Topic: Let's be prudent I advocate 50MB blocks - page 2. (Read 2513 times)

Some fee != fee pressure.

The fees are too low, they encourage transaction spam. I do not think that Bitcoin should process pennies if that means we have to sacrifice on decentralization. Dust transactions can be conveniently handled off-chain or side-chain. They do not require the same level of security as ordinary transactions.

ya.ya.yo!

What makes you think there's no fee pressure? A transaction with no fee will still take forever to validate.

common misconception: 20MB maximum block-size limit is a viable scaling solution for Bitcoin.

answer: Transaction spam will increase and fill up blocks even faster, because there is no fee pressure.

solution: Allow a fee market to develop by limiting increases in maximum block-size. Move dust-transactions off-chain or side-chain.

ya.ya.yo!

The problem with the farms is that most of them are in China where labor and electricity is cheap. A large chunk of the hash rate comes from China, and their bandwidth is limited due to the Great Firewall of China. Because of this limitation caused by the government, there could be more delays between them getting a block and them publishing a block. This could lead to a higher orphan rate, which miners want to keep low.

Let's make blocksize a maximum of 50 gb then. In the future we can even host movies on the blockchain! Real decentralized p2p file sharing live on the blockchain??

The opinions of the huge miners are the ones he should be going after... if 90% of the hashrate refuses to move, XT will never come to be.

i have good news for you:

you can still run a full node next year with 2 MB blocks, and even in 2017 with 4 MB blocks and that year after 2017...

it will take years until we reach 20 MB  

Not quite, the next release of XT (in about a week) will increase the maximum block-size limit to 20MB which is the next step towards 20MB blocks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/394fn1/mike_hearn_in_about_1_week_bitcoin_xt_will/

Gavin Andresen: "A lot of people are pushing me to be more of a dictator (like Mike) ... that may be what has to happen with the block size. I may just have to throw my weight around and say this is what it's going to be. If you don't like it, find another project."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w&feature=youtu.be&t=1672

Slightly disturbing tone from Mr Andresen....

Not sure about exchanges, but I am dubious that they would have problems with large blocks, since there are few exchanges and they can be located near major Internet switching points. 

The argument about miners is bogus.  Mining farms need to be located in locations with low cost electricity and inexpensive cooling. However, they require minimal bandwidth to a full network node. For example, a huge mining farm could run a single stratum connection to a full bitcoin node located close to a major Internet switching point. The bandwidth to the farm would be a few hundred bytes each way every 30 seconds, and this bandwidth has nothing to do with the block size or even the transaction rate of the bitcoin network.

The most immediate answer would be: "Because it would take less time until a further fork is required". This is only theoretical tho, since I know there are calculations involved to decide on what amount of MB need to be raised.
I wonder what Gavin is exactly planning with 8MB, because 8MB alone fix nothing. I want to know what he has on store after this.

because there is always the possibility to find a better alternative, this is one of the reason why ,many do not prevent things, before they happen, even if they know they will happen soon


this is a good thing that could actually make the block size scale with the demand, instead of throwing unneeded space...

Here we go again. Looks like there will never be an end to the explaining. 20 MB is too much, especially for China where some large exchanges and miners are located.
Even though the general consensus seems to be that the blocks will get filled instantly (which they won't), there is potential for someone to try filling some of them for the wrong reasons. China can't handle this right now.

Besides 20 MB blocks are talk of the past, it should be 8 MB with the correct calculations. There is more consensus or 4 or 8 MB blocks as this would give the network more time before other solutions are found.
Increasing the block size is not the solution that we're seeking. Here is why:
It is believed that Visa is peaks at around 45, 000 tps (transactions per second). Bitcoin currently supports 7 tps (in theory; actually it is more around 2-3 but we're going to disregard this now) with a 1 megabyte block limit. If we use an average of 300 bytes per transaction and unlimited block size, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 45,000 tps would be ~ 8 GB per block. This is every 10 minutes on average which would result over 400 petabytes per year.

Let me create a clearer picture:
400 Petabytes = 400 000 Terabytes = 400 000 000 Gigabytes per year.
You've read that correctly. That's 400 million Gigabytes per year if we only factor in what Visa is processing. Obviously this is not feasible (today) and this is why the block size increase is there only to buy time, nothing else.

It is possible that Moore's Law will continue forever, and that multi-gigabyte blocks may be a possibility of the future, however it is not a certainty. We can't rely on this scenario.


Note: Calculations have been done assuming a block is mined every 10 minutes totaling ~52,000 per year.
Update: Slight corrections.
Update 2: Thank you for informing me that 20 MB blocks are going to roll out.

in some years we will probably have 50 MB blocks. no problem. but as i wrote:

common misconception: "20MB is too big of a jump"

answer: It's just a maximum block-size limit. It does not mean we are going to instantly start making 20mb blocks. Blocks will continue growing at their current pace. This is perhaps the biggest misconception that we will somehow suddenly start seeing 20mb blocks just because the limit is raised.


i hope that there is also an automatic increase over time.

I am not sure what are the advantages of 50MB block from technical point of view over say 20MB. But why people are so sceptical and bitcoin community is divided,
sure blockchain will be bigger but we have sufficient drives to cover it up. Isn't it our future and we will have to do this at some point? Why not do it now.

You are so right about that. And yet, as a species, we tend to react when the shit hits the fan. lol

only a moron would act when the shit hits the fan. so i agree 100% here.

It's better to make a move when we don't have to than to make the move when we need to. Imagine having these debates when blocks are already pushing their max size? Nothing would actually get done. There'd be too much fear and debate about how to do it.

common misconception: "20MB is too big of a jump"

answer: It's just a maximum block-size limit. It does not mean we are going to instantly start making 20mb blocks. Blocks will continue growing at their current pace. This is perhaps the biggest misconception that we will somehow suddenly start seeing 20mb blocks just because the limit is raised.

There aren't only benefits about having big blocks... And huge blocks aren't the definitive solution

Interesting. We can start the discussion if you answer a simple question.

Could you please explain the benefits of increasing the block size to 50 MB instead of 20 8 MB (aside from higher tps) or using side chains or something else (e.g. lightning network)?