My wag is that nodes are run by persons, who have at least average bandwidth and average hardware.
I have bitcoin core running on my PC. Of course I could go to garage and dig my ten years old laptop for this, but why.
If this is the main reason not to implement larger block size, it sounds very far reached.
Topic: Blocksize - free market or managed economy? (Read 845 times)
Our network is being run on the back of laptops from the 90s and 35 dollar Raspberry_Pi computers the size of credit cards that don't have enough RAM to hold backlogs of the Mempool (the waiting list of bitcoin)
Our users are connecting to this network over very low bandwidth connections preventing them from running full nodes and participating in securing the network. Raising the block size would raise the bandwidth and hardware requirements for all full node client users and miners.
Our users are connecting to this network over very low bandwidth connections preventing them from running full nodes and participating in securing the network. Raising the block size would raise the bandwidth and hardware requirements for all full node client users and miners.
Is that the case? Can you point to statistics on the hardware capabilities of currently running full nodes?
Our network is being run on the back of laptops from the 90s and 35 dollar Raspberry_Pi computers the size of credit cards that don't have enough RAM to hold backlogs of the Mempool (the waiting list of bitcoin)
Our users are connecting to this network over very low bandwidth connections preventing them from running full nodes and participating in securing the network. Raising the block size would raise the bandwidth and hardware requirements for all full node client users and miners.
Our users are connecting to this network over very low bandwidth connections preventing them from running full nodes and participating in securing the network. Raising the block size would raise the bandwidth and hardware requirements for all full node client users and miners.
Could you please explain to newbie, what is the problem with increasing block size? What harm would it make, if block size was e.g. 2Mb?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy
orphan rate amplification is somehow be addressed with the implementation of subchain
i think some of those concerns are not even a real threat, they are a bit magnified...primarily satoshi has limited it for ddos issues
From that article "Larger blocks make full nodes more expensive to operate". This refers to running Bitcoin core, right?
What difference would it make, if block is 1 or 2 Mb?
probably related to bandwith, but they are not talking about real numbers for every of those point, i'm sure they are not a big concern, we have no full node in any case, with or without a block limit, so for me it looks like pure fud
Could you please explain to newbie, what is the problem with increasing block size? What harm would it make, if block size was e.g. 2Mb?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy
orphan rate amplification is somehow be addressed with the implementation of subchain
i think some of those concerns are not even a real threat, they are a bit magnified...primarily satoshi has limited it for ddos issues
From that article "Larger blocks make full nodes more expensive to operate". This refers to running Bitcoin core, right?
What difference would it make, if block is 1 or 2 Mb?
Quantus: This is going off-topic a bit, but the network isn't free by a long shot. Mining costs, currently, roughly 10% of the stored value yearly. This is mainly because of the block subsidy and has been enabled by strong long-term growth in BTC valuation. I don't see that the cost can remain anywhere near that high in the long run, in percentage terms. Either the network manages to remain secure with substantially smaller expense or the POW solution turns out to be too expensive for most use cases.
substantially smaller expense will be achieved in many ways. Hosting of full nodes will drop over time (cloud hosting will be next to free in 10 years) and as long as our mining networks are evenly distributed they will stay on the cutting edge of technology preventing failure from within or an attack from a small to medium actor, However you are right we will grow more acceptable to attack by government bodies and large corporations, with luck we will gain public acceptance preventing open attacks on the network, forcing government to attack us overtly and risking public outcry if exposed. This public shaming may protect us from developed democratic nations.
Could you please explain to newbie, what is the problem with increasing block size? What harm would it make, if block size was e.g. 2Mb?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy
orphan rate amplification is somehow be addressed with the implementation of subchain
i think some of those concerns are not even a real threat, they are a bit magnified...primarily satoshi has limited it for ddos issues
the question was what constitutes sufficient hash rate.
Its not about the hash rate of the network. The hash rate has nothing to do with it.
Its about the even distribution of cutting edge mining hardware between as many actors as possible on a fair (low latency) network.
Its not about the hash rate of the network. The hash rate has nothing to do with it.
Its about the even distribution of cutting edge mining hardware between as many actors as possible on a fair (low latency) network.
