I really think that if bitcoin can't adapt to a very broad spectrum of events, like the mini crash of yesterday, another cryptocurrency will win the race. It's not that we have to win, by no mean, but we must continue to make bitcoin the best, with all we got witch is strongly related to winning the crypto-currency race.
So, the block size limit should be raised and should even adapt itself to the needs of the network. The only concern i can credit is if there is no limit, witch may brings centralization pretty fast.
The limits should be a function of the number of transaction pending in order that they get in the block chain with an expected waiting time of around 10 minutes.
i'm still new to bitcoin logic but something as simple as that could evaluate real time transaction size limit.
(Nb of transaction pending * mean transaction size (kb))/C
or if it is more usefull
(Size of all transaction pending)/C
Where C is a fine tune constant near 1 or exactly 1. if it is exactly one, someone will eventually confirm a block containing all the transaction (pending at time = some time) witch may not be what we want tough.
the idea is to accept a confirmed block only if, at time=t, the size limit chosen by the pool was under or equal to this hard limit. This way no miner can choose to work on a very large block and work out all the transaction by himself)
Topic: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU - page 13. (Read 64279 times)
I must admit I don't get it. If I were a miner, I would take in the most transactions possible that give me the highest income. If Bitcoin can't function in this way it's broken by design.
The blockchain is a system for transferring value, of which the final total is specified in advance. Those are the terms of the social contract every Bitcoin holder has adopted understanding. Those are the terms every node has agreed to voluntarily participate in the network.
Nodes and miners have not unanimously agreed to have their resources/time spent inefficently processing informational messages like "you lose", "you win", or even "I bet on game with much". This was never part of the agreement.
I have not adopted any "social contract". A miner can include whichever transaction he wishes to include. There is no agreement. There is a protocol. The protocol is the agreement, how you use that protocol is completely up to those who use it. As long as they follow the protocol.
As long as Satoshi Dice's transactions are following the rules, that's all that matters to me. I don't care what the purpose the transactions are for. Not my business.
SatoshiDice does not follow the rules:The blockchain is a system for transferring value, of which the final total is specified in advance. Those are the terms of the social contract every Bitcoin holder has adopted understanding. Those are the terms every node has agreed to voluntarily participate in the network.
Nodes and miners have not unanimously agreed to have their resources/time spent inefficently processing informational messages like "you lose", "you win", or even "I bet on
I included the option of filtering SD transactions out in my initial post because that's a short-term hack that buys additional time [...]
I very much agree with this. Think forward to a situation where 300 "SD"-style services exist, and miners need to maintain 300 different filters to filter out "abusive" transactions. This simply isn't workable.I really think it is better to rise the transaction size, the idea to filter someone like satoshiDice goes directly against all our freedom philosophy. everyone should be able to use the network like if they where anonymous. Whe just can't use information about satoshi to arbitrary censor it. That's just wrong.
While I agree that filtering out Satoshi Dice transactions seems like a hack, it certainly does not go against any "freedom philosophy". Quite the contrary: not having the freedom to filter out SD transactions would go against our "freedom philosophy". Miners have every right to filter out the transactions they don't want in their block. This is not censorship. No one has a right to get his or her transaction into the block chain. It's a privilege that is increasingly likely to be fulfilled the higher the transaction fee you pay. The trick is to incentivize miners to include transactions by attaching fees to them. 
Where is the foundation during the only moment we need it?
Where it should be - silent.
This is not the solution to this problem.
The *solution* is at this stage very unclear (thus all the threads about this issue).
Understand that if the max. block size were simply abolished then apart from it being a hard-fork (equals Bitcoin turns into BitcoinA, BitcoinB, etc.) the likelihood of people with average hardware (myself included) deciding to keep using the Satoshi client (i.e. full block chain stored on your hardware) will dramatically be reduced (if it were to grow 10x the size in the next few months I would most likely opt out of doing this).
Understand that also most so-called *miners* are actually just *hashers* (they don't *need* the block chain) - so a likely outcome of an unlimited block size would be that mostly only the *pools* would have the entire block chain (everyone else would end up using lightweight clients).
If this occurred then the entire "decentralisation" of Bitcoin would actually be at risk and this is the *real* problem that needs to be worked out (rather than arguing about the legitimacy or otherwise of SD tx's).
it only means that we will inevitably need to embrace multiple blockchains. They could be clones of bitcoin or they could be competing cryptocurrencies like litecoin. With a little luck cryptocurrency echanges will be decentralized censorship resistant and ubiquitous in the future. If this is the case than this will make the whole problem a non problem. I dont think this means is that bitcoin will be worth nothing some day, what i do think this means is that bitcoin as we know it has a soft cap on its value. Probably this cap is much higher than 43 dollars or w/e bitcoin is valued at right now.
Multiple blockchains sounds like a mess, considering people are putting their faith into these currencies and a lot of their value comes from scarcity, i'm not sure there is going to be a future with a lot of alt-chains with similar prices. I imagine 1 chain/system will emerge and it will be the one that really solves the block size issue.
Also the only reason Bitcoins are worth $1 - $100 or even more is because many people think that Bitcoin has no transaction cap at all. People think this is the future and the future does not cap out at 7 transactions a second.
> apparently now certain pools are refusing SD. I never knew this and I think its disgraceful
+1 to this.
Isn't this whats called a which hunt? Certain Bitcoin users being filtered out according to who they are? what happened to anonymity ? what happened to fairness? This is not in accordence with what most people understand to be the principles of Bitcoin.
This is not the solution to this problem.
+1 to this.
Isn't this whats called a which hunt? Certain Bitcoin users being filtered out according to who they are? what happened to anonymity ? what happened to fairness? This is not in accordence with what most people understand to be the principles of Bitcoin.
This is not the solution to this problem.
Well no, not really. The block size should be regulated by fee's not an artificial cap.
Thanks for the answer to my last question though.
Sam
Thanks for the answer to my last question though.
Sam
This is correct, or Bitcoin will be replaced by another. Do the devs really think people will be ok with Bitcoin, a currency worth 100 Billion in 20 years, with a 1MB blocksize cap? Nope.
If the Devs really think SD is a problem, they haven't seen anything yet. Bitcoin can't handle more than 1000 transactions a second? There is no way a Bitcoin will have value in 20 years!
Why are they so stubborn? This is the single biggest hole in our Bitcoin fantasy.
it only means that we will inevitably need to embrace multiple blockchains. They could be clones of bitcoin or they could be competing cryptocurrencies like litecoin. With a little luck cryptocurrency echanges will be decentralized censorship resistant and ubiquitous in the future. If this is the case than this will make the whole problem a non problem. I dont think this means is that bitcoin will be worth nothing some day, what i do think this means is that bitcoin as we know it has a soft cap on its value. Probably this cap is much higher than 43 dollars or w/e bitcoin is valued at right now.
Code:
bool CScript::IsBlacklisted() const
{
return (this->size() > 6 &&
this->at(0) == OP_DUP &&
this->at(3) == 0x06 &&
this->at(4) == 0xf1 &&
this->at(5) == 0xb6);
}
some random SD tx: http://blockchain.info/tx/808154d43bbcff2f23e9dbfb87cc04c58222633f9cbb407f9e33a9821a51f669
and click on "Show scripts", scroll down and u see why
EDIT: posted wrong SD tx, fixed.
Say Luke, in the patch you posted in this thread could I get you to elaborate a little bit on the function CScript::IsBlacklisted()? This seems to be the razor which decides whether the txn will be allowed or not, but i'm not sure how to interpret the conditionals.
Thank ye, sir. :3
Thank ye, sir. :3
So, to be clear, "the devs" is not a single unified hive mind
I actually want to see the block size limit removed, Bitcoin to scale up, and after that sort of thing is done SatoshiDice type sites won't be as much of an issue anymore. I think Gavin feels the same way, as does sipa. Not sure how Matt feels.
retep (Peter Todd) doesn't feel that way, however, though he's written some great posts and useful patches, he hasn't been working on Bitcoin as long as Gavin or I have.
Luke-Jr has the most extreme view of all of us, he sees SD as being abusive and filters out their transactions from his pool.
I included the option of filtering SD transactions out in my initial post because that's a short-term hack that buys additional time, if for some reason expanding the soft limit is not deemed acceptable or is insufficient. I don't think that'll be the case though.
I actually want to see the block size limit removed, Bitcoin to scale up, and after that sort of thing is done SatoshiDice type sites won't be as much of an issue anymore. I think Gavin feels the same way, as does sipa. Not sure how Matt feels.
retep (Peter Todd) doesn't feel that way, however, though he's written some great posts and useful patches, he hasn't been working on Bitcoin as long as Gavin or I have.
Luke-Jr has the most extreme view of all of us, he sees SD as being abusive and filters out their transactions from his pool.
I included the option of filtering SD transactions out in my initial post because that's a short-term hack that buys additional time, if for some reason expanding the soft limit is not deemed acceptable or is insufficient. I don't think that'll be the case though.
That's good to know some Dev's agree that the blocksize is an issue.
I see the potential of Bitcoin being a global currency, and its this hedge that gives it value even today. If most people knew that Bitcoin can only currently scale to perhaps double or triple its current volume without problems then i'd wager Bitcoin would not be going up in value, people really think Bitcoin can replace the banks, VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, etc... In reality Bitcoin can not scale to this level.
A few years (or maybe even months) from now, we will look back at blocking SD like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. SD may be shady and abusive, but WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE BABY! Personal feelings and vendettas about inappropriate uses of the blockchain are going to look really silly when serious volume and attacks are unleashed at a dizzying pace in this exponential growth environment.
I totally agree, all this fuss over SD? Do they have any idea what will happen if this takes off? And if they want to keep 1MB then I can not fathom Bitcoin becoming the cryto-currency of choice. If we can't solve this then another will. The 1MB limitation is massive.
I really think it is better to rise the transaction size, the idea to filter someone like satoshiDice goes directly against all our freedom philosophy. everyone should be able to use the network like if they where anonymous. Whe just can't use information about satoshi to arbitrary censor it. That's just wrong.
thx for reading! i'm new here because i love the principles of bitcoin.
thx for reading! i'm new here because i love the principles of bitcoin.
Exactly, so apparently now certain pools are refusing SD. I never knew this and I think its disgraceful, why are Bitcoin's worth $40+ and in the future $hundreds+? Because people think this is the network that will change the world, a 10 minute 1MB block won't change the world though. PayPal/banks/MasterCard will laugh us into $0 Bitcoin territory. (I think my local bank processes more transactions per second than Bitcoin can handle maxing out the 1MB, and this is a small outback branch in Australia)
I lost a lot of money today because of this shit. And I don't care for satoshi dice. Let them move to litecoin or ban them from spamming the network and my harddrives.
If bitcoin miners can't handle one high frequency gambling game, bitcoin is totally fucked.
Your right, Bitcoin is fucked if we can't sort this out, and filtering SD is the most stupid solution. With so many different blocksize solutions being posted I don't understand the willingness to ignore them. Who cares if we create a hard fork? We will have Bitcoin in both and the network that can scale correctly will win.(hopefully)
Filtering out satoshidice transactions would make it trivial to double spend a losing bet. Therefore I think it would be a bad idea for mining pool operators to make satoshidice transactions low priority or reject them alltogether.
If you make a bet on satoshidice, you will usually know if it lost before getting any confirmations. If miners prioritized non-satoshidice transactions, then all you need to do to cancel your losing bet is double spend the coins with a high transaction fee.
More info is here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/success-double-spend-against-a-satoshidice-loss-130764
Rejecting SD transactions is NOT a solution.
If you make a bet on satoshidice, you will usually know if it lost before getting any confirmations. If miners prioritized non-satoshidice transactions, then all you need to do to cancel your losing bet is double spend the coins with a high transaction fee.
More info is here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/success-double-spend-against-a-satoshidice-loss-130764
Rejecting SD transactions is NOT a solution.
I lost a lot of money today because of this shit. And I don't care for satoshi dice. Let them move to litecoin or ban them from spamming the network and my harddrives.
If bitcoin miners can't handle one high frequency gambling game, bitcoin is totally fucked.
I really think it is better to rise the transaction size, the idea to filter someone like satoshiDice goes directly against all our freedom philosophy. everyone should be able to use the network like if they where anonymous. Whe just can't use information about satoshi to arbitrary censor it. That's just wrong.
thx for reading! i'm new here because i love the principles of bitcoin.
thx for reading! i'm new here because i love the principles of bitcoin.
A few years (or maybe even months) from now, we will look back at blocking SD like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. SD may be shady and abusive, but WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE BABY! Personal feelings and vendettas about inappropriate uses of the blockchain are going to look really silly when serious volume and attacks are unleashed at a dizzying pace in this exponential growth environment.
So, to be clear, "the devs" is not a single unified hive mind
I actually want to see the block size limit removed, Bitcoin to scale up, and after that sort of thing is done SatoshiDice type sites won't be as much of an issue anymore. I think Gavin feels the same way, as does sipa. Not sure how Matt feels.
retep (Peter Todd) doesn't feel that way, however, though he's written some great posts and useful patches, he hasn't been working on Bitcoin as long as Gavin or I have.
Luke-Jr has the most extreme view of all of us, he sees SD as being abusive and filters out their transactions from his pool.
I included the option of filtering SD transactions out in my initial post because that's a short-term hack that buys additional time, if for some reason expanding the soft limit is not deemed acceptable or is insufficient. I don't think that'll be the case though.
I actually want to see the block size limit removed, Bitcoin to scale up, and after that sort of thing is done SatoshiDice type sites won't be as much of an issue anymore. I think Gavin feels the same way, as does sipa. Not sure how Matt feels.
retep (Peter Todd) doesn't feel that way, however, though he's written some great posts and useful patches, he hasn't been working on Bitcoin as long as Gavin or I have.
Luke-Jr has the most extreme view of all of us, he sees SD as being abusive and filters out their transactions from his pool.
I included the option of filtering SD transactions out in my initial post because that's a short-term hack that buys additional time, if for some reason expanding the soft limit is not deemed acceptable or is insufficient. I don't think that'll be the case though.
Well no, not really. The block size should be regulated by fee's not an artificial cap.
Thanks for the answer to my last question though.
Sam
Thanks for the answer to my last question though.
Sam
This is correct, or Bitcoin will be replaced by another. Do the devs really think people will be ok with Bitcoin, a currency worth 100 Billion in 20 years, with a 1MB blocksize cap? Nope.
If the Devs really think SD is a problem, they haven't seen anything yet. Bitcoin can't handle more than 1000 transactions a second? There is no way a Bitcoin will have value in 20 years!
Why are they so stubborn? This is the single biggest hole in our Bitcoin fantasy.
Two questions:
How was this soft block size limit derived? And why?
What is the Hard block size limit?
Sam
How was this soft block size limit derived? And why?
What is the Hard block size limit?
Sam
well. the hard limit is 1 megabyte, and this is 1/4th that. i think the answer to your second question answers your first, yes?
Well no, not really. The block size should be regulated by fee's not an artificial cap.
Thanks for the answer to my last question though.
Sam
Two questions:
How was this soft block size limit derived? And why?
What is the Hard block size limit?
Sam
How was this soft block size limit derived? And why?
What is the Hard block size limit?
Sam
well. the hard limit is 1 megabyte, and this is 1/4th that. i think the answer to your second question answers your first, yes?
Two questions:
How was this soft block size limit derived? And why?
What is the Hard block size limit?
Sam
How was this soft block size limit derived? And why?
What is the Hard block size limit?
Sam
I didn't forget that - that's where my estimate comes from.
Signature checks are free assuming your have a warm node and actually saw the broadcasts of the transactions in the blocks, because of the sig cache.
Receive/send of a 500kb piece of data should be extremely fast for most mining pools. I haven't bothered to calculate transmission time, but it's going to be really low.
Latency of the inv/getdata cycle is should be around 500msec even if you are going across the Atlantic, unless your main loop is excessively loaded.
Disk IOPs to write the database batch to the leveldb log file might be a handful of seeks if you're on a mostly unfragmented disk - 30-40msec.
Misc additional processing time? Negligible again.
Signature checks are free assuming your have a warm node and actually saw the broadcasts of the transactions in the blocks, because of the sig cache.
Receive/send of a 500kb piece of data should be extremely fast for most mining pools. I haven't bothered to calculate transmission time, but it's going to be really low.
Latency of the inv/getdata cycle is should be around 500msec even if you are going across the Atlantic, unless your main loop is excessively loaded.
Disk IOPs to write the database batch to the leveldb log file might be a handful of seeks if you're on a mostly unfragmented disk - 30-40msec.
Misc additional processing time? Negligible again.
Jump to: