Topic: Gavin Andresen Proposes Bitcoin Hard Fork to Address Network Scalability - page 7. (Read 18399 times)

It's a simple matter of having the miner send one (or more) of his unspent txouts to a new txout -- which he also controls, of course.  He can even put in a generous tx fee -- because he's the miner and he'll collect it.  They won't cost him anything even if another miner gets the block.  The other  miner hasn't heard about them yet (because the guy bloating blocks didn't broadcast them), hence the attacker won't even owe any tx fees. 

So, yes, in principle a miner can bloat a block with as many bogus transactions as he wants, it won't cost him a darn thing to do so beyond the possibility that his huge block broadcasts more slowly and gets orphaned, and there's really not much anybody can do to stop him. 

I just worry about the negative impact when the hard fork is taking place especially put into consideration the size of network we are having right now. I mean what if somebody plans a out scheme that manipulates the network during the switch over. But then if we think again, if we don't do it now, then the question is when are we going to do it. As the network grows there can never be the right time.... and we really need to plan, prepare and anticipate for the future.

I meant how would the attack be done...

This has already been addressed by Gavins original post. Maximum Block size would for example grow 50% per year to allow for more transactions in each block, per year, while still keeping storage costs relatively low. A totally unrestricted block size has never been spoken about.

This is absolutely ridiculous, your logic is that making bitcoin more widely available for business in general is a bad thing? Supporting more transactions is a bad thing? A growing community is a bad thing? Having bitcoin successful is a bad thing?

As long as the protocol maintains it's decentralization no external businesses can influence the protocol in any bad way. Read up how all this works and then get back and reply.

How exactly would this be done? Where are these transactions coming from? Could this "bloating" attack be detected and these blocks rejected?

It would be better to prevent this some other way and remove the limit entirely.

WWNSD?

What would Nick Szabo do?

Yes, but the pie is falling closer to our faces while time is passing and volumes climb steadily. This could have been done in 2012 with 3 years delay, or 2013 with 2 years delay...

A hard-fork, where nearly everyone has upgraded first, is a big fat non-event, like January 2000 after the Y2K changes.

So this is still pie in the sky stuff? probably a year off, or something like that?

Ideally the software version which enables scaling should be available a long time before older versions are incompatible, 6 months or even a year, to ensure as many nodes as possible have upgraded before the changes take effect.

So assuming some sort of hard fork will happen here. What timeframe are we looking at?

I agree. I think a lot of people have followed satoshi like a religion and this is a liability to Bitcoin. I don't think the same will be true with Gavin.

I think what he is doing is trying to get a conscious of what the community and Bitcoin stakeholders think would be best instead of trying to get the code changed without any input from anyone else

I've voiced modest (for me) negativity about certain fairly valuable of the developments, but mostly because I am somewhat allergic to complexity.  Ultimately I DO favor developments which can further Bitcon's usefulness in a mediation or backing capacity.  Specifically those which allow providers to pass on the counterparty-free aspects of Bitcoin to their clients and use it in their interactions with one another.  Fortunately there has been some good work in these areas (e.g, p2sh) in addition to the talking paperclip garbage that gets most users and some of our dear friends in the development community all aroused.

The win from successfully attacking Bitcoin is pretty big so there are many skilled people working on the problem and the more features Bitcoin has the less defensible it is.  Mostly being blindsided by some attack mode which was not thought of, and permutations of such attacks grow exponentially with increasing complexity.

To me Bitcoin's biggest strengths are exactly those which bother most people.  The 'batch mode' aspect with highly variable block times, and the tiny messaging size and volumes make it a fiendishly difficult system to mount an enduring attack on (from the infrastructure perspective which is the playing field of state regulators...particularly the U.S. ones.)  Also, it really is a very simple system at the end of the day and this makes it very likely that most realistic attacks would be thwarted quite quickly because the solution would (and could) adapt.  All of these things things could go out the window pretty readily if the solution balloons and/or tries to fill a niche which is at variance with it's native design properties (e.g., near real-time behavior necessary for buying coffee and the like.)

This is an interesting post.  And it conveys one major side of the argument.  For those who TL;DR .....

"Bitcoin doesn't have to do faster transaction times.  Bitcoin is a foundation which can be built on top of.  And a foundation needs to be stable."

My response:  The general public doesn't know that, and is looking at Bitcoin itself to perform these functions.  Then again, there could be a "Visa" for Bitcoin.  After all ... Visa is not the US Dollar.   Visa is a company providing services on a layer above the US Dollar. And it is Visa that is processing 2,000 transactions per second. So there we have a perfect example.

But does that mean Bitcoin itself shouldn't be enhanced?  That's really the question.  If a service layer appeared which provided 2,000 Bitcoin transactions per second, would there be "too much risk" for them to stay in business, with the sometimes 1 hour wait for 6 confirmations?  In the end, that really is the question.  Can a service layer exist on top of bitcoin that meets this need, and still function effectively with the slow speed of Bitcoin itself?  If the answer is yes, then you're right.  No point in messing with the 'foundation'.  If the answer is that slow Bitcoin speed creates extensive risk for any service layer hoping to to 2,000 transactions "off blockchain" .... then Bitcoin needs to be enhanced.

Andreas A. always comments that this is the first programmable money.  Its able to evolve.  Unlike fiat.  So do we make it like fiat and refuse to evolve it?  Or do we take advantage of its programmable qualities?  Obviously change introduces risk of bugs, hacks, etc.  

As for the public currently "expecting Bitcoin itself to do all this stuff" ... we would need to make sure that the "Visa" analogy above is introduced into the public conversation about Bitcoin.  Assuming its a valid analogy.  The fact that "What Bitcoin can't do, can be done as a service layer on top of it"... is just a public education thing.  

The more adventurous side of me says:  Enhance Bitcoin. Make it fucking awesome(r). I think its silly to assume it'll never change over the next hundred years....

-B-

A foundation is an integral part of a house.  Just because on rarely sees it and it does not keep the rain off does not mean that it is not 'being used.'  Indeed, it is probably the most important aspect of a house system since everything else would collapse and fail without it.

Just because every individual's Skittles purchase is not transmitted around the world within seconds and becomes part of a permanent record on multiple storage systems would not necessarily mean that Bitcoin, when used as a foundation upon which other systems are built, would not be 'being used.'  Quite the opposite really.

Not only that, but the foundation of a building structure often derives various benefits and protections by the structure itself.  For instance, those living in the structure take pains to make sure that water flows and pests don't threaten the foundation because it would, in turn, threaten the whole house.

As far as I'm concerned a network of various kinds of off-chain solutions based on a solid foundation is not only about the only chance that Bitcoin has for long-term survival, but also by far the best way to achieve a robust and flexible ecosystem which can adapted to a variety of threats and distributes the benefits to the largest number of end-users.

Gavin basically took over satoshis spot, so I think a lot of people listen to him (as we should) we shouldn't follow him like blind sheep, but do what we have always done, look at what needs to be done, discuss the pros and cons and then go forward. Its not like Gavin makes all the decisions, hes the core developer lead (I think thats his title). He knows his shit and I would listen to him.

there is only one satoshi, and it ain't gavin...  so why should I care 

I also don't care much about 'libertarian ideals or ending government financial system abuse'.  I use USD for 99.9% of my economic activity and am reasonably happy with it as it works fine.  For the 0.1% of things it doesn't work well for I appreciate having options.  And again, am willing to pay well for.

The defining characteristic of government backed fiat monetary solutions is that they have the power of the court system behind them.  This is usually more of a blessing than a curse which is why they are most useful to me.  Bitcoin's original design made it useful without support from the court system support which makes it useful in cases where this support is more of a hindrance than a help, and it also made Bitcoin it a compelling backup solution to fiat.

One of the main problems with fiat have to do with financial services industry meddling at the legislative and judiciary level.  There has never been any love lost between me and TBF and the primary reason is that I always sensed that TBF would usher in the same problems to Bitcoin that the various financial services lobbies present for fiat.

The kinds of value proposition that Bitcoin offers to me in it's present (prototype) stage is huge, and there is a vast pool of individuals and their wealth out there who could leverage the solution in it's present form but do not for various reason.  Simply appealing to this market alone argues for a huge net benefit to society and vastly increased valuations over today's numbers.

I know who you are and I respect your opinion. Do you believe only knowledgable well versed investors are being indoctrinated into Bitcoin? How can we ask even more innocents to buy into a system that they see as a cheap version of a company they trust like Western Union without making it as hardy? Do you believe Hal Finney or Satoshi would have agreed with the rapid spread of Bitcoin without developing solid solutions to issues first? Do you feel this is the solid solution that should be next on the agenda? This has been discussed for a very long time, why is it so important to do it now?


Are you saying this might not even provide the desired effect? A stepped periodic increase is proposed, is that the right way to go?

This is only a concern for those running *full nodes* really (which is no *average Joe*) - so Joe is pretty much *fine*.