Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 90. (Read 154787 times)

lol. Microtransactions bloat and Dos attack, here we come. 2.8 GB each day potentially. wow

didn't sync up for a week? Will take you a whole day to catch up.

People downloading the chain first time will leave the computer running for a month later on  

Your internet provider will be outraged and cancel your contract if you're a bitcoin user  

I think this whole story is pretty bizzarre

Hell yes, he did.  I'm the guy who went over the blockchain stuff in Satoshi's first cut of the bitcoin code.  Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea.  Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB.  Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed.  The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.  But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.

Several attempted "abuses" of the blockchain under the 1MB limit have proved Hal right about needing the limit at least for launching purposes.  A lot of people wanted to piggyback extraneous information onto the blockchain, and before miners (and the community generally) realized that blockchain space was a valuable resource they would have allowed it.  The blockchain would probably be several times as big a download now if that limit hadn't been in place, because it would have a lot of random 1-satoshi transactions that exist only to encode information for altcoins etc.

At this point I don't think random schmoes who would allow just any transaction are getting a  lot of blocks. The people who have made a major investment in hashing power are doing the math to figure out which tx are worthwhile to include because block propagation time (and therefore the risk of orphan blocks) is proportional to block size. So at this point I think blockchain bloat as such is no longer likely to a problem, and the 1MB limit is no longer necessary.  It has been more-or-less replaced by a profitability limit that motivates people to not waste blockchain bandwidth, and miners are now reliably dropping transactions that don't pay fees. 

He did know that 1MB was temporary and not enough for worldwide use. I don't know whether he calculated how much it would need to grow.

What other thread?

I aint got time for 42 pages so lets see if someone can answer me this one:

If Satoshi was so smart, why the hell didnt he predict the need of at least 20MB to avoid this big problem later on? did he seriously not calculate this?

Well, apparently so are you.

You're an altcoin fanboy. What are you doing in this section?
You probably favorize due to wanting to find a 'get rich' opportunity just like Bitcoin was.
10min confirmation times are excellent. The more you lower it, the worse the currency is.
Good luck getting a government to accept an altcoin that is completely untraceable. You would probably get sued for using it if they found out. The fact that the governments even ignore them means that they negligible.

By the way, the thread is going way too off-topic. It was concluded in another thread that a fork is the right move.

Get the spreadsheets out. 

Make sure 7bn people can make 10,000 transactions per day (take into account third parties doing transactions that might involve people without them knowing eg accountants, businesses, welfare, etc.).

Verify capacity requirements.

Update system capacity as necessary.

Fork.

In the UK, the phone number system had to be updated several times because the phone company issuing numbers didn't anticipate huge demands for phone numbers based on the growth of the internet.  Might as well learn some lessons and make bitcoin 'future proof' in terms of capacity.

To me there is no question about it, the future is:

Altchains + merged mining =

Multiple chains, easy convertibility, no central point of failure, efficiency, no problem to innovate, no hardfork dramas and no problem to scale

Bitcoin bagholders for some reason like to argue for monotony instead of diversity. I think that line of thought is unhealthy.

Again a misleading post. The mining process hasn't reached a tipping point. There is still room for improvement regarding power consumption and density. The best miner available right now is doing 0.5W/GH, but there are talks about 0.1W/GH so we can fit at least 5x time more hashpower while needing the same money as today to run it 24/7. So please don't forget to eat your shit. Before and after each useless post that you make.

Actually, they can't.

They cannot copy that cryptocurrency's network effect.

That's been demonstrated by the last year of market trading;

 - CINNI coin copied Blackcoin's code but crashed in value compared to Blackcoin
 - lots of coins copied Bitcoin's code but never got anywhere near Bitcoin's marketcap
 - lots of coints copied Litecoin's code but never got anywhere near Litcoin's marketcap

Umm... Mazacoin is nowhere near second place in terms of hashrate among the SHA-256 coins. Heck, it probably isn't even in the top 5. The reason why MZC is second place in that list is because Peercoin and Namecoin's hashrates are shown as "?". If you look at BitInfoCharts, you can see that Peercoin's current network hashrate is 150 TH/s and Namecoin's is 100 PH/s.

EDIT: Merged mining probably explains why Namecoin's hashrate is so high so Peercoin would be the closest "true" competitor.

Hashpower is financed with inflation and marketcap. Basically the investors directly pay for hashpower. Price and hash is related.

High hashpower = high expenses

(raw hash isn't an argument, a single point/chain of failure isn't an argument)

In fact it does have the "privilege of gold".

There are plenty of other metals that are as scarce as gold (such as platinum). There are also plenty other earthly materials which are as scarce.

Scarcity is essential but it isn't everything. "Everything" is network effect. Network effect is far harder to attain than anything else. For evidence of that check http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency

The network hashrate (in other words, "interest in mining the coin" of bitcoin is 364 Peta hashes). The nearest altcoin in terms of hashrate is Mazacoin at 80 Terra hashes.

So, for the purposes of this example, lets use hashrate to test your theory that


...and that that concept affects its value:



Ergo, your "theory"is complete B.S. because Bitcoin hit all sorts of limits ages ago - not anonymous, not fast enough, slow confirmations, huge blockchain - and yet, still no altcoin can get near it in terms of market cap or hashpower.

Meanwhile the only reason Bitcoin still "has" that value is because it is the cryptocurrency reserve and there are altcoins "out there" which solve all Bitcoin's  technical problems.

It seems that the issue of whether or not to increase the maximum block size is not a question of "if" but "when". If Bitcoin is to reach the same transaction volume as Visa, then according to Satoshi, we will need to accommodate a blockchain expansion rate of 100 GB per day. At 144 blocks per day, this means that the average block will be about 700 MB in size.


Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09964.html

Satoshi also acknowledges the fact that a larger block size will lead to increased centralization but he sees this as a necessary thing in order for Bitcoin to scale as a proper payment system.

The problem i see with this line of thought is the assumption of the need to get everyone on the same chain.
A colourful mix of innovative and useful currencies and commodities with different chains is not only desireable and appealing, it is even inevitable.
The problem of scaling does not occure in that concept. In that concept innovation isn't a problem that needs to be adressed but a thing that happens naturally.

So by your definition Satoshi created Bitcoin to serve as a base monetary unit for all the other altcoins? Either I got it wrong either it doesn't have any logic.


Ok. Bitcoin is dead. Move along tard!

@elastic money

Elastic money just means introducing central points of failure, it also is useless to invest in it.
Elastic money also gets rid of the free market.
It can't even work.



that's no drawback at all - that's where the real developement happens


---------

If you want stable money, you need low inflation since elastic supply doesn't work and high inflation stifles adoptions and investements. You'd end up with a commodity.

There is a fundamental drawback of open source cryptocurrencies: anyone can copy the code and make a new one. So, Bitcoin is finite, but cryptocurrency is infinite. So why do bitcoins trade in the $200s but all the copies, the alts, trade for much less, usually in the cents?

The reason is Bitcoin's first mover status which has allowed it to get a head-start, the network effect which has kept a head of steam behind it for 6 years. People use Bitcoin because other people use it, and the mining power builds up as the ecosystem grows. It is a positive feedback loop. People do not need lots of  cryptocurrencies. They only need one. Just as multiple different fiat currencies are a pain for an international traveller.

So, what can go wrong?

If Bitcoin were to hit some limit, I dunno what, just maybe there is a limit in the code which people might start writing threads about on bct, but anyway, if Bitcoin hit some limit and couldn't scale anymore, then the network effect is arrested. Bitcoin, just being software that can be copied does not have the privilege of gold which is a rare physical element. Some other version of Bitcoin, an existing alt perhaps, which can scale will build up its own network effect from all the users who can't use Bitcoin. If Bitcoin found some crazy limit where only 1% of 1% of the world's population could use it, then it would become obsolete. It would be a footnote in the history books written about the alt which eventually succeeded as the new electronic gold standard.