Topic: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too - page 10. (Read 8632 times)

Are the core devs even doing anything about this?  Or is Gavin the only one being pro active?  Is the core devs policy to wait until the mempool is permanently backlogged then rush out a fix?

You can now download installers for Bitcoin XT 0.11A at xtnodes.com

Windows 32bit, Windows 64bit and OS X installers, as well as the source code.

The original never had a 1MB cap to begin with and the cap was never intended to be permanent.  It was something done in haste that should have been reconsidered long ago.  It was never part of the plan that the network should run with full blocks for the rest of forever.


The 1mb cap wasn't introduced because of concerns over the bandwidth requirements for nodes, it was intended to be an anti-spam measure, but apparently it failed miserably in that goal.  The blockchain didn't "grow huge" before the cap was put in place.  Also, it's not a "solution" at all if it doesn't solve the problem of limiting the amount of fees the miners can collect.  Nodes won't be any use at all without sufficiently incentivised miners to secure the network.  In order to generate more fees for miners, it will be necessary to accommodate more transactions over time.  Users want to get their transactions on a blockchain.  If Bitcoin isn't the simplest and most convenient way to do that because you're funneling transactions into your lightning colostomy bag network, another coin will come along that hasn't been artificially crippled and doesn't rely on a third party bolted on top.  If that coin turns out to be a more attractive proposition for users, what's their reason to continue using Bitcoin?  If users are then transacting on another network, why are miners going to stick around to secure this one?

Third party layers should be strictly reserved for micropayments and transactions that don't include a fee.  And as much as small block proponents obsess about micropayments, they really aren't the issue.  Even after they're swept under the carpet, Bitcoin still needs to support more than two-thirds of a floppy disk every ten minutes.  If it doesn't, something else will.  

The original? Aren't we running the original now?



That's a bad analogy. We need to have limits otherwise the block chain would grow so massive that most people would not be able to run full nodes.
And what's the point of risking that when we can have third party solutions?


What needed time?
I haven't noticed that we have any urgent issues with full blocks?
If there are full blocks the market will adapt and either pay higher fees or develop alternatives like lightning network.

And so what if 90% thinks we should have bigger blocks? I still don't think it's the best possible option.
That's like saying just because the majority of the people voted for Obama makes him the best possible president.

look at Nielsen's Law:

http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

we dont talk about 100 MB blocks - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (when they are actually full). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem.

The main problem is fewer and fewer people will be able to run nodes. Hard disk space is definitely not a problem, it gets cheaper, now bandwidth, thats another history, i dont think moore's law follows there, the bandwith development is not as steady as HDD development.

if you want Bitcoin on the Moon - support bigger blocks. there is no other way.

Satoshi himself never wanted 1 MB blocks - he had 32 MB blocks!

Satoshi knew the 1MB was a risk to his long-term vision for a global competitor to the likes of VISA, but he did massive code changes, and frequently. He just assumed it would be easily increased or removed when the time was right.


At the moment the only way to support bigger blocks is bitcoin XT:

http://xtnodes.com/

The idea is incremental of 8mb in synchrony with moore's law. This way we should be able to scale up as far as we need to.


The fees must stay low tho.. im not saying they shouldn't be a bit higher if needed, but definitely they must feel LOW or else it will be a mass failure.

It does not solve anything? That is a understatement. 8 MB blocks should help us gain the needed time. Who knows exactly when something like the lightning network or sidechains are going to be fully functional.
The developers aren't really saying much about a timeline. Bigger blocks will be needed in the future even with other solutions. Why should we wait when it is much easier to do the fork now?
The fork is not dangerous at all if we use the proper consensus rules.

Wrong. They are just people who know how to properly code Bitcoin, this does not mean that they have the ultimate knowledge related to cryptography, cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin.
Following your heart is a common misconception, unless you think that you feel things with your heart. 

Exactly. While Gavin definitely did do a few things that I do not like, he's at least not acting like a politician. The sole reason for which people related to Blockstream are going to do everything to stop the increase, is profit.

It's pretty clear that's not what he's saying.  He's alluding to the absurdity of imposing an artificial limit on the system just to bypass it with a third party network built on top.  Bitcoin will cope just fine as long as it can support enough transactions to remain sustainable.  However, there are still plenty of people who are skeptical that the Lightning Network by itself would be sufficient to achieve this scalability.  Just about every single opponent of larger blocks is completely fixated on micro-payments and thinks that once those are swept under the carpet that the scalability issue is magically solved forever.  That's just plain wrong.  Larger blocks will become a necessity as the usage increases and prolonging the inevitable is only going to result in more disruption later.  I trust the original, unhindered Bitcoin implementation to scale far better than an artificially crippled implementation with a new bit bolted on top. 

Saying you support a 1MB limit and the lightning network is like saying you want to limit the amount of material you can pass in a bowel movement and fit a colostomy bag to deal with the rest because that's somehow better. 

Get rid of the artificial bottleneck and let nature take its course.

The spam attacks will stop once we reach a acceptable level of fee's. Currently it's possible to make transactions without paying any fees. That is not good for Bitcoin as it makes it easy to bloat the blockchain.



Please explain how the block size will scale with a hard fork increasing the block size to 8MB?



So you are saying Bitcoin doesn't work now? I wonder who is spreading the FUD now?

I like that quote:
I don't trust either sides. Gavin has some behaviour of extortion i don't like. And Hearn has dangerous ideas.

But Maxwell, Luke-Jr and others have their own private business reasons to not increase blocks. Thats like politicians that work for banks or big companies. You can't await them making sane decisions.

For me that means that we need to do it ourself. We need bigger blocks since that's the only way to let bitcoin survive. 1MB blocks will hinder adoption and will make bitcoin obsolete over time.

So we need to chose bigger blocks when we can chose to. And deny all other crap developers want to push onto us.

So we need to wait for a third party network to make bitcoin work. Seriously?

Really... its no wonder that so many bitcoiners think that the lightning network bitcoin core developers have their own agenda in this.

And what dangerous fork? Are you spreading FUD here?

Um... it would make these spam attacks stop instantly at least. These spammers might be very well miners, a corporation of them maybe, and they seem to test out the best way to raise the fees permanently that way. At the moment they try to spam often so that nobody knows if he has to take a high fee or not. Raising the fee overall to prevent risk at the end.

I don't know where you got the idea from that bitcoin doesn't scale. The max block size is arbitrary from the start. Im not sure what you speak about.

some of the devs are worried about the bandwith space. but that is not a problem, even with 5 ,7 or 10 MB blocks. hunderts of millions of people around the world could run a full node with their bandwith space.

http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

no problem here.

What's the main reason Core Dev's don't want to allow bigger blocks please, somebody?

I'm not a techie expert, I've read Gavin's & Mike's ideas on why we need bigger blocks, I've witnessed the stress testing but why are Core Dev's so hesitant to comply?

True, but running a node will be a pain in the ass, the problem is not HDD space, the problem is bandwith space. If the blockchain starts being too big a lot of people will be left marginalized as they will not be able to download the blockchain unless they spend ages on it.

it will end because the majority will adapt a software that supports bigger blocks.  

or bitcoin will never go mainstream.

I wonder if this issue with bigger blocks will the be the problem everytime we discuss it. It is never ending debate when people argue: "do we need it, or not" all over again.
I have one advice for critics: please stay with Floppy Drive 3.5'. Suddenly everyone are wiser that bitcoin developers when it comes to block size...

"I think it is more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of millions of people, with no central point of control and the opportunity for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what I find interesting."

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009902.html

Gavin is right here.