Yay or Nay to Increasing Block Size to 20mb? - page 3.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: Jammalan the Prophet on May 06, 2015, 07:43:31 PM

Quote from: Klestin on May 06, 2015, 03:47:24 PM

Quote from: spazzdla on May 06, 2015, 03:43:42 PM

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

Clearly. And we know this because hard drive space could never grow exponentially. Never.

Could you please draw that line to 2015 , it seems i'm missing my 100TB HDD.

It's not my graph. The long term growth of hard drives has been 40% per year. So, if in 2010 it was 1 TB, it should now be 5.4 TB. Hmm... eerily accurate. http://www.amazon.com/Red-6TB-NAS-Hard-Drive/dp/B00LO3KR96

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

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

Is there relevance between this statement and the current discussion? The block chain is not growing at a rate exponentially higher than the rate of hard drive size increase.

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 $6 in five years.

Increasing the maximum block size is not a permanent panacea. It is a necessary stop gap solution. If other development hasn't obviated the block size increase within five years, the very last thing we'll have to worry about is hard drive space.

Jammalan the Prophet

sr. member

Activity: 500

Merit: 250

Quote from: Klestin on May 06, 2015, 03:47:24 PM

Quote from: spazzdla on May 06, 2015, 03:43:42 PM

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

Clearly. And we know this because hard drive space could never grow exponentially. Never.

Could you please draw that line to 2015 , it seems i'm missing my 100TB HDD.

fitbobcat

full member

Activity: 218

Merit: 101

What I want to know is what we're going to do when the blockchains download size reaches 60+ gb?

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on May 06, 2015, 04:20:31 PM

Quote from: Klestin on May 06, 2015, 03:47:24 PM

Quote from: spazzdla on May 06, 2015, 03:43:42 PM

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

Clearly. And we know this because hard drive space could never grow exponentially. Never.

No it won't. You obviously don't realize that 200 GB is equal to 2 movies in 4K resolution.
Besides I've already linked to the pruning that is probably going to be available soon. What's the problem there?
10 years ago the current Blockchain wouldn't have fit on quite a number of systems actually (depending on where you live).

I can only guess you meant to quote spazzdla and not me? That, or you're not very good at detecting sarcasm.

spazzdla

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Meuh6879 on May 06, 2015, 04:16:16 PM

Yes ... but only if pruning is activate at the same time (or before to check the result like in the begin of 2016).

This, we very desperately need to do something about the size of the blockchain.

The size of the blockchain is increasing faster than the size of a harddrive this is a big problem which will only be made worse with increasing the block size. However 7 transactions per second is also a large problem.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: louise123 on May 06, 2015, 11:15:45 AM

Quote from: Amph on May 06, 2015, 10:46:47 AM

Quote from: AaronPaul on May 06, 2015, 10:06:14 AM

Smarter people than me should answer this.

Is 20 megs just for DDOS protection? Would DDOS'ing consist of real transactions?

From a layman's point of view, a more elegant solution is to remove the cap completely and look closer at what the problems really are with the system that this is a problem.

it was without limit at the beginning, then satoshi has set a 1mb limit for anti ddos, so 20mb should increase the possibility of ddosing it, not lower it

said this, i'm favor of it, ddosing should not play a major factor

I didn't know that.

Another thing that I don't know is:
How can Bitcoin be DDoSed?

Nodes are worldwide and it's not just one central location.
I am confused.

allowing a super whopper block in the chain is not really DDOS , but its problematic for the network in a similar fashion.

spazzdla

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Klestin on May 06, 2015, 03:47:24 PM

Quote from: spazzdla on May 06, 2015, 03:43:42 PM

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

Clearly. And we know this because hard drive space could never grow exponentially. Never.

x ^ 2 ^ 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X ^ 2

To break it down nice and simple for you Wink

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Klestin on May 06, 2015, 03:47:24 PM

Quote from: spazzdla on May 06, 2015, 03:43:42 PM

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

Clearly. And we know this because hard drive space could never grow exponentially. Never.

No it won't. You obviously don't realize that 200 GB is equal to 2 movies in 4K resolution.
Besides I've already linked to the pruning that is probably going to be available soon. What's the problem there?
10 years ago the current Blockchain wouldn't have fit on quite a number of systems actually (depending on where you live).

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1011

Yes ... but only if pruning is activate at the same time (or before to check the result like in the begin of 2016).

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: spazzdla on May 06, 2015, 03:43:42 PM

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

Clearly. And we know this because hard drive space could never grow exponentially. Never.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: numismatist on May 06, 2015, 02:06:21 PM

Yes, and also No, are the wrong answer. Block Size should be able to adapt like Difficulty. More transactions, larger Blocks.

It already does. The block size is exactly as large as is necessary to include the transactions in the block. What's increasing is the cap on the block size. It will increase incrementally over time.

spazzdla

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

JeromeL

member

Activity: 554

Merit: 11

CurioInvest [IEO Live]

Quote from: Nagle on May 06, 2015, 03:01:55 PM

It's not up to the "core devs". It's up to the big miners. They control block size.

Nope it's not only up to big miners. It's also up to every full validating nodes. That's why it's a hardfork.

Quote from: ebliever on May 06, 2015, 03:14:42 PM

Who is going to want to fiddle with fees after they send a transaction? That's like the postal service getting bogged down around Christmas and letting people know that they can send in extra postage if they want their packages by Christmas. It would be a hassle and universally annoy people.

You only need to fiddle with fee if you are greedy by taking the risk to pay the very least fee.

Quote

The dynamic blocksize increase only makes sense if you can securely project the rate of increase in block size needed. If you guess wrong then the trajectory is off and you end up needing to hardfork again anyway at some point.

No, you didn't get the point. The goal is not to project anything. it's to make sure Bitcoin doesn't become centralized and it's to incentive offchain solutions. if you don't care about decentralization, why don't you just use ripple? Ripple scales great. Lol.

manselr

legendary

Activity: 868

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Aquent on May 06, 2015, 09:52:48 AM

Obviously this is hardly a scientific poll or in any way indicative, but just curious of the result even if it is gamed.

And, please don't game it

This is an important issue and everyone has the right to their opinion. We all would benefit by seeing what most people think and the benefits from gaming it would be very much 0.

But isn't this made officially already? i heard its happening in 0.11.
From the emails by satoshi it seems he predicted he would be ok with 1 MB only, but it's pretty risky to keep it at 1 MB only, 20 seems like the reasonable thing to do.

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1035

Quote from: JeromeL on May 06, 2015, 02:11:58 PM

Quote from: ebliever on May 06, 2015, 01:26:48 PM

One thing I haven't seen much of is an alternative to the 20 MB proposal by opponents. What do nay-sayers plan to do when the network maxes out the 1 MB blocks more and more consistently and then transactions start queuing up and getting delayed because of the bottleneck

There are really interesting alternatives like Peter Todd's replace by fee (version 2), coupled with a conservative dynamic maxblocksize increase (+1MB /year).

This way we enable the blockchain to grow safely and slowly enough to preserve decentralization and to incentive offchain solutions. Replace by fee(version 2) enables users to change their fee if their transaction gets stuck because blocks are full.

Who is going to want to fiddle with fees after they send a transaction? That's like the postal service getting bogged down around Christmas and letting people know that they can send in extra postage if they want their packages by Christmas. It would be a hassle and universally annoy people.

The dynamic blocksize increase only makes sense if you can securely project the rate of increase in block size needed. If you guess wrong then the trajectory is off and you end up needing to hardfork again anyway at some point.

kingcolex

sr. member

Activity: 254

Merit: 1258

Quote from: numismatist on May 06, 2015, 02:06:21 PM

Yes, and also No, are the wrong answer. Block Size should be able to adapt like Difficulty. More transactions, larger Blocks.

Wouldn't this be susceptible to a spam attack like that happened with the Sochi olympics? Until we have a way to block an attack we can't have adapting block sizes.

Nagle

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1000

It's not up to the "core devs". It's up to the big miners. They control block size.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3206

Merit: 1069

Quote from: louise123 on May 06, 2015, 11:15:45 AM

Quote from: Amph on May 06, 2015, 10:46:47 AM

Quote from: AaronPaul on May 06, 2015, 10:06:14 AM

Smarter people than me should answer this.

Is 20 megs just for DDOS protection? Would DDOS'ing consist of real transactions?

From a layman's point of view, a more elegant solution is to remove the cap completely and look closer at what the problems really are with the system that this is a problem.

it was without limit at the beginning, then satoshi has set a 1mb limit for anti ddos, so 20mb should increase the possibility of ddosing it, not lower it

said this, i'm favor of it, ddosing should not play a major factor

I didn't know that.

Another thing that I don't know is:
How can Bitcoin be DDoSed?

Nodes are worldwide and it's not just one central location.
I am confused.

well i think they can always ddos single node, or those nodes that are more important, but in the way that i understood it, i think that in this case if the number of transactions are simply too much the network could reject them

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1009

There is already a thread on this... But I guess it doesn't have a poll

I voted yes. I'm all for changing it. If we're eventually going to need to change it, why not get over with it already? If we want to evolve and make Bitcoin even bigger, we've got to adapt this change.

Topic: Yay or Nay to Increasing Block Size to 20mb? - page 3. (Read 3483 times)