Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 64. (Read 154787 times)

hero member
Activity: 687
Merit: 500
February 13, 2015, 10:18:26 AM
Have we tried increasing the block size limit on a test coin yet?  We should make sure the functions operate as expected under high and bursts of saturation workloads.

Here: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html



Quote
After consensus reached: replace MAX_BLOCK_SIZE with a size calculated based on starting at 2^24 bytes (~16.7MB) as of 1 Jan 2015 (block 336,861) and doubling every 6*24*365*2 blocks -- about 40% year-on-year growth. Stopping after 10 doublings.

Forgive me for being stupid but does this mean that the maximum block size will increase automatically? 40% every year and then it will stop after reaching 20MB^10?
I'm not good at math...

legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
February 13, 2015, 10:11:12 AM
Have we tried increasing the block size limit on a test coin yet?  We should make sure the functions operate as expected under high and bursts of saturation workloads.

Here: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html

It is good that you point this out to show that there is some work going on to advance it, but...
You do realize that this test is a different experiment, than say trying it in an altcoin, yes?
This is not in an economic environment but in a lab.

Larger max block size limits in an altcoin wouldn't really be the same test either, as there aren't altcoins with more transactions than Bitcoin.
newbie
Activity: 44
Merit: 0
February 13, 2015, 10:10:11 AM
Quote

Not trying to derailing the debate or anything, but some prominent members of the community are clearly against
sidechains due to the fact that they would undermine btc sound money functions and/or change miners incentives in
a way that would in turns decrease the network security (if you have time just dig into @cypherdoc's Gold thread
starting from here).

Just to say that even side chains are a quite controversial concept.

Nah man it's fine. I needed this material. Thanks!

Plus this is directly connected to this forking decision at least in my point of view, so no derailing at all.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007
February 13, 2015, 10:00:34 AM
Have we tried increasing the block size limit on a test coin yet?  We should make sure the functions operate as expected under high and bursts of saturation workloads.

Here: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html
hero member
Activity: 709
Merit: 503
February 13, 2015, 09:40:52 AM
Have we tried increasing the block size limit on a test coin yet?  We should make sure the functions operate as expected under high and bursts of saturation workloads.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
February 13, 2015, 09:34:20 AM
I really don't get it. You guys in the pro side help me understand your position.
Because for me the choice is very clear:

1) We don't necessarily abandon the microtrasactions (trying to develop them with sidechains) AND keep the security and decentralization;
OR
2) We embrace the microtransations AND centralize hoping this wouldn't be a security issue.
For now I have no doubt in being anti-fork.

Not trying to derailing the debate or anything, but some prominent members of the community are clearly against
sidechains due to the fact that they would undermine btc sound money functions and/or change miners incentives in
a way that would in turns decrease the network security (if you have time just dig into @cypherdoc's Gold thread
starting from here).

Just to say that even side chains are a quite controversial concept.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007
February 13, 2015, 09:18:17 AM
Raising the block limit isn't fixing something that's broken.

So it's essentially making an altcoin.

So when the block limit changed from none(or 32MB) to 1MB wasn't the equivalent of making an altcoin, but changing from 1MB to 20MB+ is the equivalent of making an altcoin? How come? I don't understand the difference between pre-1MB and post-1MB block limit. Please explain.

How would you feel when you won't be able to do any transactions with your bitcoins unless you enter a fee auction?

As being a part of a sane market.

What type of "market"? Maybe a financial one because that's not how markets work when it comes to technology. Internet is not working that way. Cell phone service providers aren't working that way. Show me an example because I think we have a different understanding of what Bitcoin really is.
newbie
Activity: 44
Merit: 0
February 13, 2015, 08:32:49 AM
@RoadStress
I'd feel like using something else to move the value.
I'm quite positive I wouldn't feel like "omg the BTC dream has ended".



I really don't get it. You guys in the pro side help me understand your position.
Because for me the choice is very clear:

1) We don't necessarily abandon the microtrasactions (trying to develop them with sidechains) AND keep the security and decentralization;
OR
2) We embrace the microtransations AND centralize hoping this wouldn't be a security issue.


For now I have no doubt in being anti-fork.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1008
1davout
February 13, 2015, 08:06:49 AM
How would you feel when you won't be able to do any transactions with your bitcoins unless you enter a fee auction?

As being a part of a sane market.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007
February 13, 2015, 08:04:18 AM
traincarswreck you are really pushing it for an ignore.
I am an extremely talented poker player,

This is the only thing that I read from your long post. Please share with us the stakes that you are playing and your winrate and the number of the hands that have that winrate.

Quote
(...) and tackling it now instead of waiting for it to break (...)


Could you please describe this BTC apocalypse? It sounds like if we reach the block limit we're automatically screwed which I guess is false.

How would you feel when you won't be able to do any transactions with your bitcoins unless you enter a fee auction?
hero member
Activity: 492
Merit: 503
February 13, 2015, 08:02:57 AM
I'm trying to follow this thread (and the D&T one) closely. Whilst I'm still firmly on the pro side of the fork, I appreciate that some of the antis are putting forward thoughtful criticisms, objections and calls for caution. I also appreciate that this isn't exactly an either/or situation, that a number of in-between compromises or alternatives are worth exploring.

What I'm NOT interested in hearing about, over and over and OVER and OVER AND OVER ANNNNDDD OVVVVVVEEEEER is the fucking PYRAMIDS. And I suspect davout, RoadStress, D&T, tvbcof and many others could find a point of agreement on this.

So traincarswreck, please, put a sock in it. I could hit ignore, but I'm really still open to the idea that you have useful points to make.



ETA: and you can STFU about Newton and Copernicus too. As someone with a bit of physics training I'm starting to take your gibberish as a personal affront.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1008
1davout
February 13, 2015, 08:01:30 AM
Raising the block limit isn't fixing something that's broken.

So it's essentially making an altcoin.


You can find the substance below. The reason why you choose to ignore them is only personal choice I guess because for me it is substance:

How does that substiate the claim that Bitcoin won't be able to support building on top of it?
Be specific. If you claim that the current max tps rate is insufficient for X, you must at the very least provide an estimate for the tps required by X, and some relevant points about why X is important to Bitcoin, on one hand, and your reasoning behind the target tps rate for X.


seeing something is going to happen in the future

That would be the failure of your whole line of reasoning.

newbie
Activity: 44
Merit: 0
February 13, 2015, 07:58:41 AM
Quote
(...) and tackling it now instead of waiting for it to break (...)


Could you please describe this BTC apocalypse? It sounds like if we reach the block limit we're automatically screwed which I guess is false.
sr. member
Activity: 532
Merit: 251
February 13, 2015, 07:56:12 AM
traincarswreck you are really pushing it for an ignore.
I am an extremely talented poker player, I have already run the strategy lines, and it is clear what this is about and what is going to happen regardless of our forum dialogue opinions.  This renders my job simply to facilitate the dialogue. Which admittedly sometimes means letting only others contribute and me rather taking a break, which I will do now for some hours whilst I nap!

In celebration of my retirement allow me to post some more super relevant material you likely will not read:

Quote from: Ideal Money
It is easy to illustrate cases of “revolutionary” reform or change in systems of money. A good example came in 1717 when Isaac Newton, supported by George II, fixed the value of the local UK currency to a precise amount of gold that defined the value of the currency (the “pound”) in such a way that it was immediately recognizable throughout the Continent (of Europe) as of a fixed valuein relation to generally accepted standards (of the time). (And this was the origin of the “gold standard”.)

 (Of course it was not irrelevant that George II, the king then, was an early Hanoverian and also ruled territory in Germany.)
We don't have time to run through the lineages, but it was asked before "why is it not irrelevant"?  Netwon had many revelations, to us are unrelated, but not necessarily to those like Keynes or Nash:

Quote from: wiki
From 1670 to 1672, Newton lectured on optics.[41] During this period he investigated the refraction of light, demonstrating that the multicoloured spectrum produced by a prism could be recomposed into white light by a lens and a second prism.[42] Modern scholarship has revealed that Newton’s analysis and resynthesis of white light owes a debt to corpuscular alchemy.[43]

John Maynard Keynes, who acquired many of Newton’s writings on alchemy, stated that “Newton was not the first of the age of reason: He was the last of the magicians.”[52]

Quote from: wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

Nicolaus Copernicus (/koʊˈpɜrnɪkəs, kə-/;[2] Polish: About this sound Mikołaj Kopernik (help·info); German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Polish Renaissance mathematician and astronomer who formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at its center.[a]

Copernicus was having revelations too and this is sigfnicant in relation to the topic of Ideal Money, as the idealness is in fact in relation to Copernicus' concept of "Gresham's Law":

Quote
Copernicus was born and died in Royal Prussia, a region that had been a part of the Kingdom of Poland since 1466. He was a polyglot and polymath, obtaining a doctorate in canon law and also practising as a physician, classics scholar, translator, governor, diplomat and economist. In 1517, he derived a quantity theory of money – a key concept in economics – and, in 1519, formulated a version of what later became known as Gresham’s law.[4]

We must see Copernicues also represents a time in which our understanding of "circles" changed which was not unrelated to economics, and the cosmos.  And this was not unrelated to Isaac Newton pegging the pound to gold:

Quote
Copernicus’ “Commentariolus” summarized his heliocentric theory. It listed the “assumptions” upon which the theory was based, as follows:[citation needed]

1. There is no one center of all the celestial circles or spheres.
2. The center of the earth is not the center of the universe, but only of gravity and of the lunar sphere.
3. All the spheres revolve about the sun as their mid-point, and therefore the sun is the center of the universe.
4. The ratio of the earth’s distance from the sun to the height of the firmament (outermost celestial sphere containing the stars) is so much smaller than the ratio of the earth’s radius to its distance from the sun that the distance from the earth to the sun is imperceptible in comparison with the height of the firmament.
5. Whatever motion appears in the firmament arises not from any motion of the firmament, but from the earth’s motion. The earth together with its circumjacent elements performs a complete rotation on its fixed poles in a daily motion, while the firmament and highest heaven abide unchanged.
6. What appear to us as motions of the sun arise not from its motion but from the motion of the earth and our sphere, with which we revolve about the sun like any other planet. The earth has, then, more than one motion.
7. The apparent retrograde and direct motion of the planets arises not from their motion but from the earth’s. The motion of the earth alone, therefore, suffices to explain so many apparent inequalities in the heavens.

And public consensus or acceptance of these things is obviously going to generally follow, which means it is never at all unrelated to economics even if we specifically look at the financial sense (ie follow the history of gold):

Quote
It was not until “after Isaac Newton formulated the universal law of gravitation and the laws of mechanics [in his 1687 Principia], which unified terrestrial and celestial mechanics, was the heliocentric view generally accepted.”[85]
Good night, much love!
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1016
February 13, 2015, 07:44:46 AM
I would rather replace them

The analogy does not hold. You're not proposing that we "replace" X by X'. Where X is worn off, and X' isn't.
You're proposing instead that we should add a couple extra wheels to the car "because how is that car useful if it can't hold as much people as a bus does?".


The analogy was supposed to be focused on seeing something is going to happen in the future and tackling it now instead of waiting for it to break. Which is where bitcoin is at now.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007
February 13, 2015, 07:43:10 AM
But I agree with Davout that say you don't fix something not broken (I would just prefer to fix it when orange light turns on)

Raising the block limit isn't fixing something that's broken. It's just making the Bitcoin network be able to run at its full potential (or at least run at a higher potential than now).

traincarswreck you are really pushing it for an ignore.

it can't scale to additional layers built on top of it

There is absolutely no substance to this claim.

You can find the substance below. The reason why you choose to ignore them is only personal choice I guess because for me it is substance:

Code:
Maximum supported users based on transaction frequency.
Assumptions: 1MB block, 821 bytes per txn
Throughput:  2.03 tps, 64,000,000 transactions annually

Total #        Transactions per  Transaction
direct users     user annually    Frequency
       <8,000       8760          Once an hour
      178,000        365          Once a day
      500,000        128          A few (2.4) times a week
    1,200,000         52          Once a week
    2,600,000         24   Twice a month
    5,300,000         12   Once a month
   16,000,000          4   Once a quarter
   64,000,000          1          Once a year
  200,000,000          0.3        Less than once every few years
1,000,000,000          0.06       Less than once a decade

Quote from: JGarzik link=http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/33405247/
As such, the blockchain can never support All The Transactions
sr. member
Activity: 532
Merit: 251
February 13, 2015, 07:42:57 AM
It appears the hard fork is going to happen regardless of how others feel.  

I may no longer participate in bitcoin or advocate it's use afterword.

Any btc I may have will not be imported to the new client it will just be stored in unredeemed output , maybe forever or until I change my mind.
Thank you for your comments.  This is exactly what I mean by this being a poker problem, you make a claim, and we are yet to see if it is a bluff or not (nevertheless your hand will be revealed Smiley).  If we come to some dialogue consensus that this is in fact a giant poker problem...we are surely and certainly able to extract the Game Theory Optimal strategy (before the "streets" are revealed).
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1018
It's about time -- All merrit accepted !!!
February 13, 2015, 07:39:18 AM
As stated, i have no problem with btc right now.

I see this as an attempt to bring bitcoin to the world.

Personally I feel it may be a better idea to let the world come to bitcoin.

A lot of people think I am crazy.

I am not someone who feels there is any 'hurry' to push bitcoin on everyone just because some people like us may prefer it.

If they want to use it fine. If they do not let them use what they like.

There are also security issues and the consideration that in the future individuals may not have the resources to use the client.

Also a hard fork that is not backward compatable allowing the use of older wallets is something that is just not necessary.

It appears the hard fork is going to happen regardless of how others feel. 

I may no longer participate in bitcoin or advocate it's use afterword.

Any btc I may have will not be imported to the new client it will just be stored in unredeemed output , maybe forever or until I change my mind.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1008
1davout
February 13, 2015, 07:37:44 AM
I would rather replace them

The analogy does not hold. You're not proposing that we "replace" X by X'. Where X is worn off, and X' isn't.
You're proposing instead that we should add a couple extra wheels to the car "because how is that car useful if it can't hold as much people as a bus does?".



it can't scale to additional layers built on top of it

There is absolutely no substance to this claim.

sr. member
Activity: 532
Merit: 251
February 13, 2015, 07:32:53 AM


I fully agree with the purpose of Bitcoin, it's gold that you can cypher, backup, teleport for a network fee that will remain way much lower than transfering physical gold.

It's also eaisier to store and protect.

I agree that having a self correcting guess that auto adjust to follow parameters is switching the issue and risky.

So what, we chose an arbitrary size ? (let's suck my finger and show the sky, for me it's a fixed 5mb)

We chose a block filling treshold, and when blocks are full at x% for x time, we go to the agreed size ?

Because I agree with RoadStress when he say we should think of it now (but we (readers here) are)
But I agree with Davout that say you don't fix something not broken (I would just prefer to fix it when orange light turns on)
We all wish for this, but alas you cannot build the pyramids like this. The very building of them is going to decide many things in your civilization, but you cannot argue about your royal cubit throughout the process.  You might use SOME past data, but eventually because of the nature and difficulty (and uncertainty) of future consensus the tradeoff is exactly what you brush off.  What is interesting and perhaps even useful is that the proposed 20mb is nearly the same size as the royal cubit in inches.  I don't think this is unrelated in fact, but it would take me a long time to show, but it could allow it to become the "popular" choice.

But we need to be clear on this exact difficultly, that seemingly it is a fallacy to suggest we can deal with this in the future and/or extrapolate future data to make a better decision, OR set up a market adjusting parameter.  We don't have these possibilities, and THAT is why this dialogue has arisen.

It's go time. (not fixing it now risks the possibility of a 1mb size forever)

Pages:
Jump to: