Blocks are full. - page 6. | Bitcointalksearch.org

mickiya

full member

Activity: 195

Merit: 104

Quote from: SebastianJu on February 09, 2016, 02:20:33 PM

Quote from: Mastsetad on February 09, 2016, 07:44:37 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on February 08, 2016, 08:20:49 PM

He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm.

I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward.

Does it mean we have to have fast CPU or powerful computer to do that? Is that required for ordinary Core wallet holders?

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1082

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: Mastsetad on February 09, 2016, 07:44:37 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on February 08, 2016, 08:20:49 PM

He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm.

I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward.

Mastsetad

sr. member

Activity: 672

Merit: 250

Quote from: SebastianJu on February 08, 2016, 08:20:49 PM

He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1082

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: Laosai on February 07, 2016, 07:03:51 AM

Quote from: bit-freedom on February 07, 2016, 06:36:08 AM

Quote from: Laosai on February 07, 2016, 06:29:55 AM

Quote from: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 03:20:52 AM

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.

Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)

Hmm... I don't understand, why wouldn't it be possible to implement such a solutions?
Seems rather obvious to me that you can put limits to the system no?

Maybe I miss some technical grasp about that though ^^'

He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1082

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: 1Referee on February 07, 2016, 06:53:13 AM

Quote from: bearexin on February 07, 2016, 06:40:39 AM

I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

If a mega merchant as Amazon is accepting Bitcoin as payment option, then all blocks will be full nearly instantly. That might be a reason for them NOT to accept Bitcoin payments as 1MB is simply not enough. 2MB is what we need if we want to attract mega merchants.

Exactly... the risk for big companies like amazon would be way too high that they can not use it after developing it.

But you know what... those who say 1mb is sufficient claim that bitcoin was never intended to be used by amazon. Bitcoin is only a high amount transfer system for the rich. Didn't you know that? Roll Eyes

Mastsetad

sr. member

Activity: 672

Merit: 250

Quote from: AliceWonderMiscreations on February 07, 2016, 10:32:59 AM

rejecting empty blocks is bad.

Besides it isn't enforceable. All a miner has to do is create transactions from addresses they control to addresses they control. The transaction only exists in their block, so it doesn't even cost them a tx fee if they don't win the block.

As the block reward goes down, empty blocks will be a problem that takes care of itself anyway.

Yes, when the block reward is smaller, the transaction fee becomes larger, so the pool will create larger blocks.

AliceWonderMiscreations

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 107

rejecting empty blocks is bad.

Besides it isn't enforceable. All a miner has to do is create transactions from addresses they control to addresses they control. The transaction only exists in their block, so it doesn't even cost them a tx fee if they don't win the block.

As the block reward goes down, empty blocks will be a problem that takes care of itself anyway.

Matias

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 101

Quote from: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 06:47:33 AM

Quote from: bit-freedom on February 07, 2016, 06:36:08 AM

Quote from: Laosai on February 07, 2016, 06:29:55 AM

Quote from: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 03:20:52 AM

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.

Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)

yes but the largest pools dont pay the fee to the miners.. so that means they have zero incentive to build large tx blocks.

Isn't it exactly the opposite? When pool keeps TX fees to itself it has bigger incentive to build large tx blocks.

Learn007

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

yes the blocks are full, but it requires that all bitcoin software agrees on what the limit is, otherwise there would be several incompatible versions of bitcoin. it is a hot debate whether increasing the blocksize or not, and by how much and when is going to make bitcoin more centralized or decentralized, whether it is in the spirit of the original whitepaper, and generally whether it will help make bitcoin become a useful currency alternative to millions of people.

Laosai

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: bit-freedom on February 07, 2016, 06:36:08 AM

Quote from: Laosai on February 07, 2016, 06:29:55 AM

Quote from: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 03:20:52 AM

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.

Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)

Hmm... I don't understand, why wouldn't it be possible to implement such a solutions?
Seems rather obvious to me that you can put limits to the system no?

Maybe I miss some technical grasp about that though ^^'

disclaimer201

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1001

Quote from: 1Referee on February 07, 2016, 06:53:13 AM

Quote from: bearexin on February 07, 2016, 06:40:39 AM

I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

If a mega merchant as Amazon is accepting Bitcoin as payment option, then all blocks will be full nearly instantly. That might be a reason for them NOT to accept Bitcoin payments as 1MB is simply not enough. 2MB is what we need if we want to attract mega merchants.

Agreed. I think that's why it isn't time for that step in bitcoin's evolution yet. We have to create the infrastructure first allowing a huge increase in fast transactions before Bitcoin will be considered as a payment option by market giants. I'm willing to wait until April/May to see if anything useful and realistic can come out of LN or whatever trick there is to allow more transactions. One thing is for sure: Bitcoin isn't ready for large fees at this point of its development!

1Referee

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 1427

Quote from: bearexin on February 07, 2016, 06:40:39 AM

I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

If a mega merchant as Amazon is accepting Bitcoin as payment option, then all blocks will be full nearly instantly. That might be a reason for them NOT to accept Bitcoin payments as 1MB is simply not enough. 2MB is what we need if we want to attract mega merchants.

aarons6

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: bit-freedom on February 07, 2016, 06:36:08 AM

Quote from: Laosai on February 07, 2016, 06:29:55 AM

Quote from: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 03:20:52 AM

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.

Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)

yes but the largest pools dont pay the fee to the miners.. so that means they have zero incentive to build large tx blocks.

bearexin

full member

Activity: 1162

Merit: 168

I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.

bit-freedom

sr. member

Activity: 658

Merit: 256

Quote from: Laosai on February 07, 2016, 06:29:55 AM

Quote from: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 03:20:52 AM

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.

Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic.
there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward)

Laosai

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 03:20:52 AM

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.

Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^

What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no?
If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Ruhtilg on February 07, 2016, 05:21:14 AM

Quote from: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 03:20:52 AM

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.
this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.

I agree with this proposal. The resource in bitcoin is limited, we have to use it properly.
But what is the lowest limit of the acceptable block, 10 transactions or 50 transaction?

What prevents them from creating a few transactions themselves to cheat the system?

Quote from: 2legit2 on February 06, 2016, 12:16:20 PM

yeah they are full for a while already and people actually need to do something about it, i think the best would be to increase the block size limit

The system is fine right now; even the mem pool is shrinking. Currently 1759.66796875 (KB).

Quote from: PakistanHockeyfan on February 05, 2016, 08:00:01 PM

The blocks are not exactly full.

Some are and some aren't; people are being hyperbolic about it.

mavericklm

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

256kb or 128kb.....

aarons6

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: Ruhtilg on February 07, 2016, 05:21:14 AM

Quote from: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 03:20:52 AM

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.

I agree with this proposal. The resource in bitcoin is limited, we have to use it properly.

But what is the lowest limit of the acceptable block, 10 transactions or 50 transaction?

lol a whole new thing for the devs to argue about..

but yeah, anything is better then zero.. its not fair for the pools to get rewards when they ignore transactions.

Ruhtilg

full member

Activity: 151

Merit: 100

Quote from: aarons6 on February 07, 2016, 03:20:52 AM

i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.

this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.

I agree with this proposal. The resource in bitcoin is limited, we have to use it properly.

But what is the lowest limit of the acceptable block, 10 transactions or 50 transaction?

Topic: Blocks are full. - page 6. (Read 14931 times)