And thanks a lot to whoever ... for being so generous.
Have a good weekend!
Topic: Blocksize growth - Extrapolation attempts: 1 linear & 2 polynomial fits (Read 1077 times)
June 27, 2015, 09:41:24 AM
Thanks, that is lovely, indeed.
And thanks a lot to whoever ... for being so generous.
Have a good weekend!
And thanks a lot to whoever ... for being so generous.
Have a good weekend!
June 17, 2015, 12:49:27 PM
hey Suldan,
thanks for these good infos and your work! you should stay here in the community
LCG
thanks for these good infos and your work! you should stay here in the community
LCG
June 17, 2015, 12:37:58 PM
No, they haven't.
Thanks for your style police hints, anyways.
Thanks for your style police hints, anyways.
June 13, 2015, 04:57:16 PM
https://i.imgur.com/QDQcduO.png
...
Picture URL --> https://i.imgur.com/F9F3mLh.png (862 x 3800 pixels)
Picture URL -->https://i.imgur.com/QDQcduO.png (862 x 3466 pixels)
...
Edit2: Changed the font size of the donation text.
...
Picture URL -->https://i.imgur.com/QDQcduO.png (862 x 3466 pixels)
...
Edit2: Changed the font size of the donation text.
Now I have changed the font size of the donation text.
Let us see if the font size was relevant,
and people start donating/tweeting now.
June 11, 2015, 01:24:43 PM
Also you hijacked your data from blockchain.info, yet purposely cut out any sign they collected the data.
No, why would I? I was happy to find that data. And then started working with it, for many hours, of my own time.
I provided all of my work for free here, and just asked those who are different from you, to donate if they feel to do that.
The source is clearly named in there. Line three in the picture:
"data from: https://blockchain.info/charts..."
every single one of your posts is the same thing and asking/begging people for money.
Stop spreading lies. I have just posted into 2 related threads to point people to my findings.Gotta tone it down ...
So you are the style police here?... put something like "if you found this useful I would appreciate donations: (Bitcoin address)" in small text.
So I seem to have hurt your aesthetics, sorry for that.
I am happy for you that you are rich, and do not have to ask for donations.
So because of font size, you won't donate even 1 dollarcent. I can live with that.
The donations were 0 so far, anyway.
I don't wanna stifle your enthusiasm
But you did. And successfully. If your world looks better continued without me, then:
Bye.
June 11, 2015, 11:02:21 AM
Excellent material to work with ...
Thanks.Nice analysis ...
Thanks.if bitcoin continue to grow at exponential rate
I do not see that in the data. At least not in the block size growth.I call bullshit on exponential projections.
Yes. Just to be clear, polynomial is not exponential.
Of course, there is clear a jump between the "no one knows bitcoin" and the "people start to use bitcoin", somewhen around PizzaDay.
But since then there is little upwards curvature, and if so, then it seems mainly quadratic? Look at the really low coefficients for the cubic term.
If bitcoin adoption does lead to exponential growth in the average blocksize, then that phase is probably still in the future?
In the end, it is a bit hard to judge, by the available data. To distinguish growth curves by only seeing the beginning is non-trivial.
That's interesting material
Thanks!, thanks for posting. It would be interesting to do curve fitting with data at different points in time (in the past), to see if the optimal fit has changed since then.
Support me, and I can afford to keep working on it: 1EXmi79gMCSW9oKd1FhKPo57zg9wvau813 Also tweeting the picture helps, perhaps other sponsors will be found?
If it really starts to boom, of course we will see an exponential increase. If not, a linear approach is probably better. Most likely the exponential phase will start a bit later.
That's what I think, too. I was actually surprised to see a clearly linear phase in the data, and over such a long time range.
Before I looked at it, I would have expected a more curved evolution. That surprise was the main motivation to post this.
June 11, 2015, 02:53:49 AM
I remember an interview where Gavin explains that it takes time to implement the block size change so you have to get the process started well in advance. If you need months of lead time then you have to be more careful with calculating block size usage. This is why he wants to push forward in stead of waiting, because if we wait then it might be too late to increase the block size by the time it is needed.
still 20 seems excessive, 8-10 would be a better starting point, then just double it wehn you reach 50% saturation, it should suffice, for not come late for it
it is obvious that from 0 to 1 the time was large, but from 1 to 10 expect 2-3 years to saturate it, and from 10 to 20 expect even less, if bitcoin continue to grow at exponential rate
so 5 years for 20mb should be about right
But the goal should be finding a way to avoid more hard forks. Can we really afford a hard fork in 2-3 years, let alone 10 to 20 years when Bitcoin will be insanely huge? We can do this now because we are on the early days. The further in the future the more of a problem it becomes.
you can automate it with an algorithm in the code, of the client, thus removing the necessity to do a hard fork everytime the limit is saturated, why they didn't do this before, is beyond me, maybe they didn't find it necessary at that time
June 11, 2015, 02:27:28 AM
I call bullshit on exponential projections. They never worked out with BTC.
It all depends on adaptation and usage rate. If it really starts to boom, ofcourse we will see an exponential increase. If not, a linear approach is probably better. Most likeley the exponential phase will start a bit later.
June 10, 2015, 09:20:33 PM
I call bullshit on exponential projections. They never worked out with BTC.
But I think it is a really good approximation to what are the limits and why it is necessary a change 
June 10, 2015, 08:32:15 PM
That's interesting material, thanks for posting. It would be interesting to do curve fitting with data at different points in time (in the past), to see if the optimal fit has changed since then.
I think as we get closer to the limit, you will see a decline in growth rate, because spam transactions become less viable due to higher fees.
Any other arguments than a (indirect) Satoshi quote?
ya.ya.yo!
I think as we get closer to the limit, you will see a decline in growth rate, because spam transactions become less viable due to higher fees.
We need to increase the block size. Satoshi himself stated that the 1 MB block size was only temporary.
Any other arguments than a (indirect) Satoshi quote?
ya.ya.yo!
June 10, 2015, 08:27:08 PM
I call bullshit on exponential projections. They never worked out with BTC.
June 10, 2015, 05:48:28 PM
I remember an interview where Gavin explains that it takes time to implement the block size change so you have to get the process started well in advance. If you need months of lead time then you have to be more careful with calculating block size usage. This is why he wants to push forward in stead of waiting, because if we wait then it might be too late to increase the block size by the time it is needed.
still 20 seems excessive, 8-10 would be a better starting point, then just double it wehn you reach 50% saturation, it should suffice, for not come late for it
it is obvious that from 0 to 1 the time was large, but from 1 to 10 expect 2-3 years to saturate it, and from 10 to 20 expect even less, if bitcoin continue to grow at exponential rate
so 5 years for 20mb should be about right
But the goal should be finding a way to avoid more hard forks. Can we really afford a hard fork in 2-3 years, let alone 10 to 20 years when Bitcoin will be insanely huge? We can do this now because we are on the early days. The further in the future the more of a problem it becomes.
June 10, 2015, 12:36:14 PM
We need to increase the block size. Satoshi himself stated that the 1 MB block size was only temporary.
June 10, 2015, 04:59:15 AM
I remember an interview where Gavin explains that it takes time to implement the block size change so you have to get the process started well in advance. If you need months of lead time then you have to be more careful with calculating block size usage. This is why he wants to push forward in stead of waiting, because if we wait then it might be too late to increase the block size by the time it is needed.
still 20 seems excessive, 8-10 would be a better starting point, then just double it wehn you reach 50% saturation, it should suffice, for not come late for it
it is obvious that from 0 to 1 the time was large, but from 1 to 10 expect 2-3 years to saturate it, and from 10 to 20 expect even less, if bitcoin continue to grow at exponential rate
so 5 years for 20mb should be about right
June 09, 2015, 09:35:58 PM
I remember an interview where Gavin explains that it takes time to implement the block size change so you have to get the process started well in advance. If you need months of lead time then you have to be more careful with calculating block size usage. This is why he wants to push forward in stead of waiting, because if we wait then it might be too late to increase the block size by the time it is needed.
June 09, 2015, 09:06:55 PM
Nice analysis, I think the gavin's change would be the best and your analysis proves it
If bitcoin use grows we can even get over that 20mb blocks in some years
If bitcoin use grows we can even get over that 20mb blocks in some years
June 09, 2015, 06:23:30 PM
Well, based on your extrapolations, it looks like we are going to need a block size increase in about a year and a half. The 20 MB limit won't be reached for another 20-ish years hopefully, and that should be ample time to find a new solution that scales better.
June 09, 2015, 06:08:12 PM
Excellent material to work with, but as you mentioned, you can never predict the hivemind which can trigger massive hysteria and mainstream adoption can start in a bubble type ascension, which is why im a proponent of raising the blocksize limit quick, every day with a limited blocksize without a solution is a big risk..
June 09, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
The average blocksize is growing. Seemingly ~linearly for the past two years:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2year&daysAverageString=60
This is the full 6-years picture:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&daysAverageString=100
It is hard to predict how this curve will continue. Still
I tried a least-squares-fit in Excel, of the linear part.
And then to account for some curvature, I added 2 polynomial fits, with different starting points.
And I extrapolated all three into the future.
https://i.imgur.com/QDQcduO.png
Feel free to share/tweet/post this picture, as long as the donation QR codes stay in it. Thanks.
Picture URL --> https://i.imgur.com/F9F3mLh.png (862 x 3800 pixels)
Picture URL -->https://i.imgur.com/QDQcduO.png (862 x 3466 pixels)
Greetings!
---
Edit:
Only a very rough approximation. And most importantly an extrapolation - which for disruptive technologies makes not much sense, of course. If Bitcoin went mainstream, that curve would immediately change its shape, and all extrapolations are useless. Still I wanted to see the numbers. TL;DR: Linearity is tame. :-)
---
Edit2: Changed the font size of the donation text.
---
Edit3:
Please be generous.
Thanks.
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2year&daysAverageString=60
This is the full 6-years picture:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&daysAverageString=100
It is hard to predict how this curve will continue. Still
I tried a least-squares-fit in Excel, of the linear part.
And then to account for some curvature, I added 2 polynomial fits, with different starting points.
And I extrapolated all three into the future.
https://i.imgur.com/QDQcduO.png
Feel free to share/tweet/post this picture, as long as the donation QR codes stay in it. Thanks.
Picture URL -->https://i.imgur.com/QDQcduO.png (862 x 3466 pixels)
Greetings!
---
Edit:
Only a very rough approximation. And most importantly an extrapolation - which for disruptive technologies makes not much sense, of course. If Bitcoin went mainstream, that curve would immediately change its shape, and all extrapolations are useless. Still I wanted to see the numbers. TL;DR: Linearity is tame. :-)
---
Edit2: Changed the font size of the donation text.
---
Edit3:
Please be generous.
Thanks.
Jump to: