Topic: Bitcoin Blocksize Problem Video - page 4. (Read 9476 times)

^ If bitcoin ever becomes a major global currency, then there will be 10,000X as many transactions being created as SD is creating now. SD is providing stress-testing for the network, and showing that unless the block size limit is lifted, there will be a problem.

THERE IS NO BLOCKSIZE PROBLEM.

the only reason free transactions are taking forever to confirm is because satoshi dice (and other on-the-chain gambling services) are spamming the blockchain with useless transactions.

I would greatly prefer to see Bitcoin be the solution which functions as a 'reserve currency' of sorts for the abundance of solutions which are likely to evolve going forward.  It is most critical to me that whatever system takes on this role can be as widely dispersed and diffuse as possible in terms of operational infrastructure.  That is a huge part of what gives a solution it's backing strength in my opinion, and to me this translated directly into a small block size.

If Bitcoin could just take on a 'reserve' role directly, the development phase of crypto-currency-land would be much simplified and it would be more likely that it will provide a robust and simple environment for the masses should more mainstream financial institutions crumble.

Seems like all hope may not yet be lost for Bitcoin to fill this role.  I've made a small contribution and will be interested to watch this effort proceed.

Proof of work crypto-currencies have a startup problem: when they're small they are trivial to attack.

I suspect we have one shot at making a strong decentralized crypto-currency; future currencies will simply be killed at birth . Bitcoin and Litecoin are the only viable options right now, but the latter's scalability problems are four times worse, and it just doesn't have the level of support that Bitcoin does.

In any case the solution to the problem of making small payments viable for a decentralized crypto-currency, off-chain transaction systems, will create technologies that can be used with any crypto-currency. For that matter, part of making off-chain tx systems viable and secure will include security improvements that are applicable to on-chain transactions too.

Don't get all butthurt about it - heck on IRC the other day I was saying if you could make an argument to add anyone to the core developer list on bitcoin.org it would be you.

I have to specify who exactly I'm saying has consensus somehow.


I could bother replying to this, but my time would be better spent elsewhere on a website or similar resource with such replies to that and similar falsehoods in one place.

Peter, I appreciate your tenacity as causes need someone to champion them. However, I think you are overly concerned on this. You've been on this forum a while so you should know I take the grassroots, decentralized position. I even threatened to work as hard to undo the support I may have drummed up for Bitcoin as I did fostering it when I thought Bitcoin Foundation might gain uncontrolled centralized power.

I was glad I could back away from such a position. This was when I realized there could in fact be a check on future power because free markets work as good strict regulators. All that was needed was a viable market outlet valve for the market to express dissatisfaction with how things developed regarding Bitcoin Foundation and Bitcoin in general. Alternative coins had already shown up on the scene (by the wisdom of the market), though none had any real traction except Litecoin which was near $0.04.

I wrote a post explaining why I now felt Bitcoin Foundation proposed no threat to the idea of Bitcoin, as long as viable alternatives existed in the market, and that I would work to further establish alt-coins like Litecoin in the market for that reason.

At the time I believed there were many benefits to such a set up and the block size issue which developed later is a perfect example. While I actually share your concern for infinite block sizes I can rest easy knowing that even if a path taken by Satoshi's Bitcoin is ever unworkable there now exists viable alternatives (Litecoin is now at ~$4) which can do things differently yet still serve the crypto-community. Make sense?

I'll let readers who are familiar with the work I've done decide whether your edit changes anything.

Regardless, I'm not sure what putting markers into coinbases is supposed to achieve. When the block size limit changes, miners who believe in 1mb sized blocks can just not create blocks that are larger. If most miners agree then transaction fees (and/or delays) will go up a lot and demand will be suppressed accordingly. If you're trying to build a voting framework, then it already exists.

Changed post to say 'core developers'

There's no such consensus, actually.

Also, I'd like to say thank you to TripleMining for being the first pool to put the /1MB/ string in their coinbase showing their support for the blocksize limit. I talked to the owner about the limit a few days ago about how it protects mining pools and miners by ensuring that the mining reward can go to the hashing power rather than overhead.

I'll also point out that there is a pull request from Gavin that will essentially ban microtransactions outputs less than 54.3uBTC in value; there is a consensus among the core developers that the Bitcoin blockchain can-not support microtransactions.

I thought I'd let everyone know about a project of mine that I've been thinking of doing for awhile now, but is finally actually happening. While much has been written about the blocksize issue on these forums, very little of the discussion has been presented in a nice, accessible way, like the we-use-coins 'What is Bitcoin?' video. So I wrote up a preliminary script, tested it out on some friends of mine ranging from non-Bitcoin users to fairly serious investors and tweaked it until it worked. I then got in touch with stonecanoe (run by former classmates of mine) and we should have a roughly 2.5 minute animated video done in time for the conference. I'm pretty happy with the cut-down script and we're working on nailing down the storyboard in another day or so, followed by about two weeks of production if everything goes well. I'm also working on material for a website to go with it, and in the process learning how little I know about web design.

Why am I doing this? It's simple: right now Bitcoin is democratic. The blocksize simply won't change unless we all agree to change it. On the other hand, if you can't run a full validating node, you aren't participating in that democracy, so once the limit is lifted there is no going back. Beyond some niche troll-infested forums like reddit and this one the issue just isn't getting the mindshare it deserves. It's telling that the Silk Road forums, which have about as much volume that Bitcointalk, don't have a single mention of the issue, yet a centralized Bitcoin and the regulation that follows is a direct threat to the anonymity Silk Road users depend on.

Beyond that Bitcoin is far more important than just some internet payment system. Sure, calling it one is a nice safe thing to tell authorities, especially when you remind them that every transaction is public and easily traceable, but what is truly unique about Bitcoin is that it's the first currency with democratic decision making baked directly in the technology behind it. Everyone with a full validating node is a part of that democratic process.

I don't want to see that democracy sacrificed just so people can buy songs and make penny bets over the internet.

Neither do the concerned investors who have given me the first $3k worth of donations to cover the cost of the video. Right now I'm on the hook for the rest of the $7k cost, (after taxes) but if you want to help out my donation address is in my sig. Having said that the project is going ahead regardless; the long-term viability of Bitcoin is something I truly believe in.