Topic: Will the price stagnate or drop because of this issue? (Read 3886 times)
The 50/50 split people tend to imagine is totally bogus. No one is going to implement a change until there's a clear majority in favor of it, along with major infrastructure like MtGox, blockchain.info, Coinbase, etc. backing the change. Then when crunch time hits, even if something like 10-20% had been rejecting the change, once they see it is happening for real most of the holdouts will give up and switch to the main fork, since the main fork - for better or worse - is where Bitcoin's future is. At most a few % will stick to the original, but that won't be much of a problem. It'll just be branded Holdoutcoin or Oldcoin and people will move on.
Yeah, i don't get why all this trolling about the fork problem.
Just make the new client with an algorithm wich will activate the new blocksize only once like 90% of the clients are upgraded. So before 90% of clients are upgraded we do not change, once we reach the 90%, the change kick in and ta-dah, done without problems.
Just make the new client with an algorithm wich will activate the new blocksize only once like 90% of the clients are upgraded. So before 90% of clients are upgraded we do not change, once we reach the 90%, the change kick in and ta-dah, done without problems.
It is not a technical problem, but a direction one. Currently the split is that some people do not believe that bitcoin should EVER lift the transaction capacity
Bitcoin's limited supply nature decided that its price will always keep rising against other currency. And people will prefer spend inflative currency and save the deflative currency, that means bitcoin will mainly be used as a saving currency, not a transaction currency, so the amount of user initiated transactions will increase very slow, most of them are one time thing
Imagine 2 scenario:
1. Bitcoin is very difficult to transfer, you need 3 days to get 2 confirmation, and pay a high fee, almost as worse as wire transfer, but its price doubles every 6 month
2. Bitcoin is very easy to transfer, you can get 2 confirmations in 20 minutes, but it worth a little, since there are several different bitcoin variants and you never know when will the next variant pop up
Which case do you think have the fastest adoption rate?
Like satoshi suggested, technically the best approach is to phase-in the change, so that after several iterations of nodes upgrade, this change get implemented. But I think he also mentioned that this limit is to prevent transaction flooding, and current situation is more like transaction flooding caused by automatic trading program
At least a small part of the community include some core devs do not think we should lift this limit until definitely necessary
At least a small part of the community include some core devs do not think we should lift this limit until definitely necessary
Yeah, i don't get why all this trolling about the fork problem.
Just make the new client with an algorithm wich will activate the new blocksize only once like 90% of the clients are upgraded. So before 90% of clients are upgraded we do not change, once we reach the 90%, the change kick in and ta-dah, done without problems.
Just make the new client with an algorithm wich will activate the new blocksize only once like 90% of the clients are upgraded. So before 90% of clients are upgraded we do not change, once we reach the 90%, the change kick in and ta-dah, done without problems.
I think everyone's too worried about the potential badness of a hard fork.
Whenever we've had to do it before (e.g. for P2SH), there was a huge sunrise period, with the new rule only coming into place if, by block height X, Y% of the most recent Z blocks indicated in their coinbase that they would support the new rule.
At that point, miners have already agreed, so when the fork arrives, the old behavior's blockchain won't be able to compete. Voila! The new rule has been adopted and the "original behavior" fork dies in obscurity.
We've already done this at least once, when P2SH went in. The behavior will only change if the blockchain shows it'll be a smooth transition.
Whenever we've had to do it before (e.g. for P2SH), there was a huge sunrise period, with the new rule only coming into place if, by block height X, Y% of the most recent Z blocks indicated in their coinbase that they would support the new rule.
At that point, miners have already agreed, so when the fork arrives, the old behavior's blockchain won't be able to compete. Voila! The new rule has been adopted and the "original behavior" fork dies in obscurity.
We've already done this at least once, when P2SH went in. The behavior will only change if the blockchain shows it'll be a smooth transition.
The 100% inflation thing is nonsense, what if i start gabicoin right now? It will be a fork, it will be 100% inflation 
they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it... 
Right, 1GB every 10 minutes is totally fine
meaning all 1MB blocks full with paid transactions - but it's not happening soon or this year.
I have more faith in BitPay et al. than that.A hard cap of 1MB means a hard cap on the number of people who can use Bitcoin, no matter how much people are willing to pay in fees, only 7 transactions per second are allowed to happen. An adjustable limit allows the network capacity to grow to meet demand.
please excuse my ignorance but why does this need a fork at all? "fork" sounds like all users will be forced to make a complicated decision with uncertain consequences, inconveniences, etc and actively migrating from A to B. At least thats what it sounds like. Couldn't it simply be done like that:
and then commit that change to the master branch of the reference implementation like every other upgrade or bug-fix or protocol extension too, document it in the official specifications and be done with it?
Code:
# pseudo-code
def get_limit(block):
if block.timestamp > SOME_DATE_IN_2014_FAR_AWAY_SUDDENLY_IN_THE_MIDDLE_OF_THE_NIGHT:
return 2E6
else:
return 1E6
and then commit that change to the master branch of the reference implementation like every other upgrade or bug-fix or protocol extension too, document it in the official specifications and be done with it?
That is a fork. People who upgrade will be on a different set of incompatible rules then those who don't upgrade. Not maybe everyone will decide to upgrade and the current bitcoin fork will die off but it doesn't change the fact that it is an incompatible fork.
Worse say roughly half the community supports the "larger fork" and half support the "current fork". Both call themselves Bitcoin, each one is incompatible with the other.
Now I am not saying this a death blow or any kind of FUD like that but people need to start realizing that Bitcoin is what a consensus of users say it is. Right now it is the protocol EXACTLY as implemented today. Any deviation from that is a fork and when you introduce a fork there are three possibilities:
a) the fork is not well accepted and dies off <- waste of time
b) the fork is overwhelming accepted and the original dies off <- best case but even here it is still a hard fork
c) both forks are supported and both call themselves "Bitcoin" creates massive confusion and chaos <- what we want to avoid
please excuse my ignorance but why does this need a fork at all? "fork" sounds like all users will be forced to make a complicated decision with uncertain consequences, inconveniences, etc and actively migrating from A to B. At least thats what it sounds like. Couldn't it simply be done like that:
and then commit that change to the master branch of the reference implementation like every other upgrade or bug-fix or protocol extension too, document it in the official specifications and be done with it?
Code:
# pseudo-code
def get_limit(block):
if block.timestamp > SOME_DATE_IN_2014_FAR_AWAY_SUDDENLY_IN_THE_MIDDLE_OF_THE_NIGHT:
return 2E6
else:
return 1E6
and then commit that change to the master branch of the reference implementation like every other upgrade or bug-fix or protocol extension too, document it in the official specifications and be done with it?
Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again
are you retarded?He means there will be a fork, so double the coins. I don't know why he thinks both chains will survive...
What will stop the old chain if people still believe in a 1 MB limit?
Nothing. I fully support people using the chain they feel is superior.
I simply think that in this example, the superior chain will be the more usable chain. Should a fork occur, if there is doubt as to which chain is superior, it will be settled in the market. I don't think both will survive.
Sure, only will survive under the "Bitcoin" banner, but even those who support the new chain have an interest in the old chain since their prefork coins can be spent one time on each chain.
As I said, the market will decide. I would sell all my coins on one chain in order to purchase more on the other chain. If this happens in an overwhelming fashion, one chain will crash into oblivion. If both have enough supporters, it will reach an equilibrium and both will survive.
What I'm speculating is that in the case of changing a small detail in order to make the coin more usable, the more usable chain will be the only survivor. I'm just making a guess that is different from johnyj since he seems to think there will be double the usable coins resulting in a halving of the exchange rate.
There will be double the usable coins. Half will be exactly as usable as before, and half will be, in your opinion, "more usable" because the blockchain allows more transactions per time period. I don't see anywhere where johnyj mentioned the exchange rate. You seem to have jumped to that conclusion on your own.
Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again
are you retarded?He means there will be a fork, so double the coins. I don't know why he thinks both chains will survive...
What will stop the old chain if people still believe in a 1 MB limit?
Nothing. I fully support people using the chain they feel is superior.
I simply think that in this example, the superior chain will be the more usable chain. Should a fork occur, if there is doubt as to which chain is superior, it will be settled in the market. I don't think both will survive.
Sure, only will survive under the "Bitcoin" banner, but even those who support the new chain have an interest in the old chain since their prefork coins can be spent one time on each chain.
Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again
are you retarded?He means there will be a fork, so double the coins. I don't know why he thinks both chains will survive...
What will stop the old chain if people still believe in a 1 MB limit?
they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it...
Right, 1GB every 10 minutes is totally fine
Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again
are you retarded?Have you done your homework?
Have you done your homework?
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye
Satoshidice should operate within itself and not hit the blockchaine for every single bet....
user sends funds to s.dice wallet, user
that way the tx fees of 1cent dont matter anymore.
but wtv.
Fixed it for you
Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again
are you retarded?Have you done your homework?
Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again
are you retarded?
Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again
Of course from economy point of view this is not necessary bad, it will reduce the bitcoin value so that it won't rise so quickly. But from technical point of view, it is a disaster, since now there are two or more blockchain and users have to manage which coin is spent on which chain, this might destroy the credit of bitcoin alltogether
Of course from economy point of view this is not necessary bad, it will reduce the bitcoin value so that it won't rise so quickly. But from technical point of view, it is a disaster, since now there are two or more blockchain and users have to manage which coin is spent on which chain, this might destroy the credit of bitcoin alltogether
they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it...
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).
And also, let's not start fixing a "problem" (its not) with the target people being non-users....
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
they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it...
No thanks, http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html 
I mean we only have the potential for growth of 10 times the current price then.
No. The two are not related.
right now, this "problem" is totally exaggerated
most blocks do not "overflow"
and the answer to this problem is really simple, but bitcoiners arestupid smart-asses and think its worth debating to no end.
most blocks do not "overflow"
and the answer to this problem is really simple, but bitcoiners are
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.
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.
they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it...
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).
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.
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.
I think you mean growth of 10 times the current "transaction rate".
...which is a good economic indicator of Bitcoin adoption and use...
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.
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".
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.
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.
they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it...
I mean we only have the potential for growth of 10 times the current price then.
I mean we only have the potential for 10 times the current price then. 
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.
I mean we only have the potential for 10 times the current price then.
no
I mean we only have the potential for 10 times the current price then.
Then we only have room for max 10 times the current price, right? 
no, there is no bitcoin price in the blockchain at all… 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?
"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.
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.
but bitcoiners are stupid smart-asses and think its worth debating to no end.
lol
right now, this "problem" is totally exaggerated
most blocks do not "overflow"
and the answer to this problem is really simple, but bitcoiners arestupid smart-asses and think its worth debating to no end.
most blocks do not "overflow"
and the answer to this problem is really simple, but bitcoiners are
Will the price stagnate or drop once a critical mass of (new) investors understands the current problems about blocksize limit and scalability?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/19u7s5/soft_block_size_limit_reached_miners_asked_to/
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/soft-block-size-limit-reached-action-required-by-you-149668
True words! And we already got problems.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/19u7s5/soft_block_size_limit_reached_miners_asked_to/
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/soft-block-size-limit-reached-action-required-by-you-149668
Quote
Satoshidice transactions won't even make a drop in the ocean if this thing gets adopted by the world.
True words! And we already got problems.
Jump to: