what about if someone did a stress test?
what about if the bitcoin popularity wasn't gradually increasing?
what about the transaction flooding?
i knew exactly what bitcoin XT used to, if people gave up from using the full node wallet, less legitimacy of security, mining could only help verifying transactions, if someone controlled 51% of the full node wallet, bitcoin would be ended up with centralisation. i could support up to 16 mb blocks, it would be explicitly sufficient unless we had millions of users, plus storage wastes energy.
we need a sustainable and decentralised currency, unless you have evidence to support "how bitcoin XT could sustain bitcoin and its protocol", otherwise, please consider if you were kidnapped by the XT developers.
Topic: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too - page 8. (Read 8635 times)
i will support the size increase i want to see bitcoin grow and not die coz of suffocation
Gavin on reddit:
As people have said in the comments, rolling out a change to the maximum block size takes months.
We're already hitting the limit sometimes when miners get unlucky and don't find many blocks; that will just get increasingly worse, and fees will rise.
That's not a disaster-- Bitcoin will survive. But it means it is less expensive for an attacker to drive up fees unpredictably (wait until the memory pool is backed up because miners have been unlucky, then send a few megabytes of higher-than-average-fee transactions).
It means fees are higher for users than they should be, but miners will get less overall revenue from fees (because there are fewer transactions than there should be), so the network will be a little less secure. In economic terms, artificially limiting the block size results in deadweight losses for both miners and users.
It means lower-value transactions are not economical to do on the blockchain, so they're driven to more centralized off-chain solutions (like trusted wallets or, eventually, Lightning hubs).
All of the above make me think that scaling up by increasing the maximum block size is urgent, and why it has been at the top of my priority list since January.
To be clear: I think the Lightning network is a great idea, and I fully support the changes to Bitcoin needed to support it.
It is not either/or, we should do "all of the above."
https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gz9ut/do_the_stress_tests_show_that_gavin_was_wrong/
As people have said in the comments, rolling out a change to the maximum block size takes months.
We're already hitting the limit sometimes when miners get unlucky and don't find many blocks; that will just get increasingly worse, and fees will rise.
That's not a disaster-- Bitcoin will survive. But it means it is less expensive for an attacker to drive up fees unpredictably (wait until the memory pool is backed up because miners have been unlucky, then send a few megabytes of higher-than-average-fee transactions).
It means fees are higher for users than they should be, but miners will get less overall revenue from fees (because there are fewer transactions than there should be), so the network will be a little less secure. In economic terms, artificially limiting the block size results in deadweight losses for both miners and users.
It means lower-value transactions are not economical to do on the blockchain, so they're driven to more centralized off-chain solutions (like trusted wallets or, eventually, Lightning hubs).
All of the above make me think that scaling up by increasing the maximum block size is urgent, and why it has been at the top of my priority list since January.
To be clear: I think the Lightning network is a great idea, and I fully support the changes to Bitcoin needed to support it.
It is not either/or, we should do "all of the above."
https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gz9ut/do_the_stress_tests_show_that_gavin_was_wrong/
I see that most of the important actors of cryptocurrency not only accept but push over the increase of blocks. I see and i read to much about the importance of such increment. But i don't understand why all those actors don't be in one mind about how, why and when this is it will be possible to be a reality. For this i think it is important to discuss. Why don't increase? Which are the factors which impedes such increase and what to do to eliminate those? Can anyone answer to this simple question? Can anyone open a thread to discuss about this?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
When all it comes down to is : they dont like the fact that this fork is NOT being led by bitcoin core devs.
I don't like it either. I believe users and miners want to stick with Core given a choice. I would very much prefer Core devs to initiate "bigger blocks" fork, but they were rejecting it because they believe it's not a long term solution, and for some reason, they don't want to implement this "quick fix" to buy time while they work out this "long term solution". Now XT has given each of us a voice and it's everyone's own decision to vote. I am waiting for developments and I will vote when the time comes.
I think we are getting to the heart of the matter here. Hearn (the wrong guy) is right and the usual right guys are wrong. It really would be nice to see this led by the core devs. Why Gavin chose to associate with Hearn, I have no idea, given the context. It would be better if he had done it alone, at least for me.
Can't someone else besides Hearn make a fork that we can get behind?
When all it comes down to is : they dont like the fact that this fork is NOT being led by bitcoin core devs.
I don't like it either. I believe users and miners want to stick with Core given a choice. I would very much prefer Core devs to initiate "bigger blocks" fork, but they were rejecting it because they believe it's not a long term solution, and for some reason, they don't want to implement this "quick fix" to buy time while they work out this "long term solution". Now XT has given each of us a voice and it's everyone's own decision to vote. I am waiting for developments and I will vote when the time comes.
They want to promote Blockstream. And some of the core devs are actually also Blockstream devs. So they behave like a bunch of children hold the community hostage.
Hey if the economic majority wants to support bigger blocks, then this "fork" is inevitable. Censoring this would only make them look worse.
When all it comes down to is : they dont like the fact that this fork is NOT being led by bitcoin core devs.
I don't like it either. I believe users and miners want to stick with Core given a choice. I would very much prefer Core devs to initiate "bigger blocks" fork, but they were rejecting it because they believe it's not a long term solution, and for some reason, they don't want to implement this "quick fix" to buy time while they work out this "long term solution". Now XT has given each of us a voice and it's everyone's own decision to vote. I am waiting for developments and I will vote when the time comes.
if Hearn hadn't previously undermined his credibility by advocating whitelisting, perhaps this debate would be over and Everyone would be on Gavin's side with XT.
that could be true. but only for people who dont see the things from a neutral perspective. Mike was wrong back then but here (bigger blocks) he is right.
I agree . I dont support white listing at all. And never will.
However i think they like to bring that up so they can justify their censorship. When all it comes down to is : they dont like the fact that this fork is NOT being led by bitcoin core devs.
First of all, if miners can chose not to include transactions now, what will stop them from not including spam transactions in bigger blocks?
Second, what will stop them from not including transactions that do not have sufficient fees?
Third, could you imagine how well Visa would be used if you were told you could only swipe your card three or four times a day and not in the same hour?
People who are screaming to not raise the block size cap now, will be the first to complain when their transactions don't fit on blocks anymore and they have to take a number and wait.
Where does it say miners can now drop transactions with XT? as far as I know miners don't have any say on this, it's all in the protocol and the consensus algorithm, not some miner's will to say this transaction goes through and this doesn't that would indeed suck.
Ok maybe I'm wrong. But I was of the understanding that miners have always had the choice to not include transactions in blocks.
This incidentally keeps the freedom of bitcoin free. Nobody is putting restrictions one way or another.
You're not wrong. And dont listen to the idiot.
Miners have their choice of include txs or not.
It has always been that way.
if Hearn hadn't previously undermined his credibility by advocating whitelisting, perhaps this debate would be over and Everyone would be on Gavin's side with XT.
that could be true. but only for people who dont see the things from a neutral perspective. Mike was wrong back then but here (bigger blocks) he is right.
First of all, if miners can chose not to include transactions now, what will stop them from not including spam transactions in bigger blocks?
Second, what will stop them from not including transactions that do not have sufficient fees?
Third, could you imagine how well Visa would be used if you were told you could only swipe your card three or four times a day and not in the same hour?
People who are screaming to not raise the block size cap now, will be the first to complain when their transactions don't fit on blocks anymore and they have to take a number and wait.
Where does it say miners can now drop transactions with XT? as far as I know miners don't have any say on this, it's all in the protocol and the consensus algorithm, not some miner's will to say this transaction goes through and this doesn't that would indeed suck.
Ok maybe I'm wrong. But I was of the understanding that miners have always had the choice to not include transactions in blocks.
This incidentally keeps the freedom of bitcoin free. Nobody is putting restrictions one way or another.
First of all, if miners can chose not to include transactions now, what will stop them from not including spam transactions in bigger blocks?
Second, what will stop them from not including transactions that do not have sufficient fees?
Third, could you imagine how well Visa would be used if you were told you could only swipe your card three or four times a day and not in the same hour?
People who are screaming to not raise the block size cap now, will be the first to complain when their transactions don't fit on blocks anymore and they have to take a number and wait.
Where does it say miners can now drop transactions with XT? as far as I know miners don't have any say on this, it's all in the protocol and the consensus algorithm, not some miner's will to say this transaction goes through and this doesn't that would indeed suck.
First of all, if miners can chose not to include transactions now, what will stop them from not including spam transactions in bigger blocks?
Second, what will stop them from not including transactions that do not have sufficient fees?
Third, could you imagine how well Visa would be used if you were told you could only swipe your card three or four times a day and not in the same hour?
People who are screaming to not raise the block size cap now, will be the first to complain when their transactions don't fit on blocks anymore and they have to take a number and wait.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
if Hearn hadn't previously undermined his credibility by advocating whitelisting, perhaps this debate would be over and Everyone would be on Gavin's side with XT.
even though larger blocks would give faster confirmation, it would encourage transaction flooding! giving increase limit of blockchain would not ever encourage the sustainability, if someone had a spare time to do some of the test like stress test, most of the full node users would be in trouble on synchronising them. IIRC this would lead to the complaints from most of the full node users with the problem of the stress test, transaction flooding and/or so on.
the more full node users, meaning the higher security it would be; of course vice versa, the more independent miners in the network, the more security that would be. that's why i could not legitimately support for you, we should split some of the miners into a smaller pool, reason is simple: prevent people from centralising the power easily. if we decided to increase the block size limit, especially no limit one, bitcoin would not be a sustainable currency, due to the hardware usage, and electric problem; even though if the merchants could afford those blockchains, it doesn't help the network, simply, less full node users, higher ability of 51% attacks based on controlling full node users and miners. for the mining matter, even more wastage of electricity would be, unless we had a environmental friendly power generator for the miners, otherwise, most of the miners would be ended up with so-called failure.
all in all, if the bitcoin XT occurred in bitcoin XT, bitcoin would not be able to sustain to at least 2140.
the more full node users, meaning the higher security it would be; of course vice versa, the more independent miners in the network, the more security that would be. that's why i could not legitimately support for you, we should split some of the miners into a smaller pool, reason is simple: prevent people from centralising the power easily. if we decided to increase the block size limit, especially no limit one, bitcoin would not be a sustainable currency, due to the hardware usage, and electric problem; even though if the merchants could afford those blockchains, it doesn't help the network, simply, less full node users, higher ability of 51% attacks based on controlling full node users and miners. for the mining matter, even more wastage of electricity would be, unless we had a environmental friendly power generator for the miners, otherwise, most of the miners would be ended up with so-called failure.
all in all, if the bitcoin XT occurred in bitcoin XT, bitcoin would not be able to sustain to at least 2140.
snipp...
Or you can just grow up and face reality. Calling all the service that gives Bitcoin fundamental value banks and express your hatred toward them is childish or plain dumb.
Notice all the altcoin pump and dump? They're absolutely worthless unless they got listed on an exchange.... woohoo all the idiots then jump on bandwagon until they got dumped bags of dogshit.
Maybe your shittycoin need to be on a real exchange, just so i can see your twisted face.
What reality do you think I am not facing by asking for an argument to be clearly stated? And what makes you think I don't like exchanges? I'm no hater.. I have used two of the services listed there, sure I won't call them banks if that makes you think hatred, to me it doesn't but I guess I can see where that comes from.
Anyway, sorry if I confused you, my point is that saying "We need everyone to accept bigger blocks because these companies said so" is not good enough for me. Also saying "we need bigger blocks because more bitcoin users is good" is not good enough for me, as I don't see the relation.
You will also note I am not saying "We need smaller blocks" or "Bigger blocks over my dead body" or even "listen to me I know just what we need". Instead I'm saying, make a coherent argument please. Might be asking a lot around here I know but I have high expectations for all y'all.
snipp...
Or you can just grow up and face reality. Calling all the service that gives Bitcoin fundamental value banks and express your hatred toward them is childish or plain dumb.
Notice all the altcoin pump and dump? They're absolutely worthless unless they got listed on an exchange.... woohoo all the idiots then jump on bandwagon until they got dumped bags of dogshit.
Maybe your shittycoin need to be on a real exchange, just so i can see your twisted face.
Bitcoin can support a large scale and it must, for all sorts of reasons.
And before I state an opinion or refute anything, we see a big problem with your argument. You never say how bigger blocks is needed for large scale!! Look at e.g., USD. Block size = 0 forever and always, yet it seems a lot of people use it anyway. I mean, you could try to make the argument that a larger block size would tend towards quicker adoption or whatever, but .. you haven't tried.
Quote
Amongst others:
1. Currencies have network effects. A currency that has few users is
simply not competitive with currencies that have many. There's no such
thing as a settlement currency for high value transactions only, as
evidenced by the ever-dropping importance of gold.
simply not competitive with currencies that have many. There's no such
thing as a settlement currency for high value transactions only, as
evidenced by the ever-dropping importance of gold.
Quote
2. A decentralised currency that the vast majority can't use doesn't
change the amount of centralisation in the world. Most people will still
end up using banks, with all the normal problems. You cannot solve a
problem by creating a theoretically pure solution that's out of reach of
ordinary people: just ask academic cryptographers!
It's not clear to me why different size blocks would change Jo Schmoe's use habits. Again, there are no blocks with fiat, and a lot of people still use it. I mean, I can think of some arguments a little bit but not enough to articulate them. If somebody can - I'm all ears.
Quote
3. Growth is a part of the social contract. It always has been.
The best quote Gregory can find to suggest Satoshi wanted small blocks
is a one sentence hypothetical example about what *might* happen if
Bitcoin users became "tyrannical" as a result of non-financial transactions
being stuffed in the block chain. That position makes sense because his
scaling arguments assuming payment-network-sized traffic and throwing DNS
systems or whatever into the mix could invalidate those arguments, in the
absence of merged mining. But Satoshi did invent merged mining, and so
there's no need for Bitcoin users to get "tyrannical": his original
arguments still hold.
4. All the plans for some kind of ultra-throttled Bitcoin network used
for infrequent transactions neglect to ask where the infrastructure for
that will come from. The network of exchanges, payment processors and
startups that are paying people to build infrastructure are all based on
the assumption that the market will grow significantly. It's a gamble at
best because Bitcoin's success is not guaranteed, but if the block chain
cannot grow it's a gamble that is guaranteed to be lost.
So why should anyone go through the massive hassle of setting up
exchanges, without the lure of large future profits?
5. Bitcoin needs users, lots of them, for its political survival. There
are many people out there who would like to see digital cash disappear, or
be regulated out of existence. They will argue for that in front of
governments and courts .... some already are. And if they're going to lose
those arguments, the political and economic damage of getting rid of
Bitcoin must be large enough to make people think twice. That means it
needs supporters, it needs innovative services, it needs companies, and it
needs legal users making legal payments: as many of them as possible.
If Bitcoin is a tiny, obscure currency used by drug dealers and a
handful of crypto-at-any-cost geeks, the cost of simply banning it outright
will seem trivial and the hammer will drop. There won't be a large scale
payment network OR a high-value settlement network. And then the world is
really screwed, because nobody will get a second chance for a very long
time.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009815.html[/center]
Most actors in the space (exchanges, payment processors, big pool operators) have stated, in a scattershot way over time, that they support a blocksize increase.
Also some well known people like Roger Ver and Andreas Antonopoulos support bigger blocks.
I've seen no evidence that block size correlates to user base, nor that "most actors" support larger blocks.
Quote
--------------------
Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks:
“We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less."
Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks:
"Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux"
Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks:
"It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2"
BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks:
"Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x"
Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):
“BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.”
BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):
“BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system."
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114612/major-payment-processors-in-favor-of-block-size-increase-coinkite-and-bitpagos-prefer-bip-100
So, it looks like a bunch of banks want bigger blocks. Why? I'm not sure but it makes me not trust it.
Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase
because no limit is not a good idea ... when you want excluded (and monitoring) SPAM traffic.
that why i don't trust XT ... and i prefer a PHYSICAL LIMIT to 2-4-6 or 8MB for 3-4 months to see what it's happend.
Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase
Heya
Off the top of my helmet:
1) They want it to be easier to maintain the full chain / full node, not harder
2) They don't think block size affects use / adoption rates (rather it affects logistics, fees)
3) They want to encourage alt-coin use
Jump to: