Topic: The Blocksize Debate & Concerns - page 2. (Read 11213 times)

simple

Far too large a contingent would never accept Andresen, Garzik, and the rest of those cronies as the developers. Because it means 2MB + shill dev team. Not just 2MB on it's own. Fail, Franky.

changing the block limit individually, to reject blocks.. is a stupid thing to do purely for slow connections.. it basically renders the node no longer part of the network
but here is some advice.

limit the number of node CONNECTIONS and you get the desire you want.

EG someone with fast internet can have 50-100 nodes connected. (it used to be termed supernode)
EG someone with slow internet can have 1-6 nodes connected.

the point of the blocksize consensus is that everyone agrees to a certain level.. you may be asking why..
to ensure everyone accepts the same block data. and thus no rejects/orphans due to relays. (there are other ways to orphan but pools can mitigate those other risks as explained before)

so getting to your previous point. if everyone was at 2mb.. they can ALL accept any blocks of 200byte-2000000byte with no issue. meaning a 0.5mb block is accepted, a 1.001mb block is accepted a 1.9mb block is accepted

so by having "block consensus". people only then need to mess around with how many nodes they relay to and from. which can be independent. and a post on another page of this topic pointed out the 37mb/10 minute upload ability of a 0.5mbit internet connection (baseline) shows that even slow internet connections can relay to a few nodes..

by the way its worth pointing this out because even segwit goes upto 4mb(buffer) of REALDATA*.. and if you are thinking of running pruned/no-witness mode, you are no longer a full node so might aswell just run multibit or electrum or other lite clients

now preparing for your rebuttal that not everyone would accept 2mb..
this whole year has been about the 2mb buffer wont be ACTIVATED until consensus is reached. and so it wont make a difference before consensus because noone will make blocks over 1mb before consensus.. and obviously consensus is reached if it got activated which means everyone would be accepting the new buffer

*segwit keeps "base size at 1000000 meaning traditional transactions are at the same 1mb limit.. the extra 3mb is only for segwit witnesses(signatures)
which with a 1in-2out standard tx segwit doesnt offer much more capacity allowance at all, but does allow the capacity trick to be noticeable more if everyone was using multisigs or multiple inputs.. dont confuse segwits 4mb buffer as a "blocklimit" buffer of 4mb for traditional transactions.

What if the blocksize limit were chosen by each node individually?

Everyone would set the minimum = send and the maximum =receive.

So for example I would send minimum 2 mb blocks (if full), but accept maximum 6 mb blocks.

Would it work? That would make it optional for those with shitty internet to put a cap, but those that have good internet would have bigger cap (but not infinite to defend against DDOS)

"alot" is an exaggeration. but as the increase happens slowly and naturally. pools will learn new and better ways to check their work to reduce their risk.
pools wont jump from 1mb straight to 2b of data overnight..

the blocklimit is a BUFFER.. just like the 1mb was a BUFFER when pools were making only 500k in 2013.. slowly rising ,, again SLOWLY rising til this year
so pools from day one of getting the 95%-100% consensus activation would slowly increase to 1.01mb of dta with the 2mb BUFFER enforced


infact many people already have implementations with the 2mb BUFFER right now. yep, live.. yep receiving and relaying blockchain data of bitcoin, not some altcoin.




as to carlton and his blockstream devotion(a corporation funded using bank money) is the "group" that has the echo chamber of circle jerking to the already converted corporate lovers
ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

the real funny thing is blockstreamers cannot pretend they want decentralized independence if they call shill to who is not TEAM blockstream.. which brings me to an earlier point

as for what i have done for the community lol.. well carlton didnt answer my question about if you would do a "REKT" campaign on luke JR when he releases his "independent code" that is not blockstream/core accepted.. so you can just presume what you like about my potential answer too.

the answer is 2 possibilities
1. indeed Luke Jr would receive the noble REKT campaign because it defies blockstream investors contract, and breaches one of the conditions that would release one of the financial tranches.. so ofcourse there has to be a big push to destroy its chances of success
2. carlton will have to backtrack every statement he made and accept luke Jr's code is good and works.

EG its a "marmite" decision. you either love it or hate it..

FTFY


So, the banking shills you represent started flooding the Bitcoin network with low fee transactions simply to push full nodes off the network, and you really expect anyone to believe that the whole charade won't begin all over again if your 2MB2MB2MB wish came true?

You people are slowly beginning to create your own internal bitcointalk echo chamber, you can barely attract anyone to your irrelevant debates anywhere on the internet let alone on this forum. It's going to be nothing but talk (oh, and yours and Peter's pretty pictures, of course), and , as usual, no action.

Do something relevant. With anyone or to anything. I predict you will all fail for, how many times have you failed so far, Frankys? It's easier to count the successes: 0

Actually there is no correlation, so i deleted that post.

We either need more data, but i doubt that we have time for that. Also if we increase it to 2mb, and then a lot of ophans will appear, it's not like we can decrease it back to 1 mb.

SO that will be a 1 way deal, therefore if a hardfork were to happen, it should be better tested out and simulated before implemented, because we cant roll back if something bad happens.

your opinion. and it sounds more like scare mongering rather than researched info..
by the way..
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?timespan=2year
this may help..
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2year

orphans go down as blocksize goes up.

this is because miners have money on the line. they are not going to risk it, instead they are going to look for methods to be more efficient and ensure their work gets paid off..(they learned their lesson in july 2015) and became more efficient afterwards

for instance.. lets say the blocklimit was 2mb today.. pools are not going to jump to 2mb tomorrow... just like they didnt jump to 1mb back in 2013 when it was finally possible to go beyond the 500k DB bug of v0.7-v0.8 era and able to then utilise the  1mb maxblocksize buffer
it was slow natural growth at a pace they deemed safe. at a pace they deemed efficient

Thats your opinion. I dont see much logic here though, if you mean with fork the same as me, namelly more possible onchain capacity for more possible transactions if miners have enought fee incentive for the increased orphan risk (thanks Peter R for getting hard data to easily viewable form, as usual), I dont see how it can crash the price. Simply saying potentially more people are able to use Bitcoin and full nodes still on home PCs - who would vote against Bitcoin by selling ?

no one has said "free" transactions..
the actual debate is that we should not be pushing for excessive fees today when its not even critical for decades.

the fee:reward ratio changes SLOWLY over DECADES. there is no need to controversially keep block sizes down to force fee's up
because the better option for EVERYONE is to have low fee's to keep bitcoin feeling useful. and to slowly increase capacity which would allow more transactions of low fee's which when combined form a bigger pot of funds to help towards the fee:reward ratio change.

this again for emphasis is not a critical thing to force today.

but lets fiip the debate the other way round..
do you want to force keeping the capacity at only 2500-5000 tx a block. meaning for miners to get $10k a block. the fee needs to be $2-$4 per tx

that mindset would make bitcoin worthless for users not only due to not wanting to pay $2+ but also due to capacity limits irritating people who end up waiting hours-days for a confirm.. thus making people not use bitcoin. thus making there be no fee's for the miners to claim. meaning both users and miners disapear. and bitcoin is dead..

miners dont need fees today..
at the moment fee=bonus reward=income.
that will only flip in a couple decades.. no a couple years, so relax..

so as i said the solution is not fee war and capacity crippling.. but instead slow natural growth of capacity with a tx fee remaining low. so that miners dont get paid via $2 for 5000 people but get paid much less per person but with more people

its the same mentality of crowdfunding..
you dont go chasing a couple people for hundreds of dollars.. you ask hundreds of people for a couple dollars

Uh oh Peter, you better watch out man...you're posting "fancy graphics" again.
Wouldn't want anyone to think you're trying to gloss over the issues here. lol.

My understand of the whole conservation between you, me and Gregory is as follows:


1) The natural fee market depends on orphaning risk.  

2) Greg makes the argument that the relay network prevents
bigger blocks from creating more orphaning risk (
presumably because the time intsensive operations are
done pre-emptively)

3) My counter argument is: Why would the miners continue
to use the relay network if it undermines the fee market?

4) I've seen no answer to that question.

The bottom line is that bitcoin runs by distributed consensus.
We all choose to run the code and follow the rules that make
sense.

The idea that some mining group in the future could start undermining
(no pun intended) network security by publishing blocks
with zero to little fees attached is not much different than
the idea that some mining group today could start undermining
network utility by publishing blocks with no transactions.

It's up to the community to only support pools that are acting
in the best interests of Bitcoin.  You can take this idea of
non-rational mining to the extreme and ultimately you end up
with a 51% attack, regardless of whatever fee market you have
or don't have.

I always enjoy reading your comments, jonald_fyookbool.  Please consider coming over to https://bitco.in/forum/ once and a while!

On the topic of block-size dependent orphaning risk, I remember when I first released my transaction fee market paper, Maxwell and Co. said that orphaning wasn't a deterrent against larger blocks because miners use Corallo's Relay Network and thus don't suffer block-size-dependent orphaning risk (and then later they said that we can't have bigger blocks because orphaning risk would be too high ... but let's ignore that contradiction for now).

Blockchain.info keeps tabs on orphaned blocks, and I wrote a script to scrape their site and import that raw data into Mathematica. The data goes back about two years and only appears to be missing a gap from last summer.

If the theory that larger blocks actually are more likely to be orphaned than small blocks is true, then hopefully there would be evidence of this in real orphan data. The figure below shows that indeed this does appear to be the case. Orphaned blocks are consistently larger (on average) than nearby blocks in the main chain.



Indeed, miners incur a real cost by producing extra block space; block space behaves like a normal commodity.

This guy must be REALLY fun to talk politics with. 

It's a shame when people become so entrenched in their views that anyone else who raises concerns, shares a dissenting view or dares to have a difference of opinion is dismissed as a shill/sockpuppet/scammer/liar/etc.

No independent thought, please, people.  That sort of thing isn't tolerated around here.   

For the time being, I'm happy to wait and see what effect segwit has, but I'm still highly dubious it will deliver anything like the gains its proponents are claiming.  I'm even more wary of RBF and it's clear I'm far from being the only one.  If you're not even prepared to recognise people have concerns that they feel are justified (even if you don't agree) then your sole achievement from this point forward will be to further alienate people and reinforce a toxic atmosphere of distrust on both sides.

You are a scammer. You're deceiving people into accepting a damaging proposal you're promoting. Scamming. That makes you a scammer.

Peter Rizun who presented at the scaling conference and published papers on the fee market.

I will assume you are simply joking and not stooping to the level of Carlton by
accusing those who hold different opinions as scammers.

Peter, Greg, myself, and a few others discussed Peter's paper in the following
thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274102.0;all

It's a pretty good read. 

Considering the gravity of your complaints *ahem* rizlarolla, you should contact your local law enforcement. I'm sure they'll take you incredibly seriously when you tell them an 80's sitcom character threatened you with death from natural causes. On the internet. Never mind the threat you represent


And what else could we expect from the sort of person who supports Gavin Andresen; who famously believes that Bitcoin homogeneity/fungibility should be replaced with blacklisting/Ethereum style blockchain rollbacks, because "nasty horrible stealing" lol




If Bitcoin has taught you anything, it should have been that lies, force and threats are not the answer, but when you man-babies can't win it straight, you resort to every immoral trick you can muster, and then some. And you have no shame. You're a waste of carbon and oxygen, how's that for a threat lol

OK, reported.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/could-a-mod-look-at-this-member-please-1532295

I'm legitimately incensed. You're breaking the rules motherfucker: the rules of basic human moral conduct. You can't expect to use lies and deception to manipulate an important human endeavour and not receive vicious push-back. Do you want me step it up a notch with you or something? I've got extra levels of opprobrium, if that's what you want.

And for the love of god: It's not ad hominem when it's true.

Lol, I cant babysit this thread 24/7, havent even read half of the thread because i see too many trolls here and i dont waste my time with that, if you dont like a post, report it to the mods. Besides this is not a self-moderated threads, so repors should go to mods not me.