question - page 5. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: alani123 on August 30, 2015, 11:24:11 AM

Quote from: uxgpf on August 30, 2015, 11:07:25 AM

Quote from: alani123 on August 30, 2015, 10:42:58 AM

So what if the 8Mb pre-set limit starts to be taken advantage of? That's why pre-setting a limit so far from the original is considered radical change by many. It has never been tested in anything as large as bitcoin.

Actually it has been tested before. When 1MB blocksize limit came to effect in 2010 the average blocksize was around 0.0003 MB. So only 0.03% of available blocksize was in use. With rise to 8MB that ratio with current usage would be 5%. So situation would be relatively equal to mid 2012, when 5% of 1MB blocks were in use.

Can you give one good example how 8MB limit could be taken advantage of?

I don't think there was anyone with the interest to stress test bitcoin's transaction logs back in 2010 among the then tiny userbase. We can't be sure about what could have happened if such a stress test would be performed with a 8Mb limit.

Disagree with this, if the limit was 8 MB in June 2015 (when the spam attack happened), then it would have been alot more expensive to produce the same effect. If the attack took place in June anyway, then the motives of the attacker would be more easily discerned; miners couldn't perform the attack profitably without half full blocks to rest an attack on, which they could have given the actual blocksize we had then (and assuming they were responsible, of course).

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: uxgpf on August 30, 2015, 11:07:25 AM

Quote from: alani123 on August 30, 2015, 10:42:58 AM

So what if the 8Mb pre-set limit starts to be taken advantage of? That's why pre-setting a limit so far from the original is considered radical change by many. It has never been tested in anything as large as bitcoin.

Actually it has been tested before. When 1MB blocksize limit came to effect in 2010 the average blocksize was around 0.0003 MB. So only 0.03% of available blocksize was in use. With rise to 8MB that ratio with current usage would be 5%. So situation would be relatively equal to mid 2012, when 5% of 1MB blocks were in use.

Can you give one good example how 8MB limit could be taken advantage of?

I don't think there was anyone with the interest to stress test bitcoin's transaction logs back in 2010 among the then tiny userbase. We can't be sure about what could have happened if such a stress test would be performed with a 8Mb limit.

Edit: It's also not just about stress tests. There are more issues that I think increasing the block size blindly based on pre-set dates for doubling can be dangerous. In his 'Scalability Roadmap' Gavin justifies his views by saying that: "But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today."

Basing such decisions on Moore's and Nielsen’s law leaves out large parts of the world, which is probably why miners dislike bitcoin XT and vote against BIP101.

uxgpf

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: alani123 on August 30, 2015, 10:42:58 AM

So what if the 8Mb pre-set limit starts to be taken advantage of? That's why pre-setting a limit so far from the original is considered radical change by many. It has never been tested in anything as large as bitcoin.

Actually it has been tested before. When 1 MB block size limit came to effect in 2010 the average block size was around 0.0003 MB. So only 0.03% of maximum block size was actually being used by blocks. With rise to 8 MB the same ratio with current usage would be 5% and situation would be relatively equal to mid 2012, when 5% of 1 MB blocks were in use.

Can you give us a good example how 8 MB limit could be taken advantage of?

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: uxgpf on August 30, 2015, 10:38:29 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 30, 2015, 09:59:05 AM

Why would anyone want to force the blocksize limit expanding at pre-set dates. Now, give a sensible reply to what was intended.

1. To give enough headroom for adoption and rise in transaction volume.

Answer the whole question, not the part you prefer. Why the pre-set dates and limits? Why can the size limit not decrease when required under this scheme? How can these projections, and the arbitrary stepping that manifests them, possibly hope to conform to reality over the next 18 years?

Quote from: uxgpf on August 30, 2015, 10:38:29 AM

2. To disincentivise spam attacks. (More saturated the block is the more profitable it is for large miners to team up and make spam transactions in order to drive the fees up.)

Rogue developers have a similar incentive to launch their own spam transaction attacks under the same circumstances. Their payoff is development control, and of course, all such people would need to do subsequent to the success of such an attack would be to implement a feature that prevents any future hard forks to wrest control away from them. Such a feature exists in the XT roadmap (checkpointed, aka centralised, chain consensus)

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Klestin on August 30, 2015, 08:36:45 AM

Quote from: alani123 on August 29, 2015, 06:26:56 AM

Why would anyone want to force the blockchain expanding at pre-set dates.

Nobody is talking about forcing the blockchain to expand at pre-set dates. Nobody is talking about forcing the blockchain to expand at all. The block size increases automatically with demand, as it always has. The blockchain doesn't automatically fill whatever the current cap is. The cap has been 1MB for years now, and we don't have 1MB blocks yet.

Whether we do nothing, or whether we adopt BIP 100, BIP 101, etc, the block size will continue to slowly grow naturally as adoption increases. With no change to the cap, that growth will be stopped in its tracks in about a year. The 1 MB cap was added as a temporary solution to the worry of a spam transaction attack, which hasn't yet materialized. To maintain the 1MB cap and artificially restrict the relaying of valid transactions would be a radical departure from what Bitcoin is.

So what if the 8Mb pre-set limit starts to be taken advantage of? That's why pre-setting a limit so far from the original is considered radical change by many. It has never been tested in anything as large as bitcoin, Gavin even refused to set up testing in the testnet claiming it wouldn't be an appropriate environment for testing. Since you already acknowledge that even with current demand, 1Mb blocks aren't filled, why do we need 8Mb blocks with the first chance.

uxgpf

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 30, 2015, 09:59:05 AM

Why would anyone want to force the blocksize limit expanding at pre-set dates. Now, give a sensible reply to what was intended.

1. To give enough headroom for adoption and rise in transaction volume.

2. To disincentivise spam attacks. (More saturated the block is the more profitable it is for large miners to team up and make spam transactions in order to drive the fees up.)

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Klestin on August 30, 2015, 08:36:45 AM

Quote from: alani123 on August 29, 2015, 06:26:56 AM

Why would anyone want to force the blockchain expanding at pre-set dates.

Nobody is talking about forcing the blockchain to expand at pre-set dates. Nobody is talking about forcing the blockchain to expand at all. The block size increases automatically with demand, as it always has. The blockchain doesn't automatically fill whatever the current cap is. The cap has been 1MB for years now, and we don't have 1MB blocks yet.

Whether we do nothing, or whether we adopt BIP 100, BIP 101, etc, the block size will continue to slowly grow naturally as adoption increases. With no change to the cap, that growth will be stopped in its tracks in about a year. The 1 MB cap was added as a temporary solution to the worry of a spam transaction attack, which hasn't yet materialized. To maintain the 1MB cap and artificially restrict the relaying of valid transactions would be a radical departure from what Bitcoin is.

Semantic quibbling aside, let's address what alani clearly meant:

Why would anyone want to force the blocksize limit expanding at pre-set dates. Now, give a sensible reply to what was intended.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: alani123 on August 29, 2015, 06:26:56 AM

Why would anyone want to force the blockchain expanding at pre-set dates.

Nobody is talking about forcing the blockchain to expand at pre-set dates. Nobody is talking about forcing the blockchain to expand at all. The block size increases automatically with demand, as it always has. The blockchain doesn't automatically fill whatever the current cap is. The cap has been 1MB for years now, and we don't have 1MB blocks yet.

Whether we do nothing, or whether we adopt BIP 100, BIP 101, etc, the block size will continue to slowly grow naturally as adoption increases. With no change to the cap, that growth will be stopped in its tracks in about a year. The 1 MB cap was added as a temporary solution to the worry of a spam transaction attack, which hasn't yet materialized. To maintain the 1MB cap and artificially restrict the relaying of valid transactions would be a radical departure from what Bitcoin is.

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: glub0x on August 30, 2015, 08:17:26 AM

Quote from: turvarya on August 30, 2015, 04:40:21 AM

Because it was always done this way and therefor it is the easiest solution to implement.
I am not sure, how a 1 BTC= 1 vote would work. After all the votes have to be in the blockchain.

It would be nice to have a BIP that takes into account technical growth, but that is also impossible since, this information is also not in the

To be clear i am not saying this idea is better or even if it is good just that it looks as arbitrary as to give vote to miners.
Now You can sign a messages on the blockchain with your private key and then multiply that with the amount of satoshi
it would work a bit the same way as the miner voting system but instead of "1mhZ" 1 vote, you get "1btc" 1 vote.

About technical growth. we can start by considering the technical growth from 2009 until 2015 which is a start. after that only predictions true.

I don't think, you understand how miner voting works. They don't vote with the Hashing power, they vote with the blocks they have found and putting additional information in that blocks.
For a voting system with BTC, people would have to send BTC (making a transaction) and put additional information in there. There is no "signing a message on the blockchain" other than that. The question here is also, what prevents them from just sending the same BTC to sign their votes. You can't tell, if when address A is sending to address B, if address B belongs to the same person, just excluding address B from voting would mean, that whoever makes the first votes in a voting period, would have a advantage.
Unless you can show me a more detailed description of how that is supposed to work, I don't think it is a good idea.

glub0x

legendary

Activity: 892

Merit: 1013

Quote from: turvarya on August 30, 2015, 04:40:21 AM

Because it was always done this way and therefor it is the easiest solution to implement.
I am not sure, how a 1 BTC= 1 vote would work. After all the votes have to be in the blockchain.

It would be nice to have a BIP that takes into account technical growth, but that is also impossible since, this information is also not in the

To be clear i am not saying this idea is better or even if it is good just that it looks as arbitrary as to give vote to miners.
Now You can sign a messages on the blockchain with your private key and then multiply that with the amount of satoshi
it would work a bit the same way as the miner voting system but instead of "1mhZ" 1 vote, you get "1btc" 1 vote.

About technical growth. we can start by considering the technical growth from 2009 until 2015 which is a start. after that only predictions true.

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: glub0x on August 30, 2015, 04:10:22 AM

has anybody came with BIP XXX where 1 bitcoin = 1 vote for the blocksize in the same way BIP101 do it with miners?
People using bitcoin are as important as miner. No user ->No value-> No miners -> no bitcoin

Why give this power to the miner is what i do not understand.
Also, why the hardlimit at 32mb ?

Still bip100 is better than doing nothing. You can spend your all life doing nothing. Perfect is the enemy of good.

Because it was always done this way and therefor it is the easiest solution to implement.
I am not sure, how a 1 BTC= 1 vote would work. After all the votes have to be in the blockchain.

It would be nice to have a BIP that takes into account technical growth, but that is also impossible since, this information is also not in the Blockchain(BIP101 and BIP103 are only based on prediction, not on what actually will happen)
Theoretical BIP100 could be used for that, but there is just too much trust, that miners would vote this way, instead of a way, that benefits them the most.

glub0x

legendary

Activity: 892

Merit: 1013

has anybody came with BIP XXX where 1 bitcoin = 1 vote for the blocksize in the same way BIP101 do it with miners?
People using bitcoin are as important as miner. No user ->No value-> No miners -> no bitcoin

Why give this power to the miner is what i do not understand.
Also, why the hardlimit at 32mb ?

Still bip100 is better than doing nothing. You can spend your all life doing nothing. Perfect is the enemy of good.

colinistheman

hero member

Activity: 907

Merit: 1003

Quote from: TibanneCat on August 29, 2015, 09:07:26 AM

Quote from: alani123 on August 29, 2015, 06:26:56 AM

We have no evidence to indicate that Moore's law is applicable on bitcoin's blockchain Why would anyone want to force the blockchain expanding at pre-set dates. The concept behind an increasing block size has no basis other than speculating that bitcoin's use will grow (and expecting the new users would want to use in-chain transactions. The vote mechanism of BIP100 is much more rational. It's good that Jeff wants to be open about development so possible weaknesses not thought out in the papers can be addressed while developing.

That is the main issue with 101
I think what Bobby Lee said sounds reasonable

That is exactly how the halving is calculated-- with pre-set dates and amounts (50btc, 25btc, 12.5btc). The block halvings are set on an arbitrary basis and it works very well. It's predictable and not manipulable.

It's a lot better to have the block size be predetermined for predictability and to keep it from being manipulated. Miners can and may very well abuse this new tool of control they never had before. It's actually adding a new factor to Bitcoin that it has never seen before-- a much stronger change than a simple predetermined block size increase.

marky89

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 502

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: knight22 on August 30, 2015, 02:36:21 AM

As such:

http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

Almost all of the industry that creates the financial infrastructure are/will support BIP101 for the obvious reason that it gives them predictable room for growth. Some people here don't realize how much this aspect is important for the long term prospect of these businesses. IMO they have more weight than miners in this debate because they are the one that gives usefulness to the coin. There is not a lot incentives for miners to mine a coins unappealing that can't be used properly by the industry in general. It is my belief that they will push aggressively at some point if Core doesn't move quickly. Coinwallet "stress test" is no coincidence and they won't be alone pushing toward that goal. The industry have invested roughly a billion dollar up to date and you can be sure that they won't let their investments being jeopardized with a bad block size growth implementation from a business perspective.

I and many others disagree with this notion. Retail payment applications are of tertiary concern to me. Sure, I use Bitpay to pay for things from time to time, and I'm glad that Circle exists so that people have another avenue to buy/sell bitcoin. But this isn't really what gives usefulness to bitcoin. The usefulness of bitcoin comes from being a decentralized/trustless, transferable token of value. Miners are integral to maintaining the security of that system. Bitcoin is based on proof-of-work, after all. Let's not get too far removed from what it is by focusing on what a few corporate executives think.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: marky89 on August 30, 2015, 02:08:21 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 10:18:42 PM

Quote from: TibanneCat on August 29, 2015, 09:07:26 AM

Quote from: alani123 on August 29, 2015, 06:26:56 AM

We have no evidence to indicate that Moore's law is applicable on bitcoin's blockchain Why would anyone want to force the blockchain expanding at pre-set dates. The concept behind an increasing block size has no basis other than speculating that bitcoin's use will grow (and expecting the new users would want to use in-chain transactions. The vote mechanism of BIP100 is much more rational. It's good that Jeff wants to be open about development so possible weaknesses not thought out in the papers can be addressed while developing.

That is the main issue with 101
I think what Bobby Lee said sounds reasonable

Quote from: https://vip.btcchina.com/page/noticetemplate?id=100

Our perspective is that the Internet today, in China and also globally, is not yet ready for unrestrained, automatic increases of the block size. A global network of bitcoin miners and mining pools requires tremendous levels of network connectivity to relay large blocks around the world in a timely manner. If block sizes get too big, too fast, orphan rates will certainly increase, disadvantaging smaller miners and mining pools. Furthermore, the risks of larger forks would increase substantially, which will cause real devastation to bitcoin. ... For these technical reasons, we strongly believe that adopting BIP 100 is the more responsible choice.

Unbalance or not, we are finally heading toward consensus as BIP100 has 64% support and steadily increasing
not a single block has been mined under BIP101 in the past 24h

Consensus toward miners but not from payment processors and market markers that strongly support BIP101 for obvious reasons. Both should go in an agreement otherwise it's not a consensus, it's a miners take over.

That's not really how bitcoin works. Consensus works because of economic incentives, and forks happen because of hashing power -- not the opinions of Bitpay, etc. which may change now that new alternatives to BIP 101 are emerging. Who are these market makers that you speak of, anyway?

As such:

http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

Almost all of the industry that creates the financial infrastructure are/will support BIP101 for the obvious reason that it gives them predictable room for growth. Some people here don't realize how much this aspect is important for the long term prospect of these businesses. IMO they have more weight than miners in this debate because they are the one that gives usefulness to the coin. There is not a lot incentives for miners to mine a coins unappealing that can't be used properly by the industry in general. It is my belief that they will push aggressively at some point if Core doesn't move quickly. Coinwallet "stress test" is no coincidence and they won't be alone pushing toward that goal. The industry have invested roughly a billion dollar up to date and you can be sure that they won't let their investments being jeopardized with a bad block size growth implementation from a business perspective.

marky89

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 502

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 10:18:42 PM

Quote from: TibanneCat on August 29, 2015, 09:07:26 AM

Quote from: alani123 on August 29, 2015, 06:26:56 AM

We have no evidence to indicate that Moore's law is applicable on bitcoin's blockchain Why would anyone want to force the blockchain expanding at pre-set dates. The concept behind an increasing block size has no basis other than speculating that bitcoin's use will grow (and expecting the new users would want to use in-chain transactions. The vote mechanism of BIP100 is much more rational. It's good that Jeff wants to be open about development so possible weaknesses not thought out in the papers can be addressed while developing.

That is the main issue with 101
I think what Bobby Lee said sounds reasonable

Quote from: https://vip.btcchina.com/page/noticetemplate?id=100

Our perspective is that the Internet today, in China and also globally, is not yet ready for unrestrained, automatic increases of the block size. A global network of bitcoin miners and mining pools requires tremendous levels of network connectivity to relay large blocks around the world in a timely manner. If block sizes get too big, too fast, orphan rates will certainly increase, disadvantaging smaller miners and mining pools. Furthermore, the risks of larger forks would increase substantially, which will cause real devastation to bitcoin. ... For these technical reasons, we strongly believe that adopting BIP 100 is the more responsible choice.

Unbalance or not, we are finally heading toward consensus as BIP100 has 64% support and steadily increasing
not a single block has been mined under BIP101 in the past 24h

Consensus toward miners but not from payment processors and market markers that strongly support BIP101 for obvious reasons. Both should go in an agreement otherwise it's not a consensus, it's a miners take over.

That's not really how bitcoin works. Consensus works because of economic incentives, and forks happen because of hashing power -- not the opinions of Bitpay, etc. which may change now that new alternatives to BIP 101 are emerging. Who are these market makers that you speak of, anyway?

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: TibanneCat on August 29, 2015, 09:07:26 AM

Quote from: alani123 on August 29, 2015, 06:26:56 AM

We have no evidence to indicate that Moore's law is applicable on bitcoin's blockchain Why would anyone want to force the blockchain expanding at pre-set dates. The concept behind an increasing block size has no basis other than speculating that bitcoin's use will grow (and expecting the new users would want to use in-chain transactions. The vote mechanism of BIP100 is much more rational. It's good that Jeff wants to be open about development so possible weaknesses not thought out in the papers can be addressed while developing.

That is the main issue with 101
I think what Bobby Lee said sounds reasonable

Quote from: https://vip.btcchina.com/page/noticetemplate?id=100

Our perspective is that the Internet today, in China and also globally, is not yet ready for unrestrained, automatic increases of the block size. A global network of bitcoin miners and mining pools requires tremendous levels of network connectivity to relay large blocks around the world in a timely manner. If block sizes get too big, too fast, orphan rates will certainly increase, disadvantaging smaller miners and mining pools. Furthermore, the risks of larger forks would increase substantially, which will cause real devastation to bitcoin. ... For these technical reasons, we strongly believe that adopting BIP 100 is the more responsible choice.

Unbalance or not, we are finally heading toward consensus as BIP100 has 64% support and steadily increasing
not a single block has been mined under BIP101 in the past 24h

Consensus toward miners but not from payment processors and market markers that strongly support BIP101 for obvious reasons. Both should go in an agreement otherwise it's not a consensus, it's a miners take over.

TibanneCat

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

BTC > etc

Quote from: alani123 on August 29, 2015, 06:26:56 AM

We have no evidence to indicate that Moore's law is applicable on bitcoin's blockchain Why would anyone want to force the blockchain expanding at pre-set dates. The concept behind an increasing block size has no basis other than speculating that bitcoin's use will grow (and expecting the new users would want to use in-chain transactions. The vote mechanism of BIP100 is much more rational. It's good that Jeff wants to be open about development so possible weaknesses not thought out in the papers can be addressed while developing.

That is the main issue with 101
I think what Bobby Lee said sounds reasonable

Quote from: https://vip.btcchina.com/page/noticetemplate?id=100

Our perspective is that the Internet today, in China and also globally, is not yet ready for unrestrained, automatic increases of the block size. A global network of bitcoin miners and mining pools requires tremendous levels of network connectivity to relay large blocks around the world in a timely manner. If block sizes get too big, too fast, orphan rates will certainly increase, disadvantaging smaller miners and mining pools. Furthermore, the risks of larger forks would increase substantially, which will cause real devastation to bitcoin. ... For these technical reasons, we strongly believe that adopting BIP 100 is the more responsible choice.

Unbalance or not, we are finally heading toward consensus as BIP100 has 64% support and steadily increasing
not a single block has been mined under BIP101 in the past 24h

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: Mickeyb on August 29, 2015, 02:00:40 AM

For God's sake, why doesn't one of these devs doesn't come up with a BIP that just increases block size, on a fixed or a dynamic schedule with no add-ons, with no giving power to anybody more or less.

You mean like BIP 101? It does exactly that. And it's already designed, coded, and tested.

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 29, 2015, 03:27:29 AM

yep. maybe that proposal is just too complicated and will bring too many problems with it.
iam still in favor of a smooth increase over time 2MB, 4 MB, 8MB, 14 MB...

it should be an easy design.

We have no evidence to indicate that Moore's law is applicable on bitcoin's blockchain Why would anyone want to force the blockchain expanding at pre-set dates. The concept behind an increasing block size has no basis other than speculating that bitcoin's use will grow (and expecting the new users would want to use in-chain transactions. The vote mechanism of BIP100 is much more rational. It's good that Jeff wants to be open about development so possible weaknesses not thought out in the papers can be addressed while developing.

Topic: question - page 5. (Read 5016 times)