BIP100, BIP 101 and XT nodes status - page 6.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on August 27, 2015, 11:43:44 AM

So? Ten years ago I had 4 mbps at my old house and now it has 20mbps. According to Gavin my speed should be much higher now (it is not; at that house). Gavin's proposal might only keep track of the development in 1st world countries. Everything else won't keep up with doubling every two years.

Yes, and your 20 mbps connection of today can transmit a 1MB block size in 1/4 of a second. The 8 MB size proposed for the next two years? A whopping 2 seconds to transmit. If your Internet speed doesn't change one iota for the next ten years, a completely full block will take ..... 32 seconds to transmit. Wow!

Nobody is saying that 8GB blocks are reasonable today, but 2036 is a long way off. Many things will change well before 2036.

Some other salient points:
- Just because the cap moves to X does not mean the average block size (or any block size) will be X.
- No miner is forced to include any transaction they don't want to. There are blocks mined today with only one transaction.
- The block size cap of BIP 101 can be adjusted down with a soft fork.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: Lauda on August 27, 2015, 11:43:44 AM

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 11:33:32 AM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 11:31:20 AM

-snip-
ten years ago i only had 128kb isdn; now i have 50mbit.

It keeps going until it reaches 8 GB. The idea is that technology will continue to grow and we will be able to support such large blocks.

So? Ten years ago I had 4 mbps at my old house and now it has 20mbps. According to Gavin my speed should be much higher now (it is not; at that house). Gavin's proposal might only keep track of the development in 1st world countries. Everything else won't keep up with doubling every two years.

you only need 110mbit to be able to use 8GB blocks (if any block is full)
at home you can use a SPV wallet if you want (eg electrum-server on a vps and electrum at home)

edit: this does NOT include transaction and block relay: so it is more... but it is enough for a parasitic listening node

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 11:33:32 AM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 11:31:20 AM

-snip-
ten years ago i only had 128kb isdn; now i have 50mbit.

It keeps going until it reaches 8 GB. The idea is that technology will continue to grow and we will be able to support such large blocks.

So? Ten years ago I had 4 mbps at my old house and now it has 20mbps. According to Gavin my speed should be much higher now (it is not; at that house). Gavin's proposal might only keep track of the development in 1st world countries. Everything else won't keep up with doubling every two years.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 11:31:20 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

BIP 101 is the proposal to increase the block size limit to 8 mb and doubling every 2 years. It is implemented within the XT client but is not XT itself and XT is not necessarily BIP 101. BIP 101 can be implemented elsewhere without all of the other stuff that is included inside XT.

Well BIP 101 is still not a great solution, doubling every two years gives a huge block size that could come under a spam attack easily. Seriously in 10 years 256mb blocks? That seems like a pretty huge jump and then we start getting in trouble 4 years later 1gb blocks? I know technology moves fast but that seems to be a bit too quick.

ten years ago i only had 128kb isdn; now i have 50mbit.

It keeps going until it reaches 8 GB. The idea is that technology will continue to grow and we will be able to support such large blocks.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: ?? on ??

BIP 101 is the proposal to increase the block size limit to 8 mb and doubling every 2 years. It is implemented within the XT client but is not XT itself and XT is not necessarily BIP 101. BIP 101 can be implemented elsewhere without all of the other stuff that is included inside XT.

Well BIP 101 is still not a great solution, doubling every two years gives a huge block size that could come under a spam attack easily. Seriously in 10 years 256mb blocks? That seems like a pretty huge jump and then we start getting in trouble 4 years later 1gb blocks? I know technology moves fast but that seems to be a bit too quick.
[/quote]

ten years ago i only had 128kb isdn; now i have 50mbit.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Klestin on August 27, 2015, 10:56:32 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

BIP 101 isn't bad via intentions but the issue is that it is breaking the community up, even if it was the perfect code and it broke the community up and drug bitcoin through the ground I would have to vote for another option.

What exactly about BIP 101 is breaking the community up?

101 is XT correct? I may just be confused on this but I thought 101 was XT or the technology behind the XT fork and if you are asking how just press back and go to the Bitcoin Discussion to see all of the threads of constant attacks on each other.

BIP 101 is the proposal to increase the block size limit to 8 mb and doubling every 2 years. It is implemented within the XT client but is not XT itself and XT is not necessarily BIP 101. BIP 101 can be implemented elsewhere without all of the other stuff that is included inside XT.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

101 is XT correct? I may just be confused on this but I thought 101 was XT or the technology behind the XT fork and if you are asking how just press back and go to the Bitcoin Discussion to see all of the threads of constant attacks on each other.

A common misconception. XT is one bitcoin implementation that has added BIP 101 support. Without BIP 101, XT does not fork and is compatible with Core (although it adds other stuff that some people don't like, but that does not require a fork). Users running XT right now are on the same chain since BIP 101 hasn't taken effect yet.

It's the block size change that forces a fork - BIP 101, BIP 100, BIP 102, etc - they all require a hard fork.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: Lauda on August 27, 2015, 09:15:27 AM

Quote from: TinEye on August 27, 2015, 09:10:09 AM

i found this http://media.coindesk.com/2015/08/BIP-100.png, it's more complete

That is outdated and thus irrelevant. To verify everything for yourself, click on this link.
BIP100 is about to overtake default.

it seems that it come from here http://www.coindesk.com/support-grows-for-bip-100-bitcoin-block-size-proposal/

basically yesterday, not really a thing that i would call outdated... the point is that these % are irrelevant until the consensus is taken, they can change from 1 minute to another

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

BIP 101 isn't bad via intentions but the issue is that it is breaking the community up, even if it was the perfect code and it broke the community up and drug bitcoin through the ground I would have to vote for another option.

What exactly about BIP 101 is breaking the community up?

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

The best solution overall? No. The best solution currently? Yes. If this does become an issue there will be another debate and solution made to change so it is no longer an issue.

I guess we can agree to disagree. For me, this is a fatal flaw of BIP 100. BIP 101 seems eminently reasonable and safe by comparison. Not to mention the fact that the code actually exists.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

These large mining pools care about one thing, profit and they aren't going to prevent any and all block size cap increases if it hurts the price of bitocoin, they don't even care about the size much they were all fine with it being 8mb blocks as it really doesn't hurt them to do that.

The economics of this are not entirely predictable. There are those who predict higher profit can be made by forcing a bottleneck in the block size. The point is that this change abdicates control to 21% of the hash rate. Is that really the best solution?

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

I have been trying to avoid the constant debate but BIP100 definitely seems like the best decision, I am happy that there was all the drama as it looks to have come to a true solution and fixes the issues we have had and would have had in the future.

Unfortunately, BIP 100 allows a miner with 21% of the hash rate to prevent any and all block size cap increases.

The other 79% of the miners could theoretically collude and begin ignoring size cap votes under a certain threshold, but that is hardly ideal, and antithetical to the idea of Bitcoin - they would be knowingly ignoring valid blocks. Do we really want to head down that road?

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: tadakaluri on August 27, 2015, 07:47:28 AM

Numerous solutions named BIP 100, BIP 101, BIP 102, BIP Huh

, and others—BIP stands for “Bitcoin Improvement Proposal.” Another proposed solution has been Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn’s Bitcoin XT client, which supports bigger blocks, but also poses the possibility of a hard fork for the Bitcoin protocol and network.

The only thing in XT that causes a hard fork is the implementation of BIP 101. All block size cap increases necessitate a hard fork, whether implemented in XT, Core, or any other implementation.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: tadakaluri on August 27, 2015, 07:47:28 AM

Numerous solutions named BIP 100, BIP 101, BIP 102, BIP Huh

, and others—BIP stands for “Bitcoin Improvement Proposal.” Another proposed solution has been Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn’s Bitcoin XT client, which supports bigger blocks, but also poses the possibility of a hard fork for the Bitcoin protocol and network.

BitcoinXT is a client that implements BIP101, not a separate thing.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: TinEye on August 27, 2015, 09:10:09 AM

i found this http://media.coindesk.com/2015/08/BIP-100.png, it's more complete

That is outdated and thus irrelevant. To verify everything for yourself, click on this link.
BIP100 is about to overtake default.

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: BlackJacky on August 27, 2015, 02:32:00 AM

Hi,

does anybody know where I can see an overview which nodes are currently using which proposal? I only know for XT the www.xtnodes.com but for the others?

Thanks in advance!

There are no BIP100 nodes. Nodes you'll see are either CORE or bitcoinXT. Not that this makes a significant difference before the fork can be triggered (January 11) in case 75% of the last 1k blocks are mined in support of BIP101.

TinEye

hero member

Activity: 639

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on August 27, 2015, 04:47:24 AM

Quote from: monsanto on August 27, 2015, 04:17:45 AM

So what does the BIP 100 "vote" do? Is it just a public expression of what they would prefer or can it actually stop XT?

Define 'stop XT'? BIP100 votes are just coinbase votes and do not have any affect (i.e. there is no code/implementation that could trigger a hard fork). The number of nodes is really irrelevant and a useless piece of information.

This is for the past 24 hours. As you can see the support for BIP100 is growing, while BIP101 (i.e. XT) has almost zero.

i found this http://media.coindesk.com/2015/08/BIP-100.png, it's more complete

tadakaluri

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Numerous solutions named BIP 100, BIP 101, BIP 102, BIP Huh

, and others—BIP stands for “Bitcoin Improvement Proposal.” Another proposed solution has been Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn’s Bitcoin XT client, which supports bigger blocks, but also poses the possibility of a hard fork for the Bitcoin protocol and network.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: monsanto on August 27, 2015, 04:17:45 AM

So what does the BIP 100 "vote" do? Is it just a public expression of what they would prefer or can it actually stop XT?

Define 'stop XT'? BIP100 votes are just coinbase votes and do not have any affect (i.e. there is no code/implementation that could trigger a hard fork). The number of nodes is really irrelevant and a useless piece of information.

This is for the past 24 hours. As you can see the support for BIP100 is growing, while BIP101 (i.e. XT) has almost zero.

monsanto

legendary

Activity: 1241

Merit: 1005

..like bright metal on a sullen ground.

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 02:53:43 AM

Quote from: BlackJacky on August 27, 2015, 02:32:00 AM

Hi,

does anybody know where I can see an overview which nodes are currently using which proposal? I only know for XT the www.xtnodes.com but for the others?

Thanks in advance!

Here, you can see the last 24 hours -- default vs. BIP 100 vs. 8MB. https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h

Miners only very recently began including BIP 100 in the vote, so looking at longer time periods give skewed results. But this gives an idea anyway. In the last 24 hours, 36% voted for BIP 100, 21% voted for 8MB.

Of note, the BIP 100 / 8MB "vote" does not actually count towards hard fork activation. I believe 5 of the last 1000 blocks were BIP 101 blocks that count towards hard fork activation.

So what does the BIP 100 "vote" do? Is it just a public expression of what they would prefer or can it actually stop XT?

Topic: BIP100, BIP 101 and XT nodes status - page 6. (Read 6464 times)