Well after putting more thought into this I realized that this doesn't really matter that much for sending data, or its insignificant problem.
However It can matter in terms of pinging peers. If the network is interpinging eachother,then if the bitcoin network becomes too big, the pings will really slow it down.
However, the internet is the parent network of BTC, so the internet itself would be in danger of this.
But my proposal is so theoretic that I dont think practically it will happen in the nearby 1000 years. Although it's still a good thing to wander upon.
Any final words? I will close the thread soon, so if you have any final words say it now.
Topic: Blockchain download speed singularity (Read 4538 times)
Since most of us have thought about the size of the blockchain, but what about the download speed.
Think of it this way, the size of the
blocks have to increase at some point to absorb more and more transactions , or the block creation interval has to become shorter .
If the block creation interval becomes shorter, then at some point we have to get to an interval of less than 1 second, and after that there will be more transactions / time, than the speed of the average user, thus he cant keep up with the exponentially increasing blockchain, and the network will fall apart. This is true with supernodes , because this doesnt depend on the bandwidth , but the connection speed, which is bounded by the speed of light.
Think of it this way, the size of the
blocks have to increase at some point to absorb more and more transactions , or the block creation interval has to become shorter .
If the block creation interval becomes shorter, then at some point we have to get to an interval of less than 1 second, and after that there will be more transactions / time, than the speed of the average user, thus he cant keep up with the exponentially increasing blockchain, and the network will fall apart. This is true with supernodes , because this doesnt depend on the bandwidth , but the connection speed, which is bounded by the speed of light.
My friend told me there is a way you can torrent the blockchain... I've also heard that torrenting is much faster...
But with the blockchain ever-changing, how can you torrent?
Torrent was for users who want their blockchain to be downloaded fast. It was applicable when headers-first synchronization was not implemented (before v0.10.0). After that, users were able to download from different peers and verify them simultaneously and torrenting was no longer needed. If you want to torrent it, it would be to do the full verification first then download the remaining blocks. But with the blockchain ever-changing, how can you torrent?
My friend told me there is a way you can torrent the blockchain... I've also heard that torrenting is much faster...
But with the blockchain ever-changing, how can you torrent?
But with the blockchain ever-changing, how can you torrent?
Doesnt matter if you torrent, it will eventually become the same problem, unless bandwidth will grow exponentially too, which it wont.
You can torrent the blockchain, and then the remaining blocks you download normally.
My friend told me there is a way you can torrent the blockchain... I've also heard that torrenting is much faster...
But with the blockchain ever-changing, how can you torrent?
But with the blockchain ever-changing, how can you torrent?
Even though I believe this download speed will eventually cause a problem.
I am in support for the bigger block size (perhaps with some pruning techniques).
This will be a problem, but not in the foreseeable future, and until then there is no really excuse for not raising the block size.
I am in support for the bigger block size (perhaps with some pruning techniques).
This will be a problem, but not in the foreseeable future, and until then there is no really excuse for not raising the block size.
I see that with blockchain pruning the size can be further compressed.
However now we face the blocksize raise, that is already a big problem for shitty pc's or smaller miners.
Now imagine if we were to get to the point where this "singularity" would happen. And the internet connection speed were the real issue.
There is only fiber optics you know, no other internet is faster than that.
However now we face the blocksize raise, that is already a big problem for shitty pc's or smaller miners.
Now imagine if we were to get to the point where this "singularity" would happen. And the internet connection speed were the real issue.
There is only fiber optics you know, no other internet is faster than that.
well a 35 GB may take sometimes a bit like 1 day to resync intoa pen or cpu wallet but its ok the full 120 bitcoin years will have more GB and more internet speed too. and more solutions to come
What's this "otherwise"?
We can have centralization of nodes, or centralization of transactions, take your pick.
Clients could process transactions instead of miners which fully decentralises the operation of the network. Miners would still do as their name suggests, mine new bitcoins
. A block could essentially be one transaction but a few more might be more efficient. This would mean that the tx/sec is intrinsically linked to the number of nodes rather than hashing power and bandwidth load balanced amongst many clients. You don't need the entire block chain to process or send/receive bitcoin. You just need traceability of the latest hashes. You could keep the block chain distributed amongst the network clients and reconstitute only those pieces required in a particular client to process transactions. If you were worried, you could audit the entire block chain at regular intervals by pulling every distributed block from the network and running the normal block verify. The block chain is essentially a hash table, it just needs to be distributed (dCache? DFSgc?). Several existing replicating storage systems (such as usenet) could be used to persist reference blocks (like the genisis block) to avoid encirclement of a client by naughty people
.
Looks like with the 7mb block size proposal, this theory can become closer to true i`m afraid.
Already the number of nodes are down, due to the size of the blockchain, soon it will be further down due to the size of individual blocks.
Bitcoin will inevitable become centralized, but if the price would go up suddenly then we can avoid centralization
Already the number of nodes are down, due to the size of the blockchain, soon it will be further down due to the size of individual blocks.
Bitcoin will inevitable become centralized, but if the price would go up suddenly then we can avoid centralization
INTERNET SPEED GROWS LINEARLY, BLOCKCHAIN SIZE GROWS EXPONENTIALLY, WHAT NOW?
The blockchain must grow linearly as long as there is a block size cap, so.. What are you trying to get at?The cap will increase eventually, as more people use it. Offchain or not, the bitcoin network has to handle atleast 10000 transactions/minute, for it to become a worldwide used currency.
Just my thoughts. Otherwise it will become centralized, as only big guys could afford to host the network.
We can have centralization of nodes, or centralization of transactions, take your pick.
Thats a trap question.
So you are saying either way centralization is inevitable? Its very sad.
I`d take the centralization of nodes anytime, vs the transactions, but that increases the risk significantly of rogue nodes.
The less nodes the less confirmation accuracy, which is the whole point of Bitcoin.
INTERNET SPEED GROWS LINEARLY, BLOCKCHAIN SIZE GROWS EXPONENTIALLY, WHAT NOW?
The blockchain must grow linearly as long as there is a block size cap, so.. What are you trying to get at?The cap will increase eventually, as more people use it. Offchain or not, the bitcoin network has to handle atleast 10000 transactions/minute, for it to become a worldwide used currency.
Just my thoughts. Otherwise it will become centralized, as only big guys could afford to host the network.
We can have centralization of nodes, or centralization of transactions, take your pick.
INTERNET SPEED GROWS LINEARLY, BLOCKCHAIN SIZE GROWS EXPONENTIALLY, WHAT NOW?
The blockchain must grow linearly as long as there is a block size cap, so.. What are you trying to get at?The cap will increase eventually, as more people use it. Offchain or not, the bitcoin network has to handle atleast 10000 transactions/minute, for it to become a worldwide used currency.
Just my thoughts. Otherwise it will become centralized, as only big guys could afford to host the network.
INTERNET SPEED GROWS LINEARLY, BLOCKCHAIN SIZE GROWS EXPONENTIALLY, WHAT NOW?
The blockchain must grow linearly as long as there is a block size cap, so.. What are you trying to get at?
Now as the debate of 20 mb blocksize comes, bitcoin is getting centralized.
The wifi people with crappy connections below 1mb/s are now already unable to keep up with this blocksize.
INTERNET SPEED GROWS LINEARLY, BLOCKCHAIN SIZE GROWS EXPONENTIALLY, WHAT NOW?
The wifi people with crappy connections below 1mb/s are now already unable to keep up with this blocksize.
INTERNET SPEED GROWS LINEARLY, BLOCKCHAIN SIZE GROWS EXPONENTIALLY, WHAT NOW?
This is a stupid question but could BitCoin try and Implement Miniature Blockchain Technology and Start PoS and Relaunch because the of following issues:
- Loss of Innovation
- UNIX Timestamp Issue (32 Bit Integers)
- PoW is Boring.....
- Could be Easily Traced....
- Feeless Transactions...........
- Loss of Innovation
- UNIX Timestamp Issue (32 Bit Integers)
- PoW is Boring.....
- Could be Easily Traced....
- Feeless Transactions...........
PoW is boring but it's also secure. PoS is not. What you're asking is like someone saying "AES encryption is boring, let's switch to ROT13"
Yea you took the words out of my mouth. Who cares if it's boring, bitcoin wasnt designed to entertain you, if you need entertainment go to a Disney park
This is a stupid question but could BitCoin try and Implement Miniature Blockchain Technology and Start PoS and Relaunch because the of following issues:
- Loss of Innovation
- UNIX Timestamp Issue (32 Bit Integers)
- PoW is Boring.....
- Could be Easily Traced....
- Feeless Transactions...........
- Loss of Innovation
- UNIX Timestamp Issue (32 Bit Integers)
- PoW is Boring.....
- Could be Easily Traced....
- Feeless Transactions...........
PoW is boring but it's also secure. PoS is not. What you're asking is like someone saying "AES encryption is boring, let's switch to ROT13"
So either you decrease block creation speed, but then you hit the speed of light boundary, to send information, and the blockchain falls apart
OR
You increase block size, but then you will run out of bandwidth, that not even big companies could provide, and blockchain falls apart.
OR
You increase block size, but then you will run out of bandwidth, that not even big companies could provide, and blockchain falls apart.
We can't change block creation target rate of 10 mins without a major fight over this hard fork. Changing creation rate messes with block rewards miners receive. They will fight this
The block size limit is now 1M. I believe the current bandwidth in a developed city network will have no problem accommodating 5M blocks. Remember the block size limit is only a "limit". Miners are interested in the 25 btc block reward and not fees. They do not have incentive to mine larger blocks for the fees because larger blocks are slow to propagate.
By the time block rewards are much lower and fees play a larger role, then we might see blocks approaching 5M. Hopefully better infrastructure would have been developed by then.
I think the current bandwidth in most places will not have a problem. Mining is not widescale amongst the users, only a part of all bitcoin users is mining. Those who can afford the electricity and hardware. They probably can afford the higher bandwidth. While theoretically possible, it practically means the miners lose profit.
But as the services / products grow, eventually this one will become a concern.
Now it may need a few more years, up to 10-15 for this to become a serious issue, but its better to be prepared for everything.
Mike Hearn argues it'll be a "serious issue" by next year. Gerald Davis also made an impassioned post around here about how the Bitcoin block sizes need to be increased. Mircea Popescu argues they're both wrong. GMaxwell seems to have a neutral opinion, though he's argued repeatedly that decentralization of Bitcoin is paramount, but pointed out that actually hitting the limit won't cause any kind of devastation, like Mike Hearn argued.Now it may need a few more years, up to 10-15 for this to become a serious issue, but its better to be prepared for everything.
I'd be willing to argue that the block size is actually already too big, or at least would like to see more discussion about the benefits of a more restricted block space. That the block limit needs to be raised is a foregone conclusion with poor support; Leaning way too heavily on FUD, appeals to emotion, and reliance on future undiscovered technology. All arising out of a vision for Bitcoin that competes with the likes of Visa on their terms, despite manifestly being unable to do so.
Greg Maxwell;
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11318788
Gerald Davis;
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236
Mircea Popescu;
http://trilema.com/2015/gerald-davis-is-wrong-heres-why/
Mike Hearn;
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e
The Bitcoin blockchain is not going to handle all transactions in the United States or the world with today's technology. Making hundreds of thousands of duplicates of every single transaction throughout the world is non-trivial. Even if Bitcoin blocks were massive we would run into the issue of transaction fees being too high to be reasonable, not to mention the outrageous bandwidth requirements that would be necessary.
That does not mean Bitcoin is dead or doomed (Why the FUD?). It means that other technologies must be used to facilitate the majority of "Bitcoin" transactions in the long run. This isn't ideal, but sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Off-Chain_Transactions
https://blog.coinbase.com/2013/08/06/you-can-now-send-micro-transactions-with-zero-fees/
https://lightning.network/
That does not mean Bitcoin is dead or doomed (Why the FUD?). It means that other technologies must be used to facilitate the majority of "Bitcoin" transactions in the long run. This isn't ideal, but sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Off-Chain_Transactions
https://blog.coinbase.com/2013/08/06/you-can-now-send-micro-transactions-with-zero-fees/
https://lightning.network/
It's not FUD its a reasonable concern.
Ok even if 70% of users will prefer online wallet transactions (which could be handled internally, if a wallet can get a banking license/money transmitter or similar) i`m sure many people will just go with the "dumbed down, simple to use way" as not all of us are technical experts.
But as the services / products grow, eventually this one will become a concern.
Now it may need a few more years, up to 10-15 for this to become a serious issue, but its better to be prepared for everything.
I want bitcoin to succeed, and for that we must discuss & solve all threats that can jeopardize BITCOIN
Jump to: