Topic: Gavin Andresen Proposes Bitcoin Hard Fork to Address Network Scalability - page 12. (Read 18399 times)
October 11, 2014, 05:30:10 PM
The max block size is only the maximum, miners may continue to mine 200k blocks if they wish. So, transactions volume may never change. We might have to wait until the next reward halving before we see any real benefits of this fork.
October 11, 2014, 04:59:43 PM
Would not the best solution be a dynamic update?
I think this is a good idea but it has other implications as far as network attacks. If no one really knows the size of a block because it is ever adjusting couldn't that be an attack vector?
October 11, 2014, 04:04:48 PM
I remain sceptical on any block size increase, because it promotes centralization of nodes. If Gavin's plan is implemented there will be progressively less full nodes being able or willing to participate in the network because bandwidth and storage requirements are too demanding. A non-conditional yearly 50% increase is a very bold figure. It's not even clear if technology will be able keep up with this rate longer term.
If block size increases really can't be circumvented through other measures, they should not be done in a static irreversible step-by-step increase (comparable to coin issuance) but instead in a dynamic way that allows for increases and decreases based on previous usage (comparable to difficulty adjustment). Doing it that way would allow systemic self-regulation, always providing as much bandwidth as necessary but not (much) more than needed. So some healthy competition between transactions (size, fees) remains in place and resources (bandwidth, storage) are much more likely of being used responsibly and not being wasted.
If block size increases really can't be circumvented through other measures, they should not be done in a static irreversible step-by-step increase (comparable to coin issuance) but instead in a dynamic way that allows for increases and decreases based on previous usage (comparable to difficulty adjustment). Doing it that way would allow systemic self-regulation, always providing as much bandwidth as necessary but not (much) more than needed. So some healthy competition between transactions (size, fees) remains in place and resources (bandwidth, storage) are much more likely of being used responsibly and not being wasted.
Yes. And maybe an exponential moving average of previous usage.
How would something like this affect the 50% miner centralization control of Bitcoin?
October 11, 2014, 03:26:59 PM
Would not the best solution be a dynamic update?
With gavin suggestions we have that max blocksize will become
2014: 1mb
2015: 1.5mb
2016: 2.25mb
2017: 3.375mb
2018: 5.0625
2019: 7.59375
2020: 11.390625
2021: 17.0859375
2022: 25.62890625
2023: 38.44335937
Would it not be better to have something dynamic? I'm not sure how close we're to the current limit of 7tx/sec, but once that approaches, would it not be advised to increase the max blocksize slightly as to give room for the new demand, and then if demands for transaction bandwidth decreases, the max block size is adjusted accordingly?
Perhaps it could be a good idea to prevent the tiniest transactions on the network as well, and push these off to off-chain payment systems? For example, if youtube implemented bitcoin tips in their system, would it not be better that users could deposit a small amount with them, and then tip youtubers as they saw fit, instead of using the block chain to send tiny transactions all the time?
For example, the tiniest amount allowed to send could be 0.0001 BTC, about 0.05USD with today's prices. Would this help reduce the amount of transactions currently being distributed on the bitcoin network?
With gavin suggestions we have that max blocksize will become
2014: 1mb
2015: 1.5mb
2016: 2.25mb
2017: 3.375mb
2018: 5.0625
2019: 7.59375
2020: 11.390625
2021: 17.0859375
2022: 25.62890625
2023: 38.44335937
Would it not be better to have something dynamic? I'm not sure how close we're to the current limit of 7tx/sec, but once that approaches, would it not be advised to increase the max blocksize slightly as to give room for the new demand, and then if demands for transaction bandwidth decreases, the max block size is adjusted accordingly?
Perhaps it could be a good idea to prevent the tiniest transactions on the network as well, and push these off to off-chain payment systems? For example, if youtube implemented bitcoin tips in their system, would it not be better that users could deposit a small amount with them, and then tip youtubers as they saw fit, instead of using the block chain to send tiny transactions all the time?
For example, the tiniest amount allowed to send could be 0.0001 BTC, about 0.05USD with today's prices. Would this help reduce the amount of transactions currently being distributed on the bitcoin network?
October 11, 2014, 03:21:41 PM
It is necessary to allow more transactions to be included in future if Bitcoin has to be used much more, but for now the blocks are filled only by about 20% in average, so I guess the increase doesnt need to be so huge (+50% every year)
October 11, 2014, 03:00:43 PM
I remain sceptical on any block size increase, because it promotes centralization of nodes. If Gavin's plan is implemented there will be progressively less full nodes being able or willing to participate in the network because bandwidth and storage requirements are too demanding. A non-conditional yearly 50% increase is a very bold figure. It's not even clear if technology will be able keep up with this rate longer term.
If block size increases really can't be circumvented through other measures, they should not be done in a static irreversible step-by-step increase (comparable to coin issuance) but instead in a dynamic way that allows for increases and decreases based on previous usage (comparable to difficulty adjustment). Doing it that way would allow systemic self-regulation, always providing as much bandwidth as necessary but not (much) more than needed. So some healthy competition between transactions (size, fees) remains in place and resources (bandwidth, storage) are much more likely of being used responsibly and not being wasted.
If block size increases really can't be circumvented through other measures, they should not be done in a static irreversible step-by-step increase (comparable to coin issuance) but instead in a dynamic way that allows for increases and decreases based on previous usage (comparable to difficulty adjustment). Doing it that way would allow systemic self-regulation, always providing as much bandwidth as necessary but not (much) more than needed. So some healthy competition between transactions (size, fees) remains in place and resources (bandwidth, storage) are much more likely of being used responsibly and not being wasted.
October 11, 2014, 02:40:24 PM
A "hard fork" can be planned in advance giving everyone the time to update the client.
Give it some rest. It's not the end of the world. Calm down, get some pills.
Best regards,
ilpirata79
Give it some rest. It's not the end of the world. Calm down, get some pills.
Best regards,
ilpirata79
October 11, 2014, 02:38:23 PM
lets do it now and not in 1 year or so.
October 11, 2014, 03:23:30 AM
There's discussion going on (with Gavin and others) and more details in this thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-scalability-roadmap-813324
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-scalability-roadmap-813324
October 10, 2014, 11:00:10 PM
Basically I'm not against the idea of having a hard fork. We need to plan for long term solution and accept the fact that one day fees will be the one we'll need to rely on to continue to survive. The question is what the side effects are. Will hackers take advantage during the hard fork or ended up a mess considering the size of bitcoin
October 10, 2014, 10:46:01 PM
I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions? As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested.
Why do people say things like this as if the miners are helpless pawns, unable to decide what goes into their blocks or not?Serious question.
October 10, 2014, 08:11:20 PM
I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions? As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested.
Why do people say things like this as if the miners are helpless pawns, unable to decide what goes into their blocks or not?Serious question.
Because it's easier for people to conceptualize miners as automatons. Them having their own volition and responding to incentives complicates the mechanistic view people tend to take on this issue. It's the same reason economics is so counterintuitive yet so many people have an opinion on it. "We'll just raise the minimum wage, then employers will pay the workers more."
October 10, 2014, 07:54:07 PM
I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions? As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested.
Why do people say things like this as if the miners are helpless pawns, unable to decide what goes into their blocks or not?Serious question.
Because it's easier for people to conceptualize miners as automatons. Them having their own volition and responding to incentives complicates the mechanistic view people tend to take on this issue. It's the same reason economics is so counterintuitive yet so many people have an opinion on it. "We'll just raise the minimum wage, then employers will pay the workers more."
October 09, 2014, 09:27:24 PM
I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions? As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested.
Why do people say things like this as if the miners are helpless pawns, unable to decide what goes into their blocks or not?Serious question.
October 09, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
"Bitcoin Foundation (Master) Chief scientist Gavin Andresen has proposed increasing the number of transactions allowed on the bitcoin network by raising the maximum block size by 50% per year.
I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions? As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested.
October 09, 2014, 08:38:37 AM
"Bitcoin Foundation (Master) Chief scientist Gavin Andresen has proposed increasing the number of transactions allowed on the bitcoin network by raising the maximum block size by 50% per year.
I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions? As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested.
ahhh very interesting point. I knew there were some draw backs to making changes but this was not one that I had considered. If a block size is doubled then it is very possible more junk and low transactions will be included per block. So what if we have someone spamming 1 satoshi again and the block size is 32 MB and 70% of that gets taken up by bs? That would be very interesting to see how that is dealt with.
I suppose another consideration is people operating nodes at an average internet speed would be disadvantaged eventually, which further makes an incentive to make some kind of centralized bitcoin node network. But hopefully internet speeds will be even better and cheaper by the time this would be an issue.
October 08, 2014, 08:38:35 PM
I guess another fork is needed(for those of you who don't know bitcoin was forked before)
Gavin says """
“Agreeing on exactly how to accomplish that goal is where peepz start to disagree – there are lots of possible solutions. Here is my current favorite: roll out a barrel of hard forks that increase the maximum block size, and implement a rule to increase the size of a fork over time, very similar to the rule that decreases the block reward over time.”""
I would tend to agree with a solution that increases or decreases by itself honestly.
Obviously edited the above to be goofy. Read full article here http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-hard-fork/
Gavin says """
“Agreeing on exactly how to accomplish that goal is where peepz start to disagree – there are lots of possible solutions. Here is my current favorite: roll out a barrel of hard forks that increase the maximum block size, and implement a rule to increase the size of a fork over time, very similar to the rule that decreases the block reward over time.”""
I would tend to agree with a solution that increases or decreases by itself honestly.
Obviously edited the above to be goofy. Read full article here http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-hard-fork/
This answers it, there will alway be an orginal bitcoin blockchain available. But the one most people use will be much faster and more efficient and lightweight. It will essentially be akin to cutting the umbilical cord which limits the amount of transactions each second. However it will allow the protocol to trim much older transactions that are not needs to verify if a coin is authentic or not. Once it has been created, spent, and confirmed, you do not really need much more info than that. But you can still decide to keep the previous 5 transactions, or 20 transactions..
The actually bitcoin protocol, as I was once described, would be perhaps only a few weeks behind from the trimmed version, and these other forks would have much more data than the "Visa Debit/Credit Card bitcoin."
But this would likely set it free.
In some sense the main argument made, is that once you fork bitcoin, it is no longer bitcoin, but rather some other alt coin.
If a different alt coin can work within the 21million btc mined and no more, than no they will not fill the gap. Bitcoin can do it on its own. Will the people understand, will they care. Perhaps those are the 'risks' "it comes with some risks"
October 08, 2014, 08:04:56 PM
I figured that a few hard forks would be required during the lifetime of Bitcoin. Its part of the game. You don't know what youll need or when youll need it. So, of course major edits, forks might be required.
Of course it is. It might be required but doesnt mean they need it.
October 08, 2014, 07:20:14 PM
it is obvious a necessary to do this
as bitcoin gets more popular its features need to be adapted to the situation,so this is the most logical next stop
great decissions of Gavin
as bitcoin gets more popular its features need to be adapted to the situation,so this is the most logical next stop
great decissions of Gavin
October 08, 2014, 07:09:53 PM
I figured that a few hard forks would be required during the lifetime of Bitcoin. Its part of the game. You don't know what youll need or when youll need it. So, of course major edits, forks might be required.
Jump to: