Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE - page 3.

kjj

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1026

Quote from: gglon on June 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM

Quote from: rme on June 05, 2013, 02:38:13 PM

How Much: calculating...

Let me remind you of @kjj idea, which I find interesting:

Quote from: kjj on June 03, 2013, 03:30:51 PM

When we do need to increase the limit, I would propose the following rules: Block max size increases iff at the time of difficulty change, the sum of the size of the last 2016 blocks is > (1814 * block_max_size). If size increase is indicated, block_max_size+=(block_max_size>>4). I'll leave the implications as an exercise for the reader. 1814 and 4 are magic numbers, they could be changed, but I suggest they not be any smaller than specified.

Though I would consider adding some high hard limit too (100MB-1GB)

Upon further reflection, I now feel that 1814 is too small of a number. 1915 would be better, possibly even higher.

In regards to all of the talk about banning encryption, I guess no one remembers the 90s any more. The cypherpunks won that battle in the past. The genie is out so far now that no one even remembers that there was a lamp before.

conv3rsion

sr. member

Activity: 310

Merit: 250

Quote from: solex on June 05, 2013, 05:26:36 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on May 31, 2013, 10:06:02 AM

I watched Gavin's presentation from the San Jose conference and I learned that it is actually being planed to increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE withing new next 10 or 20 months.....

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 05:20:07 PM

.... how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say

Are both of these posts from you?

This is the 3rd or 4th time he has done that in this thread.

Obvious troll is obvious. Clicking ignore button now.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: solex on June 05, 2013, 05:26:36 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on May 31, 2013, 10:06:02 AM

I watched Gavin's presentation from the San Jose conference and I learned that it is actually being planed to increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE withing new next 10 or 20 months.....

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 05:20:07 PM

.... how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say

Are both of these posts from you?

yes. I'm not a kind of person who would start a forum topic to not learn anything from it. though, I believe that for you it might be unusual :-)

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: solex on June 05, 2013, 05:26:36 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on May 31, 2013, 10:06:02 AM

I watched Gavin's presentation from the San Jose conference and I learned that it is actually being planed to increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE withing new next 10 or 20 months.....

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 05:20:07 PM

.... how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say

Are both of these posts from you?

Schizophrenia tends to do that.

He probably thinks he is 2 different people simultaneously.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 05:20:07 PM

one last time: it doesn't matter what participants of your poll think.
the only thing that should matter in making decisions on how to change the bitcoin protocol, or if it is needed at all, should be the hashing majority.

The hashing majority will have another choice. If they don't like the changes, they will not upgrade their clients to new version !
But right now it seems most of people, EXCLUDING YOU is supporting the change.

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 05:20:07 PM

setting up some meeting on a desert in las Vegas, or wherever, where a bunch of guys who consider themselves the elite of bitcoin decide how to change the protocol, and maybe even (god, I hope not) how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say

What the hell are you talking about ?
What have you been smoking ?
Where have you been the last 6 months ?

Yes, this issue has been discussed for AT LEAST 6 MONTHS. This is not "some decision done on the desert of LA", dumbass.

Please, stop wasting our time with this pointless discussion. All of your arguments have been proven to be wrong.

solex

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1006

100 satoshis -> ISO code

Quote from: piotr_n on May 31, 2013, 10:06:02 AM

I watched Gavin's presentation from the San Jose conference and I learned that it is actually being planed to increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE withing new next 10 or 20 months.....

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 05:20:07 PM

.... how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say

Are both of these posts from you?

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

one last time: it doesn't matter what participants of your poll think.
the only thing that should matter in making decisions on how to change the bitcoin protocol, or if it is needed at all, should be the hashing majority.
setting up some meeting on a desert in las Vegas, or wherever, where a bunch of guys who consider themselves the elite of bitcoin decide how to change the protocol, and maybe even (god, I hope not) how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say

solex

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1006

100 satoshis -> ISO code

Quote from: justusranvier on June 05, 2013, 05:02:04 PM

Based on the poll linked above, about half of the people on this forum who are not overtly hostile to Bitcoin have a criteria of success that would not be met if Bitcoin was too widely used.

That seems about right based on the responses in all these threads about MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. For many people it's not whether Bitcoin can or can't scale to be ubiquitous currency, it's that they don't want Bitcoin to become ubiquitous so they work backwards from that desire to make sure it doesn't happen.

Just looked at that poll, and the results seem very encouraging. Nearly 80% want/expect Bitcoin to be a global success, yet about half that number are realistic that one or more other crypto will have a major market-share. (IMHO, other crypto will stay but have a minor market share).
So the vast majority of Bitcoiners expect it to scale well. JR, I don't read much hidden agenda there...

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Based on the poll linked above, about half of the people on this forum who are not overtly hostile to Bitcoin have a criteria of success that would not be met if Bitcoin was too widely used.

That seems about right based on the responses in all these threads about MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. For many people it's not whether Bitcoin can or can't scale to be ubiquitous currency, it's that they don't want Bitcoin to become ubiquitous so they work backwards from that desire to make sure it doesn't happen.

gglon

member

Activity: 64

Merit: 10

Quote from: rme on June 05, 2013, 02:38:13 PM

How Much: calculating...

Let me remind you of @kjj idea, which I find interesting:

Quote from: kjj on June 03, 2013, 03:30:51 PM

When we do need to increase the limit, I would propose the following rules: Block max size increases iff at the time of difficulty change, the sum of the size of the last 2016 blocks is > (1814 * block_max_size). If size increase is indicated, block_max_size+=(block_max_size>>4). I'll leave the implications as an exercise for the reader. 1814 and 4 are magic numbers, they could be changed, but I suggest they not be any smaller than specified.

Though I would consider adding some high hard limit too (100MB-1GB)

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: rme on June 05, 2013, 02:38:13 PM

We need to increase MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, the only questions is When? and How Much?.

When: As soon as possible.
How Much: calculating...

these are some pretty clear thesis.
now prove them, as a scientist should before developing a system to satisfy them.
I'd actually like to see at least one proof that increasing the block size is going to make the bitcoin world anyhow better, from what we have now.

conv3rsion

sr. member

Activity: 310

Merit: 250

Quote from: jgarzik on June 05, 2013, 02:05:12 PM

No, bitcoin is not intended to rival Visa, and never will be. Bitcoin has nothing to do with debt (thank goodness).

Ok, in that sense it's not. I am talking about eventual transactional capacity, not a business model.

Simple question, even if you don't feel that an appeal to authority provides for a valid argument, I respect your work and would like your answer to this. Having worked on the core code, with the understanding and knowledge that you have, do you personally believe that the 1mb limit was intended to remain in place permanently? Regardless of what is decided as optimal now, what do you believe was the original intention?

rme

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 504

We need to increase MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, the only questions is When? and How Much?.

When: As soon as possible.
How Much: calculating...

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

It's the legal implication of the technical aspect of Bitcoin that this comes down to, since the topic is censorship, which is a legal response.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

So, you've pointed out that I derailed the thread into a non-technical discussion, therefore I am a troll, but now you are proposing to get us back to politics?
No thank you. I'm done with you.

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

I want you to explain how high-bandwidth requirements are going to result in it becoming impossible to run Bitcoin in every country in the world.

This is my post which you still haven't replied to:

Quote from: amincd on June 05, 2013, 07:10:56 AM

Here is what you need to believe to oppose lifting the 1 MB block limit:

1) That there is a real possibility that all governments in the world will agree to censor BTC nodes, but that they would only stop at BTC nodes, and not all agree to also censor encrypted traffic. I put the possibility of this at less than 0.1 percent, and I don't think many people will put it at much higher.

2) That if 1) does come to be, there is a real possibility that the majority of governments in the world will also all create laws to force bitcoin miners to use their hashing hardware to attack a new fork of Bitcoin that is limited to 1 MB blocks. I put the possibility of this happening at less than 0.001 percent.

There has to be a reasonable chance that both 1) and 2) will happen for it to be the correct decision to cap block sizes at 1 MB right now and there is no way that's the case.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: amincd on June 05, 2013, 02:20:58 PM

I think everyone would agree with me. You're a troll. Mods can you please move this discussion somewhere else? This discussion has long ago stopped being a technical one. Piotr_n ignores technical arguments, lies, and repeats himself.

You want it technical? No problem.
Please tell, if you know, me how long one EC_verify operation takes on your PC?

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

I think everyone would agree with me. You're a troll. Mods can you please move this discussion somewhere else? This discussion has long ago stopped being a technical one. Piotr_n ignores technical arguments, lies, and repeats himself.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: amincd on June 05, 2013, 02:17:18 PM

Quote

I'm sure 4 years ago I was also thinking that my internet speed would be going up, along with my CPU speed.
But it didn't, so if I was Saotoshi I would likely review that targets now.

You're making a lot of assumptions to claim Satoshi didn't want a high-bandwidth Bitcoin. This is very dishonest.

I disagree.
IMO it's very honest - it is as much honest, as you want to get from me.
One more level of my honesty up, and I would need to start swearing

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 01:35:09 PM

And I don't see an option for "It will stay in the geeks' mode, because the core devs will betray Satoshi's ideas for a corporation's 40 silvers

Topic: Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE - page 3. (Read 13023 times)