legendary
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1688
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
So, yep, I already understood the concepts
I thought you probably did. Sorry for the use of unfamiliar jargon.
At this point, I believe that the "emergency" is much exaggerated, and not as bit of a deal as it is being made out to be. That does not mean that NO action need be taken now, but it likely means that we do not need to rush into a solution that is imposed without considering various alternatives.
Look - I get that you're relatively new here. But rest assured we have been discussing this very issue for several years. Without that perspective in the rear view mirror, you may feel that the urgency is exaggerated. But to those of us who have been tracking this incipient problem for years, the situation does indeed appear dire.
I find it a bit curious that you want to suggest that I have arrived at my conclusion because I am "relatively new here."
No slight intended. I formed the impression that you thought the discussion over the max block size was a recent phenomenon. I just meant to point out that it has been ongoing for years.
The issue is that, once the lines intersect, growth is limited at the 'about 350,000' transactions a day level. The upward trending line of transactions a day flatlines - limited at the intersect to the system capacity. She can' take any more, cap'n'
Yes. I mostly agree with the concept that you are describing to be one of apparent increasing block sizes and limited capacity; however, your trajectory assumes that nothing is being done or that there is no implementation before or during that time that can adequately address the situation.
We are certainly not at your tragic point yet, and from what I can tell, it seems that we are quite a distance, still from that point.. whether it is a year or some other time frame, but even if we have been crossing into that point of congestion during current times, I have not been hearing too many convincing stories regarding any current problems (besides some anecdotal claims and seeming exaggerations of problems that are not really attributable to currently full blocks). Too many ongoing exaggerations are being bandied about on an ongoing basis.
By 'trajectory' do you mean to denote the rate of growth in the transactions per day? For there is nothing that _can_ be done about this curve. It just is, and reflects all the multitudinous decisions that scores of independent actors arrive at in their usage of the blockchain. It is a reflection of the actual amount of use that people are getting out of Bitcoin. Accordingly, there is nothing to be done about the trajectory. What we can do something about is the capacity for transactions per unit time.
When should such a change come about? I would advocate ASAP. The 50% bet, based upon a 2x/year extrapolation, is somewhat less than a year. But what if we get a surge in adoption? For we don't know when the next great influx will arrive. If it happens next month, we will have scores of befuddled newcomers utterly unable to comprehend where there money disappeared to. With attendant widely-published horror stories. Which runs a very good chance of shunting these -- and future -- newcomers onto some other system. One without such a stupid artificial restriction.
You may claim that nearly a year is enough time to work things out. And that is the ~50% probability (assuming the 2x per year is a good curve fit). But those who have been around this for a while know that this animal seems to get adopted in fits and starts. If we had a proportional spike like we did in Jul, or in Sep, or in Dec, the system could not handle the volume. Period. No capacity whatsoever. If it was a spike, the backlog would eventually clear out. But how would the newcomers feel about their money being in limbo for a month? And what if it would have been Bitcoin's eternal September - we would kill all prospects of an explosion in adoption like the Internet experienced in 1993.
It seems to me that when you describe more or less exacting timelines of a year or some impending soon time into the near future, that is an oversimplification to suggest that this is largely a math problem that a certain number of usages is going to bring us into this filled up capacity...
I'm thinking you must have thought something other than you typed here. A certain number of usages will indeed "bring us into this filled up capacity". This is pure math. The consequences that fall out of such an event can be debated, but the capacity is the capacity. The math is the math. It ain't even sophisticated math. Simple elementary school arithmetic will suffice.
Yes, some evolving situations (whether expected or not) are going to cause a bit more senses of urgency regarding blocks fullness, but in the end, I feel fairly optimistic that the bitcoin blockchain is strong enough to survive a variety of attacks from a variety of angles... to adjust to the the attacks and to the overclogging, and likely bitcoin participants will also, from time to time, suffer from some delays in processing their transactions, here and there, and it will not be the end of the world or the end of bitcoin.
First, the problem is not "a variety of attacks from a variety of angles". The problem is simple usage of Bitcoin, in the manner it was designed to be operated, absent a change in the max block size, is limited to 'about 350,000' transactions a day. Period. If more transactions than this are attempted, for a sustained period, those transactions will not be simply delayed. The excess over 'about 350,000' per day will
clear.
