Will the price stagnate or drop because of this issue? - page 2.

matauc12

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Qoheleth on March 07, 2013, 01:29:55 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 07, 2013, 12:47:54 PM

they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it... Tongue

Two problems with that:

Miners in countries where internet access is poor (or bitcoin is outlawed so they have to use Tor) become unable to mine, because they'll never download the big block in time (= 100% stale).
If the block size limit is so large as to be effectively limitless, a big part of the design for the 0-reward endgame gets ruined (since no scarcity of slots for transaction inclusion in block = no incentive to outbid other transactions' fees).

Countries with scarce internet access have much bigger problems than bitcoin.

And also, let's not start fixing a "problem" (its not) with the target people being non-users....

phelix

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1020

Quote from: herzmeister on March 07, 2013, 12:44:39 PM

I mean we only have the potential for growth of 10 times the current price then.

what would be the problem if all blocks were packed? tx fees would rise. only important tx would be done. price could still go to the moon.

edit: it would sound pretty bad though: "only limited number of tx possible" hmm

I wonder why people panic about satoshidice but do not even think about a real attack from banksters/government or even hackers that go short and try to stall/spam the network.

My solution to satoshidice spam: minoutput >! txfee * 10

SkRRJyTC

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1000

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 07, 2013, 12:47:54 PM

they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it... Tongue

No thanks, http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

Quote from: herzmeister on March 07, 2013, 12:44:39 PM

I mean we only have the potential for growth of 10 times the current price then.

No. The two are not related.

kingcrimson

legendary

Activity: 1025

Merit: 1000

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 07, 2013, 11:57:31 AM

right now, this "problem" is totally exaggerated

most blocks do not "overflow"

and the answer to this problem is really simple, but bitcoiners are ~~stupid~~ smart-asses and think its worth debating to no end.

It's all about perception. With all the new eyes on bitcoin right now, they see a 10 page debate about it where members are spreading FUD. This and mtgox's lag has probably made people realize bitcoin might not be ready for the big show.

casascius

vip

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1140

The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)

I am glad SatoshiDice is doing what it's doing because it allows us to test the limits and hit them without impacting anything critical. Forcing SatoshiDice to eventually use the block chain more efficiently is something I consider non critical.

Qoheleth

legendary

Activity: 960

Merit: 1028

Spurn wild goose chases. Seek that which endures.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 07, 2013, 12:47:54 PM

they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it... Tongue

Two problems with that:

Miners in countries where internet access is poor (or bitcoin is outlawed so they have to use Tor) become unable to mine, because they'll never download the big block in time (= 100% stale).
If the block size limit is so large as to be effectively limitless, a big part of the design for the 0-reward endgame gets ruined (since no scarcity of slots for transaction inclusion in block = no incentive to outbid other transactions' fees).

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1038

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: piramida on March 07, 2013, 12:48:24 PM

The transaction fee will become a viable consideration then, that's all. I will call it a (minor) problem when a feeless bitcoin transfer does not go through in 24 hours - meaning all 1MB blocks full with paid transactions - but it's not happening soon or this year. And it does not have much relation to bitcoin price - we've grown from 5 to 50 while the volume only grown 3x (and then, mostly due to SatoshiDice).

I don't think upping the limit is a good thing, yet. Having a need for transaction fee would kill Satoshidice or make it unfeasible for micro-bets, but there are parallel blockchains for that kinds of feeless spam, it can just go over there or run a specific gamblecoin with 1GB blocks or something. Which would in turn be easily exchangeable into bitcoins.

Satoshidice should operate within itself and not hit the blockchaine for every single bet....
user sends funds to s.dice wallet, user doubles his bitcoin, user cashes out.
that way the tx fees of 1cent dont matter anymore.

but wtv.

herzmeister

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Xenland on March 07, 2013, 12:49:00 PM

I think you mean growth of 10 times the current "transaction rate".

...which is a good economic indicator of Bitcoin adoption and use...

Quote from: piramida on March 07, 2013, 12:48:24 PM

we've grown from 5 to 50 while the volume only grown 3x (and then, mostly due to SatoshiDice).

...normalized without the speculative bubbles and panics of course.

Xenland

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1003

I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man

Quote from: herzmeister on March 07, 2013, 12:44:39 PM

I mean we only have the potential for growth of 10 times the current price then.

I think you mean growth of 10 times the current "transaction rate".

piramida

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1010

Borsche

The transaction fee will become a viable consideration then, that's all. I will call it a (minor) problem when a feeless bitcoin transfer does not go through in 24 hours - meaning all 1MB blocks full with paid transactions - but it's not happening soon or this year. And it does not have much relation to bitcoin price - we've grown from 5 to 50 while the volume only grown 3x (and then, mostly due to SatoshiDice).

I don't think upping the limit is a good thing, yet. Having a need for transaction fee would kill Satoshidice or make it unfeasible for micro-bets, but there are parallel blockchains for that kinds of feeless spam, it can just go over there or run a specific gamblecoin with 1GB blocks or something. Which would in turn be easily exchangeable into bitcoins.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1038

Trusted Bitcoiner

they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it... Tongue

herzmeister

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1007

I mean we only have the potential for growth of 10 times the current price then.

ryepdx

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: herzmeister on March 07, 2013, 12:36:55 PM

I mean we only have the potential for 10 times the current price then. Angry

You're conflating transaction volume with price. 10 times our current number of transactions per block is not the same thing as 10 times the current price.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1038

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: herzmeister on March 07, 2013, 12:36:55 PM

I mean we only have the potential for 10 times the current price then. Angry

no

herzmeister

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1007

I mean we only have the potential for 10 times the current price then. Angry

phatsphere

hero member

Activity: 763

Merit: 500

Quote from: herzmeister on March 07, 2013, 12:07:51 PM

Then we only have room for max 10 times the current price, right? Huh

no, there is no bitcoin price in the blockchain at all…

herzmeister

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Technomage on March 07, 2013, 11:59:54 AM

Currently we can handle 10 times more transactions before the 1MB limit is a real problem.

Then we only have room for max 10 times the current price, right? Huh

Technomage

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1056

Affordable Physical Bitcoins - Denarium.com

"We already got problems" is a highly exaggerated statement. Most of the time the blocks _are not_ even hitting the 250KB soft limit constantly, there have been a few times where many blocks in a row hit it, but they are exceptions.

Once it gets hit more, miners can and will fix this simply by modifying their code slightly, leaving us with a 1MB limit. Currently we can handle 10 times more transactions before the 1MB limit is a real problem. The problem at large is _well known_ by the devs and there is still plenty of time to make the change to a higher block size.

This is a real problem, a serious one if not addressed, but as far as I know the main dev, Gavin Andresen, is very much in favor of raising it. It's just a matter of how we raise it, and when, but gladly there is still time to figure that out.

siulynot

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 07, 2013, 11:57:31 AM

but bitcoiners are ~~stupid~~ smart-asses and think its worth debating to no end.

lol

Topic: Will the price stagnate or drop because of this issue? - page 2. (Read 3886 times)