Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ... - page 3.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on September 22, 2015, 11:57:27 AM

Again, if you don't solo mine and validate transactions yourself you are not a miner. Hashing and mining are two different things.

Also solo miners are slowly but surely taking over the network:

So no, you are wrong on all points, again.

You should really check your facts before posting, solo mining now represents 29% of the network at the time of writing. It would also be trivial for such large operations to host a full node in a data center considering the scale at which their operations are already at, only extremely large industrial operations can feasibly solo mine, surely you do not see solo mining as good for decentralization, pools actually help decentralize Bitcoin mining in this sense. I am running over 20KW of mining equipment from my home. I feel like I am a miner but you are welcome to maintain that I am not a miner just because I choose to pool my hashing power together with other people so that variance does not turn my operation into the equivalent of playing the lottery.

https://blockchain.info/pools

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 22, 2015, 11:47:45 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 21, 2015, 05:55:56 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 21, 2015, 10:25:34 AM

Quote from: turvarya on August 20, 2015, 04:47:34 PM

Quote from: bitboy11 on August 19, 2015, 06:44:38 PM

Quote from: turvarya on August 18, 2015, 02:50:23 PM

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify.

As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.

However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools.

On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?

That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does.

I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down.

The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess.

This is correct, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. GPU's and CPU's will never be able to mine Bitcoin profitably again, even outdated ASIC's are far more efficient. There are currently hundreds of thousands of workers running on the Bitcoin network, much more then mere thousands, so ASIC's do and will indeed always win.

No, this is wrong on several points.

Miners absolutely run full nodes. If you are only hashing and pointing it to a pool you are not a miner.

Blocksize will necessarily increase mining centralization for reasons repeatedly stated which I won't bother explaining again because you have an irritating tendency not to be honest in your debates anyway.

I am actually a miner myself, and the vast majority of miners most certainly do not run full nodes. I run full nodes at home but not for the purpose of mining. I recently even calculated that it would require a minimum of at least five million dollars to setup a mining operation that would be able to feasibly solo mine, which is what mining with a full node implies. According to your logic only the pool operators are the "true" miners then, I can accept that definition. It does not change the fact however that the vast majority of mining power today is under the control of people that do not rely on their own full nodes for mining and point their hashing power towards pools instead. Therefore it is accurate that increasing the blocksize would not effect the majority of the hashing power whatsoever because they do not run full nodes themselves. Considering the cost of solo mining it would be silly to think that this should be a measure of decentralization, since we have departed from that reality in Bitcoin mining many years ago already.

Again, if you don't solo mine and validate transactions yourself you are not a miner. Hashing and mining are two different things.

Also solo miners are slowly but surely taking over the network:

So no, you are wrong on all points, again.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on September 21, 2015, 05:55:56 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 21, 2015, 10:25:34 AM

Quote from: turvarya on August 20, 2015, 04:47:34 PM

Quote from: bitboy11 on August 19, 2015, 06:44:38 PM

Quote from: turvarya on August 18, 2015, 02:50:23 PM

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify.

As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.

However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools.

On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?

That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does.

I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down.

The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess.

This is correct, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. GPU's and CPU's will never be able to mine Bitcoin profitably again, even outdated ASIC's are far more efficient. There are currently hundreds of thousands of workers running on the Bitcoin network, much more then mere thousands, so ASIC's do and will indeed always win.

No, this is wrong on several points.

Miners absolutely run full nodes. If you are only hashing and pointing it to a pool you are not a miner.

Blocksize will necessarily increase mining centralization for reasons repeatedly stated which I won't bother explaining again because you have an irritating tendency not to be honest in your debates anyway.

I am actually a miner myself, and the vast majority of miners most certainly do not run full nodes. I run full nodes at home but not for the purpose of mining. I recently even calculated that it would require a minimum of at least five million dollars to setup a mining operation that would be able to feasibly solo mine, which is what mining with a full node implies. According to your logic only the pool operators are the "true" miners then, I can accept that definition. It does not change the fact however that the vast majority of mining power today is under the control of people that do not rely on their own full nodes for mining and point their hashing power towards pools instead. Therefore it is accurate that increasing the blocksize would not effect the majority of the hashing power whatsoever because they do not run full nodes themselves. Considering the cost of solo mining it would be silly to think that this should be a measure of decentralization, since we have departed from that reality in Bitcoin mining many years ago already. This is why increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 21, 2015, 10:25:34 AM

Quote from: turvarya on August 20, 2015, 04:47:34 PM

Quote from: bitboy11 on August 19, 2015, 06:44:38 PM

Quote from: turvarya on August 18, 2015, 02:50:23 PM

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify.

As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.

However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools.

On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?

That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does.

I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down.

The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess.

This is correct, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. GPU's and CPU's will never be able to mine Bitcoin profitably again, even outdated ASIC's are far more efficient. There are currently hundreds of thousands of workers running on the Bitcoin network, much more then mere thousands, so ASIC's do and will indeed always win.

No, this is wrong on several points.

Miners absolutely run full nodes. If you are only hashing and pointing it to a pool you are not a miner.

Blocksize will necessarily increase mining centralization for reasons repeatedly stated which I won't bother explaining again because you have an irritating tendency not to be honest in your debates anyway.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: turvarya on August 20, 2015, 04:47:34 PM

Quote from: bitboy11 on August 19, 2015, 06:44:38 PM

Quote from: turvarya on August 18, 2015, 02:50:23 PM

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify.

As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.

However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools.

On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?

That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does.

I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down.

The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess.

This is correct, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. GPU's and CPU's will never be able to mine Bitcoin profitably again, even outdated ASIC's are far more efficient. There are currently hundreds of thousands of workers running on the Bitcoin network, much more then mere thousands, so ASIC's do and will indeed always win.

wlefever

legendary

Activity: 1174

Merit: 1001

Quote from: tadakaluri on August 22, 2015, 02:38:14 AM

As recently proposed by Core developer Sergio Lerner, is to hold onto the 1 megabyte limit, but speed up the block interval. If 1 megabyte blocks are found every five minutes instead of 10, that would allow for double the amount of transactions on the network while also decreasing confirmation times.

Where has he proposed this, can you please post a link? There are some problems with this proposal, with the main one being increased orphan rates.

Check out the following discussions on this topic: Block intervals and decentralization and Block Spacing and Security

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Max block size could be retargeted periodically alongside difficulty adjustments using average block size and the frequency of full blocks in a period with the hard-coded value as a floor.

Have you written a BIP?

Kexkey

full member

Activity: 237

Merit: 100

Smile while thinking.

Quote from: phelix on August 21, 2015, 08:30:16 AM

Is there anybody seriously disputing that? Still it should be done in a responsible way.

We should cram all core devs into a small room and wait until we see orange smoke (=reasonable compromise). Alternatively merge something like BIP 102 to take the drama out of the discussion.

Well something like that is going to happen pretty soon: https://scalingbitcoin.org/

Hopefully constructive discussions lead to solutions and most importantly *consensus* in the following months...

tadakaluri

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

As recently proposed by Core developer Sergio Lerner, is to hold onto the 1 megabyte limit, but speed up the block interval. If 1 megabyte blocks are found every five minutes instead of 10, that would allow for double the amount of transactions on the network while also decreasing confirmation times.

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: hdbuck on August 21, 2015, 09:47:05 AM

I disagree. Satoshi aint here anymore so go find someone else to redirect your daddy issues.

ROFL

The founder founded and fled. lol

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

I disagree. Satoshi aint here anymore so go find someone else to redirect your daddy issues.

phelix

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1020

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 02:36:02 AM

Quote

Bitcoin ... A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin Whitepaper

Limiting bitcoin to 1 MB forces users of bitcoin to use a 3rd party financial institution (Blockstream / Lightning Network).

Which goes against the very reason bitcoin was created.

Is there anybody seriously disputing that? Still it should be done in a responsible way.

We should cram all core devs into a small room and wait until we see orange smoke (=reasonable compromise). Alternatively merge something like BIP 102 to take the drama out of the discussion.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: meono on August 20, 2015, 04:54:09 PM

Quote from: BurtW on August 19, 2015, 07:09:36 PM

What ever happened to DeathAndTaxes (OP of this thread)?

Last Active: April 22, 2015, 11:53:28 AM

Sad to see him left. Too many reasons to suspect but i hope he didnt leave because of troll like iCEBREAKER

It could be worse, he got unlucky like you and put in jail? I know his business was like a brokerage for bitcoin trading. So i wish he's ok.

Maybe you should contact him? You might have tons of advices for him

I have made minimal effort to contact him. I may try harder next week. I think I have his personal email from some business we did a long time ago.

If he has been arrested like I was then his attorney is telling him to a) stay off the internet (here, reddit, etc.) and b) not to communicate with people that may be witnesses for or against him - which could be just about anyone.

I had to "drop out" from the time I was arrested until the case was finally dismissed.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: BurtW on August 19, 2015, 07:09:36 PM

What ever happened to DeathAndTaxes (OP of this thread)?

Last Active: April 22, 2015, 11:53:28 AM

Sad to see him left. Too many reasons to suspect but i hope he didnt leave because of troll like iCEBREAKER

It could be worse, he got unlucky like you and put in jail? Iknow his business was like a brokerage for bitcoin trading. So i wish he's ok.

Maybe you should contact him? You might have tons of advices for him

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: bitboy11 on August 19, 2015, 06:44:38 PM

Quote from: turvarya on August 18, 2015, 02:50:23 PM

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify.

As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.

However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools.

On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?

That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does.

I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down.

The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Satoshi definitely intended to increase the hard max block size. See:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/patch-increase-block-size-limit-1347

I believe that Satoshi expected most people to use some sort of lightweight node, with only companies and true enthusiasts being full nodes. Mike Hearn's view is similar to Satoshi's view.

I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees". Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system.

IMO Mike Hearn's plan would probably work. The market/community would find a way to pay for the network's security, and it would be easy enough to become a full node that the currency wouldn't be at risk. The max block size would not truly be unlimited, since miners would always need to produce blocks that the vast majority of full nodes and other miners would be able and willing to process in a reasonable amount of time.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1492629

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: BurtW on August 19, 2015, 07:09:36 PM

What ever happened to DeathAndTaxes (OP of this thread)?

Last Active: April 22, 2015, 11:53:28 AM

Failed at browbeating us into accepting his coffees-on-the-blockchain proposal.

Then, http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rage-quit

Grin

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: BurtW on August 19, 2015, 07:09:36 PM

What ever happened to DeathAndTaxes (OP of this thread)?

Last Active: April 22, 2015, 11:53:28 AM

I noticed he doesn't come here much anymore too. Maybe his RL is getting in the way of his Bitcoin obsession or he woke up and realized this place is a worthless troll fiesta that requires you respond to the same stupid questions over and over again. Tangible Cryptography is dead because of the letter he received a while back. He might have just woken up and realized it's not worth it for murricans to be involved at this point. A lesson you recently learned unfortunately. I hope people in this country realize how restricted their freedom is compared to the rest of the world. If nothing else, Bitcoin is a good example of that.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

What ever happened to DeathAndTaxes (OP of this thread)?

Last Active: April 22, 2015, 11:53:28 AM

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: Cryddit on August 19, 2015, 06:55:53 PM

Calm down, guys. You got what you wanted in the first place: Decentralization of power. Now there is Bitcoin-Core and Bitcoin-XT, and real decentralization of power to the actual community of users and miners. The community, not the developers, gets to decide using the normal consensus rules for a hard fork. And that's a good thing, right?

true that. there is nothing to be afraid of.
just keep your bitcoins in your own wallet and you will have both coins after a fork.
miners and economy decides which one wins in the end
(i dont believe two coins with same hashing algo can coexist for long.)

Quote from: Cryddit on August 19, 2015, 06:55:53 PM

Bitcoin does not exist to line Blockstream's pockets.

+1000
not for anyone pockets Wink

imho bitcoin is there to empower people - nothing more, nothing less

Topic: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ... - page 3. (Read 105082 times)