i dont think the price should be hiked..all about bitcoin is that,it is preferred over other means of payment is its cheap transaction...
i will go for increase in block as other members are saying.
Topic: Increase block size or increase fees? (Read 3620 times)
On the other hand, for lightweight clients, yes sure we can choose to look at only the most recent part of the chain. (Isn't roughly this what happens in some lightweight clients?)
Lightweight clients only look at transactions where their own addresses are, and sometimes do not even connect to the network themselves but through trusted servers or services. From a network point of view, they're just parasites.
A pruning wallet on the other hand would keep the full data for recent blocks, and for older blocks, only the transactions with unspent coins and just summary block information otherwise.
For the purpose of operating the network, a pruning wallet that keeps one month of full data would be safe and capable enough as long as you do not have a fork that goes back more than a month... but such a fork would already be devastating. In practice, even a fork that goes back a week would be crippling.
Even a pruning wallet keeping just a hundred blocks of full data (ie. safe as long as no fork goes back more than 100 blocks), would already be supportive of the network for all basic blockchain operations, unlike a lightweight wallet it could propagate transactions, provide confirmations count, filter blatant double-spend tx, etc.
Ok, got it! Cheers
Seems like a viable option as well, sort of like a "medium-level" wallet.
On the other hand, for lightweight clients, yes sure we can choose to look at only the most recent part of the chain. (Isn't roughly this what happens in some lightweight clients?)
Lightweight clients only look at transactions where their own addresses are, and sometimes do not even connect to the network themselves but through trusted servers or services. From a network point of view, they're just parasites.
A pruning wallet on the other hand would keep the full data for recent blocks, and for older blocks, only the transactions with unspent coins and just summary block information otherwise.
For the purpose of operating the network, a pruning wallet that keeps one month of full data would be safe and capable enough as long as you do not have a fork that goes back more than a month... but such a fork would already be devastating. In practice, even a fork that goes back a week would be crippling.
Even a pruning wallet keeping just a hundred blocks of full data (ie. safe as long as no fork goes back more than 100 blocks), would already be supportive of the network for all basic blockchain operations, unlike a lightweight wallet it could propagate transactions, provide confirmations count, filter blatant double-spend tx, etc.
-snip-
Also, by "buying time" (with which I totally agree) we might bloat the blockchain right now, making it hundreds of GB whereas a much better solution could be implemented in the future. It is a compromise.
I think that this is wrong and it is not a compromise. We might actually contribute 0 additional GB to the blockchain before other solutions kick in. Without the increase we can't really be sure if the network will be able to handle everything. Also, by "buying time" (with which I totally agree) we might bloat the blockchain right now, making it hundreds of GB whereas a much better solution could be implemented in the future. It is a compromise.
Here are the potential outcomes of what might happen (we're disregarding everything other factors/events that could occur):
1) We don't increase the block size; blocks get capped before other solutions are ready = problems
2) We increase the block size; blocks don't go over 1 MB (yet) meaning 0 (zero) additional increase of GBs to the blockchain (because of the increase)
3) We increase the block size; blocks go over 1 MB resulting in normal transaction behavior and (hopefully) enough time for other solutions.
I see what you mean, however if case 2 was indeed a likely possibility, we wouldn't be here discussing this. More likely is that blocks would need to be larger and some solution is indeed greatly needed. Hence we can keep the block size, and buffer transactions that will eventually either go through (or not) or apply the solution that we think is best at the moment. Which could potentially cause problems or rather inconveniences down the road.
Also, by "buying time" (with which I totally agree) we might bloat the blockchain right now, making it hundreds of GB whereas a much better solution could be implemented in the future. It is a compromise.
TBH I the blockchain is already bloated to the point where pruning is fast becoming a necessity, the .bitcoin directory is at 45 GB with txindex, this means we are already beyond the realm of the "Cheap VPS", we will soon have left the realm of cheap EMLC SSD drives and flash storage, and within a year (even with no blocksize increase), we will likely break 100 GB.
However once you prune the blockchain, keeping a full transactions history for the last days/weeks, and only keeping track of unspent outputs beyond that, the storage requirements are not so scary anymore.
With pruning, you could easily handle 20 MB blocks with the same amount of storage that is needed now. You would probably save bandwidth as well, FWIW my full node is using more bandwidth "seeding" historical blocks than to propagate live transactions and recent blocks.
Once pruning takes over, I wonder what that will do those that use the blockchain as a ledger for non-blockchain stuff. I guess they will just have to burn coins or face their tx be pruned and forgotten.
I only have a laptop at the moment and this was the reason I stopped running a full node a few months ago. I simply didn't have that 30-40 odd GB of space on my small HDD that I could sacrifice. If I get the chance (=money) I might get an external HDD and set up my Raspberry to support the network.
Eventually, some people or servers have to keep a full blockchain, otherwise (I think) the purpose of the blockchain would be partially defeated. On the other hand, for lightweight clients, yes sure we can choose to look at only the most recent part of the chain. (Isn't roughly this what happens in some lightweight clients?)
Also, by "buying time" (with which I totally agree) we might bloat the blockchain right now, making it hundreds of GB whereas a much better solution could be implemented in the future. It is a compromise.
TBH I the blockchain is already bloated to the point where pruning is fast becoming a necessity, the .bitcoin directory is at 45 GB with txindex, this means we are already beyond the realm of the "Cheap VPS", we will soon have left the realm of cheap EMLC SSD drives and flash storage, and within a year (even with no blocksize increase), we will likely break 100 GB.
However once you prune the blockchain, keeping a full transactions history for the last days/weeks, and only keeping track of unspent outputs beyond that, the storage requirements are not so scary anymore.
With pruning, you could easily handle 20 MB blocks with the same amount of storage that is needed now. You would probably save bandwidth as well, FWIW my full node is using more bandwidth "seeding" historical blocks than to propagate live transactions and recent blocks.
Once pruning takes over, I wonder what that will do those that use the blockchain as a ledger for non-blockchain stuff. I guess they will just have to burn coins or face their tx be pruned and forgotten.
-snip-
Also, by "buying time" (with which I totally agree) we might bloat the blockchain right now, making it hundreds of GB whereas a much better solution could be implemented in the future. It is a compromise.
I think that this is wrong and it is not a compromise. We might actually contribute 0 additional GB to the blockchain before other solutions kick in. Without the increase we can't really be sure if the network will be able to handle everything. Also, by "buying time" (with which I totally agree) we might bloat the blockchain right now, making it hundreds of GB whereas a much better solution could be implemented in the future. It is a compromise.
Here are the potential outcomes of what might happen (we're disregarding everything other factors/events that could occur):
1) We don't increase the block size; blocks get capped before other solutions are ready = problems
2) We increase the block size; blocks don't go over 1 MB (yet) meaning 0 (zero) additional increase of GBs to the blockchain (because of the increase)
3) We increase the block size; blocks go over 1 MB resulting in normal transaction behavior and (hopefully) enough time for other solutions.
I still feel the initial premise behind raising fees is flawed. You can't simply tout "increased fees" as a solution in and of itself, because you can't predict what that fee would be. Again it indicates a lack of understanding of how Bitcoin actually works.
At present, if you pay a fee, your transaction is pretty much guaranteed to be included in the next block. If you don't include a fee, you may be left waiting. This is how the network has operated since inception. But if blocks are full, even if you pay an average fee, there may be insufficient space to be included, so you're left to guess what fee needs to be paid at any given time. This amount will not only vary depending on traffic, but will also be difficult (if not impossible) to accurately forecast. Every transaction would be a guessing game as to whether it is confirmed in the next block or you have to wait. This level of uncertainty and risk is frankly unacceptable and would undoubtedly impact adoption in a negative way. Attempting to run the network at full capacity is not a desirable outcome for anyone. Keeping a 1MB blocksize is not viable because no one wants to play guessing games when it comes to time and money.
At present, if you pay a fee, your transaction is pretty much guaranteed to be included in the next block. If you don't include a fee, you may be left waiting. This is how the network has operated since inception. But if blocks are full, even if you pay an average fee, there may be insufficient space to be included, so you're left to guess what fee needs to be paid at any given time. This amount will not only vary depending on traffic, but will also be difficult (if not impossible) to accurately forecast. Every transaction would be a guessing game as to whether it is confirmed in the next block or you have to wait. This level of uncertainty and risk is frankly unacceptable and would undoubtedly impact adoption in a negative way. Attempting to run the network at full capacity is not a desirable outcome for anyone. Keeping a 1MB blocksize is not viable because no one wants to play guessing games when it comes to time and money.
Imagine you want to buy a coffee and pay 2$ with BTC when 1BTC is 10'000. I think micro-transactions are needed indeed and should not be ignored.
Micro-transactions are needed, but on the other hand, are billions of coffee-buying transactions worthy of being stored forever in a blockchain?Starbucks alone sells 4 billion cups a year, you're looking at 0.5 TB to 2 TB a year if those were stored in block-chain, that's just one brand and one micro-transaction market. And that's already more than what a bitcoin at 20 MB per block and all blocks filled to the max could take.
So yes, block-size growth is not a solution, and side-chains probably are not: many tens of thousandths side-chains would be necessary, but most just would never get enough hash-rate to be secure enough. Reducing block times does not tackle the size issue as well, and just makes orphans more likely as blocks get less chance to propagate correctly.
At the moment, only payment processors are a possible solution, they're centralized by nature though.
Yes, block-size increase is just buying time, but time is needed.
I was just making a point that we need microtransactions for making small purchases as well. I know it is a lot of bloating for the blockchain, but then in the end who would decide what transactions could get into the blockchain? We can't simply say "oh your coffee is not important enough to be in the blockchain forever". Well, BTC is based on a blockchain technology so in order to succeed a method is needed that allows people buying things for less than 5000$ as well. Otherwise it will remain an asset and not a currency.
Also, by "buying time" (with which I totally agree) we might bloat the blockchain right now, making it hundreds of GB whereas a much better solution could be implemented in the future. It is a compromise.
Imagine you want to buy a coffee and pay 2$ with BTC when 1BTC is 10'000. I think micro-transactions are needed indeed and should not be ignored.
Micro-transactions are needed, but on the other hand, are billions of coffee-buying transactions worthy of being stored forever in a blockchain?Starbucks alone sells 4 billion cups a year, you're looking at 0.5 TB to 2 TB a year if those were stored in block-chain, that's just one brand and one micro-transaction market. And that's already more than what a bitcoin at 20 MB per block and all blocks filled to the max could take.
So yes, block-size growth is not a solution, and side-chains probably are not: many tens of thousandths side-chains would be necessary, but most just would never get enough hash-rate to be secure enough. Reducing block times does not tackle the size issue as well, and just makes orphans more likely as blocks get less chance to propagate correctly.
At the moment, only payment processors are a possible solution, they're centralized by nature though.
Yes, block-size increase is just buying time, but time is needed.
You're partially right. You can't really say that side-chains won't work because this wasn't something that was tried in the past and the concept is solid. https://blockstream.com/ is supposedly going to release the first open source code.
We definitely need a combination of pruning, side chains, lightning network or even something more advanced. The current technology can handle this, we just have to find the right way of doing it.
Indeed.
Imagine you want to buy a coffee and pay 2$ with BTC when 1BTC is 10'000. I think micro-transactions are needed indeed and should not be ignored.
Micro-transactions are needed, but on the other hand, are billions of coffee-buying transactions worthy of being stored forever in a blockchain?
Starbucks alone sells 4 billion cups a year, you're looking at 0.5 TB to 2 TB a year if those were stored in block-chain, that's just one brand and one micro-transaction market. And that's already more than what a bitcoin at 20 MB per block and all blocks filled to the max could take.
So yes, block-size growth is not a solution, and side-chains probably are not: many tens of thousandths side-chains would be necessary, but most just would never get enough hash-rate to be secure enough. Reducing block times does not tackle the size issue as well, and just makes orphans more likely as blocks get less chance to propagate correctly.
At the moment, only payment processors are a possible solution, they're centralized by nature though.
Yes, block-size increase is just buying time, but time is needed.
For years, bitcoin was #1 in market cap and microtransactions.
Gavin is our CEO, and it is his job to choose the bitcoin's strategic development direction. Currently Gavin can choose 1 of only 2 possible strategic directions (because choosing one makes the other worse.)
Go Gavin!
Gavin is our CEO, and it is his job to choose the bitcoin's strategic development direction. Currently Gavin can choose 1 of only 2 possible strategic directions (because choosing one makes the other worse.)
Go Gavin!
This is a scary sentiment or at best an awful analogy. When people starting referring to Bitcoin as a company, naming one person as "CEO", implying that one person is the decision maker on future developments...very, very scary.
Sounds like fiat talk.
If Ripple or others gain market share will the "CEO" also resort to price manipulation to keep values stable? Will the "CEO" choose to "create more Bitcoin" to accommodate survival?
Give one person absolute power and that power will corrupt absolutely.
Let's eliminate this thinking. Find a new analogy. I know Gavin is highly regarded but without the support of the community he is nothing and Bitcoin will fail. Bitcoin is still #1, let's not fuck it up.
I look forward to your response, 'Jesus, because your thoughts don't sound very savior like.
Sincerely,
One member of The Community
One of bitcoin goal is for manage micro-transaction, so if bitcoin fees is increased.
I would use fiat again
I would use fiat again
I don't think so, Bitcoin was not intended to be used for microtransaction, that's just a use case scenario that the community came up with but which isn't fully supported in terms of user friendlyness by the protocol since it requires an address change for every transaction and doing that to move 0.5$ would be quite a honerous task, hence this stupid block size problem.
Everybody assumes that BTC price will reach 10'000$ in x years/days/seconds etc. IF that happens, there will be (or will have to be) more microtransactions. Imagine you want to buy a coffee and pay 2$ with BTC when 1BTC is 10'000. I think microtransactions are needed indeed and should not be ignored.
On another note, increasing the block size will centralize BTC even further. Now mining is already out of the everyday user's hands, next is running a full node as more users will switch to lightweight clients instead. Yet, I also believe it to be a viable option, rather than suppressing microtransactions.
micro-transactions and low fees are so important, that increase those fees can harm bitcoin itself..increase the size is way to go..
I think the fees are already too high. Or, the fees are difficult to understand for the lay user, such as myself. When you think of the concept of cost savings that is supposed to come with bitcoin then the hefty 1K satoshi fees start to seem really high and already inhibit casual transactions. I know I've already ran into that painful hurry up and wait scenario where the transaction fee allotted was too small so it din't just take 6 confirmations... it took nearly 24 hours for the transaction to be legit.
-snip-
I'm pretty sure that it is a problem with you and a majority of people. The current fees are perfectly fine and easy to use. -snip-
Again, it was you who made the mistake. You should have set up fees in the settings and would have never had a problem with this.
One of bitcoin goals is for manage micro-transaction, so if bitcoin fees is increased.
I would use fiat again
I would use fiat again
I don't think so, Bitcoin was not intended to be used for microtransaction, that's just a use case scenario that the community came up with but which isn't fully supported in terms of user friendlyness by the protocol since it requires an address change for every transaction and doing that to move 0.5$ would be quite a honerous task, hence this stupid block size problem.
Although increasing the fees wouldn't be the smartest thing to do. This would just buy us more time (just as an increase in block size would) in addition to turning many away from Bitcoin.
One of bitcoin goal is for manage micro-transaction, so if bitcoin fees is increased.
I would use fiat again
I would use fiat again
I don't think so, Bitcoin was not intended to be used for microtransaction, that's just a use case scenario that the community came up with but which isn't fully supported in terms of user friendlyness by the protocol since it requires an address change for every transaction and doing that to move 0.5$ would be quite a honerous task, hence this stupid block size problem.
Why do I feel that 95% of the people who want the 20MB blocksize increase are dice, luckybit,... users spamming useless transactions ?
those who want the 20mb, are obviously not profesisonal miners, otherwise they will go against their interests
i've found a good recap on the argument http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36085/what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-the-increase-of-the-block-size-limit
...
Why do you like Bitcoin ? Why don't you like & use Ripple for example ? Ripple offer instant confirmations and can scale to hundreds of thousands of TPS. Ripple has a huge competitive advantage over Bitcoin in payment processing.
Quote from: @oleganza on Twitter, retweeted by Nick Szabo himself
If Bitcoin was ever competing with Paypal or Visa, it would not even start. It competes with gold and central banks.
https://twitter.com/oleganza/status/605117508971053057
When you put it this way, there's only one answer - blockchain size must increase.
Increasing fees goes against a fundamental advantage to using Bitcoin for transactions and would exclude ppl from the market that need to make small transactions. It's akin to poor ppl getting their food stamps on a debit card that can only be used at an ATM to get cash, where they are charged fees to get their money! It would go against the principles of the project!
Increasing fees goes against a fundamental advantage to using Bitcoin for transactions and would exclude ppl from the market that need to make small transactions. It's akin to poor ppl getting their food stamps on a debit card that can only be used at an ATM to get cash, where they are charged fees to get their money! It would go against the principles of the project!
I think the fees are already too high. Or, the fees are difficult to understand for the lay user, such as myself. When you think of the concept of cost savings that is supposed to come with bitcoin then the hefty 1K satoshi fees start to seem really high and already inhibit casual transactions. I know I've already ran into that painful hurry up and wait scenario where the transaction fee allotted was too small so it din't just take 6 confirmations... it took nearly 24 hours for the transaction to be legit.
We have many more growing pains with bitcoin and other cryptos before an agreeable solution is met that most of us can agree on. Whatever is successful will be the one that is invisible to the user. Just like when you use your credit card... there are fees going on but the user doesn't see it up front so they don't really care.
We have many more growing pains with bitcoin and other cryptos before an agreeable solution is met that most of us can agree on. Whatever is successful will be the one that is invisible to the user. Just like when you use your credit card... there are fees going on but the user doesn't see it up front so they don't really care.
i don't see any reason for increasing the fees at this point. the block reward is big enough that miners don't need extra fees in order to mining being profitable for them.
if anything should be done, the block size should be increased.
if anything should be done, the block size should be increased.
Jump to: