Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 218.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 07:25:52 PM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 06:54:28 PM

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late Wink

I don't see any technical reasoning behind this. You're just using an invented sense of urgency to say "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!11!11!!! BIP 101!!!!111!"

If you think an algorithm is short-sighted, why do you support one that increases the limit based on Moore's Law? Huh

Can you address my point that capacity needs are linked to growth in transaction volume? After six years, we haven't come close to hitting capacity at 1MB on average. So your "transaction backlog" point is moot. If you agree that we don't have a reliable way to predict future transaction volume, why would we pick an arbitrary limit with no basis in reality, without any discussion of the technical implications for the protocol/network -- hardware, bandwidth, network security/bloat.....?

There is ample time -- just take a look at BIP 100. The fact that people have discussed this in theory for several years before it ever became a realistic issue is totally irrelevant. Within two months of the XT client release, we now have several BIPs that aim to increase block size, and miners are now voting to make their preferences clear among the current proposals.

Fear mongering.....

rofl - stop screaming.. you sound childish.

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 07:25:52 PM

Can you address my point that capacity needs are linked to growth in transaction volume?

i'd love to see a way how to archive that?

as long as there isnt a way i prefer a solution which tries to set it to the max and let miners decide how much they really want to put into a block.

madjules007

sr. member

Activity: 400

Merit: 250

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 06:54:28 PM

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late Wink

I don't see any technical reasoning behind this. You're just using an invented sense of urgency to say "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!11!11!!! BIP 101!!!!111!"

If you think an algorithm is short-sighted, why do you support one that increases the limit based on Moore's Law? Huh

Can you address my point that capacity needs are linked to growth in transaction volume? After six years, we haven't come close to hitting capacity at 1MB on average. So your "transaction backlog" point is moot. If you agree that we don't have a reliable way to predict future transaction volume, why would we pick an arbitrary limit with no basis in reality, without any discussion of the technical implications for the protocol/network -- hardware, bandwidth, network security/bloat.....?

There is ample time -- just take a look at BIP 100. The fact that people have discussed this in theory for several years before it ever became a realistic issue is totally irrelevant. Within two months of the XT client release, we now have several BIPs that aim to increase block size, and miners are now voting to make their preferences clear among the current proposals.

Fear mongering.....

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: brg444 on August 27, 2015, 07:13:56 PM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 06:54:28 PM

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late Wink

The more important point here is that to prepare Bitcoin to handle the transactions needed in the event of adoption on the scale you propose we'd pretty much have to lift the limit entirely.

I think I have demonstrated in the previous post why that is not quite an option.

you have demonstrated that bitcoin is doomed to get centralized even with 1mb blocks.
we already see the first signs - even with a huge blockreward.

i told you the only solution i see (home mining): which has nothing to do with blocksize.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 06:54:28 PM

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late Wink

The more important point here is that to prepare Bitcoin to handle the transactions needed in the event of adoption on the scale you propose we'd pretty much have to lift the limit entirely.

I think I have demonstrated in the previous post why that is not quite an option.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 06:46:04 PM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 06:29:11 PM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 06:24:36 PM

And why do we need to determine the max block size 20 years out? Indeed, it's impossible to make logical estimations about future transaction volume..... so why invent an arbitrary number and just go with it?

because you see now that it is nearly impossible to change bitcoin protocol. it gets harder and harder with more users. i am pretty sure if satoshi has forseen this discussions he would never introduced the temporary 1mb spam limit in the first place.

Nearly impossible? How do you figure? This is just irrational fear mongering. All future problems will not be solved with this hard fork. If you believe that a future hard fork will kill bitcoin because consensus is impossible, you may as well leave bitcoin while you can.

And regarding Satoshi's opinion:

Quote from: satoshi on October 03, 2010, 04:07:28 PM

Quote from: theymos on October 03, 2010, 03:28:39 PM

Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.

+1 theymos. Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

Irrational fear mongering.

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 06:29:11 PM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 06:24:36 PM

Block capacity is connected to transaction volume growth. So we have real world data to estimate our capacity needs for the foreseeable future. And those simply don't line up with 8MB or 8GB. Maybe in the future they will.... maybe. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, the emphasis should be on consensus. A conservative approach that scales to real-world needs rather than fantasized ones based on Moore's Law is much preferable in that regard.

Six years in, we have not hit capacity. Why are we planning on 8000x capacity 20 years from now? Just because? Incredible lack of foresight, and quite audacious to assume that we have every possible technical problem that may arise figured out, today.

we cant estimate transaction volume growth... one big war, one good media report, one country accepts bitcoin as main currency: one billion people trying to buy bitcoin in one week? no way to calculate something like with an algorithm.

Yeah. Cross that bridge when we come to it. This insane idea that "the whole world is going to adopt bitcoin tomorrow" is absurd. There is no logical reason why we can't scale based on actual transaction growth. Again, this is just fear mongering with no technical foresight.

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late Wink

madjules007

sr. member

Activity: 400

Merit: 250

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 06:29:11 PM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 06:24:36 PM

And why do we need to determine the max block size 20 years out? Indeed, it's impossible to make logical estimations about future transaction volume..... so why invent an arbitrary number and just go with it?

because you see now that it is nearly impossible to change bitcoin protocol. it gets harder and harder with more users. i am pretty sure if satoshi has forseen this discussions he would never introduced the temporary 1mb spam limit in the first place.

Nearly impossible? How do you figure? This is just irrational fear mongering. All future problems will not be solved with this hard fork. If you believe that a future hard fork will kill bitcoin because consensus is impossible, you may as well leave bitcoin while you can.

And regarding Satoshi's opinion:

Quote from: satoshi on October 03, 2010, 04:07:28 PM

Quote from: theymos on October 03, 2010, 03:28:39 PM

Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.

+1 theymos. Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

Irrational fear mongering.

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 06:29:11 PM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 06:24:36 PM

Block capacity is connected to transaction volume growth. So we have real world data to estimate our capacity needs for the foreseeable future. And those simply don't line up with 8MB or 8GB. Maybe in the future they will.... maybe. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, the emphasis should be on consensus. A conservative approach that scales to real-world needs rather than fantasized ones based on Moore's Law is much preferable in that regard.

Six years in, we have not hit capacity. Why are we planning on 8000x capacity 20 years from now? Just because? Incredible lack of foresight, and quite audacious to assume that we have every possible technical problem that may arise figured out, today.

we cant estimate transaction volume growth... one big war, one good media report, one country accepts bitcoin as main currency: one billion people trying to buy bitcoin in one week? no way to calculate something like with an algorithm.

Yeah. Cross that bridge when we come to it. This insane idea that "the whole world is going to adopt bitcoin tomorrow" is absurd. There is no logical reason why we can't scale based on actual transaction growth. Again, this is just fear mongering with no technical foresight.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 06:31:38 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 27, 2015, 06:27:38 PM

Home mining is destined to be a thing of the past. Even the most dedicated hobbyist will be run out of the game. You can't imagine a situation where they will stay relevant and therefore by looking for their own best interest will put a check on large scale operations. That's just not how it works.

i dont think any big mining cooperation can compete with millions of home-miners which mine using a by-product because they need the heat. because they can mine for free

That's very cool.

Unfortunately these do not exist yet. Until they do we will need a limit on the block size.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: brg444 on August 27, 2015, 06:27:38 PM

Home mining is destined to be a thing of the past. Even the most dedicated hobbyist will be run out of the game. You can't imagine a situation where they will stay relevant and therefore by looking for their own best interest will put a check on large scale operations. That's just not how it works.

i dont think any big mining cooperation can compete with millions of home-miners which mine using a by-product because they need the heat. because they can mine for free

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 06:24:36 PM

And why do we need to determine the max block size 20 years out? Indeed, it's impossible to make logical estimations about future transaction volume..... so why invent an arbitrary number and just go with it?

because you see now that it is nearly impossible to change bitcoin protocol. it gets harder and harder with more users. i am pretty sure if satoshi has forseen this discussions he would never introduced the temporary 1mb spam limit in the first place.

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 06:24:36 PM

Block capacity is connected to transaction volume growth. So we have real world data to estimate our capacity needs for the foreseeable future. And those simply don't line up with 8MB or 8GB. Maybe in the future they will.... maybe. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, the emphasis should be on consensus. A conservative approach that scales to real-world needs rather than fantasized ones based on Moore's Law is much preferable in that regard.

Six years in, we have not hit capacity. Why are we planning on 8000x capacity 20 years from now? Just because? Incredible lack of foresight, and quite audacious to assume that we have every possible technical problem that may arise figured out, today.

we cant estimate transaction volume growth... one big war, one good media report, one country accepts bitcoin as main currency: one billion people trying to buy bitcoin in one week? no way to calculate something like with an algorithm.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 06:19:48 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 27, 2015, 06:13:24 PM

But of course it has to do with blocksize.

Blocksize is a check on economies of scale so as to level the playing ground. It is absolutely necessary while Bitcoin is still relatively small. Without it the entities with the most resources will make use of the technology available to run out of the market any smaller players.

that is only true if the entity with the most resources has more than 51%.
otherwise i expect smaller players to team up in such cases and ignore blocks as soon as a big player start to behave badly.

it is in their best interest to do that.

we can see this with: most home miners go to the biggest pool like flies going to the brightest light. but - until now - whenever a pool got to much hashing power the community realized that it is bad and hashing power got more distributed again.

You don't seem to grasp the impact of this. In this outcome there is no "smaller players".

There is an unlimited amount of capital which can and WILL be leveraged to install hashing facilities that can and will accept big blocks. The competition in that scenario is not between large miners and smaller ones, it's between large miners only.

What you get is a handful of giant corporations running mega mining operations coupled with node datacenters that essentially make smaller players irrelevant.

Home mining is destined to be a thing of the past. Even the most dedicated hobbyist will be run out of the game. You can't imagine a situation where they will stay relevant and therefore by looking for their own best interest will put a check on large scale operations. That's just not how it works.

madjules007

sr. member

Activity: 400

Merit: 250

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 04:46:22 PM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 04:39:29 PM

Good, why? I haven't seen this adequately explained. Considering we are not even reaching capacity at 1MB, 8MB is completely arbitrary. 8GB is beyond arbitrary -- it's simply out of touch with reality. The only possible justification is Moore's Law, and as I pointed out above, this is an illogical and unscientific basis to go by.

no one can see in the future. this means we cant know how much blocksize we will need. but we can make educated guesses about what might be a good max. and if we are wrong with that maximum lets just have a little trust in miners which dont want to let bitcoin fail to choose some reasonable value.

yes 8mb is arbitary. but why is this a problem? it is not possible to calculate the future (at least for now and not from inside our universe). what transactions are put in a block and which arent is a decision made by people who have the incentive to keep this system running.

And why do we need to determine the max block size 20 years out? Indeed, it's impossible to make logical estimations about future transaction volume..... so why invent an arbitrary number and just go with it?

Block capacity is connected to transaction volume growth. So we have real world data to estimate our capacity needs for the foreseeable future. And those simply don't line up with 8MB or 8GB. Maybe in the future they will.... maybe. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, the emphasis should be on consensus. A conservative approach that scales to real-world needs rather than fantasized ones based on Moore's Law is much preferable in that regard.

Six years in, we have not hit capacity. Why are we planning on 8000x capacity 20 years from now? Just because? Incredible lack of foresight, and quite audacious to assume that we have every possible technical problem that may arise figured out, today.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: brg444 on August 27, 2015, 06:13:24 PM

But of course it has to do with blocksize.

Blocksize is a check on economies of scale so as to level the playing ground. It is absolutely necessary while Bitcoin is still relatively small. Without it the entities with the most resources will make use of the technology available to run out of the market any smaller players.

that is only true if the entity with the most resources has more than 51%.
otherwise i expect smaller players to team up in such cases and ignore blocks as soon as a big player start to behave badly.

it is in their best interest to do that.

we can see this with: most home miners go to the biggest pool like flies going to the brightest light. but - until now - whenever a pool got to much hashing power the community realized that it is bad and hashing power got more distributed again.

edit: imho: in the long run bitcoin can only stay decentralized when many households have a miner at home. eg an electric heating device

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 05:59:20 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 27, 2015, 05:42:14 PM

It seems to me you are making two assumptions that do not appear necessarily true to me.

The first is that propagation times are not subject to change (improve). What happens when IBLT is implemented and propagation is constant? There are a handful of other improvements that can decrease propagation time and it WILL get worst as big miners improve connectivity between each other. The incentive to mine smaller blocks then kind of disappears and so does the cost to publish larger blocks to a certain extent.

true, also the (existing) miners-overlay-network which is used by most pools already submit headers first.

- still, miners have to validate transactions
- they have to receive it (ok its hard to not receive something)
- they know that if they allow small fee transactions they'll get more small-fee transactions in the future. this seems to be a prisoners dilemma while its not: they rely on bitcoin to continue to exist, because they are invested in it and no company would destroy their own market.

Quote from: brg444 on August 27, 2015, 05:42:14 PM

Second is a most common fallacy that suggest all miners are the same, that their decisions can be projected as a group and not as individuals. That is absolutely wrong. Cost per transactions differ from one miner to the others and bigger miners will have incentive to mine bigger blocks and eventually suffocate smaller miners who cannot keep up with their resources.

yes and thats bad. but i dont think this has much to do with blocksizes. atm most mining is done in china for this exact reason: this wont change with bigger blocks.

imho: in the long run bitcoin can only stay decentralized when many households have a miner at home. eg an electric heating device (preferably solo with a bitcoin node integrated in any router; bandwidth subsidized by telco like many do with their video-platforms [at least in germany]).

we just need devices which mine as a by-product.

But of course it has to do with blocksize.

Blocksize is a check on economies of scale so as to level the playing ground. It is absolutely necessary while Bitcoin is still relatively small. Without it the entities with the most resources will make use of the technology available to run out of the market any smaller players.

What you are proposing is indeed interesting but we can absolutely not make decisions based on such abstract potential.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: brg444 on August 27, 2015, 05:42:14 PM

It seems to me you are making two assumptions that do not appear necessarily true to me.

The first is that propagation times are not subject to change (improve). What happens when IBLT is implemented and propagation is constant? There are a handful of other improvements that can decrease propagation time and it WILL get worst as big miners improve connectivity between each other. The incentive to mine smaller blocks then kind of disappears and so does the cost to publish larger blocks to a certain extent.

true, also the (existing) miners-overlay-network which is used by most pools already submit headers first.

- still, miners have to validate transactions
- they have to receive it (ok its hard to not receive something)
- they know that if they allow small fee transactions they'll get more small-fee transactions in the future. this seems to be a prisoners dilemma while its not: they rely on bitcoin to continue to exist, because they are invested in it and no company would destroy their own market.

Quote from: brg444 on August 27, 2015, 05:42:14 PM

Second is a most common fallacy that suggest all miners are the same, that their decisions can be projected as a group and not as individuals. That is absolutely wrong. Cost per transactions differ from one miner to the others and bigger miners will have incentive to mine bigger blocks and eventually suffocate smaller miners who cannot keep up with their resources.

yes and thats bad. but i dont think this has much to do with blocksizes. atm most mining is done in china for this exact reason: this wont change with bigger blocks.

imho: in the long run bitcoin can only stay decentralized when many households have a miner at home. eg an electric heating device (preferably solo with a bitcoin node integrated in any router; bandwidth subsidized by telco like many do with their video-platforms [at least in germany]).

we just need devices which mine as a by-product.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 04:17:02 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 08:35:16 PM

The issue with a large increase is it creates a slippery slope. Raising the blocksizing is essentially subsidizing transactions. If we persist on doing that someone WILL take advantage of the free space. Now what happens if 8MB blocks get filled up way before the intended increase? It is not an improbable scenario that we could see bigger block get filled surprisingly quickly & the increase will have been more or less for nothing.

miners have an incentive to make smaller blocks as they are transmitted faster and reduce their orphan rate. so they wont include no-fee-transactions forever.

as blockreward gets reduced miners are forced to calculate their cost per transaction (cpu and bandwith wise) they wont allow freebies.

It seems to me you are making two assumptions that do not appear necessarily true to me.

The first is that propagation times are not subject to change (improve). What happens when IBLT is implemented and propagation is constant? There are a handful of other improvements that can decrease propagation time and it WILL get worst as big miners improve connectivity between each other. The incentive to mine smaller blocks then kind of disappears and so does the cost to publish larger blocks to a certain extent.

Second is a most common fallacy that suggest all miners are the same, that their decisions can be projected as a group and not as individuals. That is absolutely wrong. Cost per transactions differ from one miner to the others and bigger miners will have incentive to mine bigger blocks and eventually suffocate smaller miners who cannot keep up with their resources.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 04:39:29 PM

Good, why? I haven't seen this adequately explained. Considering we are not even reaching capacity at 1MB, 8MB is completely arbitrary. 8GB is beyond arbitrary -- it's simply out of touch with reality. The only possible justification is Moore's Law, and as I pointed out above, this is an illogical and unscientific basis to go by.

i dont think it is needed to proof whats the best minimum. imho we need to show what is a good possible max.

no one can see in the future. this means we cant know how much blocksize we will need. but we can make educated guesses about what might be a good max. and if we are wrong with that maximum lets just have a little trust in miners which dont want to let bitcoin fail to choose some reasonable value.

yes 8mb is arbitary. but why is this a problem? it is not possible to calculate the future (at least for now and not from inside our universe). what transactions are put in a block and which arent is a decision made by people who have the incentive to keep this system running.

madjules007

sr. member

Activity: 400

Merit: 250

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 03:55:15 PM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 03:51:57 PM

You're missing the point. What in heaven's name justifies implementing 8GB blocks? By your logic, we can just have 64GB blocks and even more prohibitive costs to running nodes. After all, who cares, right?

Certainly, current transaction volume doesn't suggest this is necessary at all. Why aim for Moore's Law? Let's observe how robust scalability is on a more conservative basis, and keep limit increases in line with actual transaction growth (rather than this fantasy that Moore's Law = bitcoin adoption rising exponentially, endlessly).

i am not suggesting going to 8gb blocks now...
8mb and doubling every two years as with a lower soft-limit is good...

Good, why? I haven't seen this adequately explained. Considering we are not even reaching capacity at 1MB, 8MB is completely arbitrary. 8GB is beyond arbitrary -- it's simply out of touch with reality. The only possible justification is Moore's Law, and as I pointed out above, this is an illogical and unscientific basis to go by.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: knight22 on August 27, 2015, 07:54:41 AM

Quote from: johnyj on August 27, 2015, 07:07:47 AM

The question is: Why change at all when it works?

The stress test weeks ago already showed that even every block is full, the network still works well, since most of the people are long term holder and are not time sensitive. Of course there will be a time when even 0.001 BTC fee can not get you a confirmation in 10 minutes, but we are far from reaching that yet

Have you tried to make a transactions during that stress test? Mines got back logged 1-2h before getting a confirmation with standard fee. Increasing the fees doesn't adds up capacity btw.

I have multiple things running and I did not feel any difference during that stress test. My mining rigs still ran, my node's mempool grew too large so I added a "minrelaytxfee=0.0001" line to get it back to normal. I constantly deposit and withdraw coins from other exchanges and online wallets and did not experienced any delay. So I guess only a few of nodes were impacted in case they did not set the corresponding anti-spam configuration

What could cause difficulty is that a large institution like bank trying to push in 0.01BTC fee for each transaction, and broadcast 2000 transactions per block, thus anyone paying less than 0.01BTC fee will not get a chance to be broadcasted. But that will cost over 17 million dollar per month for a bank to do that at current exchange rate. The block reward from fee will become 20 bitcoin, and it would still not stop any transactions larger than 1 BTC, since 0.01 BTC fee is just 1% fee for a 1 BTC transaction

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 08:35:16 PM

The issue with a large increase is it creates a slippery slope. Raising the blocksizing is essentially subsidizing transactions. If we persist on doing that someone WILL take advantage of the free space. Now what happens if 8MB blocks get filled up way before the intended increase? It is not an improbable scenario that we could see bigger block get filled surprisingly quickly & the increase will have been more or less for nothing.

miners have an incentive to make smaller blocks as they are transmitted faster and reduce their orphan rate. so they wont include no-fee-transactions forever.

as blockreward gets reduced miners are forced to calculate their cost per transaction (cpu and bandwith wise) they wont allow freebies.

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 08:35:16 PM

If we take the decision to continue subsidizing transactions right now because of pressure from certain groups we will inevitably create a precedent and reinforce the belief of users that they somehow have a RIGHT for block space and therefore make it forever more difficult to refuse it. Imagine the subsequent pressure if Bitcoin grows by a couple orders of magnitude and users start seeing their transaction fees go up when they were told it would forever be nearly free.

its the miners decision what can be in a block and what not.
they have the "right" to decide this; no one else.

so i say: let them also decide how big blocks can be (the 8mb block+increase above is just my personal opinion. i will follow miners decision and keep all fork coins to see what happens)

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 08:35:16 PM

This here is an opportunity to put a check on these false expectations and discourage business plans that were planning to unnecessarily fill up the blocks w/ their own transactions. People need to understand that there is cost to having this system run securely and we should stop trying to externalize them.

again: its foremost the cost for miners.
anybody else can use a spv client or (if he wants to be more secure) has to pay.

it boils down to: i dont think miners are dumb.
i know that many people thinks that all miners will put all transactions (even with only one satoshi fee) in a block if there is the space. i dont...i think they are able to calculate their costs.

btw a while ago i made a proposal which would reduce blockreward in case a block gets bigger than 1mb. the reduced amount (per transaction) would get to node which relayed the transaction. gavin didnt like it Wink

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 03:55:15 PM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 03:51:57 PM

You're missing the point. What in heaven's name justifies implementing 8GB blocks? By your logic, we can just have 64GB blocks and even more prohibitive costs to running nodes. After all, who cares, right?

Certainly, current transaction volume doesn't suggest this is necessary at all. Why aim for Moore's Law? Let's observe how robust scalability is on a more conservative basis, and keep limit increases in line with actual transaction growth (rather than this fantasy that Moore's Law = bitcoin adoption rising exponentially, endlessly).

i am not suggesting going to 8gb blocks now...
8mb and doubling every two years as with a lower soft-limit is good...

Maybe you can address this?

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 08:35:16 PM

The issue with a large increase is it creates a slippery slope. Raising the blocksizing is essentially subsidizing transactions. If we persist on doing that someone WILL take advantage of the free space. Now what happens if 8MB blocks get filled up way before the intended increase? It is not an improbable scenario that we could see bigger block get filled surprisingly quickly & the increase will have been more or less for nothing.

If we take the decision to continue subsidizing transactions right now because of pressure from certain groups we will inevitably create a precedent and reinforce the belief of users that they somehow have a RIGHT for block space and therefore make it forever more difficult to refuse it. Imagine the subsequent pressure if Bitcoin grows by a couple orders of magnitude and users start seeing their transaction fees go up when they were told it would forever be nearly free.

This here is an opportunity to put a check on these false expectations and discourage business plans that were planning to unnecessarily fill up the blocks w/ their own transactions. People need to understand that there is cost to having this system run securely and we should stop trying to externalize them.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 218. (Read 378999 times)