Topic: Why the Bitcoin rules can't change (reading time ~5min) - page 9. (Read 11944 times)

The risk of blockchain size outpacing hard drive capacity is only a danger if you assume that all development currently underway to address this problem ceases: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ultimate-blockchain-compression-w-trust-free-lite-nodes-88208

That seems precisely reversed / backward.

It is only if YOU allow a change to the rules YOUR full node accepts which change permits bandwidth and space attacks which the current rules absolutely prevent that further acceptance of Bitcoin could lead to bandwidth and space issues beyond the scale your normal everyday class of equipment running your existing full node can handle.

That is precisely because the current rules absolutely, totally, utterly do NOT permit ANY block to be larger than one megabyte and even with massive massive uptake of ASICs spewing out blocks faster than one per ten minutes that can only result in so many gigabytes per year that your full node needs to be ready to handle, while whatever class of machine and connection you are already successfully using to run a full node continues to increase in power.

For example if your machine has the normal mass-retail-system disk drive, check how large a normal mass retail system disk drive is today compared to how large a normal mass retail system was one year ago, two years ago, and so on. Basically the price of a "normal consumer grade machine" tends to stay about the same while what it is capable of is more and more each time you go shopping for a normal consumer grade machine.

Even if every block is the absolute maximum size, and uptake of ASICs keeps accelerating so that the maximum rate of increase of difficulty cannot keep blocks from being spewed out at an average rate that never manages to reach the full ten minutes the software tries to target, there is still every reason to suppose that whatever class of machine you are running a full node on, the machines of that class, of whatever future time we project forwards in time to, will be well able to handle it all.

The danger is that someone will lure you into agreeing to download and use a node that permits larger blocks, or that targets a faster time between blocks, or both, so that the fastest speed largest possible blocks scale outpaces the rate at which the class of equipment you are accustomed to using to run your full node grows naturally in the course of your normal day to day obsoleting of your computer hardware.

As it is, if you do not get sucked into changing the crucial limits in the code, you can probably expect to handle your node with the hardware that is handling it now for another few years, by which time normal consumer machines will be so much more powerful than what you are currently using that simply putting in whatever connection and disk drive is then the norm should do you for another few, or maybe even several, years.

It is all very safe currently. It is only if the lure of putting more and more eggs in one basket, as in people onto one blockchain, lures you into hacking at those hard limits built into the current software that you are in danger.

If instead of butchering the existing system you deploy more and more blockchains (which your node's ability to serve as primary chain for the merged-mining of is already programmed in), as many blockchains can be deployed as adoption of the blockchain based currency concept might require in order that all people who need or desire to perform transactions on a blockchain get to do so.

Very likely the more they pay for their transactions the more ancient and respected and secured - and full to the brim every block - the specific chain their comfort level of fees affords them the use of will be. The elite might prefer to pay massive fees for the cachet of utilising the primary chain, the original bitcoin; others might feel the fee level of that chain is too high thus prefer to use the first secondary chain, and so on right down to those who use the latest and leastest chain that demand has caused by any given date to have been added to the panoply of merged mined chains (that the biggest, richest miners are able to mine every one of all at once despite the large number of them...)

Basically, putting the chain you use now out of your reach can pretty much only be done by luring you into hacking at the hard limits that are there to ensure it remains forever within your reach; if at some level of mass demand for blockchain based currency some folk feel it is not fair that there is no room for them on that chain, so what, plenty more chains can be created and all of them secured together using the merged mining ability that is already in the code.

Be very very very cautious of any attempt to make you vulnerable to untenable-for-you bandwidth and space problems that people unwilling to pay the price of the adoption rate pressure they try to apply to you might try to convince you to let yourself in for by changing the limits that currently protect you from any quantity of "adoption pressure" they might try to pressure you with. There is no need to let the masses force you out of "your own" chain, the chain you are already running a full node of. If they need more transactions per day, let them deploy more merged-mined chains...

-MarkM-

That's your opinion and you are free to consent to any rules you wish but I wont.


Interesting idea.

I would like to see a special box (bitcoin hardware full node) separate from the computer and work just as node storage and distribution blockchain with large HD connected to the network much like Samsung Chromebox but much cheaper with a very small power consumption and I can turned on 24 hours a day.

But must one validate it on a mobile feature phone or on a computer with a 28.8kbs modem connection to the Internet? On can one use a thin client on those devices to connect securely to a server under ones control in another location to perform the validation? Raising the 1Mb block size limit is an absolute must in order for Bitcoin to be useful for any significant proportion of the world's population.

1% out of 7billion is enough to maintain the rules of Bitcoin. A few super nodes isn't.

Congratulations on being part of the 1%.

yay decentralization! 

Even if you don't run a full node, you can still exert you sovereignty to some extent by refusing to accept transactions that don't agree with your rules.  

If you are a major bitcoin business such as Mtgox, this alone will exert considerable pressure on the rest of the community to run full nodes that agree with your rules.

Given the arguments on both sides that I have heard, yes.

The sky is falling! Hard drive capacities are only 4TB and falling! Total internet bandwidth can only go down from here!  

at 10mio full nodes every transaction costs 1$ in disk space alone. everybody being a full node is only possible for small networks.

besided that, bitcoin has has nothing to do with your ideology. not every bitcoin user agrees with your principles and many likely never will. self-ownership my ass...

Which includes a 1Mb block size limit?

Wrong. I want me to be able to validate the rules I consented to are followed and right now that means running a full node, I don't care about anybody else or how that is achieved.

It may not be and it may be that this is a design flaw in Bitcoin. But if a solution is found it will have to be one where there is no compromise on me being able to validate the rules used. If Bitcoin can't achieve that then I have no use for it.

Uh by all means increase the blocksize, I'll move on and have a long hard laugh at you guys during the grind to the bottom.
It will be the dumbest ever thing Bitcoiners have ever done.

I'm confused about what you are arguing. You want everyone to be able to always run a full node, correct? Can someone run a full node on a 56k modem right now indefinitely? The block chain will get bigger and bigger and that poor little laptop won't work. Are you suggesting we lower block size limits so that we can let these 56k modem users work? And if so, aren't you saying centralization will be okay because fees will cost too much to use it for regular transactions?

You've split your thoughts between a few posts and this is very confusing for someone who hasn't been following you around the forum.

So this is basically the third thread about the max. Blocksize?

So how would the Blockchain be some over System like the FED-Line not violate those principles (FINITENESS, TANGIBILITY, TRANSPARENCY, ANONYMITY, SECURITY, DECENTRALIZATION, SELF-OWNERSHIP, INTEGRITY, PRACTICALITY, RATIONALISM).

Like I already said, if there where 180 Mil. Bitcoin users, that would allow one Blockchain transaction per User per Year. Directly meaning, that the average User would need to Use some kind of (centralised, intransparent, unanonimous, etc.) Provider and never be able to validate his BTC ownership on the Blockchain.

That can't be a solution.

Also, Disk space is already cheap and will become cheaper. It will still be possible for many users to run full nodes for a long time, ever if the space and bad with requirements increase.

The attractiveness is that you remain a sovereign in Bitcoin i.e. the pay off isn't material but of a different kind of value. I run it because this way I can ensure that the rules that govern my wealth are those that I agree with and that's enough of an inventive for me.

One solution to the trade off between the ability of running a full node and limited computing resources as the size of Bitcoin grows is to split the heavy lifting and public activites (downloading and verifying the whole blockchain) from the sensitive private activities (storing and managing of private keys and personal transactions) and have the two communicate over a secure encrypted connection. In this server client model what really matters is that both the server and the client are under the complete control of the individual; however they do not need to be in the same location or even in the same country as long as the connection between them is secure and encrypted.

Some examples:

1) One can set up a server at home and then connect to that server over a secure connection from a thin client on a mobile device.
2) One can lease a server running Free Software in a data centre, pay for it with Bitcoin, and then connect to the server over TOR from a location with poor internet access and high degrees of censorship.