^
Buffer Overflow? If 1MB overflows, just alloc more mem. Problem solved, amirite?
Topic: The hardfork will make Gavincoin plummet to zero - page 4. (Read 11296 times)
We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.
We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.
Fuck sakes, if Satoshi was so smart why the hell didn't he add 20 MB by default? he would have saved us from this mess. Geeeeez.
Satoshi had no limit on block sizes at all. From block 1 it was legal to have a 2MB, 20MB, even 33MB block. There was a 33.5MB limit on message length and since blocks are transmitted as a single message it would have limited blocks to only 33.5MB but even this wasn't a hard limit as new message type could have been added which transmitted blocks in other ways (i.e. header & txn hashes vs full transactions).
The 1MB "limit" was added as a temporary anti-spam measure 18 months later. There was no voting, no significant discussion, and the commit wasn't made by Satoshi. It actually was combined with a bunch of other unrelated changes and not even well documented at the time. There is nothing which indicates this was a core design decision that Bitcoin would perpetually be limited to 1MB.
Of course people that have their own agenda like MP will chose to ignore or not reveal the true history of this 1MB limit. I think things are pretty much clear and done regarding this subject. Sathoshi never intended for a block size limit. It was introduced because we didn't know how to handle spam and it was the easier and the fastest way to limit it. But now after a period of time we can develop technical stuff to deal with the spam in other way than limiting the block size. Go Gavin fork! Suck it MP!
We need smarter solution. Side chains can solve this problem easy.
We already have it. Blockchain pruning. Just needs more development and testing. People anti-fork choose to ignore things that are real and that are helpful!
It's something that has to happen. Can't understand why these threads pop up regularly.
1MB is enough for current transactions, but it will need a far higher amount if you want to make it future proof.
1MB is enough for current transactions, but it will need a far higher amount if you want to make it future proof.
Increasing limit is not solution.
a) there are 7,000,000,000 people (let say only 1,000,000,000 will use bitcoin)
b) everybody makes 2-3 transactions per day
c) 1 transaction takes 230 bytes
d) there are 240 blocks per day (24 * 10)
=> (1,000,000,000 * 3 * 230)/240 = 2,8 GB per block
We need smarter solution. Side chains can solve this problem easy.
a) there are 7,000,000,000 people (let say only 1,000,000,000 will use bitcoin)
b) everybody makes 2-3 transactions per day
c) 1 transaction takes 230 bytes
d) there are 240 blocks per day (24 * 10)
=> (1,000,000,000 * 3 * 230)/240 = 2,8 GB per block
We need smarter solution. Side chains can solve this problem easy.
the answer is quite simple
To me there is no question about it, the future is:
Altchains + merged mining =
Multiple chains, easy convertibility, no central point of failure, efficiency, no problem to innovate, no hardfork dramas and no problem to scale
Bitcoin bagholders for some reason like to argue for monotony instead of diversity. I think that line of thought is unhealthy.
Altchains + merged mining =
Multiple chains, easy convertibility, no central point of failure, efficiency, no problem to innovate, no hardfork dramas and no problem to scale
Bitcoin bagholders for some reason like to argue for monotony instead of diversity. I think that line of thought is unhealthy.
altchains - what else?
Each chain can hold a few million users.
Maybe it'll take some more time with most people to let reality sink in.
There is really no rational reason to mash everything onto one blockchain - it's even impossible
Increasing limit is not solution.
a) there are 7,000,000,000 people (let say only 1,000,000,000 will use bitcoin)
b) everybody makes 2-3 transactions per day
c) 1 transaction takes 230 bytes
d) there are 240 blocks per day (24 * 10)
=> (1,000,000,000 * 3 * 230)/240 = 2,8 GB per block
We need smarter solution. Side chains can solve this problem easy.
a) there are 7,000,000,000 people (let say only 1,000,000,000 will use bitcoin)
b) everybody makes 2-3 transactions per day
c) 1 transaction takes 230 bytes
d) there are 240 blocks per day (24 * 10)
=> (1,000,000,000 * 3 * 230)/240 = 2,8 GB per block
We need smarter solution. Side chains can solve this problem easy.
full member
Activity: 882
Merit: 102
PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds
Looks like China is cashing out. They communicate on the market...
better get cover to not get crushed
better get cover to not get crushed
full member
Activity: 882
Merit: 102
PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds
Why 20? why not 40 60 80 or 100?
Why not make it dynamic. Oh because it's gavins way or the highway
Why not make it dynamic. Oh because it's gavins way or the highway
I think 20 mb is a good second limit, we will see what happen, but I think it will be a good thing.
I think it will be a good thing.
Why 20? why not 40 60 80 or 100?
Why not make it dynamic. Oh because it's gavins way or the highway
Why not make it dynamic. Oh because it's gavins way or the highway
I think 20 mb is a good second limit, we will see what happen, but I think it will be a good thing.
Why 20? why not 40 60 80 or 100?
Why not make it dynamic. Oh because it's gavins way or the highway
Why not make it dynamic. Oh because it's gavins way or the highway
I would like to have seen a more 'smart' solution though than just increasing the blocksize. Something that will automatically scale on demand, like the difficulty.
i favour to completly remove the limit (including the ~30mb message size one) and let miners decide - if the blockchain gets to big i expect them to make countermeasures because its in their interest to keep bitcoin going.
so i dont think we dont need any limit at all. any hardcoded limit may fail, any formula might fail (because we cant predict the future). but i trust people who need bitcoin to survive to make decisions to keep bitcoin alive (=miners)
full member
Activity: 882
Merit: 102
PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds
i won't be using Gavincoin - and you can not force me to it
Yes of course you are free to do whatever you want , if the devs will make this hard fork only those who want will follow it (#decentralization).
it's not decentralisation but fragmentation
fragmentation is a part of decentralization, it is not a drama ... only 20 mb per block.
whatever your twisted mind tells you, fine with me
i won't be using Gavincoin - and you can not force me to it
Yes of course you are free to do whatever you want , if the devs will make this hard fork only those who want will follow it (#decentralization).
it's not decentralisation but fragmentation
fragmentation is a part of decentralization, it is not a drama ... only 20 mb per block.
full member
Activity: 882
Merit: 102
PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds
i won't be using Gavincoin - and you can not force me to it
Yes of course you are free to do whatever you want , if the devs will make this hard fork only those who want will follow it (#decentralization).
It's not decentralisation but fragmentation
I'm pretty sure though it will be dropped. If it won't that's going to be a hell of a show.
I'll be in Litecoin that day.
i won't be using Gavincoin - and you can not force me to it
Yes of course you are free to do whatever you want , if the devs will make this hard fork only those who want will follow it (#decentralization).
i won't be using Gavincoin - and you can not force me to it
Nobody has suggested you are forced to use it. full member
Activity: 882
Merit: 102
PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds
i won't be using Gavincoin - and you can not force me to it
*stamps feet*
not stamping feet. Grinning from ear to ear
I'm a free person and i choose what i like
You won't dictate to me.
i won't be using Gavincoin - and you can not force me to it
*stamps feet*
Jump to: