Blocksize needs to be increased now. - page 10.

AtheistAKASaneBrain

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Quote from: RealBitcoin on December 16, 2015, 12:22:48 PM

Quote from: franky1 on December 16, 2015, 09:14:56 AM

Quote from: Cryptology on December 13, 2015, 02:11:05 AM

We are reaching the blocksize limit fast and delays in confirming transactions with standards fees is becoming noticeable. A consensus needs to be found quickly otherwise Bitcoin is going to choke in unconfirmed transactions soon.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7×pan=all&scale=1&address=

try this
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

looks less scary and only averages 62.5% full.. still plenty of room for a little while

Are you guys stupid or what?

I saw plenty of arguments that its only half full and bla bla.

But why wait? Why risk bitcoin being sabotaged because of this? When your car is heading towards the edge of the cliff you wait for the last second to press the breaks or you do it 1 hour earlier?

Fuck it guys, blocksize should be at least 8 MB now, you guys are big risk takers that go for last second uppgrade.

Bitcoin should be planned ahead, and if this pace continues we will be at full by January, so there is not time to discuss this, we had already 6 years to prepare for it.

Because raising the blocksize to 8MB out of nowhere is way more risky than staying with 1 while we search for ways to scale Bitcoin properly (raising the blocksize will never properly scale Bitcoin, not without something like LN). We don't want datacenters running nodes, we want to be able to run nodes on a single computer, what's so hard to get about this? That's the real sabotage, centralized nodes.

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

Quote from: RealBitcoin on December 16, 2015, 03:01:22 PM

-snip-
Well the hard limit is the average internet bandwidth around the world *10 minutes.

Which is alot. Even if you have a shitty 1 mb/s modem you can carry 600 mb /10 min.

Now maybe that info needs to propagate through the network so give it like 9 min to do so. Even then you can easily put 60 mb under current internet.

And in the future you will see an increase in internet. Cable internet is not needed anymore, so even from africa with good wifi you can use bitcoin.

I have 100mb/s internet, so for me the 1 mb/s block seems ridiculous Cheesy

Your connection is not actually average. As shown by the picture, its not even average for your area. Also keep in mind that if you estimate 1mb/s you can not look at only blocks. I had days with ~23GiB traffic per day on my node, thats (23*1024)/144 ~ 163 MiB per 10 minutes. You are not part of the network if you only receive blocks you also have to relay transactions as well as blocks.

I still agree that we need bigger blocks or more efficient ways to store transactions. Im just against rushing to hard fork solution. As it currently looks segwit could increase size in blocks without a hard fork, by introducing a new transaction/address type. This can be done by soft fork, which is a known process and does not require everyone on the planet to update at the same time.

BTC LOVER

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Bitcoin for the Charity :)

it looks like the Bitcoin is rising in every chart Wink

I dont think this will do so far pressure on the BTC

regards
BTC LOVER

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1009

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: Cryptology on December 16, 2015, 02:50:29 PM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on December 16, 2015, 02:40:49 PM

Well the blocksize will always have to be increased, probably an automatic blocksize increase should be implemented in the protocol, say double every 4 years.

Either way if bitcoin adoption kicks in, a 1 MB size will be unfeasable, and even the current solution to make blocksize more efficient is also kickiing the can down the road.

The same with the lightning network and the other stuff, we all know block size has to be bigger, either by conserving space or raising the limit.

That makes a lot of sense sense. There must be a hard limit in the amount of efficiency you can achieve particularly when it gets to packing information into the blockchain.
The best solution probably is to chase both bigger space and efficiency. In other words moderately and gently increase block size to allow all network nodes to adapts while looking for protocol improvements like segregated witness to achieve better information storing and transmission efficiency.

Well the hard limit is the average internet bandwidth around the world *10 minutes.

Which is alot. Even if you have a shitty 1 mb/s modem you can carry 600 mb /10 min.

Now maybe that info needs to propagate through the network so give it like 9 min to do so. Even then you can easily put 60 mb under current internet.

And in the future you will see an increase in internet. Cable internet is not needed anymore, so even from africa with good wifi you can use bitcoin.

I have 100mb/s internet, so for me the 1 mb/s block seems ridiculous Cheesy

Cryptology

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1001

In Cryptography We Trust

Quote from: RealBitcoin on December 16, 2015, 02:40:49 PM

Well the blocksize will always have to be increased, probably an automatic blocksize increase should be implemented in the protocol, say double every 4 years.

Either way if bitcoin adoption kicks in, a 1 MB size will be unfeasable, and even the current solution to make blocksize more efficient is also kickiing the can down the road.

The same with the lightning network and the other stuff, we all know block size has to be bigger, either by conserving space or raising the limit.

That makes a lot of sense sense. There must be a hard limit in the amount of efficiency you can achieve particularly when it gets to packing information into the blockchain.
The best solution probably is to chase both bigger space and efficiency. In other words moderately and gently increase block size to allow all network nodes to adapts while looking for protocol improvements like segregated witness to achieve better information storing and transmission efficiency.

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1009

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: shorena on December 16, 2015, 01:38:12 PM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on December 16, 2015, 12:22:48 PM

-snip-
Are you guys stupid or what?

I saw plenty of arguments that its only half full and bla bla.

But why wait? Why risk bitcoin being sabotaged because of this? When your car is heading towards the edge of the cliff you wait for the last second to press the breaks or you do it 1 hour earlier?

Fuck it guys, blocksize should be at least 8 MB now, you guys are big risk takers that go for last second uppgrade.

Bitcoin should be planned ahead, and if this pace continues we will be at full by January, so there is not time to discuss this, we had already 6 years to prepare for it.

Are you aware of your contradictions? Just increasing the blocksize is nothing more than kicking down the can. Now that the topic is discussed it makes sense to find a long term solution (if possible) instead of rushing head first in the next best thing.

Well the blocksize will always have to be increased, probably an automatic blocksize increase should be implemented in the protocol, say double every 4 years.

Either way if bitcoin adoption kicks in, a 1 MB size will be unfeasable, and even the current solution to make blocksize more efficient is also kickiing the can down the road.

The same with the lightning network and the other stuff, we all know block size has to be bigger, either by conserving space or raising the limit.

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

Quote from: RealBitcoin on December 16, 2015, 12:22:48 PM

-snip-
Are you guys stupid or what?

I saw plenty of arguments that its only half full and bla bla.

But why wait? Why risk bitcoin being sabotaged because of this? When your car is heading towards the edge of the cliff you wait for the last second to press the breaks or you do it 1 hour earlier?

Fuck it guys, blocksize should be at least 8 MB now, you guys are big risk takers that go for last second uppgrade.

Bitcoin should be planned ahead, and if this pace continues we will be at full by January, so there is not time to discuss this, we had already 6 years to prepare for it.

Are you aware of your contradictions? Just increasing the blocksize is nothing more than kicking down the can. Now that the topic is discussed it makes sense to find a long term solution (if possible) instead of rushing head first in the next best thing.

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1009

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: franky1 on December 16, 2015, 09:14:56 AM

Quote from: Cryptology on December 13, 2015, 02:11:05 AM

We are reaching the blocksize limit fast and delays in confirming transactions with standards fees is becoming noticeable. A consensus needs to be found quickly otherwise Bitcoin is going to choke in unconfirmed transactions soon.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7×pan=all&scale=1&address=

try this
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

looks less scary and only averages 62.5% full.. still plenty of room for a little while

Are you guys stupid or what?

I saw plenty of arguments that its only half full and bla bla.

But why wait? Why risk bitcoin being sabotaged because of this? When your car is heading towards the edge of the cliff you wait for the last second to press the breaks or you do it 1 hour earlier?

Fuck it guys, blocksize should be at least 8 MB now, you guys are big risk takers that go for last second uppgrade.

Bitcoin should be planned ahead, and if this pace continues we will be at full by January, so there is not time to discuss this, we had already 6 years to prepare for it.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: Cryptology on December 13, 2015, 02:11:05 AM

We are reaching the blocksize limit fast and delays in confirming transactions with standards fees is becoming noticeable. A consensus needs to be found quickly otherwise Bitcoin is going to choke in unconfirmed transactions soon.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7×pan=all&scale=1&address=

try this
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

looks less scary and only averages 62.5% full.. still plenty of room for a little while

JeWay

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 503

Quote from: Cryptology on December 14, 2015, 04:52:28 AM

I would personally feel more comfortable with a small blocksize increase that will buy more time for new ideas to be properly researched and tested. Bitcoin is probably one of the most scrutinized systems for security holes and one major security hole is all it would take to bring down market capitalization to 0.

This is totally right, this kind of change should be research and tested properly.

mezzomix

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1261

Quote from: Cryptology on December 14, 2015, 04:52:28 AM

I would personally feel more comfortable with a small blocksize increase that will buy more time for new ideas to be properly researched and tested.

Me too. I'm not happy with solutions that try to create limits for the next 20 years and I don't like complicated solutions with miners adapting the limits dynamically. The miners already decide about the soft limit. This is good enough - we don't need to provide more capabilities to those 5-10 miners.

Karartma1

legendary

Activity: 2310

Merit: 1422

Quote from: Cryptology on December 14, 2015, 04:52:28 AM

I would personally feel more comfortable with a small blocksize increase that will buy more time for new ideas to be properly researched and tested. Bitcoin is probably one of the most scrutinized systems for security holes and one major security hole is all it would take to bring down market capitalization to 0.

Makes sense.

In either case, searching up and down in the forum about the issue I found a very interesting discussion about blocksize which dates back to 2010. I personally found the blocksize automatic adjustment quite good. I don't know how it will work today though.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/block-size-limit-automatic-adjustment-1865

Cryptology

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1001

In Cryptography We Trust

Here is the link to the presentation of this idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fst1IK_mrng#t=36m

The basic idea is to make a more efficient use of the blockchain and based on the sponsor himself be able to pack 4X transactions in the same amount of blockchain space. That makes sense as long as security is not weakened. How long will it take to properly test this innovation? From the presentation at 59'55'' "All of what I've been talking about is implemented as a prototype is not quite ready for production right now." When will it be ready?

I would personally feel more comfortable with a small blocksize increase that will buy more time for new ideas to be properly researched and tested. Bitcoin is probably one of the most scrutinized systems for security holes and one major security hole is all it would take to bring down market capitalization to 0.

eternalgloom

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1283

Quote from: Cryptology on December 13, 2015, 02:11:05 AM

We are reaching the blocksize limit fast and delays in confirming transactions with standards fees is becoming noticeable. A consensus needs to be found quickly otherwise Bitcoin is going to choke in unconfirmed transactions soon.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7×pan=all&scale=1&address=

How long would it take for something like that to be implemented and decided upon?
I've recently noticed quite a significant delay in confirmation time, sometimes so bad that it's messing up purchases.

Was

member

Activity: 75

Merit: 14

We are Satoshi.

Segregated non solution bandaid solution is not solution developer overhead.

cr1776

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 1313

Quote from: Cryptology on December 13, 2015, 02:52:32 PM

Quote from: cr1776 on December 13, 2015, 08:55:39 AM

Segregated witness

Is there a formal paper regarding "segregated witness"? Sounds like something new. If a new crypto construction is going to be implemented we better make sure it is thoroughly tested and reviewed because we are betting the present and future value of all our bitcoins in that there will be no serious holes.

Some info is here:

http://gavinandresen.ninja/segregated-witness-is-cool
https://news.bitcoin.com/segregated-witness-concept-turning-point-bitcoin/

More links:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13016760

Cryptology

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1001

In Cryptography We Trust

Quote from: cr1776 on December 13, 2015, 08:55:39 AM

Segregated witness

Is there a formal paper regarding "segregated witness"? Sounds like something new. If a new crypto construction is going to be implemented we better make sure it is thoroughly tested and reviewed because we are betting the present and future value of all our bitcoins in that there will be no serious holes.

tl121

sr. member

Activity: 278

Merit: 254

Quote from: TheNebula on December 13, 2015, 06:32:47 AM

If nothing happens all transactions will take much longer which isn't good at all!

It can be worse. If attempted usage continues to increase, some transactions will never complete at all.

cr1776

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 1313

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on December 13, 2015, 08:36:28 AM

Quote from: Cryptology on December 13, 2015, 06:36:35 AM

Quote from: OmegaStarScream on December 13, 2015, 06:31:57 AM

Well , aren't the developers planning to do a debate about this on December ? or it's already done and decided ? If not .. hopefully they will agree on something this time .

There was a workshop last weekend on this topic but I'm not sure if there was much progress. At least I haven't been able to find any indication that a consensus was found but I really hope I'm wrong.

Dude they presented signature witness and it was pretty huge, look it up it's a pretty cool feature that will give us time to scale it a bit while LN cooks up. I think there is nothing to fear for now. I have no idea when sigwit will be operative tho, but I think it should be rather soon, maybe in 0.12.

Segregated witness

AtheistAKASaneBrain

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Quote from: Cryptology on December 13, 2015, 06:36:35 AM

Quote from: OmegaStarScream on December 13, 2015, 06:31:57 AM

Well , aren't the developers planning to do a debate about this on December ? or it's already done and decided ? If not .. hopefully they will agree on something this time .

There was a workshop last weekend on this topic but I'm not sure if there was much progress. At least I haven't been able to find any indication that a consensus was found but I really hope I'm wrong.

Dude they presented signature witness and it was pretty huge, look it up it's a pretty cool feature that will give us time to scale it a bit while LN cooks up. I think there is nothing to fear for now. I have no idea when sigwit will be operative tho, but I think it should be rather soon, maybe in 0.12.

Topic: Blocksize needs to be increased now. - page 10. (Read 25131 times)