Pages:
Author

Topic: Bigger blocks coming in release 0.11 - page 4. (Read 4732 times)

full member
Activity: 184
Merit: 100
Bitcoin FTW!
May 04, 2015, 11:29:33 PM
#31
For what purpose is the bigger block? Why is there a need for a 1 megabyte block, the blockchain works fine like now?
Blocks only get big when there are many transaction in them, so how could a miner create a bigger block without that much transactions
http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent
http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks

Very good move Smiley, Gavin is strong point of Bitcoin
legendary
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000
May 04, 2015, 11:04:38 PM
#30
Finally it was about time!
Agreed. This has been an issue for a while.

I don't know enough/haven't been around long enough to know one way better than the other, but I can say that I'm glad something is happening and all the back and forth can stop.  It works or it doesn't, time to find out.
hero member
Activity: 628
Merit: 500
May 04, 2015, 10:23:22 PM
#29
Finally it was about time!
Agreed. This has been an issue for a while.
legendary
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
May 04, 2015, 07:13:05 PM
#28
For what purpose is the bigger block? Why is there a need for a 1 megabyte block, the blockchain works fine like now?
Blocks only get big when there are many transaction in them, so how could a miner create a bigger block without that much transactions

Here's a Q&A with Gavin and Mike, at some point they discuss the bigger block issue if you're interested.

CoinScrum: QA with Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1034
May 04, 2015, 07:08:09 PM
#27

So, do we really need ripple or stellar to make bitcoin work?
Why?

Nope, bitcoin works fine now , but lately we are starting to hit the blocksize limit more often.

This is what Bitcoin needs to make it awesome-

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/lightning-network-another-proposal-to-make-bitcoin-scale-970822
full member
Activity: 165
Merit: 100
ars longa, vita brevis
May 04, 2015, 07:02:26 PM
#26
increase block size may injured bitcoin node ... because of the pollution of trading (high trading).
people that need speed ... must build sidechain (or offchain strategy like bitpay ou coinbase).

i don't agree to increase block size except if it has a limitation ... (like 10MB).

Time to embrace Open Transactions, Ripple, Stellar or whatever for offchain transactions.

Edit:  I say go for it.  Go for the 20mb blocks.  I want to see what happens...  Just hedge your bets.

I don't think i understand your position.
Trading activity has always passed through offchain transactions..

So, do we really need ripple or stellar to make bitcoin work?
Why?
legendary
Activity: 3976
Merit: 1421
Life, Love and Laughter...
May 04, 2015, 06:37:24 PM
#25
increase block size may injured bitcoin node ... because of the pollution of trading (high trading).
people that need speed ... must build sidechain (or offchain strategy like bitpay ou coinbase).

i don't agree to increase block size except if it has a limitation ... (like 10MB).

Time to embrace Open Transactions, Ripple, Stellar or whatever for offchain transactions.

Edit:  I say go for it.  Go for the 20mb blocks.  I want to see what happens...  Just hedge your bets.
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1034
May 04, 2015, 06:27:49 PM
#24
For what purpose is the bigger block? Why is there a need for a 1 megabyte block, the blockchain works fine like now?
Blocks only get big when there are many transaction in them, so how could a miner create a bigger block without that much transactions

Increasing the limit won't create bigger blocks on average, but allow for it to happen if it is needed. If we stay at 3-4 tps average the change will have no effect outside of occasionally allowing a 2MB block through because of a large fundraiser through lighthouse or a temporary spike in transactions.

There will likely be a middle ground found because most of the other core developers are wary of 20MB being needed. Perhaps if we give some other projects a bit of time to be released like the lightning network we won't need a 20MB limit.

hero member
Activity: 821
Merit: 1000
May 04, 2015, 06:27:21 PM
#23
About time! Anyone whining about this need to get their marbles examined.


The blockchain size is already turning into a serious problem...  Don't speak with such a vicious tone when you don't know what you are talking about.

What is a serious problem already? The one who does not know what he/she is talking about is you ....

Blind following the blind going on!
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1034
May 04, 2015, 06:22:41 PM
#22
Okay. This may be a stupid question, but I'm going to ask anyway. Are bigger blocks good or bad? And why would they be good or bad?

Right now certain projects like Lighthouse decentralized crowdfunding are limited to 684 pledges (unusually low compared to kickstarter) and we can only process 4-7 transactions per second which isn't enough.

We are hitting the block limit more often these days and it is only going to get worse.
sr. member
Activity: 254
Merit: 1258
May 04, 2015, 06:13:11 PM
#21
About time! Anyone whining about this need to get their marbles examined.


The blockchain size is already turning into a serious problem...  Don't speak with such a vicious tone when you don't know what you are talking about.
BlockChain is  already almost 40 GB of size, but this change is inevitable. There is no problem with our current terabyte hard disks to storage it. And you dont have to run full node wallet like Bitcoin Core at all.
Electrum or MultiBit will do just fine.
That and by the time blocks are actually 20mb each the price of storage will continue to be lower, just like the price per gigabyte was 1.24 in 2005 and in 2014 it was $.03 every 5 years it is ATLEAST been a third of the price and some years a large jump. 1995 $/gb was $1,120. In 2000 it was $11/gb in 2005 the $1.24 and in 2010 it was .09$/gb . Storage price shouldn't be an issue it is getting cheaper compared to the requirements needed.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1005
★Nitrogensports.eu★
May 04, 2015, 06:02:10 PM
#20
About time! Anyone whining about this need to get their marbles examined.


The blockchain size is already turning into a serious problem...  Don't speak with such a vicious tone when you don't know what you are talking about.
BlockChain is  already almost 40 GB of size, but this change is inevitable. There is no problem with our current terabyte hard disks to storage it. And you dont have to run full node wallet like Bitcoin Core at all.
Electrum or MultiBit will do just fine.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
May 04, 2015, 05:47:23 PM
#19
Finally it was about time!
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1011
May 04, 2015, 04:54:10 PM
#18
If 20MB block size comes with pruning feature, i'm OK for this.  Wink
i want a counterparty ...  Grin
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
May 04, 2015, 04:34:06 PM
#17
About time! Anyone whining about this need to get their marbles examined.


The blockchain size is already turning into a serious problem...  Don't speak with such a vicious tone when you don't know what you are talking about.

Of course it isn't.  If you don't want to store the full chain, run an SPV client.  If you do: http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Desktop-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST4000DM000.  Pruning is coming, so the storage "issue" will soon vanish completely.

Increasing the max block size does not mean that all blocks will increase in size - they'll increase when they need to.  Does anyone actually take the position that it is better to let transactions back up than to marginally increase the incremental chain size?
full member
Activity: 164
Merit: 126
Amazing times are coming
May 04, 2015, 02:13:22 PM
#16
The real block size is up to the miners. The protocol (wired in the bitcoin reference implementation) can suggest a MAX_SIZE and miners can agree on that. However, they can mine blocks with size between [MIN_SIZE, MAX_SIZE] and that means they can include any number of transactions per block always they respect the agreed MAX_SIZE. Note that it is possible to mine blocks with zero transactions for example.

IMO there is an incentive to keep the block size small because it makes the space in them scarce, and we know what happen when something is scarce. Given the block size is 1MB, if your transaction requires 60kb you have to pay more fee than if your transaction is 800bytes. So, bigger blocks could reduce the fees but at the same time miner are allowed to introduce more transactions per block, what means more fees for them.

I really don't fully understand all the implications around this change because even when the current block MAX_SIZE is 1 MB, miners don't mine 1MB blocks. In fact, I read that one of the most common sizes is around 731kb. Clearly, for miners is not the same to broadcast to the network 1MB than 20MB because if I mine a 20MB block and, at the same time, other miner mines a 200Kb block, its block will spread faster than the mine one.

So, I don't see the incentive for miners now. What I mean is that currently they earn more with the 12.5 bitcoins that the protocol gives them that with the transactions fee and for that reason I don't know if more transactions per block (more fees) worth the risk.
      
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
May 04, 2015, 02:12:04 PM
#15
but my question is why they choose 20mb as the next size? 5 or 10 weren't enough? did he test those value?
If we see a mainstream adoption and a large rise in users no 5 or 10 may not be a enough and we would have to fork quickly. Think if for some reason Bitcoin blows up (maybe a stupid celebrity starts using bitcoin like Kayne) and we get 100k users in one day, with more jumping on the band wagon after and they all start trying it out, blocks would start to fill quickly.
I think that's right. It could be 5 or 10, but we don't want to have to do this every year.
sr. member
Activity: 254
Merit: 1258
May 04, 2015, 02:06:48 PM
#14
but my question is why they choose 20mb as the next size? 5 or 10 weren't enough? did he test those value?
If we see a mainstream adoption and a large rise in users no 5 or 10 may not be a enough and we would have to fork quickly. Think if for some reason Bitcoin blows up (maybe a stupid celebrity starts using bitcoin like Kayne) and we get 100k users in one day, with more jumping on the band wagon after and they all start trying it out, blocks would start to fill quickly.
legendary
Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069
May 04, 2015, 02:01:28 PM
#13
but my question is why they choose 20mb as the next size? 5 or 10 weren't enough? did he tested those value?
sr. member
Activity: 254
Merit: 1258
May 04, 2015, 01:30:21 PM
#12
increase block size may injured bitcoin node ... because of the pollution of trading (high trading).
people that need speed ... must build sidechain (or offchain strategy like bitpay ou coinbase).

i don't agree to increase block size except if it has a limitation ... (like 10MB).
Trading is going to happen regardless and transactions are going to increase if we want to keep bitcoin how it is today we will need to increase the block size or start expecting a long block queue for everyone. There is a limitation set at 20mb so we won't have to fork off it for a very long time and that gives us time to adapt. Blocks won't automatically be 20mb either just have the option to increase that high and only if we need it, if we have that many transactions and the same 1mb there would be a 20 block queue so you would wait 200 minutes for a single confirmation (over three hours!)
Pages:
Jump to: