Topic: What are the downsides to 8MB blocks? - page 2. (Read 5376 times)

Sure, because there is no way to specify the mining client to be prioritized. I mean bitcoin must be so low tech that every porn streamer can mine and stream at the same time.

That is so very much arbitrarely, it's funny somehow. I mean why not lets say that we can't take out the commodore 64 users? Let's downgrade bitcoin because we don't want anyone being discriminated. It's not the fault of the person who does hinder bitcoin on it's work, right?

I await the very few remaining home miners are a lot smarter than that.

Again... problems come up that are no problems.

You think we have decentralized mining now? Where did you life the last year? Oo

And you fear 2-6 seconds download time? What is so much better in needing 0.25 to 0.75 seconds? What will it safe for you?

And it will take a long time with the normal adoption rate of bitcoin to reach 8MB constantly.

What exactly is your problem with that? It's not like there will something negative happen when you don't get a randomly spread block in around 10 minutes in under 1 second.

That's again an assumption that was proven wrong long ago by reality. As long as the 1 MB blocks were not full the fees did not vanish like you make the story go. The bitcoiners still pay their fee. Might be because of the wrong assumption that it will go much faster or is needed. In fact it is a little bit faster and the feest are very small anyway. So no one cares really paying them.

Your assumption is already proven incorrect. There is no reason to assume that will change only because we have 50% free space in a 8 MB block instead in a 1MB block.


Yes, we doubled the amount of possible transactions. And that's something crucially needed. Imagine paypal having a max global allowed transaction amount per hour? That would be plain stupid and everyone would go away.

If suddenly a big company like ebay would start accepting bitcoin then bitcoin would show it is useless. No one would use it after having seen how limited it is. Artificially limited.

It's good that you want to keep bitcoins unique characteristics but surely higher fees are not the way. On top it would mean unreliablity since when you somehow end with a fee too low, you will not get it send. That is deadly for a payment system.

So sorry, your way will surely kill bitcoin in the long run.

What do you write here? You assume they will be filled because you assume it will be so? You know, i know that the past has shown that you are not correct. So i'm fine with me being not convinced by your assumption.

The bottlenecks you describe are nonsense too. The bitcoin network can't remain so lowtech that each and every modem user can use it. It only must be useable with the hardwar that is widely used. And that includes relatively old hardware too. But when someone uses tech from 10 years ago then he can't await that he can use every software running nowadays. I mean you set higher rules then they are usual in ever other area. And that makes no sense.

*lol* You argument with 35 MB backlog? And? Then will be four 8 MB blocks filled. Then the spook is over.

And again... do you want to spam a network with 8 MB blocks? For what reason?

*lol* Again an argument that you use that will be solved with 8 MB blocks. You say if the blocks are nearly full attacks will cost more and that we should not upgrade to 8 MB because they eventually will be full too at some point. So let's keep 1MB? Surely that makes sense.

If we fight the spam with fees then bitcoin will lose one of it's rare advantages. But i guess you would be ok for that? Altcoin involved or so?

But maybe you don't want the blocksize rise because it is only a temporary fix. Then yes, i would prefer no limit at all. Past has shown that it was no problem to have enough free space in the blocks. They did not fill up because some ominous spammers with deep pockets filled them up.

Do you think we should address dust transactions which maximize output/transaction size (i.e. spam)? After all, competition for inclusion in blocks during stress tests is absolutely not a result of organic growth in transaction volume (adoption). This is obvious, since it diverges sharply from average transaction growth, then reverts to the mean following the stress test.

Perhaps increasing the block size is not the only way to address spam attacks.....

No. It's the opposite.

When transaction volume bumps into blocksize limit, it causes increase in fees, which can make microtransactions unfeasible. (You might have to pay more in fees than your transaction is worth) Fees rise as people compete to get their transactions included to the block.

With bigger blocksize limit there's no or very little fee competition and thus microtransactions remain feasible.

If a bigger block affects microtransactions, that is really bad. I think that the ability of sending a fraction of a cent is one of the good things of Bitcoin (microearnings, crowdfunding by lots of people, etc). Is it really that so? Bigger blocks will hinder microtransactions?

Can't argue with that, lets vote for H265.

No worries. Hearn says that miners whose bandwidth is too limited can create their own altcoin and leave bitcoin.

if miners can't stream 3 HD pron movies all at once while mining on a typical home connections , mining will become centralized! simple as that.

Are you being serious here Adam or ....?

I also have a typical home connection and 8MB would take me about 0.5-1 sec, if I would be a miner, I wouldn't stream a movie on the connection, but buy a second one.
If my current connection is to slow I still have the possibility to upgrade to a higher speed connection.

So if I can do it, surely a miner making millions should be able to figure it out.

I'm running XT, but yes. It downloads the full blockchain to validate it and prunes it to a set size. Sync will take as long as it normally would (as it needs to validate the whole blockchain), advantage is that only preset amount of storage space is used.

I have a typical home connection downloading 8MB might take me anywhere from 2 to 6 seconds

if i'm streaming a movie it could take 12seconds i guess

so it clearly unacceptable to expect miners to download 8MB, so there can be no doubt 8MB WILL centralize bitcoin mining.

Look, I'm not XT Jezus, but at this point it's the only working available code and whatever your personal (non)affection for Mike and Gavin.
XT has put a fire under the whole blocksize debate.

I do strongly think that 1MB is simply too low and if we keep it that low and put some centralized lightning shit on top of it, just throw in the towel then and keep the old system in place(=banks).

We need bigger blocks, but it should all work in harmony, everything, from miner to hodler, to ..... But the numbers that should be able to be in harmony have to get bigger.

I'm also not implying that nothing should get built on top of bitcoin, because even with 8GB blocks it will be necessary.

I can and I do. But that's irrelevent to my reply to Linuld.

If we increase this to 2 txs, and the second tx doesn't appear (spare space), then the first tx will simply lower its fees (blocksize becomes non-scarce).

We doubled the amount of possible transactions, but we can't magically double the actual amount of them.

That's not my point. I want Bitcoin to scale while still retaining its unique characteristics.

You have edited it after I submitted mine. I'll give you a reply soon.

I see the only downside of 8MB blocks being the possible larger size of the blockchain in the future. I also believe by that time we will have larger storage standards. I do not however, support XT as an implementation of a block size increase.

Mr Moron, please read my full post. If you keep ignoring everybody that doesn't treat you like your mummy does, you'll be all alone in here.

Got it, another cheap-talker (unlike you, I have answered to Linuld in detail). Welcome to my ignore list.

 you are asking the same question that has been answered like a thousand times

Why can't you accept that some people like "big blocks" and some don't?


What if the blocksize could only contain 1 transaction costing 1 BTC, if we increase this to 2 transactions costing 0.5BTC each, the miners would make 1 BTC either way...

BUT

After our increase, we doubled the amount of users that can make transactions in 10min intervals.

What's the point of Bitcoin if you can only send money to a limited amount of people?