoshi where he said it would never be a problem because technology would catch up as transaction volume grows.

Foxpup

legendary

Activity: 4536

Merit: 3188

Vile Vixen and Miss Bitcointalk 2021-2023

Quote from: R2D221 on May 05, 2015, 10:15:49 AM

Yes, but apparently there are people with 56k connection that want to run full nodes...

And now that I think about it, it's still enough to handle 20 MB every 10 minutes, isn't it?

It isn't. It's only 2.5 MB (V.90) or 3 MB (V.92) every 10 minutes, assuming the node uploads as much as it downloads.

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: R2D221 on May 05, 2015, 10:15:49 AM

Quote from: Klestin on May 05, 2015, 09:42:09 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on May 05, 2015, 09:34:41 AM

But no! The problem is not storage, but bandwidth. At least that's what many claim.

Bandwidth becomes a problem at over 1 MB every 10 minutes? My moderate Internet connection can download 1 MB every 1/8th of a second.

Yes, but apparently there are people with 56k connection that want to run full nodes...

And now that I think about it, it's still enough to handle 20 MB every 10 minutes, isn't it?

Yeah I remember those 56k modem days. That's 56000 bits per second, not bytes. It wouldn't cope with 20MB blocks.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Klestin on May 05, 2015, 09:42:09 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on May 05, 2015, 09:34:41 AM

But no! The problem is not storage, but bandwidth. At least that's what many claim.

Bandwidth becomes a problem at over 1 MB every 10 minutes? My moderate Internet connection can download 1 MB every 1/8th of a second.

Yes, but apparently there are people with 56k connection that want to run full nodes...

And now that I think about it, it's still enough to handle 20 MB every 10 minutes, isn't it?

Topic: Bigger blocks coming in release 0.11 - page 2. (Read 4767 times)