Yay or Nay to Increasing Block Size to 20mb? - page 2.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Amph on May 09, 2015, 02:04:46 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on May 08, 2015, 01:07:54 PM

Quote from: Joe_Bauers on May 08, 2015, 12:59:35 PM

The other option would be to change the block time to 2 minutes.
I'm not sure why that wasn't discussed more.

Because that will cause more frequent orphan blocks. It has been said in this kind of threads before.

what about dynamic block size increase or lightining network? they seems a better proposal(they aren't the same thign right?), but i'm not an expert here

I haven't heard about the lightning network before. The dynamic block size seems vulnerable to manipulation, just as if there was no limit at all.

jacktheking

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1001

Personal Text Space Not For Sale

The 99th vote goes to.. Undecided. Well, it is perfectly fine for me to increase or decrease. Bitcoin will still work for me and there wont be any big difference.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3206

Merit: 1069

Quote from: R2D221 on May 08, 2015, 01:07:54 PM

Quote from: Joe_Bauers on May 08, 2015, 12:59:35 PM

The other option would be to change the block time to 2 minutes.
I'm not sure why that wasn't discussed more.

Because that will cause more frequent orphan blocks. It has been said in this kind of threads before.

what about dynamic block size increase or lightining network? they seems a better proposal(they aren't the same thign right?), but i'm not an expert here

frontdenplastic

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Quote from: Joe_Bauers on May 08, 2015, 02:35:52 PM

Quote from: R2D221 on May 08, 2015, 01:07:54 PM

Quote from: Joe_Bauers on May 08, 2015, 12:59:35 PM

The other option would be to change the block time to 2 minutes.
I'm not sure why that wasn't discussed more.

Because that will cause more frequent orphan blocks. It has been said in this kind of threads before.

I'd like to see an estimated % of increased orphan blocks at 2 minutes. Then weigh that against the inconveniences that will arise from 20 Mb blocks. Pretty sure a "slightly" higher increase in orphans would be preferable. Still, I'm sure Gavin and co have their reasons.

Why don't you try running p2pool with their 30 second blocks? P2pool blocks (or shares) are essentially lower difficulty Bitcoin blocks used to measure your mining contribution. If you have a slightly slower connection than the other p2pool miners it is not uncommon for 50% of your blocks to get orphaned. Now 2 minutes is not as bad as 30 seconds, but you should not assume that the number of orphans would be insignificant.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1073

Hard drive space is a non-issue. The portion of the size of the space you use, in relation to what is currently out there, is not worth a discussion.

So far, we have had a nice smooth ride {Secure protocol with average confirmation time}

What do we want to sacrifice, when "Mass adoption" enter the Bitcoin scene and we did not make provision for scalability?

Technology has to adapt to the needs of the people. {We want faster, more reliable and easy to use things in our life} Will no change bring that?

lahm-44

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

ofcourse yes . we cannot adjust the bitcoin mining difficulty with owr efforts nor we can control the network like we want everything is atomatically adjusted so we don't have any choice just to wait for new powerfull equiments for mining

Q7

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Here we go again. If we know the fundamental of the system will not be able to support future growth , then by all means we need to consider working on that and remove the caps. If we need to do it anyway so why not now? The problem is there we just can't turn away from the reality

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1035

I've supported the 20 MB increase, but Gavin himself just acknowledged a potential major issue - see http://gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3724

Merit: 3063

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: gogxmagog on May 08, 2015, 04:53:11 PM

Quote from: Hexadecibel on May 08, 2015, 03:17:28 PM

I think the majority of people who are against increasing the block size do not run full nodes. What an incredible amount of fake outrage.

yes! and they haven't read any of what the devs have written either. You don't have to look very deeply to see that increasing the block size is absolutely necessary right now.
I'm not even clear on what argument there is against it?

If there's any confusion over what the argument was, it's because the 1mb supporters weren't being honest about their motives. They claimed it was about centralization, bandwidth, security and who knows what other straws they were desperately clutching at to try and win support. But ultimately it boils down to some greedy early adopters and whales not wanting to share the network with the masses if Bitcoin does ever hit the mainstream. They want a two-tier system where they get all the benefit. Bitcoin for the privileged few. If they can force the masses off-chain by imposing an arbitrary limit, they get all the protection and security of the blockchain for themselves and everyone else gets to rely on a third party and introduce risk to their transactions. All the other arguments they came up with were merely a distraction from that.

gogxmagog

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1009

Ad maiora!

Quote from: Hexadecibel on May 08, 2015, 03:17:28 PM

I think the majority of people who are against increasing the block size do not run full nodes. What an incredible amount of fake outrage.

yes! and they haven't read any of what the devs have written either. You don't have to look very deeply to see that increasing the block size is absolutely necessary right now.
I'm not even clear on what argument there is against it? Trying to make life easier for the miners? That is ridiculous. Things should be HARDER for the miners, I'm sorry but mining is almost entirely run by huge commercial concerns, bitcoin network is already starting to look like the big banks (a few centralized controllers)

aside from all that, block size matters. Imagine if transactions took an average of an hour? Most users here cant handle it if a tx takes longer than 10 minutes!

the problem with free speech and democracy is - every fool thinks they are entitled to an opinion, and that their opinion actually matters. The devs know what they are doing. Conspiracy theorists simply have too much time on their hands (diametric opposite of devs)

Hexadecibel

vip

Activity: 571

Merit: 504

I still <3 u Satoshi

I think the majority of people who are against increasing the block size do not run full nodes. What an incredible amount of fake outrage.

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1015

Quote from: Joe_Bauers on May 08, 2015, 12:59:35 PM

The other option would be to change the block time to 2 minutes.
I'm not sure why that wasn't discussed more.

The block time set to 10 minutes is permanent so changing that would be infinitely harder than changing the 1mb cap which has always been a temporary measure from the start.
Change something permanent and you open Pandora's box to future permanent things changing. Then nothing is permanent, and nobody trusts bitcoin anymore, and becomes worthless.

Joe_Bauers

hero member

Activity: 802

Merit: 1003

GCVMMWH

Quote from: R2D221 on May 08, 2015, 01:07:54 PM

Quote from: Joe_Bauers on May 08, 2015, 12:59:35 PM

The other option would be to change the block time to 2 minutes.
I'm not sure why that wasn't discussed more.

Because that will cause more frequent orphan blocks. It has been said in this kind of threads before.

I'd like to see an estimated % of increased orphan blocks at 2 minutes. Then weigh that against the inconveniences that will arise from 20 Mb blocks. Pretty sure a "slightly" higher increase in orphans would be preferable. Still, I'm sure Gavin and co have their reasons.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Joe_Bauers on May 08, 2015, 12:59:35 PM

The other option would be to change the block time to 2 minutes.
I'm not sure why that wasn't discussed more.

Because that will cause more frequent orphan blocks. It has been said in this kind of threads before.

Joe_Bauers

hero member

Activity: 802

Merit: 1003

GCVMMWH

The other option would be to change the block time to 2 minutes.
I'm not sure why that wasn't discussed more.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3724

Merit: 3063

Leave no FUD unchallenged

It has to be done as a short term fix. People just won't tolerate the delays in confirmations if blocks ever get full on even a semi-regular basis. We get the odd thread now complaining about a block that to 30 minutes, but there would be dozens of angry posts per day if lots of people were waiting for the next available block. Hopefully more a more elegant fix comes along in future, like side chains/treechains/etc. But those still feel like a long way off.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: Jammalan the Prophet on May 06, 2015, 08:06:28 PM

2011 – First 4.0 terabyte hard drive[26] (Seagate)

I was comparing internal drives to internal drives. However, if you include external drives you can move the dates a bit. Even going with the Seagate, it was September 2011. That means 3 years. Still not 5.

Jammalan the Prophet

sr. member

Activity: 500

Merit: 250

Quote from: Klestin on May 06, 2015, 08:03:09 PM

Quote from: Jammalan the Prophet on May 06, 2015, 07:56:35 PM

It took 5 year to increase the maximum hdd from 500gb to 4tb (8x times).
It took another 5 to increase it again just 2x to 8gb.

It's demand that is driving the space storage development. But that might quickly hit a flat spot.

The world's first 4tb drive came out April 3, 2012. The world's first 8tb drive came out August 26, 2014. That's not five years, it's 2.4 years. And, it corresponds fairly closely to the "40% per year" that we've been experiencing.

While we're at it, the world's first 500 GB drive came out March 29, 2005. That's seven years before the 2TB drive.

2011 – First 4.0 terabyte hard drive[26] (Seagate)

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: Jammalan the Prophet on May 06, 2015, 07:56:35 PM

It took 5 year to increase the maximum hdd from 500gb to 4tb (8x times).
It took another 5 to increase it again just 2x to 8gb.

It's demand that is driving the space storage development. But that might quickly hit a flat spot.

The world's first 4tb drive came out April 3, 2012. The world's first 8tb drive came out August 26, 2014. That's not five years, it's 2.4 years. And, it corresponds fairly closely to the "40% per year" that we've been experiencing.

While we're at it, the world's first 500 GB drive came out March 29, 2005. That's seven years before the 2TB drive.

Jammalan the Prophet

sr. member

Activity: 500

Merit: 250

Quote from: Klestin on May 06, 2015, 07:51:01 PM

Quote from: spazzdla on May 06, 2015, 04:23:50 PM

x ^ 2 ^ 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X ^ 2
To break it down nice and simple for you Wink

At its current rate of increase, in five years the total size of the block chain will cross the 1 TB threshold. Wow! Sounds terrible! Except it isn't. Based on current trends, 1 TB of hard drive will cost $23 in five years.

But i have to pay 13$ for my flying car that was promised in 1980 =))).

It took 5 year to increase the maximum hdd from 500gb to 4tb (8x times).
It took another 5 to increase it again just 2x to 8gb.

It's demand that is driving the space storage development. But that might quickly hit a flat spot.

Topic: Yay or Nay to Increasing Block Size to 20mb? - page 2. (Read 3483 times)