"Wouldn't a growing user base cause the fee to increase as more people fight for the limited space in the block? We're talking about an increasing demand on a fixed supply of block space, right?"
no. We raise the block size as fees grow not before. We will need to balance (limit) adoption rate in the short term with network stability; we will do this with higher fees.
no. We raise the block size as fees grow not before. We will need to balance (limit) adoption rate in the short term with network stability; we will do this with higher fees.
again you guys are being defeatist. We may one day find a way to get consensus to adjust fees by minuscule amounts (fractions of a percent) but right now we just need to educate people. Once we have enough users and a better World wide web to support our network fees and block size won't be such a big issue because once the block rewards are gone miners will be processing millions of transactions every hour with minimal fees that together will be more then sufficient. But to get to that far off future we must survive and to do that we need high fees and low network latency.
Could you please explain to newbie, what is the problem with increasing block size? What harm would it make, if block size was e.g. 2Mb?
Once we hit the 1mb limit nothing will happen other then threw natural selection micro payments and spam will be pushed off the network and fees will start to creep up by a few cents.
Over time IF our user base continues to grow those fees will rise but not by much
Over time IF our user base continues to grow those fees will rise but not by much
Interesting theory. I suppose that either the block size will change, or we'll find out if you're right. A simple thought experiment seems to indicate that your concept is pretty unlikely, but I guess time will tell.
if fees grow to fast we can raise the block size slightly and i mean slightly to keep fees within a range needed to maintain the mining community and yet not adversely affect adoption.
Given how contentious and fractured the opinions are on this matter, it is extremely unlikely that a consensus would form fast enough to respond to the growth. It seem far more likely that a lot of discussion and arguing would ensue and that the lack of consensus would just keep the block sizes at 1 MB while the fees continue to rise at an exponentially faster rate until bitcoin becomes useless to the average citizen and only useful as a settlement mechanism for VERY large bitcoin holding businesses (essentially bitcoin banks). Most user transactions would be pushed "off-chain" where they will need to rely on trust in these "bitcoin banks" to handle their transactions at more reasonable fees.
That inflection point I believe will be around 1 to 5 USD for the next 2 or 3 years
Perhaps. My guess is that it will be more than $100. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
but after this IF our user base continues to grow at its current rate it could drop back down to 50 cents.
Wouldn't a growing user base cause the fee to increase as more people fight for the limited space in the block? We're talking about an increasing demand on a fixed supply of block space, right?
Anyhow, I'm not talking about what we have now, I'm wondering what level of policy intervention people expect to be required in the long term.
Quantus: This is going off-topic a bit, but the network isn't free by a long shot. Mining costs, currently, roughly 10% of the stored value yearly. This is mainly because of the block subsidy and has been enabled by strong long-term growth in BTC valuation. I don't see that the cost can remain anywhere near that high in the long run, in percentage terms. Either the network manages to remain secure with substantially smaller expense or the POW solution turns out to be too expensive for most use cases.
Quantus:
What metrics are you basing this on? How do we determine sufficient hashrate or sufficient nodecount?
DannyHamilton:
I'd argue the free market has decided that 1 MB is currently best, as weighed against the threat of a hard fork, which is essentially a political issue. Had Satoshi not switched to a block cap, it seems to me we'd have less political consideration and more latitude for market forces.
Holliday:
That's a fair point, and in practice we are trusting the free market to do just that. There's an element of game theory in play there, similar to why I think miners haven't switched to bigger blocks even though many of them have signalled they support the idea: They have to deal with the human element.
Theymos posted a reply on Reddit recently in which he asked:
"What happened to the dream of a currency untouchable by human failings and corruption?"
And unfortunately, it is beginning to seem to me that this experiment we're all running is starting to show you simply can't achieve that.
What metrics are you basing this on? How do we determine sufficient hashrate or sufficient nodecount?
DannyHamilton:
I'd argue the free market has decided that 1 MB is currently best, as weighed against the threat of a hard fork, which is essentially a political issue. Had Satoshi not switched to a block cap, it seems to me we'd have less political consideration and more latitude for market forces.
Holliday:
That's a fair point, and in practice we are trusting the free market to do just that. There's an element of game theory in play there, similar to why I think miners haven't switched to bigger blocks even though many of them have signalled they support the idea: They have to deal with the human element.
Theymos posted a reply on Reddit recently in which he asked:
"What happened to the dream of a currency untouchable by human failings and corruption?"
And unfortunately, it is beginning to seem to me that this experiment we're all running is starting to show you simply can't achieve that.
Your being defeatist, its not all or nothing, just because we can't have it all today dose not mean we should give up. We are only now beginning to understand these difficulties, in time we'll overcome them. Besides if you got everything you ever wanted you'd probably be miserable.
If it is, is that a problem?
By that metric, isn't coin base reward halving also central planning? Shouldn't we trust the free market to decrease or increase block production (and therefor coin production) as it sees fit?
By that metric, isn't coin base reward halving also central planning? Shouldn't we trust the free market to decrease or increase block production (and therefor coin production) as it sees fit?
Yep. There's two ways to look at it.
Either many of the rules of bitcoin equate to "central planning":
- Block size limit
- Block reward value
- Block difficulty
- Average block time
- Definition of a "valid" transaction
- Transaction relay requirements
Or all of those values have already been chosen by the free-market. The market could modify any of those rules within bitcoin, or could create an alt-coin that would be more popular than bitcoin if it weren't already responsible for those rules being kept exactly as they are.
The fact that the free-market chose the values and rules associated with bitcoin doesn't necessarily mean that they are the best possible set of rules that a cryptocurrency could have. It is entirely possible that we will discover that an unregulated free market makes horrible decisions when it comes to the structure of a cryptocurrency, but that's why bitcoin is often referred to as an "experiment" in "beta" phase.
Quantus:
What metrics are you basing this on? How do we determine sufficient hashrate or sufficient nodecount?
DannyHamilton:
I'd argue the free market has decided that 1 MB is currently best, as weighed against the threat of a hard fork, which is essentially a political issue. Had Satoshi not switched to a block cap, it seems to me we'd have less political consideration and more latitude for market forces.
Holliday:
That's a fair point, and in practice we are trusting the free market to do just that. There's an element of game theory in play there, similar to why I think miners haven't switched to bigger blocks even though many of them have signalled they support the idea: They have to deal with the human element.
Theymos posted a reply on Reddit recently in which he asked:
"What happened to the dream of a currency untouchable by human failings and corruption?"
And unfortunately, it is beginning to seem to me that this experiment we're all running is starting to show you simply can't achieve that.
What metrics are you basing this on? How do we determine sufficient hashrate or sufficient nodecount?
DannyHamilton:
I'd argue the free market has decided that 1 MB is currently best, as weighed against the threat of a hard fork, which is essentially a political issue. Had Satoshi not switched to a block cap, it seems to me we'd have less political consideration and more latitude for market forces.
Holliday:
That's a fair point, and in practice we are trusting the free market to do just that. There's an element of game theory in play there, similar to why I think miners haven't switched to bigger blocks even though many of them have signalled they support the idea: They have to deal with the human element.
Theymos posted a reply on Reddit recently in which he asked:
"What happened to the dream of a currency untouchable by human failings and corruption?"
And unfortunately, it is beginning to seem to me that this experiment we're all running is starting to show you simply can't achieve that.
Once we hit the 1mb limit nothing will happen other then threw natural selection micro payments and spam will be pushed off the network and fees will start to creep up by a few cents.
Over time IF our user base continues to grow those fees will rise but not by much if fees grow to fast we can raise the block size slightly and i mean slightly to keep fees within a range needed to maintain the mining community and yet not adversely affect adoption. That inflection point I believe will be around 1 to 5 USD for the next 2 or 3 years but after this IF our user base continues to grow at its current rate it could drop back down to 50 cents. In time Mores law will insure we get a better network and a better world wide web and our cost to maintain the network will go down even if fees don't go up. In time even if nothing else changes will have a next to free network.
Over time IF our user base continues to grow those fees will rise but not by much if fees grow to fast we can raise the block size slightly and i mean slightly to keep fees within a range needed to maintain the mining community and yet not adversely affect adoption. That inflection point I believe will be around 1 to 5 USD for the next 2 or 3 years but after this IF our user base continues to grow at its current rate it could drop back down to 50 cents. In time Mores law will insure we get a better network and a better world wide web and our cost to maintain the network will go down even if fees don't go up. In time even if nothing else changes will have a next to free network.
- snip -
this would lead to even more benefits for the large pools
- snip -
this would lead to even more benefits for the large pools
- snip -
I'm not sure if this thread is just "yet another discussion about whether the 1 MB cap is good or bad" or if this is a discussion about free-market and whether bitcoin as an unregulated free-market device can be successful?
Regardless...
If blocks larger than 1 MB would "lead to benefits for large pools", then the block size would already be increased. The reason that the block size isn't increased yet is because the largest pools don't feel that doing so would benefit them. It would only require for a few of the largest pools to decide together that a larger blocksize would be better, and they'd be able to force it on everyone.
Am I wrong? Does blocksize capping not equate to central planning?
If it is, is that a problem?
By that metric, isn't coin base reward halving also central planning? Shouldn't we trust the free market to decrease or increase block production (and therefor coin production) as it sees fit?
Jump to: