isn't this about facing a deficit of transaction numbers vs. block size? and hacking a solution that involves making the rules arbitrarily larger?
i must be confused.
Topic: My thoughts about the blocksize thing - page 3. (Read 3565 times)
Why is this even a thing?
So we're going to solve a deficit issue by jumping right to inflation?
Great way to show off your principle, Bitcoin.
Full retard mode engage
So we're going to solve a deficit issue by jumping right to inflation?
Great way to show off your principle, Bitcoin.
Full retard mode engage
Nothing here involves any inflation of deficit of sorts...where did your idea come from?
Why is this even a thing?
So we're going to solve a deficit issue by jumping right to inflation?
Great way to show off your principle, Bitcoin.
Full retard mode engage
So we're going to solve a deficit issue by jumping right to inflation?
Great way to show off your principle, Bitcoin.
Full retard mode engage
In no way will raising the number of transactions per block (not the number of blocks, the number of coins, or the reward per block) increase inflation.
Respectfully, I think you are conflating BTC price with adoption. Last time the price was $32 per bitcoin, the network was doing 10-12k transactions per day. It is now doing nearly 6x that number and at still not yet at that price level. We are approaching 25% of max block size. The price could drop and we could still end up saturating the blocks.
If it is not adopted by money, sucking in more penniless peasants will just invite them to lose what little money they have by putting into a system they do not have enough money to pay the costs of securing.
We need the people paying $15+ per wire to wire half their paycheque home to their family abroad much more than we need people who might as a novelty buy a coffee with it some day but don't even think about the fee they pay with their current electronic payment method (credit cards and such) when buying coffee currently with fiat because heck not only is bending over to pick up a penny a waste of calories but a handful of pennies in fees to buy a coffee is also not worth one's time to even think or worry about.
Our big fee-savings advantage is on the big-ticket transfers, not on puny sums.
-MarkM-
I disagree. More usage is more trust. More trust is more value in a crypto-currency.
But to your point about big fee-savings advantage, fewer transactions = higher cost per transaction. Higher cost per transaction = less advantage over existing methods, which equals less value at all. It also means, fewer use cases. Why, on earth, do we want fewer use cases?
Why is this even a thing?
So we're going to solve a deficit issue by jumping right to inflation?
Great way to show off your principle, Bitcoin.
Full retard mode engage
So we're going to solve a deficit issue by jumping right to inflation?
Great way to show off your principle, Bitcoin.
Full retard mode engage
Respectfully, I think you are conflating BTC price with adoption. Last time the price was $32 per bitcoin, the network was doing 10-12k transactions per day. It is now doing nearly 6x that number and at still not yet at that price level. We are approaching 25% of max block size. The price could drop and we could still end up saturating the blocks.
If it is not adopted by money, sucking in more penniless peasants will just invite them to lose what little money they have by putting into a system they do not have enough money to pay the costs of securing.
We need the people paying $15+ per wire to wire half their paycheque home to their family abroad much more than we need people who might as a novelty buy a coffee with it some day but don't even think about the fee they pay with their current electronic payment method (credit cards and such) when buying coffee currently with fiat because heck not only is bending over to pick up a penny a waste of calories but a handful of pennies in fees to buy a coffee is also not worth one's time to even think or worry about.
Our big fee-savings advantage is on the big-ticket transfers, not on puny sums.
We want the guy paying gosh knows what to pay for a shipload of automobiles to be delivered to his autopark to inspect and repair to send out to dealers across the province, heck we don't even want the guy selling individual grams of weed as much as the guy ordering another container of it to supply to the guys out on the street selling grams. Etc.
-MarkM-
We are giving several fucks about actual adoption.
Actual adoption has been such that even $32 per bitcoin worth of adoption never came near to saturating the blocks, and a couple of years later as we approach a $32 per bitcoin level of adoption again now, we are still nowhere near saturating the blocks.
Thus, adoption is still nowhere near enough that we need larger block sizes yet.
When we reach a $64 per bitcoin level of adoption lets see how full our blocks are; maybe we can easily handle even a $100 per bitcoin level of adoption and still have oodles of space left in our blocks.
-MarkM-
Actual adoption has been such that even $32 per bitcoin worth of adoption never came near to saturating the blocks, and a couple of years later as we approach a $32 per bitcoin level of adoption again now, we are still nowhere near saturating the blocks.
Thus, adoption is still nowhere near enough that we need larger block sizes yet.
When we reach a $64 per bitcoin level of adoption lets see how full our blocks are; maybe we can easily handle even a $100 per bitcoin level of adoption and still have oodles of space left in our blocks.
-MarkM-
Respectfully, I think you are conflating BTC price with adoption. Last time the price was $32 per bitcoin, the network was doing 10-12k transactions per day. It is now doing nearly 6x that number and at still not yet at that price level. We are approaching 25% of max block size. The price could drop and we could still end up saturating the blocks.
Ah I see, you were referencing the "if it won't be profitable for miners to include free transactions" part. The problem is, having larger blocks means validating more transactions, and that still costs cpu power/money, so in the end if it is a zero sum game, including free transactions definitely won't be worth it.
No, I only see miner provability not as an argument. For both sites.
More transaction fees mean a securer network, though.
s/providable/profitable/
It is providable just by plugging in those Jalapinos.
It won't be profitable for an individual if too many do it, but [blah blah etc etc, lots of buts].
-MarkM-
It is providable just by plugging in those Jalapinos.
It won't be profitable for an individual if too many do it, but [blah blah etc etc, lots of buts].
-MarkM-
Sorry, but I can't sai this often enough. Long term, Mining wont be providable.
I don't necessarily agree. It's obvious if the state of bitcoin remains like it is now, when the reward drops to zero security by mining will drop ridiculously low. There are only two ways to make it work, either increase the fees or increase the number of transactions (with fees) per block. There are currently about 0.5 btc of transaction fees per block, so if the transaction rate would increase 20-fold that would take care of things.You probably didn't understand what I mean. Even if the reward on one Block would be 100 BTC (extreme example) thanks to fees.
As soon as you can buy plug and play mining equipment for low cost (jalapeño) is available to direct buy, people will buy this things until mining will barely be providable again.
Sorry, but I can't sai this often enough. Long term, Mining wont be providable.
I don't necessarily agree. It's obvious if the state of bitcoin remains like it is now, when the reward drops to zero security by mining will drop ridiculously low. There are only two ways to make it work, either increase the fees or increase the number of transactions (with fees) per block. There are currently about 0.5 btc of transaction fees per block, so if the transaction rate would increase 20-fold that would take care of things.You probably didn't understand what I mean. Even if the reward on one Block would be 100 BTC (extreme example) thanks to fees.
As soon as you can buy plug and play mining equipment for low cost (jalapeño) is available to direct buy, people will buy this things until mining will barely be providable again.
We are giving several fucks about actual adoption.
Actual adoption has been such that even $32 per bitcoin worth of adoption never came near to saturating the blocks, and a couple of years later as we approach a $32 per bitcoin level of adoption again now, we are still nowhere near saturating the blocks.
Thus, adoption is still nowhere near enough that we need larger block sizes yet.
When we reach a $64 per bitcoin level of adoption lets see how full our blocks are; maybe we can easily handle even a $100 per bitcoin level of adoption and still have oodles of space left in our blocks.
-MarkM-
Actual adoption has been such that even $32 per bitcoin worth of adoption never came near to saturating the blocks, and a couple of years later as we approach a $32 per bitcoin level of adoption again now, we are still nowhere near saturating the blocks.
Thus, adoption is still nowhere near enough that we need larger block sizes yet.
When we reach a $64 per bitcoin level of adoption lets see how full our blocks are; maybe we can easily handle even a $100 per bitcoin level of adoption and still have oodles of space left in our blocks.
-MarkM-
Sorry, but I can't sai this often enough. Long term, Mining wont be providable.
I don't necessarily agree. It's obvious if the state of bitcoin remains like it is now, when the reward drops to zero security by mining will drop ridiculously low. There are only two ways to make it work (keeping the same security), either increase the fees or increase the number of transactions (with fees) per block. There are currently about 0.5 btc of transaction fees per block, so if the transaction rate would increase 40-fold that would take care of things. I don't understand why some people want a hard limit to encourage fewer potential transactions. Fewer transactions equals higher fees per transactions and less useful technology (at least in the role of a payment network) which then equals a less valuable and used technology (in all other roles).
A raised max block limit that increases at a slower rate than corresponding increases in commodity hardware and bandwidth does not mean that the majority of people wishing to act as full nodes cannot do so. The original 1MB limit is completely arbitrary and should scale as all other resources scale. The only reason that 21,000,000 total coins is not considered a problem is because of divisibility. Blocks also need to be continually divisible for Bitcoin to be valuable. Taking that ability away is incredibly shortsighted.
A raised max block limit that increases at a slower rate than corresponding increases in commodity hardware and bandwidth does not mean that the majority of people wishing to act as full nodes cannot do so. The original 1MB limit is completely arbitrary and should scale as all other resources scale. The only reason that 21,000,000 total coins is not considered a problem is because of divisibility. Blocks also need to be continually divisible for Bitcoin to be valuable. Taking that ability away is incredibly shortsighted.
I am not sure this is so much about the hard limit rather than the unintended consequences if hard limit is raised and removed all together. These wide-spread discussion is very good in itself.
Also important is the stability of the protocol, if you can raise the block size today, then how about total bitcoin tommorrow? We all know they are different, how and where is the line? And who determine the change? Can people opt to resist the change easily?
All these should be well-thought and discussed.
Nobody (that I have seen) is advocating for the limit to be removed all together, they are advocating for it to scale along with realistic resource availability and consumption. Why is the block limit 1MB and not 10KB? Because 1MB was seen as having realistic resource availability 4 years ago and it was anticipated to be easy to grow in the future. Too bad Satoshi's 1st version wasn't absolutely perfect from the beginning, I guess we are forever stuck with a shitty wire replacement system that will eventually lose value and be replaced since ideologues can't be bothered to give 2 fucks about actual adoption.
Limiting the number of coins is not a problem because they are divisible. Limiting the number of "possible" transactions forever is a problem because it is counter the primary goal of any technology, which is to be used.
Here is a thought I have not seen around yet:
Litecoin probably already provides four megabytes of block per ten minutes. Is it the lack of mention of that specific "improvement over bitcoin" in their marketing that accounts for the failure of the moar moar moar crowd to abandon the pathetically small megabytes of block per ten minutes bitcoin for the four times "better" (in this oh so very important we'd guess from the number of threads about it) "problem" of bitcoin's?
-MarkM-
P.S. Check out Liquidcoin too! Spew out as many blocks as you like as fast as you like!
Litecoin probably already provides four megabytes of block per ten minutes. Is it the lack of mention of that specific "improvement over bitcoin" in their marketing that accounts for the failure of the moar moar moar crowd to abandon the pathetically small megabytes of block per ten minutes bitcoin for the four times "better" (in this oh so very important we'd guess from the number of threads about it) "problem" of bitcoin's?
-MarkM-
P.S. Check out Liquidcoin too! Spew out as many blocks as you like as fast as you like!
There are other ways to go around the fact that the blockchain becomes massive. Not everyone needs to have the whole blockchain of all Bitcoin existence. Why wouldn't the last 6 months be quite sufficient, for example, and maybe have the rest as SPV? Or something like that. We could have separate archive nodes that just store the whole thing.
It isn't needed that all full nodes store all transactions ever done. Only the ones done in recent history are critical.
It isn't needed that all full nodes store all transactions ever done. Only the ones done in recent history are critical.
I thought a version was already available that doesn't download the entire chain, just recent transactions........
And let's not forget that miners are the ones setting the required fees. If it's not profitable for them to include free transactions, they just won't.
Sorry, but I can't sai this often enough. Long term, Mining wont be providable. No matter how high the fees are. Simply due to the fact that as long as you can make money with mining there will always be new Hashpower added until it reaches a equilibrium, where it won't be providable any more to buy mining equipment.
As soon as direct buyable Mining equipment is available this will go very fast. The free marked dictates this.
The amount of money made by mining will only set how much money is invested to secure the network.
Mining is (soon) a near zero sum game.
Quote
More transactions per block means less fees for miners
I do not agree.More transactions with lower fee per transaction can give in total more fees than less transactions with higher fees.
I don't understand why some people want a hard limit to encourage fewer potential transactions. Fewer transactions equals higher fees per transactions and less useful technology (at least in the role of a payment network) which then equals a less valuable and used technology (in all other roles).
A raised max block limit that increases at a slower rate than corresponding increases in commodity hardware and bandwidth does not mean that the majority of people wishing to act as full nodes cannot do so. The original 1MB limit is completely arbitrary and should scale as all other resources scale. The only reason that 21,000,000 total coins is not considered a problem is because of divisibility. Blocks also need to be continually divisible for Bitcoin to be valuable. Taking that ability away is incredibly shortsighted.
A raised max block limit that increases at a slower rate than corresponding increases in commodity hardware and bandwidth does not mean that the majority of people wishing to act as full nodes cannot do so. The original 1MB limit is completely arbitrary and should scale as all other resources scale. The only reason that 21,000,000 total coins is not considered a problem is because of divisibility. Blocks also need to be continually divisible for Bitcoin to be valuable. Taking that ability away is incredibly shortsighted.
I am not sure this is so much about the hard limit rather than the unintended consequences if hard limit is raised and removed all together. These wide-spread discussion is very good in itself.
Also important is the stability of the protocol, if you can raise the block size today, then how about total bitcoin tommorrow? We all know they are different, how and where is the line? And who determine the change? Can people opt to resist the change easily?
All these should be well-thought and discussed.
Quote
More transactions per block means less fees for miners
I do not agree.More transactions with lower fee per transaction can give in total more fees than less transactions with higher fees.
Jump to: