Topic: Increasing the block size is a good idea; 50%/year is probably too aggressive - page 6. (Read 14297 times)

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1595 gets at my point.

Perhaps the largest block http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000000898b6d7e23fd5e42cc4374ab4d054a3213691ffb5d98c38 to date just happens to pop out of the system during this discussion.

I have an idea. Why not ask everyone in Bitcoin what they think we should do, then just do all of them! Or, we can just debate each idea until it no longer matters since the year will be 2150.

+1


Now it would be very expensive to flood the network. When there was no specified limit (the effective limit was 32 MB), someone could have flooded the network with junk transactions for virtually no cost.

This is a perfect example of why I'm skeptical about good consensus at any point, especially after large adoption numbers. Everyone has theoretically equal vote/opinion/input in Bitcoin, but not everyone is working with the same information (or expertise, abilities, integrity etc. etc.), no offense to David Rabahy.

We need something which can pass the community and in my opinion fairly soon.

Anyone that wants to transact off-chain is able to do so independent of MAX_BLOCK_SIZE.

A maximum block size which is too small will naturally lead to more off-chain activity; folks/entities will not be denied the ability to transact.

A maximum block size which is too big thwarts participation by bandwidth-starved nodes.  So?

I propose we set MAX_BLOCK_SIZE to the maximum functional value possible today and walk away trusting the future to the caretakers then.  If any idiot/malicious bad actors try to take advantage of it and attack then Bitcoin was vulnerable to that already anyways.  No one is even filling up the current 1MB blocks with self-dealing transactions as it is.  Remind me again why it was lowered?

What about this from you?


How can you know if your solution is right and still admit this?


So does increases inline with 30 years of historical data.


We need to clear something up. As I've said I don't expect future hard forks to be possible due the protocol ossifying. You keep talking about changes which might occur later and how you're against that. I'm saying I don't believe there can be any changes after a certain point, one which we may be nearing, because it's harder to gain consensus the more people that need be consulted.

Whatever change we make that will probably be it. How well it works in the future depends on how technology plays out and the community's ability to adapt around the protocol's shortcomings if there are any.

Please tell me if you agree an ossifying of the protocol - the fact it will become increasingly hard, probably impossible to make changes as adoption grows - is what we'll likely see.


If they're saying not now it may become impossible to change from 1MB. I don't believe their position is realistic, but who is more right? Everything is subjectively based on the priorities of the advocate.

My goal, as you said earlier isn't to be right, it's to arrive at some solution which can gain consensus while meeting Bitcoin's promises. If that's Gavin's proposal, fine. If that's your solution, fine. Let's just get something that meets that criteria so we're not stuck.

Why I think Gavin's proposal would play out better:

• it has good chance at gaining consensus given Gavin's position
• it provides predictability which shouldn't be under appreciated; most people/businesses are not nerds enjoying complex ideas, they want simple understandable guidelines to make decisions upon and can chart numbers with Gavin's model
• similar to now the max size is a cap, not what is actually used; the cap stays commensurate with Moore's Law and Nielsen's Law
• it accommodates the largest number of users (inline with exponential adoption) while still offering a protective cap
• in the worst case if centralization occurs there is still the community to deal with (remember GHash.io) which has alternative coins

What I dislike about an input based solution:

• possibly does not serve the greatest number of people
• less certain about gaining consensus as people that need to be swayed may include business types like BitPay, Circle, Bitcoin Foundation, etc.
• it doesn't provide clear predictability; whatever happens is dynamic based on the network which is influenced by various factors
• possible perverse incentives created
• a more complex solution means greater chance something doesn't work as expected

I see your version as fitting more like a glove. I'd agree it's probably more conservative and protective than Gavin's proposal, but at what expense? Nothing will be ideal because the technology and likely usage demand don't match, and won't for some time. Perhaps you can produce a bullet point list too and we can begin debating specifics.

Correct.  If you fix something and it never needs fixing again, and just keeps working from them on, you have fixed in a right way.
Automatic adjustment based on the environment of the future at least has a possibility of being right. 
We have this potential with the block chain.

We can play "what if" about all sorts of things, but at least the ones you mention here are not going to take additional hard forks to accommodate if we use any either of the methods described in this thread.  Each of them is responsive to usage demand to adjust capacity.


At best they are saying "not now". 

Previously you suggested that you thought Satoshi left because you think he didn't have anything more to offer.  Another plausible hypothesis would be understanding that he would have undue influence continuing to contribute using that name, and that the resulting groupthink might cause the project to suffer.

Now define "right". Is it simply a block size which grows/shrinks dynamically with real world bandwidth over time? What if usage demand is far higher? What if the BTC exchange rate experiences unending volatility due to uncertainty about usage capacity (ie its user base)?

In other words does not needing future bandwidth adjustment automatically mean "right"?


Not according to these people. They think 1MB is the right answer for "many more years" and until we know it's "safe" to change. Can't you see any answer given is subjective? With that being the case doesn't it make sense to adopt a solution which can fit the most common perception of Bitcoin's promise, which certainly includes global usage, and can win popular support?

Necessitating future adjustment.  A change that does not resolve the fundamental problem, and addresses only the immediate perceptions of today.

In the same way that a fixed 1MB is "wrong".  



IMHO Gavin's point there is in the category of "just don't work on the philosophical level".   It speaks of dollars.   It misses the mark on the value of the block chain as a resource.  It is short sighted.  

Further in practical terms, if you are suggesting that even my first proposal (that essentially replicates Gavin's first proposal in its effect) "cannot function on a technical level" then you would be suggesting that neither could Gavin's.

IMHO, this is the most salient point on this whole thread.  Sometimes you just have to think deeply and clearly to see the truth.  

The core dev team are more than just experts in computers, they are also experts in human relations.  It's why Gavin and others have so much respect in the community, and certainly why they have my respect.  Bitcoin is all about free will and voluntary participation.  Every aspect of bitcoin must be in philosophical alignment with those concepts.  I'm not worried, I believe the consensus around the principles that bitcoin embodies will continue to grow.  This thread has been a great discussion.  Some of alternatives to Gavin's plan just don't work on the philosophical level.  Therefore, they cannot function on a technical level.

This is one of those instances I'm talking about regarding people thinking differently.

You and I seem to fundamentally think differently here, and who is to say who is right? I believe whatever hard fork change we make, if we make one, it will be locked in quite probably forever more. It won't be subject to adjustment. Whatever it is future users will have to work with, sort of like we simply have to work with 1MB if we can't adequately change it. This is due to an ossifying of the protocol, again, as I mentioned above.


Define "wrong".

I never said I believe Bitcoin is doomed to fail, although my questioning it's viability may strengthen with developments. That should be everyone's position, because Bitcoin is an experiment. Those who think Bitcoin is guaranteed to succeed in serving the world are not understanding the situation. This doesn't mean it can't succeed at that, only that it's not guaranteed (how could it be?).


My position isn't Bitcoin needs central authority. My position is Bitcoin needs a viable solution. If you read the post I made above you'll see I asked whether the majority community could be convinced to accept Gavin's proposal or one more like what you're crafting. My position was one of adopting a viable solution.


Who has claimed any authority? Where? All I see is people putting forth their suggestions.


Like I said above, it seems you're arguing from a position of ideology. You seem to see resolving the block size issue as divided between those who tend toward centralization and those who demand absolute decentralization, even to the point of seeing people establishing positions they haven't. That is the reason I question Bitcoin's viability. It's because people have their own thoughts about how things should work, or how things can work, and even if there is a solution which can work (I'm not saying which) it may not be possible to get everyone to agree, because it's not possible to do a Vulcan mind meld and have everyone understand everyone else's thoughts, conclusions, and informing information. People think differently (and with differing abilities). In the absence of some deciding force (usually a leader or authority as you call it) the result may be no clear decision whatsoever.

I'm simply seeking something which can work, something a majority can agree upon, nothing more.

It would be nice to add some reason for an opinion, or even clarify what it is that you are opining upon.

So you agree that correct about which?  Is it
a) that whomever the Chief Scientist of TBF is at the moment should decide what the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE ought be and hard fork as desired as the new central authority for Bitcoin? or
b) that the past changes in network technology as measured in the first world current user base sufficiently predict the future and should be used as the basis for governing? or
c) acoindr's assertion that central authority is necessary for the survival of bitcoin because meritocracy consensus is doomed to fail?

i agree with this idea
gavin is correct !

IS THAT THE GAVIN WHO IS NOW IN SATOSHIS POSITION

And what if consensus never allows it? Do we never do anything? It seems a lot of people have a "oh just do this" game plan, without really considering things might not work the way they think they will.

It's entirely possible hard and even somewhat messy choices may have to be made with Bitcoin. This is because some people will never be on the page you're trying to get them on, no matter how much conversation occurs.


Did you not read what I wrote above? I fully expect (as do others) for changes to become harder if not impossible to make as adoption grows. If some tangible solution isn't enacted within a fairly short period of time (meaning before the next bubble of interest and increased adoption) I myself may seriously have to re-evaluate the viability of Bitcoin - not cryptocurrency mind you, just this particular version of Bitcoin.