Why do they so aggressively double....why not make it a slower ramp up over a longer time
That's the way BIP101 was conceived: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
Topic: BIP101 and 8GB blocks by 2036 - page 2. (Read 1270 times)
That's the way BIP101 was conceived: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
Why do they so aggressively double....why not make it a slower ramp up over a longer time
is the BIP101, without the XT IP address ban thing?
is the BIP101, without the XT IP address ban thing?
Running a node has never been free. There was always a cost but so far people have just eaten up the cost. If bigger blocks come too fast what I think will happen is that we will see less nodes run by monetary freedom enthusiasts and more datacenter-style nodes run by for-profit organizations. I hope advances in technology can blunt the effects of this, but we definitely need to find another dimension to scale up in addition to simply increasing blocksize indefinitely.
It's essentially a staged version of how Skype was transformed from a pure p2p network into what it is today; Microsoft's proprietary spy camera network.
XT is stage one.
Running a node has never been free. There was always a cost but so far people have just eaten up the cost. If bigger blocks come too fast what I think will happen is that we will see less nodes run by monetary freedom enthusiasts and more datacenter-style nodes run by for-profit organizations. I hope advances in technology can blunt the effects of this, but we definitely need to find another dimension to scale up in addition to simply increasing blocksize indefinitely.
I would like to focus for a moment on the future implications of BIP101 which in addition to an immediate x8 fold increase by Jan 2016 also mandates a doubling of the maximum block size roughly every 2 years taking it to 8 GB blocks by 2036. The argument of BIP101 proponents is that increases in broadband and storage capacity will compensate for this additional full node workload. Is this a realistic assumption to make for every current a future node?
If BIP101 is implemented it is going to be a huge gamble for Bitcoin. Putting a high strain on the network will certainly mean that the lower end hardware running on low speed connections will have to drop off the network. Only nodes running mid to high end hardware on fast connections will be able to keep up. Up to which point will increase in transactions and block size will promote full node concentration? I don't have an answer and I haven't seen any study that attempts to model that. One thing is certain though. Centralization and concentration of power can only harm a cryptocurrency whose value is driven by the breadth and strength of the people accepting it as a currency (a.k.a. community).
Personally I see block size increase as something potentially unavoidable in the not so distant future but it should be done with a more gradual and conservative approach taking into consideration that Bitcoin is a complex system and any significant change carry a degree of risk and uncertainty. The more radical the changes the bigger the risk and uncertainty. Coincidentally enough bitcoin price is hitting a 6 month low right now as the global financial markets are taking a hit. Bitcoin price should be surging right now not plunging.
If BIP101 is implemented it is going to be a huge gamble for Bitcoin. Putting a high strain on the network will certainly mean that the lower end hardware running on low speed connections will have to drop off the network. Only nodes running mid to high end hardware on fast connections will be able to keep up. Up to which point will increase in transactions and block size will promote full node concentration? I don't have an answer and I haven't seen any study that attempts to model that. One thing is certain though. Centralization and concentration of power can only harm a cryptocurrency whose value is driven by the breadth and strength of the people accepting it as a currency (a.k.a. community).
Personally I see block size increase as something potentially unavoidable in the not so distant future but it should be done with a more gradual and conservative approach taking into consideration that Bitcoin is a complex system and any significant change carry a degree of risk and uncertainty. The more radical the changes the bigger the risk and uncertainty. Coincidentally enough bitcoin price is hitting a 6 month low right now as the global financial markets are taking a hit. Bitcoin price should be surging right now not plunging.
Jump to: