Yay or Nay to Increasing Block Size to 20mb? - page 4.

JeromeL

member

Activity: 554

Merit: 11

CurioInvest [IEO Live]

Quote from: ebliever on May 06, 2015, 12:26:48 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.

numismatist

legendary

Activity: 1245

Merit: 1004

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

kingcolex

sr. member

Activity: 254

Merit: 1258

Quote from: tyz on May 06, 2015, 12:44:23 PM

Nay, as long as there is no solution to prune or shrink the blockchain in an efficient way.

But if the blockchain should used as a data storage one day, the increase to 20mb block size is just a question of time.

Your reasons really don't matter, the pruning or shrinking of the blockchain won't be needed by the time were at 20mb blocks the bandwdith and storage issues will have already solved themselves but pruning has already been discussed.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: tyz on May 06, 2015, 12:44:23 PM

Nay, as long as there is no solution to prune or shrink the blockchain in an efficient way.

But if the blockchain should used as a data storage one day, the increase to 20mb block size is just a question of time.

What are you talking about?
Check out the github page: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f9ec3f0fadb11ee9889af977e16915f5d6e01944
We are getting there.

tyz

legendary

Activity: 3360

Merit: 1533

Nay, as long as there is no solution to prune or shrink the blockchain in an efficient way.

But if the blockchain should used as a data storage one day, the increase to 20mb block size is just a question of time.

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1036

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?

In a way it's a self-correcting system if we do nothing: Bitcoin will hit the choke point, and then people will get frustrated with it and begin migrating away to altcoins or back to fiat, until the transaction volume drops again and the bottleneck is no longer an issue. But this means bitcoin remains forever a minor niche curiousity rather than a mainstream product.

There are a lot of things that need to happen as BTC becomes more mainstream, and the 20 MB change or something functionally equivalent is going to be one of them.

JeromeL

member

Activity: 554

Merit: 11

CurioInvest [IEO Live]

Quote from: fryarminer on May 06, 2015, 10:30:50 AM

This is really a stupid thing to fight over. It's necessary. Satoshi envisioned it. It is natural growth.

No. It's a extremely important subject. If the answer was so obvious, there would be a consensus in the core dev team.

gustav

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

Creating lots of issues with 20MB blocks.
-Bad syncing
-more centralisation
-vulnerable to dos
-potentially huge blockchain, too large to store for most people. So newcomers will less likely bother
-no more use over TOR
-Possible fork into 2 chains

and so on and so forth. Just bloating the chain is hardly genius.

kingcolex

sr. member

Activity: 254

Merit: 1258

Quote from: fryarminer on May 06, 2015, 10:30:50 AM

This is really a stupid thing to fight over. It's necessary. Satoshi envisioned it. It is natural growth.

This is pretty much an example of people hating change, I don't see much of a good counter argument but fear of change.

Snail2

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

Ask the whales and the big mining farms. If they accept it then its fine, let's go. If they are not happy with this change then back to the drawing board, and let's find something what is acceptable for all. This isn't nice but I think this is the reality.

fryarminer

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

This is really a stupid thing to fight over. It's necessary. Satoshi envisioned it. It is natural growth.

louise123

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: Amph on May 06, 2015, 09:46:47 AM

Quote from: AaronPaul on May 06, 2015, 09:06:14 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.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: AaronPaul on May 06, 2015, 09:06:14 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

louise123

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I am neither, for or against.
I wouldn't know what the difference would be, so I suppose I couldn't care less. Tongue

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Here we go again..
I'm going to assume that you haven't taken part of the main thread that was used to discuss this a few months back? It had over 100 pages of nonsense.

Quote from: AaronPaul on May 06, 2015, 09:06:14 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.

Removing the cap is not an elegant solution but rather a mistake. It would be open to abuse.

AaronPaul

newbie

Activity: 9

Merit: 0

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.

Aquent

member

Activity: 72

Merit: 10

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.

Topic: Yay or Nay to Increasing Block Size to 20mb? - page 4. (Read 3561 times)