Topic: [POLL] Which is more centralizing? Small Blocks or Big Blocks? (Read 1191 times)

Look at it this way.

If we target higher than 8MB, we will put home-based population of Bitcoin at risk -> slippery slope.
If we target lower than 8MB, we will artificially cap Bitcoin and allow it to mutate into sidechains.

If we don't like SW centralization and dictatorship then changing one line of code (1MB -> 8MB) is the simplest thing we could ever make.
Plus the number 8 (put on its side) opens up Bitcoin's way to infinity, so you really won't get better than this.

It's time for all of us to agree.

And how a dictatorship run by 5 compromised poeple is any different?

isn't that megabits per second not bytes?

5 megabits per second would be 8 times slower I assume since there are 8 bits in a byte.
let's use a round number and say 1 megaBYTE per second...if you want a safe download time
well under the ten minute block time, let's say 1 minute, so that would put us at around 60 megabyte blocks.

Yeah and you forgot

More blocks = centralized nodes = bitcoin dead as we know it.

Not to mention bigger possibility for exploits etc. So to think it's as simple as more is better is having no idea how this works. Otherwise there would be no debate about it.

Block size is not the centralizing factor. Bitcoin core is decentralized, Bitcoin XT (by Gavin's own admission) is a totalitarian dictatorship.

at 5MBPS

takes 1 second to download 5MB

why in the world are we thinking 1-8MB
we should be thinking 100-800MB

Moores law seems to be exempting internet speed. 

http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/23/akamai-global-average-internet-speed-grew-10-year-over-year-to-5-0-mbps-but-only-4-6-have-broadband/

Yep. 

Then next topic.

Maybe block halving if that doesn't come sooner.

If nothing else, we can also fall back on constant price speculation. 

pretty sure smaller blocks = more centralized. still dont really understand the whole thing, but Andreas seems to think so, so I\m betting on his opinion. arent the only people in favour of smaller blocks the big private miners? that should tell you something...anyways, the network is going to figure it out. just like the hard fork all those years ago... much arguing, but as soon as it was in effect and the network survived everybody shut up.

There are different types of centralization, if you are not careful, you will always end up with one type of centralization. The real question is which type of centralization is most dangerous for bitcoin

An extremely small block will make the blockchain work like Fedwire system: Only coins worth more than 1 million dollars can be transferred in a timely and cheap manner, thus blockchain will only serve the rich and institutions. Although anyone can run a node, they can not afford making transactions on blockchain, they have to rely on payment processors and web wallet providers to do micro transactions

An extremely large block will make the blockchain work like IT admin's club: Only those mainframe server sitting on internet backbone can relay the blocks, all the other nodes have to connect to them in SPV style, no normal people can run a node, they have to rely on those supernodes to do transaction

If any powerful entity want to kill the bitcoin network, they will easily do that through killing those super nodes, but they will achieve almost nothing by killing those web wallet providers and payment processors, because the damage is limited at micro transactions. So the first kind of centralization is less dangerous than the second

Of course these are extreme cases, some where in between we might find a balance point where both centralization do not happen. But from survival point of view, the first is always the safest bet

Small blocks, big blocks...
Nah, we need spaceblocks!
But because space is infinite, 8MB will satisfy the condition only if it gets laid, hence the hard-fork!  

I think big blocks would have a disproportionately negative effect on grassroots distributed mining operations such as p2pool. Because of the 30 second p2pool blocks, the effect would be far worse than for a regular pool or mining farm.

Ok, so the hashrate contribution of p2pool is low, but why kill a good thing?

  The "big=central" votes crept up from 1 to 5 over the last couple hours but no one except brg posted supporting it.. hmmmmmmm

yup

i vote for 1GB block limit

It's reached the point now where it doesn't matter whether you think it should be large blocks or small blocks.  Both options are equally contentious in their own way.  We can't make it prohibitively expensive to transact on-chain, but at the same time, we can't make it prohibitively expensive in terms of resources required to run a node.  We should move away from "big vs small" and focus on where to strike a balance between the two.  It's the only sensible way forward.

so who voted for big blocks= centralizing so far except brg? 

I would rather have larger blocks than to expand trust or to rely on third parties. The whole point was for bitcoin to be more decentralized,
and not to force it's users on relying on anyone other than the network itself.
I don't buy the story that the number of full nodes will go down in link to bigger blocks. Today bandwidth and storage are pretty cheap.

Gathering quotes to put together somes good jokes for this weekend's conference  

I didn't vote 

Did you watch the video?  Even the little kids get it without anyone having to teach it to them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6udb4LNcw