Why not you get used to bigger blocks?
Which ones?
Finally something about your own views about Bitcoin. Unfortunately for you it doesn't match Satoshi's view.
Those your imaginary magic satoshi santa will bring for christmas?
Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 33. (Read 154790 times)
Which ones?
Those your imaginary magic satoshi santa will bring for christmas?
Micro-transactions aren't the only transactions that will not fit in a 1MB block limit.
Yeah. Get used to it.
Why not you get used to bigger blocks?
If you accept that not everything has to be trustless, then the 'problem' vanishes instantly.
Finally something about your own views about Bitcoin. Unfortunately for you it doesn't match Satoshi's view.
Still afraid to let the market decide and find out for sure then?
Bien au contraire mon ami :-)
It is artificially low and chosen arbitrarily.
Yeah, low and arbitrarily chosen numbers never really were an issue for Bitcoin.
And no, the block size isn't getting raised any time soon, and certainly not by Gavin.
Still afraid to let the market decide and find out for sure then?
But mostly I just want to hear why the 1MB fanatics are so desperate to keep repeating the same non-sequitur that they will keep a 1MB limit for themselves and stay on the old chain regardless of what the rest of us do, but still oppose the fork even though it's supposed negative effects will have no bearing on them. They say they don't want small transactions clogging up "their" chain, but at the same time they don't want us to go. It makes no logical sense.
If you're so determined to have everyone's less "valuable" transactions on another chain, why are you opposing the fork? Once we've forked, you'll never have to see another $2 coffee wasting precious space in your blocks again. You should be happy to see us go. Unless, of course, you end up having to admit that you need the rest of us to make this whole thing work. Somehow it feels like we still haven't had an honest answer from your side about your real motives here. I mean, which is it? You say you want a system that doesn't include small transactions, but you want us all to stick around and support a network that will eventually be of no use to us because our "lesser" transactions won't make it in because the blocks are full? You can't have your cake and eat it. Either it works for the masses or it doesn't work. That's Econ 101.
You know full well that if you had a coin that only whales used, it would die a horrible death. Otherwise you'd have done it by now. You don't want to be kings of a worthless little molehill, so you need the rest of us. So climb down from your high horse, admit that you're nothing without the rest of us and drop the whole elitist utopia bullshit. You know that if there's a fork and you don't tag along, your ideals will only last about as long as the value of your network holds out, which I doubt would be very long without anyone else to hold it up for you. All the bad things you claim will happen with a 20mb block won't happen to you if you stay on the old 1MB chain. So why do you care if we fork? Why are you so scared that we might leave you behind? We'll survive without you, but you won't survive without us. You know it. We know it. You have no other reason to oppose the fork.
You. Need. Us.
You know full well that if you had a coin that only whales used, it would die a horrible death. Otherwise you'd have done it by now. You don't want to be kings of a worthless little molehill, so you need the rest of us. So climb down from your high horse, admit that you're nothing without the rest of us and drop the whole elitist utopia bullshit. You know that if there's a fork and you don't tag along, your ideals will only last about as long as the value of your network holds out, which I doubt would be very long without anyone else to hold it up for you. All the bad things you claim will happen with a 20mb block won't happen to you if you stay on the old 1MB chain. So why do you care if we fork? Why are you so scared that we might leave you behind? We'll survive without you, but you won't survive without us. You know it. We know it. You have no other reason to oppose the fork.
You. Need. Us.
I'm just waiting for you to admit that Mircea's little threat is an empty one and you're all full of hot air. If the fork happens, you're going to tag along and play nice because you have no other choice. Hence why you keep insisting it isn't going to happen.
It is artificially low and chosen arbitrarily.
Yeah, low and arbitrarily chosen numbers never really were an issue for Bitcoin.
And no, the block size isn't getting raised any time soon, and certainly not by Gavin.
Last I heard, the (optional but safe, desirable, and broadly useful) SPV proof opcode was a soft fork. Wanna 'splain your interpretation?
Yes that is correct. The block limit will be raised before Bitcoin is forked (soft or not) to support an SPV opcode. Quote
Secondly, I don't mind at all if a peg operation takes days.
That is a strawman. Nobody said that it would be bad if peg operation takes days. In fact it almost certainly will regardless. The point was that existing users are not going to be rushing to support the addition of blockchain bloating "new tech" while the network is struggling to handle the existing load. The block limit will rise or there will be no support for sidechains.
Quote
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't mind exceeding the 1 MB limit when it is shown to be desirable as part of an ecosystem which itself has some theoretical hope of being robust and sustainable at scale. A 'one-size-fits-all' Bitcoin as some sort of a one-world currency for every use imaginable is FAR from this theoretical potential. And that's only one of many reasons to reject this absurd pipe-dream.
Not everyone believes Bitcoin will be the one world currency. There are other scenarios however 1MB is so small it presents an obstacle for any meaningful level of adoption. If the average user only makes one atomic transaction between a sidechain and the primary chain every month we are talking about a user base permanently capped in the millions of users. The 1MB limit is artificially low and chosen arbitrarily. Over time it will seem even more ridiculous as bandwidth and storage costs continue to fall. The block limit will be raised or those sidechains won't be using Bitcoin as their parent chain. You can wait for a comprehensive solution to be built out and deployed all at once but it won't happen. The pragmatic approach will be to build out the ecosystem in steps and raising the block limit will be the first one.
There's no use in being able to see my gold stash if I can't enter the vault and do whatever I want with my gold.
If you're poor you get to use verifiable paper gold, if you're able to pay the fee you can do whatever your heart desires with your gold.
Vanishes just like the hacked balances of Instawallet users...
How cute.
really?
Technically speaking as far as I understand a soft fork should suffice to introduce the new needed OPCODE.
Sorry I should have said fork not hard fork. If you can get a super majority of miners to agree then you are most of the way towards a hard fork anyways.
Quote
So you're saying that since that svp proof needed for ensure the 2 way peg mechanism between the main and the said chains is bigger than the avg txn we need a larger max block size, correct? But a single SVP proof should suffice to perform hundreds of txns on the side chains (depending on the side chains implementation / design), so maybe the max block size increase could be modelled in a more "gentle" way.
Well I think if Bitcoin is to become anything other than a toy for crypto nerds we will have larger blocks regardless. However yes I believe that the block limit can and should be more "gentle". I believe for what it is worth something closer to 20% annualized over a longer period of time can get us to the same place without running the risk that block size growth will exceed Nielsen's Law in the short term.
If you accept that not everything has to be trustless, then the 'problem' vanishes instantly.
Vanishes just like the hacked balances of Instawallet users... 
The true value proposition of Bitcoin isn't that everybody can send virtual gold dust around, it's that you can actually see your bank's gold stash behind bulletproof crypto-glass.
There's no use in being able to see my gold stash if I can't enter the vault and do whatever I want with my gold.
To we are back at square one.
Sure, we're back at square one where this problem is entirely imaginary.
There is a wide array of solutions at hand should commoners wish to transact in Bitcoin, side chains could be one, although I don't really buy it.
I see Open Transactions variants as more promising as they can work with the infrastructure as it currently stands for example on one hand.
On the other hand you can't compare bitcoin-enabled centralized services with their fiat counterpart, because with Bitcoin, their solvency can be trivially verified, and their prompt death made certain, should they misbehave.
The true value proposition of Bitcoin isn't that everybody can send virtual gold dust around, it's that you can actually see your bank's gold stash behind bulletproof crypto-glass.
The idea that there should be a one-size-fits-all for all problems, and all people doesn't have any value or merit. It's just some sort of religion.
All that said (and I'm a natural skeptic) I had enough confidence...or something...in Bitcoin to take a decent sized position, a majority of which I hold today. I anticipated subordinate chains as the most tenable scaling mechanism from a very early time in my involvement, and with 'sidechains' that looks to be within grasp. If they can be available and leveraged before those who wish to 'embrace, extend, and extinguish' Bitcoin then there is still hope for the solution.
Sidechains can not be done in a trustless manner without a hard fork of the Bitcoin protocol. Additional opcodes or other mechanisms need to be introduced to allow validating the SPV proof for the sidechain. There is no evidence that there is sufficient support for a hard fork to support sidechain SPV proofs. If the block size is not raised as blocks become fuller, delays become longer, and fees become higher any support for a hard fork to add SPV proofs will evaporate. SPV proof are significantly larger than the average mainchain txn and the potential of multiple sidechains means it would consume valuable blockspace.
Last I heard, the (optional but safe, desirable, and broadly useful) SPV proof opcode was a soft fork. Wanna 'splain your interpretation?
Secondly, I don't mind at all if a peg operation takes days. In fact I prefer that. It's much easier to secure. I don't want to belabor the point, but it seems necessary: If every transaction I do does not meet the rigorous standards of security that I demand of Bitcoin, I. DON'T. CARE! In fact I see it as a huge positive. If native Bitcoin is used mostly by people who know what they are doing, that almost single-handedly solves all of the fraud, theft, and accident problems which have vexed the ecosystem over the last number of years I've been around. That is but one reason of many that I make this statement.
Sidechains would derive their strength from the same standards of openness and confidence in dev that Bitcoin does today, but would have their value backstopped by the all confidence that Bitcoin itself can muster. The one key critical aspect of a crypto-currency system tied to a backing store would be the backing store itself. One fuck-up and that is gone. Exponential growth would certainly be such a fuck-up.
So to pin your hopes on sidechains and keeping the 1MB limit is just silly. Honestly I would love to see a hard fork to add SPV proofs and fix some low level plumbing of the main chain at the same time but it may never happen. It certainly isn't going to happen in a scenario where users are finding it increasingly more difficult and expensive to use bitcoin for their transactions.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't mind exceeding the 1 MB limit when it is shown to be desirable as part of an ecosystem which itself has some theoretical hope of being robust and sustainable at scale. A 'one-size-fits-all' Bitcoin as some sort of a one-world currency for every use imaginable is FAR from this theoretical potential. And that's only one of many reasons to reject this absurd pipe-dream.
Sidechains can not be done in a trustless manner without a hard fork of the Bitcoin protocol.
really?
Technically speaking as far as I understand a soft fork should suffice to introduce the new needed OPCODE.
Additional OPCODES or other mechanisms need to be introduced to allow validating the SPV proof for the sidechain. It remains to be seen if that will ever happen. Even if it does the SPV proof is significantly larger than the average txn and the potential of multiple sidechains means it is simply not viable under a 1MB block model. There will never be a consensus for SPV proof validation before there is a consensus for a larger block. Honestly there may never be consensus for SPV proof validation anyways but it is at least possible.
So to pin your hopes on sidechains and keeping the 1MB limit is just silly.
So to pin your hopes on sidechains and keeping the 1MB limit is just silly.
So you're saying that since that svp proof needed for ensure the 2 way peg mechanism between the main and the said chains is bigger than the avg txn we need a larger max block size, correct?
But a single SVP proof should suffice to perform hundreds of txns on the side chains (depending on the side chains implementation / design), so maybe the max block size increase could be modelled in a more "gentle" way.
As a side note, did somebody already read/evalute this paper
http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf
?
If you accept that not everything has to be trustless, then the 'problem' vanishes instantly.
Then sidechains become useful only for trivial sums where one is willing to accept the risk of loss, confiscation, or theft. This means Bitcoin primary chain remains superior and sidechains don't provide a 'fix' to scalability. To we are back at square one.
As far as implicit trust 'solutions' a centralized third party (i.e. coinbase using off-chain transactions) over anonymous entities (i.e. federate trust pegged sidechains). Both are inferior to a trustless model but at least the actors in a large centralized entity are known and have something to lose. Far too easy for the anonymous entities in a federated trust to collude and abscond with the 'locked' bitcoins without any risk or consequence.
So to pin your hopes on sidechains and keeping the 1MB limit is just silly.
If you accept that not everything has to be trustless, then the 'problem' vanishes instantly.
ever heard about blockchain pruning?
it certainly IS possible.
I heard about it when I read the whitepaper around 5 years ago. Since my first reaction upon grasping the basic concepts of Bitcoin was 'this thing won't scale', the idea of pruning was a 'selling point', but not a huge one because...
Of course since I don't believe in magic and voodoo, I knew that pruning could only go so far and that accounting had to be done. Giving this little hiccup a technical sounding name ('UTXO') was sufficient to get most of the ecosystem participants (or 'marks' if you will) to neglect any deeper analysis of this topic. This was fortunate because it made it possible to say that Bitcoin is nearly infinitely divisible while at the same time defining unspendable outputs (to small but way way over the current one satoshi theoretical limit) to resolve the problem. And, of course, the 'principle scientist' can spout off about the ability to make 1 BTC even more divisible with a little coding.
All that said (and I'm a natural skeptic) I had enough confidence...or something...in Bitcoin to take a decent sized position, a majority of which I hold today. I anticipated subordinate chains as the most tenable scaling mechanism from a very early time in my involvement, and with 'sidechains' that looks to be within grasp. If they can be available and leveraged before those who wish to 'embrace, extend, and extinguish' Bitcoin then there is still hope for the solution.
real problem is bandwith anyway - you cant escape that
True that, but with some significant nuances. In my analysis at least.
thank you for your well-thought and detailed response.
pruning:
i believe pruning is possible, because i can (on a theoretical level without diving deep into crypto or the protocol) imagine how bitcoin can work if a client which runs from day one only uses the UTXO and parses new blocks (and forgets them after that).
i think this narrows the problem down to bootstrapping.
as any client is able to verify the blockchain itself it is safe to download it from anywhere - as it WILL be checked - and could be thrown away afterwards.
there are many details to consider and of course it does add complexity. but i dont see any real showstopper.
sidechains:
i cant really comment on them as i dont know enough. but i am very skeptic there, because of mining:
- merged mining: needs an incentive, because pool will have a higher orphan rate
- pos: hmm maybe for micropayments but i wouldnt use it for anything else
All that said (and I'm a natural skeptic) I had enough confidence...or something...in Bitcoin to take a decent sized position, a majority of which I hold today. I anticipated subordinate chains as the most tenable scaling mechanism from a very early time in my involvement, and with 'sidechains' that looks to be within grasp. If they can be available and leveraged before those who wish to 'embrace, extend, and extinguish' Bitcoin then there is still hope for the solution.
Sidechains can not be done in a trustless manner without a hard fork of the Bitcoin protocol. Additional opcodes or other mechanisms need to be introduced to allow validating the SPV proof for the sidechain. There is no evidence that there is sufficient support for a hard fork to support sidechain SPV proofs. If the block size is not raised as blocks become fuller, delays become longer, and fees become higher any support for a hard fork to add SPV proofs will evaporate. SPV proof are significantly larger than the average mainchain txn and the potential of multiple sidechains means it would consume valuable blockspace.
So to pin your hopes on sidechains and keeping the 1MB limit is just silly. Honestly I would love to see a hard fork to add SPV proofs and fix some low level plumbing of the main chain at the same time but it may never happen. It certainly isn't going to happen in a scenario where users are finding it increasingly more difficult and expensive to use bitcoin for their transactions.
ever heard about blockchain pruning?
it certainly IS possible.
I heard about it when I read the whitepaper around 5 years ago. Since my first reaction upon grasping the basic concepts of Bitcoin was 'this thing won't scale', the idea of pruning was a 'selling point', but not a huge one because...
Of course since I don't believe in magic and voodoo, I knew that pruning could only go so far and that accounting had to be done. Giving this little hiccup a technical sounding name ('UTXO') was sufficient to get most of the ecosystem participants (or 'marks' if you will) to neglect any deeper analysis of this topic. This was fortunate because it made it possible to say that Bitcoin is nearly infinitely divisible while at the same time defining unspendable outputs (to small but way way over the current one satoshi theoretical limit) to resolve the problem. And, of course, the 'principle scientist' can spout off about the ability to make 1 BTC even more divisible with a little coding.
All that said (and I'm a natural skeptic) I had enough confidence...or something...in Bitcoin to take a decent sized position, a majority of which I hold today. I anticipated subordinate chains as the most tenable scaling mechanism from a very early time in my involvement, and with 'sidechains' that looks to be within grasp. If they can be available and leveraged before those who wish to 'embrace, extend, and extinguish' Bitcoin then there is still hope for the solution.
real problem is bandwith anyway - you cant escape that
True that, but with some significant nuances. In my analysis at least.
Nobody cares about demand for free lunch-money micro-transactions at the fucking brink's headquarters.
Micro-transactions aren't the only transactions that will not fit in a 1MB block limit.
The Bitcoin wallets getting to big people. And downloading it go to slow, It took me 3 days to download. (I have 200MB up and Down INTERNET connection)
There are wallets that do not require the whole blockchain to be downloaded. Also this issue is only present one time. Afterwards this isn't an issue.
Have you used the bootstrap.dat file so you can download torrent-style?
No need to worry. Your node will verify each block itself when importing the file. You don't need to trust it.
Nobody cares about demand for free lunch-money micro-transactions at the fucking brink's headquarters.
Micro-transactions aren't the only transactions that will not fit in a 1MB block limit.
The Bitcoin wallets getting to big people. And downloading it go to slow, It took me 3 days to download. (I have 200MB up and Down INTERNET connection)
There are wallets that do not require the whole blockchain to be downloaded. Also this issue is only present one time. Afterwards this isn't an issue.
Have you used the bootstrap.dat file so you can download torrent-style?
Jump to: