Topic: Bitcoin XT code enabling bigger blocks - page 3. (Read 6912 times)

I went with 1 byte per transaction.  That's what I get for doing the maths to quickly.

Ha, I know sarcasm is hard to detect on the internet, but I think I got that one.  Anyway, I'm more curious if this has been seriously proposed by someone who got more technical background that me.  It seems like much of the other parameters of the network are adjusted dynamically based on usage so I'm wondering if there's some obvious reason why block-size shouldn't be.

You should create a fork to implement that. It's the right thing to do when there's a disagreement, isn't it?

Thanks for offering the numbers on this.  I just want to add that while we don't know what will happen with bitcoin in the next 20 years, I think everyone agrees that the idea that the world's population is going to remain flat is very unlikely.  Looks like US Census Beaureau and United Nations estimate 8.6Billion and 8.7Billion (respectively).  So, I guess that maybe it's less than 1.5 per person per day.  Is there anyone else here who thinks that the idea that every person on earth is going to send 1 Bitcoin transaction per day is a little, erm, ambitious?

I'm sure it's been talked about somewhere, but I haven't seen any details on it, but I'm curiuos why no one is pushing some kind of dynamic block size which is calculated based on the transaction volume.  We readjust difficulty to maintain a 10 minute block time.  Why shouldn't block-size be reajusted to maintain an average conf-time for a well-formed transaction with a given fee rate?

8GB is about 1.5 tx per person per day, assuming 250bytes/tx and 7 billion people

I think the decision should be made earlier than necessary.  The ideal would be finishing this discussion two years ago.  

They could have said that they will make the decision by the end of 2013 and have it take effect on the end of 2015 (assuming some kind of compromise).

January 2016 could still have been the switch point, but there would have been lots of time for people to upgrade.

The practical problem is that it is easy to say we should spend more time discussing things and that is what people did.  It is hard to get a decision when the problem is years away.

At this point, the decision has to be made and there is no clean way to make it.  The only option left is one that is risky all on its own (a contentious hard fork).

Increasing the size of the blocks could damage bitcoin, but not doing it could also damage things.  There is a simple disagreement about which is the greater threat to bitcoin and both sides are willing to risk the (potential) chaos of a contentious hard fork due to the risk as they see it.


It is an increase to 8GB over 20 years, which is different.  In 2036, bandwidth to the home could be high enough to handle it.

I think overestimating things is better than under estimating.  The block size limit is the maximum the blocks can be.  Miners can still set it lower by soft fork.

The reason to have it increase over time is so that new hard forks aren't needed every year.

@TierNolan, I'm pretty sure I agree with you.  You seem to be echoing my skepticism about implementing something like this at this moment.  If there's really such a case as 1 transaction per person per ten minutes in 20 years, surely that's something we might want to address when, say, 1Mb blocks actually are getting full.

@humanitee I agree there's a lot that might happen that we can't predict.  But I guess I'm sorta in a state of shock to find out that XT is about pushing the block size to 8GB---wow, I thought 20MB was controversial.  I'd be for an increase to 20MB but this increase to 8GB seems a little, idunno, outlandish.

If Bitcoin becomes the "internet of money" then there's going to be a lot of automated services running on top of Bitcoin.

This also leaves room for all kinds of stuff that none of us can predict. It also leaves room for a giant chunk of humanity.

Think of it this way, it's better to have way more capacity than too little. We don't want blocks completely full for very long spans of time.

The plan is 8MB initially and the doubling every 2 years.  By 2036, it would hit 8GB.  With an 8 billion world, that works out as 1 transaction per person every 10 mins.

That isn't completely out of the question, especially if algorithms are making lots of trades.

It does seem a lot for the settlement/core system.

Typos happen dude.  Maybe not to perfect people like you clearly understand everything, but for normal, fallible humans like me, typos happen.You can call the question silly or stupid, but it would have been more helpful if you'd used your omniscience to demonstrate why the qustion is silly.  My (probably wrong) estimation was that 8GB per block is waaaaay more transactions than the earth's population of humans could need.  If you could just take a little time to address that with something less terse than "people need", I think it'd be more convincing.

Also, as I'm sure someone with a god-like intelligence like you is aware, miners need fees---especially once the block-rewards are phased out.  Miners suggeerst that block-size limits create scarcity which drives up fees.

I'm sure you're completely correct  and I'm completely idiotic, but if you could just do a little more work to show me how, then my dumbass could at least get educated instead of just shamed.  Thanks in advance!

This is great. I should be spinning some XT nodes soon. I read that the blocks won't start growing larger immediately. Any idea when the larger blocks will go into effect?

> Wow, I new that XT

So are you new to Bitcoin too?

> Why on earth would we need 8GBs of transactions ever 10 minutes?

People need. Maybe you don't. You can ask the same silly question about why human population is so large? Moreover, 8GB is a limit, not effective block size. If nobody uses Bitcoin, effective bitcoin block size will be closed to 0.

Wow, I new that XT was a fork that was for the block-size increase, but I had no idea it was doing a successive increase ever 2 years.  That seems wildly unnecessary to me and it makes me a lot more skeptical of XT than I thought I was.  Why on earth would we need 8GBs of transactions ever 10 minutes?  If everyone on earth was sending a bitcoin transaction every 10 minutes would we even need blocks this big for that?  And surely that's never going to happen.  Even if bitcoin was the only money on earth, not everyone would be exchanging it every 10 minutes.  Geezus, I often go for days without spending a dime, and I know I'm not the only one.

That's quite interesting


Awesome! Every vote counts

That's when all the hilarity will ensue, and those of us that aren't using XT can drink more shots and enjoy the show. 

On 1st January everyone is drunk.

There is nobody present to fix the problems due to the fork.

A tribute to the republican marches supporting freedom of speech ?

It has a max of 10 doublings, so 8GB blocks in 2036.  It depends on how fast internet bandwidth (and disk space) increases.  It is possible that we will all have fiber to the home at that point.

Second, it is possible to use a soft fork to reduce the rate at which blocks double.

What does it mean ? It will keep on growing like 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024...

That means we are going to have 1GB block limit by 2030 on XTcoin ?

Awesome

It says doubling every 2 years for 2 years. so It will double 9 times.
8*2^9=2^12=4096 mb!!!!!!!
In 21 years from now bitcoin blocksize will be measured in petabytes.
GREAT! Let's hope thechnology advances quick enough, or we will see our
coins in a cryptocurrency museum.