Topic: Block issue SOLVED!? Extension Blocks (Read 3473 times)
So where are Extension Blocks now? Are they looking to use extension blocks with segwit?
Why not just implement segwit?
Many solutions are arising and still none of it is being implemented. Why?
Because it got stuck in the debate stage.
In many years to come many solutions will once again arise then it will be forgotten again like the others.
They have not because they think they are going to lose money with it, it is that simple, but what they don’t realize is they could earn a lot more by allowing bitcoin to scale and get a lot more users, maybe they will suffer in the short term but in the long term they will be better off. Many solutions are arising and still none of it is being implemented. Why?
Because it got stuck in the debate stage.
In many years to come many solutions will once again arise then it will be forgotten again like the others.
Just sharing, I know its been thrown around before but seems to beginning to get praise, Extension Blocks!
New name, same thing.
Spam is nothing else but a covert way of the miners to lower the effective block size.
You mean, miners send many transactions and it clogs up the network? Is this what people mean by spam?
It costs them, on average, nothing, if they spam according to their own hash rate (they pay the fees to themselves).
Not really. I have sent one transaction with a higher fee that was picked up by a miner on the pool I point towards. I don't think I really got much of it back on a PPLNS payout and 0.04% share.
If miners spam, it means that they are of the opinion that the blocks are already too big for their optimum profit, and need to lower the available user block room.
This could be true for some. However, I received daily payouts and would put them into four different wallets at payout. Two different ones for electricity (home, hosted - not cloud), one as a "hot" wallet and another to cold storage.
Note that miners are the only entities that can spam without a cost.
If you use the same origin and destination address, anybody can send 20 transaction without a fee and one with a large fee. If they are to and from the same addresses it picks up all the transactions. However, most aren't using bitcoin as frequently as miners to and from the same addresses as frequently as miners.
... the right amount of spam to squeeze the maximum of fees out of the users.
How do you make a 'junk' or useless transaction with Bitcoin? I don't understand this concept of spam. Perhaps there is either a change in the quantity demanded - or we are entering a totally new demand curve. I think as we move from innovators to early adopters using BTC, it's going to move out the demand curve and not just change the quantity demanded.
you have to be shitting me....
most poeple think 90% of the bitcoin TX are spam
they complain that "spam" is creating fee pressure.
remove the "spam" and you think we'll fill block with nothing but Big TX willing to TX at anycost?
ya right,at that point poeple are sending there hoards to poloniex so they can buy the digital cash they were promised.
most poeple think 90% of the bitcoin TX are spam
they complain that "spam" is creating fee pressure.
remove the "spam" and you think we'll fill block with nothing but Big TX willing to TX at anycost?
ya right,at that point poeple are sending there hoards to poloniex so they can buy the digital cash they were promised.
Spam is nothing else but a covert way of the miners to lower the effective block size. It costs them, on average, nothing, if they spam according to their own hash rate (they pay the fees to themselves). If miners spam, it means that they are of the opinion that the blocks are already too big for their optimum profit, and need to lower the available user block room. Note that miners are the only entities that can spam without a cost. All others that would spam, have a cost, the fees of the spam. Miners don't, because they get them back.
Note that spam is a self-regulating block size limiter that settles dynamically between miners. A miner that spams more than his fellows will pay net fees to his fellows ; one that spams less will receive fees from his fellows. So spam is only interesting as a "common good" for miners if they can settle on the right amount of spam to squeeze the maximum of fees out of the users.
This is BU, but on the low side.
Bitcoin's game theory is one big hell of a clusterfuck.
i made a few edits to the stock graph to better illustrate what i'm saying
as block size goes up fees go down, but fee revenue is at its highest at 2MB, because science.
The error in this plot is that you think that fees are elastic. Fees are VERY INELASTIC, meaning your blue curve goes to the sky on the left. If only 10 transactions are possible, people will be paying HUGE fees in order to obtain one of the 10 places. The guy wanting to transact 10000 BTC for a huge cocaine deal will need to get the transaction through, no matter what, or they'll get him, so he'll pay 200 BTC of fee.
10 of these transactions, and you earn 2000 BTC per block in fees. From the moment that you relax, fees will drop drastically per transaction, much more so than your straight line suggests.
And then you see that the optimum is on the left side of the plot, because fees rise much faster than 1/block size, and drop much faster with block size.
Demand comes from people "locked into" bitcoin, and NEEDING to transact (the only thing bitcoin is good at). If you HOLD bitcoin, the only reasonable thing you can do with it, is transact, sooner or later. That's the demand.
Quote
at one point fees are so high a lot of potential TX can't happen anymore, and this removes some fee pressure,
Uh, no, that is exactly the pressure. All TX have to happen. If they can't happen, or aren't needed to happen, then the bitcoins involved in them are useless.
If you mean, however, this will limit bitcoin's usage to only big transactions, you're perfectly right. Bitcoin with small blocks is not a payment system that can be used for small transactions, only for big ones, at low transaction rates.
In as much as this has an incidence on the bitcoin market value, this will probably not even matter. If the fees increase 10-fold, the market cap must fall 10-fold before this starts to be negative for the miners. So squeezing fees out of users, even if this crashes the market price, is still interesting for miners if the inelastic wall of "I absolutely need to get my big transaction through" is steeper than the price crash.
you have to be shitting me....
most poeple think 90% of the bitcoin TX are spam
they complain that "spam" is creating fee pressure.
remove the "spam" and you think we'll fill block with nothing but Big TX willing to TX at anycost?
ya right,at that point poeple are sending there hoards to poloniex so they can buy the digital cash they were promised.
i made a few edits to the stock graph to better illustrate what i'm saying
as block size goes up fees go down, but fee revenue is at its highest at 2MB, because science.
The error in this plot is that you think that fees are elastic. Fees are VERY INELASTIC, meaning your blue curve goes to the sky on the left. If only 10 transactions are possible, people will be paying HUGE fees in order to obtain one of the 10 places. The guy wanting to transact 10000 BTC for a huge cocaine deal will need to get the transaction through, no matter what, or they'll get him, so he'll pay 200 BTC of fee.
10 of these transactions, and you earn 2000 BTC per block in fees. From the moment that you relax, fees will drop drastically per transaction, much more so than your straight line suggests.
And then you see that the optimum is on the left side of the plot, because fees rise much faster than 1/block size, and drop much faster with block size.
Demand comes from people "locked into" bitcoin, and NEEDING to transact (the only thing bitcoin is good at). If you HOLD bitcoin, the only reasonable thing you can do with it, is transact, sooner or later. That's the demand.
Quote
at one point fees are so high a lot of potential TX can't happen anymore, and this removes some fee pressure,
Uh, no, that is exactly the pressure. All TX have to happen. If they can't happen, or aren't needed to happen, then the bitcoins involved in them are useless.
If you mean, however, this will limit bitcoin's usage to only big transactions, you're perfectly right. Bitcoin with small blocks is not a payment system that can be used for small transactions, only for big ones, at low transaction rates.
In as much as this has an incidence on the bitcoin market value, this will probably not even matter. If the fees increase 10-fold, the market cap must fall 10-fold before this starts to be negative for the miners. So squeezing fees out of users, even if this crashes the market price, is still interesting for miners if the inelastic wall of "I absolutely need to get my big transaction through" is steeper than the price crash.
well, yea. but people are dumb and lazy and...
ok, i got nothing.
ok, i got nothing.
the OPTION of so called witness nodes, as i understand them, sounds good. similar to SPV wallets, like what i use on my phone (android bitcoin wallet) that doesn't the full blockchain on hand, right? please correct me if i'm wrong.
but forcing that, making it such that running a full node is unmanageable for the average techy geek... that worries me.
and yea, the average techy geek would have the best home user internet they could get, and and excess of computing power and storage space. i do, and i'm not even employed right now.
ok, except the internet part... stupid middle of no where... but hey, my phone doesn't have a data limit. it mostly works.
but forcing that, making it such that running a full node is unmanageable for the average techy geek... that worries me.
and yea, the average techy geek would have the best home user internet they could get, and and excess of computing power and storage space. i do, and i'm not even employed right now.
ok, except the internet part... stupid middle of no where... but hey, my phone doesn't have a data limit. it mostly works.
there are FAR better ways to allow full-nodes to run on home PC without losing witness data
nodes can limit number of connections.
or go as far as enable blocks only mode.
if you're going to loss the witness data, you might as well go full SPV
the OPTION of so called witness nodes, as i understand them, sounds good. similar to SPV wallets, like what i use on my phone (android bitcoin wallet) that doesn't the full blockchain on hand, right? please correct me if i'm wrong.
but forcing that, making it such that running a full node is unmanageable for the average techy geek... that worries me.
and yea, the average techy geek would have the best home user internet they could get, and and excess of computing power and storage space. i do, and i'm not even employed right now.
ok, except the internet part... stupid middle of no where... but hey, my phone doesn't have a data limit. it mostly works.
but forcing that, making it such that running a full node is unmanageable for the average techy geek... that worries me.
and yea, the average techy geek would have the best home user internet they could get, and and excess of computing power and storage space. i do, and i'm not even employed right now.
ok, except the internet part... stupid middle of no where... but hey, my phone doesn't have a data limit. it mostly works.
nodes put in their useragents to what they can COPE with. and pools only make blocks to the amount the majority can cope with. thus no harm to nodes
most likely the bottom 15-25% of EB values will set the "limit"
so, only a few nodes and miners need to see the profit in keeping blocks small to create some fee pressures, which will maximise fee revenue, and thus add extra incentive to add more security to the blockchain.
So while you think blocks will be as big as most can COPE with, what will actually happen is blocks will be as big as fee TX demand can push it up to.
nodes and miners need to understand the very real benefit of making sure blocks fit just right given X amount of TX demand.
IMO the appropriate level of fee pressure is when your relatively sure a 10cent fee will get you in the next block, but users put 20cents just to be sure.
do you disagree? do you want blocks to be big enough so that fee pressure is non existent? do you buy the idea that there is "unbound" 10cent fee TX demand?
its hard for me to entirely disagree, because not core-fan-boy, but bitcoins usefulness is not only as a medium of exchange, so while we could stand to benefit by being more competitive to paypal, we don't NEED to be. ( i say this but part of me doesn't agree at all, its what i heard others saying, seems to make some sense..)
Is sacrificing bitcoin's utility in the name of keeping full node cost very low, worth it? I think not! but some would disagree.
Is sacrificing bitcoin's utility in the name of keeping full node cost very low, worth it? I think not! but some would disagree.
core wants prunned, no witness modes.. and a cesspit of downstream nodes that dont get all tx data and dont relay segwit transactions
which is a lot more damaging to the node count than anything else..
dynamics does not mean 8mb by midnight, nor 8gb by midnight.
nodes put in their useragents to what they can COPE with. and pools only make blocks to the amount the majority can cope with. thus no harm to nodes
we are not in the 2009 days of:
3g mobile internet/ADSL landline
Raspberry Pi1 min specs
libsec validation
we are in 2017
4g mobile (approaching 5G)/fibre landline
Raspberry Pi3 min specs
libsecp256k1 validation...
meaning the 'speed' of validation propagation etc is better by between 5-20x compared to 2009's '1mb safe'
its been estimated that 8mb is safe for the network. even core know this and went with their 4mb 'supersafe' weight.
so can we give up all the foolish excuses of needing 1mb as a 'safety barrier'
we can safely assume we are not in competition with paypal or visa,
Disagree entirely. i use bitcoin as a paypal alternative for remittances. anything that
saves business owners money will be "a thing". This is the easiest use case.
Merchant adoption requires more user adoption but saves business even more
on payment processing.
its hard for me to entirely disagree, because not core-fan-boy, but bitcoins usefulness is not only as a medium of exchange, so while we could stand to benefit by being more competitive to paypal, we don't NEED to be. ( i say this but part of me doesn't agree at all, its what i heard others saying, seems to make some sense..)
Is sacrificing bitcoin's utility in the name of keeping full node cost very low, worth it? I think not! but some would disagree.
i made a few edits to the stock graph to better illustrate what i'm saying
as block size goes up fees go down, but fee revenue is at its highest at 2MB, because science.
The error in this plot is that you think that fees are elastic. Fees are VERY INELASTIC, meaning your blue curve goes to the sky on the left. If only 10 transactions are possible, people will be paying HUGE fees in order to obtain one of the 10 places. The guy wanting to transact 10000 BTC for a huge cocaine deal will need to get the transaction through, no matter what, or they'll get him, so he'll pay 200 BTC of fee.
10 of these transactions, and you earn 2000 BTC per block in fees. From the moment that you relax, fees will drop drastically per transaction, much more so than your straight line suggests.
And then you see that the optimum is on the left side of the plot, because fees rise much faster than 1/block size, and drop much faster with block size.
at one point fees are so high a lot of potential TX can't happen anymore, and this removes some fee pressure, so the higher you push fees the harder it will be to incress fee pressure, its kinda like rocket science, you need more fuel to launch more weight, but the fuel itself weighs somthing so you need more fuel to add more fuel.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
we can safely assume we are not in competition with paypal or visa,
Disagree entirely. i use bitcoin as a paypal alternative for remittances. anything that
saves business owners money will be "a thing". This is the easiest use case.
Merchant adoption requires more user adoption but saves business even more
on payment processing.
i made a few edits to the stock graph to better illustrate what i'm saying
as block size goes up fees go down, but fee revenue is at its highest at 2MB, because science.
The error in this plot is that you think that fees are elastic. Fees are VERY INELASTIC, meaning your blue curve goes to the sky on the left. If only 10 transactions are possible, people will be paying HUGE fees in order to obtain one of the 10 places. The guy wanting to transact 10000 BTC for a huge cocaine deal will need to get the transaction through, no matter what, or they'll get him, so he'll pay 200 BTC of fee.
10 of these transactions, and you earn 2000 BTC per block in fees. From the moment that you relax, fees will drop drastically per transaction, much more so than your straight line suggests.
And then you see that the optimum is on the left side of the plot, because fees rise much faster than 1/block size, and drop much faster with block size.
i made a few edits to the stock graph to better illustrate what i'm saying
as block size goes up fees go down, but fee revenue is at its highest at 2MB, because science.
However as the number of transactions changes the size of the blocks would need to change to keep the price optimal. In effect you are just determining what optimal block size is for the current number of transactions. The only way something like this would work is if the block size was changing almost every block.
this is correct!
optimal block size is dependent on TX demand, which is known to be going up, in a crazy unpredictable manner.
and so your right every single block would have a different "optimal size"
but thats not the point... the point is there is an optimal size given X amount of demand.
Miners ( and Non-mining nodes too , mine is set for 1.5MB right now
) will need to smooth out the day to day ups and downs and approximate TX demand for that period of bitcoins history, and set their EB appropriately, each of them will do this individually, and collectively a blocksize limit will be determined through EC.i think we'll see nodes always kinda lagging behind, and we'll mostly always have blocks that are slightly smaller than what the optimal size should be for that time. but thats a hell of alot better then being 2-4x above or below optimal size as a 1MB or 8MB static limit is sure to produce.
So that is what BU allows but SegWit wouldn't? If that is the case it makes SetWit a really hard sell.
segwit is an EASY sell, i'd buy into it in a heartbeat. IF its blockweight/effective blocksize thing is removed...
i made a few edits to the stock graph to better illustrate what i'm saying
as block size goes up fees go down, but fee revenue is at its highest at 2MB, because science.
However as the number of transactions changes the size of the blocks would need to change to keep the price optimal. In effect you are just determining what optimal block size is for the current number of transactions. The only way something like this would work is if the block size was changing almost every block.
this is correct!
optimal block size is dependent on TX demand, which is known to be going up, in a crazy unpredictable manner.
and so your right every single block would have a different "optimal size"
but thats not the point... the point is there is an optimal size given X amount of demand.
Miners ( and Non-mining nodes too , mine is set for 1.5MB right now
) will need to smooth out the day to day ups and downs and approximate TX demand for that period of bitcoins history, and set their EB appropriately, each of them will do this individually, and collectively a blocksize limit will be determined through EC.i think we'll see nodes always kinda lagging behind, and we'll mostly always have blocks that are slightly smaller than what the optimal size should be for that time. but thats a hell of alot better then being 2-4x above or below optimal size as a 1MB or 8MB static limit is sure to produce.
So that is what BU allows but SegWit wouldn't? If that is the case it makes SetWit a really hard sell.
i made a few edits to the stock graph to better illustrate what i'm saying
as block size goes up fees go down, but fee revenue is at its highest at 2MB, because science.
However as the number of transactions changes the size of the blocks would need to change to keep the price optimal. In effect you are just determining what optimal block size is for the current number of transactions. The only way something like this would work is if the block size was changing almost every block.
this is correct!
optimal block size is dependent on TX demand, which is known to be going up, in a crazy unpredictable manner.
and so your right every single block would have a different "optimal size"
but thats not the point... the point is there is an optimal size given X amount of demand.
Miners ( and Non-mining nodes too , mine is set for 1.5MB right now
) will need to smooth out the day to day ups and downs and approximate TX demand for that period of bitcoins history, and set their EB appropriately, each of them will do this individually, and collectively a blocksize limit will be determined through EC.i think we'll see nodes always kinda lagging behind, and we'll mostly always have blocks that are slightly smaller than what the optimal size should be for that time. but thats a hell of alot better then being 2-4x above or below optimal size as a 1MB or 8MB static limit is sure to produce.
i made a few edits to the stock graph to better illustrate what i'm saying
as block size goes up fees go down, but fee revenue is at its highest at 2MB, because science.
However as the number of transactions changes the size of the blocks would need to change to keep the price optimal. In effect you are just determining what optimal block size is for the current number of transactions. The only way something like this would work is if the block size was changing almost every block.
Jump to: