Author

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 788. (Read 4671575 times)

legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
There seems to be some confusion around the upcoming "hardfork", so I gave a bit of clarity about it:

smooth said yesterday that the hardfork will happen in 6 months. Implementing the recommendations from MRL0004 is important, so it is clear that the price somehow reacts to this "delay" (its not a delay, they had just wrong expectations i guess)

All right, I am going to clear some things up here with respect to the bolded part. First of all, the hardfork code (the one that implements the recommendations from MRL-0004) is implemented into the new binaries (0.9). As a result, everyone who uses the new binaries will use this new code with the recommendations from MRL-0004. So it won't take six months before you can use these recommendations. However, after 6 months these changes will be enforced and thus everyone will be using them. But, as 0.9 is a significant improvement over 0.8.8.6 I guess almost everybody will be using the new binaries. Furthermore, if you compile yourself from the latest commits you will also use this new hardfork code. In addition, after 6 months there will be a new hardfork code with new recommendations and new binaries. So for example, in April they will release binaries 1.0 (guessing here) with hardfork code 2.0 and everyone can use that already. So in conclusion, only the enforcement happens in 6 months, it can already be used when the new binaries are released. I hope this clears things up.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 252
Follow us on our new account ShapeShift.com
ShapeShift.io is excited to announce the launch of our newest tool, Skeleton. Skeleton allows websites to offer on-site exchanges so that their users don't have to leave the site in order to do an exchange. Allow your website users to buy or sell Monero directly from your site! Learn more about how you can add this to your site here and see a VIDEO example of how CoinCap has utilized this offering: http://bit.ly/1WvSoBx

legendary
Activity: 1105
Merit: 1000
This is nothing at all like the emissions debate.

As far as technical reasons, will increasing the blocktime and thereby decreasing the # of blocks reduce the size of the blockchain to any meaningful degree?  

It might. The prevalence of zero transaction blocks is mainly filling the blockchain now. In the future, who knows. So, if we might see a decrease in size of blockchain if transaction levels continue as they are, but hopefully we see more transactions, not less. So I don't think this rationale has weight.

I'm with ArcticMine re: tabling this issue until later.

However, I do see the rationale in decreasing orphan rate, even though I am not entirely aware of the negative consequences of orphan blocks - I just get the gist that they are not ideal.

Thus, I would be fine with a 2 minute blocktime. I did some digging into the original TFT bitmonero thread, and indeed this is an old issue. Back then, the compromise / rationalization was 1 min blocktimes during the solo mining phase, and then 2 minute blocktimes later.


I believe "tabling for later" will just result in status quo forever. It won't get easier to change. We say we are young, nimble, able to make the changes we want without all the politics of BTC. Are we?

This change, being trivial technically, is all about discussion, and talk is cheap anyway. I don't see how discussing it in this thread (by mostly non-developers - at least of Monero) will have any measurable impact WRT slowing down the achievement of the design goals.

Orphans are wasted hashrate; they make the network less secure than it would be without them. They can also cause "false" confirms that are reorged out later. Bigger blocks (more transactions) would make the problem worse.
Also, combining a slow-to-verify POW with a 60 second blocktime results in a nice little advantage for large pools (even without any malice on their part).


Is blockchain size even still relevant when moved to DB  ?

Absolutely.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 2053
Free spirit
Is blockchain size even still relevant when moved to DB  ?
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
This is nothing at all like the emissions debate.

As far as technical reasons, will increasing the blocktime and thereby decreasing the # of blocks reduce the size of the blockchain to any meaningful degree? 

It might. The prevalence of zero transaction blocks is mainly filling the blockchain now. In the future, who knows. So, if we might see a decrease in size of blockchain if transaction levels continue as they are, but hopefully we see more transactions, not less. So I don't think this rationale has weight.

I'm with ArcticMine re: tabling this issue until later.

However, I do see the rationale in decreasing orphan rate, even though I am not entirely aware of the negative consequences of orphan blocks - I just get the gist that they are not ideal.

Thus, I would be fine with a 2 minute blocktime. I did some digging into the original TFT bitmonero thread, and indeed this is an old issue. Back then, the compromise / rationalization was 1 min blocktimes during the solo mining phase, and then 2 minute blocktimes later.





Boolberry also has 2 minute blocks but it should be noted there are other reasons why their blockchain is smaller (by  pruning the ring-signatures).

I am curious to hear what all of the monero devs have to say about block times
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
This is nothing at all like the emissions debate.

As far as technical reasons, will increasing the blocktime and thereby decreasing the # of blocks reduce the size of the blockchain to any meaningful degree? 

It might. The prevalence of zero transaction blocks is mainly filling the blockchain now. In the future, who knows. So, if we might see a decrease in size of blockchain if transaction levels continue as they are, but hopefully we see more transactions, not less. So I don't think this rationale has weight.

I'm with ArcticMine re: tabling this issue until later.

However, I do see the rationale in decreasing orphan rate, even though I am not entirely aware of the negative consequences of orphan blocks - I just get the gist that they are not ideal.

Thus, I would be fine with a 2 minute blocktime. I did some digging into the original TFT bitmonero thread, and indeed this is an old issue. Back then, the compromise / rationalization was 1 min blocktimes during the solo mining phase, and then 2 minute blocktimes later.



legendary
Activity: 1105
Merit: 1000
This is nothing at all like the emissions debate.

As far as technical reasons, will increasing the blocktime and thereby decreasing the # of blocks reduce the size of the blockchain to any meaningful degree? 

Right now with almost no transactions, yes it would. As (if) transactions pick up it would tend toward negligible.
legendary
Activity: 1624
Merit: 1008
This is nothing at all like the emissions debate.

As far as technical reasons, will increasing the blocktime and thereby decreasing the # of blocks reduce the size of the blockchain to any meaningful degree? 
legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050
Monero Core Team
Who has an opinion on increasing the blocktime to 2 (or even 4) minutes as part of the next hard fork?

I am against raising the blocktime. There has to be strong technical reasons against the current 1 min blocktime. Furthermore the argument has to be made that those technical reasons will cause greater rather than lesser problems in the future. The argument against a short blocktime is that it increases the probability of orphan blocks and I do recognize that Monero is close to the practical limit; however as bandwidth increases this negative impact of this issue also decreases.

On a related note do we need a repeat of the emission debate of last year?

Edit: I propose that we table this issue until other much more pressing matters are resolved, such as the completion of the development goals in https://getmonero.org/design-goals/
legendary
Activity: 1154
Merit: 1001
FWIW I would also be ok with a blocktime increase to 2 minutes.

Previous poster: variance on AEON has more to do with current hashrate concentration, than it does with the current blocktime per se. I'm not saying that's good or bad though. The greater the blocktime interval, the greater is the absolute result of variance (though percentage-wise it is always the same)...
member
Activity: 115
Merit: 10
AEON sometimes see a variance of over 40 mins for next block! Have fun waiting fir confirmations... I vote to stick with 1 min, i.e. please dont muck with the block time and reward. 

Who has an opinion on increasing the blocktime to 2 (or even 4) minutes as part of the next hard fork?

Would be ok for 2, not 4.


I am also in favor of 2 for a variety of reasons.

Could you elaborate a bit on the reasons? Furthermore, I think AEON uses 4 minute blocks and didn't encounter any problems/issues.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
Who has an opinion on increasing the blocktime to 2 (or even 4) minutes as part of the next hard fork?

Would be ok for 2, not 4.


I am also in favor of 2 for a variety of reasons.

Could you elaborate a bit on the reasons? Also, I think AEON uses 4 minute blocks and didn't encounter any problems/issues.
legendary
Activity: 1105
Merit: 1000
Who has an opinion on increasing the blocktime to 2 (or even 4) minutes as part of the next hard fork?

Would be ok for 2, not 4.


I am also in favor of 2 for a variety of reasons.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
Still wild and free
Who has an opinion on increasing the blocktime to 2 (or even 4) minutes as part of the next hard fork?

Would be ok for 2, not 4.
legendary
Activity: 1105
Merit: 1000
Who has an opinion on increasing the blocktime to 2 (or even 4) minutes as part of the next hard fork?
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
Also, one of you asked Andreas Antonopoulos about the fungibility of bitcoin at this Rotterdam presentation.  Good job: 
 
https://youtu.be/ak1iojpiHpM?t=33m6s

it was me Smiley

Great question you asked!
https://twitter.com/XMRpromotions/status/649167284460609536
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1000
Want privacy? Use Monero!
Also, one of you asked Andreas Antonopoulos about the fungibility of bitcoin at this Rotterdam presentation.  Good job: 
 
https://youtu.be/ak1iojpiHpM?t=33m6s

it was me Smiley
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 504
Also, one of you asked Andreas Antonopoulos about the fungibility of bitcoin at this Rotterdam presentation.  Good job: 
 
https://youtu.be/ak1iojpiHpM?t=33m6s
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 504
can't no more read mah own postings ... how can I unmute myself  Huh Huh
 
 
Dude, are you serious right now?  Your "bot" auto-muted yourself for quoting....  Grin nevermind, just enjoy your own limbo. 
 
Go Monero.   Wink  Enjoy the cheap prices while they last, and don't worry about a GUI.  It will come when it is time.  All things arrive exactly when they are supposed to, and not a moment earlier.
Jump to: