Mike Hearn



Offline



Activity: 1526

Merit: 1008







LegendaryActivity: 1526Merit: 1008 Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 06, 2013, 09:44:20 AM

Last edit: March 06, 2013, 11:15:40 PM by Mike Hearn #1 without a hard fork. We have now reached this limit. Transactions are stacking up in the memory pool and not getting cleared fast enough.



What this means is, you need to take a decision and do one of these things:



Start your node with the -blockmaxsize flag set to something higher than 250kb, for example -blockmaxsize=1023000. This will mean you create larger blocks that confirm more transactions. You can also adjust the size of the area in your blocks that is reserved for free transactions with the -blockprioritysize flag.

Change your nodes code to de-prioritize or ignore transactions you don't care about, for example, Luke-Jr excludes SatoshiDice transactions which makes way for other users.

Do nothing.

If everyone does nothing, then people will start having to attach higher and higher fees to get into blocks until Bitcoin fees end up being uncompetitive with competing services like PayPal.



If you mine on a pool, ask your pool operator what their policy will be on this, and if you don't like it, switch to a different pool. By default Bitcoin will not created blocks larger than 250kb even though it could do so. We have now reached this limit. Transactions are stacking up in the memory pool and not getting cleared fast enough.What this means is, you need to take a decision and do one of these things:If everyone does nothing, then people will start having to attach higher and higher fees to get into blocks until Bitcoin fees end up being uncompetitive with competing services like PayPal.If you mine on a pool, ask your pool operator what their policy will be on this, and if you don't like it, switch to a different pool.

Akka



Offline



Activity: 1204

Merit: 1001









LegendaryActivity: 1204Merit: 1001 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 06, 2013, 01:50:56 PM #5 Well, I'm curious to see how this works out. Hopefully the most pools will not increase their Blocksize limit so we get a good simulation of how the Bitcoin environment behaves when we bump against a limit. All previous versions of currency will no longer be supported as of this update

Akka



Offline



Activity: 1204

Merit: 1001









LegendaryActivity: 1204Merit: 1001 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 06, 2013, 02:08:07 PM #7 Quote from: Mike Hearn on March 06, 2013, 02:02:47 PM We are already bumping up against a limit. No simulation needed. We have reality instead ...



OK, wrong word. Still I hope that most pools will not immediately lift / increase their limit. So we know what will happen when we reach the hard limit, which can't be changed so easily.



So let us bump against this for a few month. And lift it only if it really damages Bitcoin. OK, wrong word. Still I hope that most pools will not immediately lift / increase their limit. So we know what will happen when we reach the hard limit, which can't be changed so easily.So let us bump against this for a few month. And lift it only if it really damages Bitcoin. All previous versions of currency will no longer be supported as of this update

Mike Hearn



Offline



Activity: 1526

Merit: 1008







LegendaryActivity: 1526Merit: 1008 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 06, 2013, 10:55:54 PM #10 No. I don't have their contact details, and even if I did, this is the wrong way to solve such issues.



Miners (all miners) need to understand what they're doing. The time when people could just click "Generate coins" and be done with it are long gone. It's very important that miners monitor the health of the network and understand what their software is doing.



For pools, the operators need to state what their block construction policies are, and the people with the hardware need to understand those policies and find pools with good ones.



That's far more than I or anyone else can do alone. Miners need to hold their pools accountable.

eleuthria



Offline



Activity: 1750

Merit: 1007









LegendaryActivity: 1750Merit: 1007 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 12:46:09 AM #13 BTC Guild started setting up a new server this morning running modified block rules. Currently trying out a 500,000 byte maxblocksize. The problem is with larger blocks, you increase the chance of orphans since it will take at least twice as long to propagate, if not more. I've modified the fee settings to prefer fee based transactions when increasing the block size past 50 KB, so hopefully the increase in fees per block offset the orphan rate increase. RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015

scintill



Offline



Activity: 448

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 448Merit: 250 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 02:34:16 AM #18 Quote from: grue on March 07, 2013, 02:01:07 AM how about no? because I don't want encourage some gambling website to fill up my hard drive with their bets.



Then don't let sdice transactions into your solved blocks, and encourage others to do the same. Mike didn't say you have to increase the soft limit. Luke-Jr posted about your other options.



Personally, banning sdice outright seems like the kind of scummy meddling bitcoin is supposed to solve. I would rather make them pay transaction fees somewhat proportional to the cost they incur on the network. If they pay them, miners get more money for their trouble, if not, they stop spamming the chain. Then don't let sdice transactions into your solved blocks, and encourage others to do the same. Mike didn't say you have to increase the soft limit. Luke-Jr posted about your other options.Personally, banning sdice outright seems like the kind of scummy meddling bitcoin is supposed to solve. I would rather make them pay transaction fees somewhat proportional to the cost they incur on the network. If they pay them, miners get more money for their trouble, if not, they stop spamming the chain. 1SCiN5kqkAbxxwesKMsH9GvyWnWP5YK2W | donations

mrb



Offline



Activity: 1512

Merit: 1019







LegendaryActivity: 1512Merit: 1019 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 03:30:38 AM

Last edit: March 07, 2013, 03:46:27 AM by mrb #22 Quote from: eleuthria on March 07, 2013, 12:46:09 AM BTC Guild started setting up a new server this morning running modified block rules. Currently trying out a 500,000 byte maxblocksize. The problem is with larger blocks, you increase the chance of orphans since it will take at least twice as long to propagate, if not more. I've modified the fee settings to prefer fee based transactions when increasing the block size past 50 KB, so hopefully the increase in fees per block offset the orphan rate increase.



What do you mean you have modified the fee settings? Were you not doing what the Bitcoin client has always been doing? In other words: 27kB for storing high-priority transactions (regardless of the fee), and the remainder of the block always preferring fee-based transactions.



Quote from: disclaimer201 on March 07, 2013, 02:59:12 AM And I don't care for satoshi dice. Let them move to litecoin or ban them from spamming the network and my harddrives.



Well. I am partaged on what to think about satoshidice. On one hand they pollute the block chain, but on the other hand they do help stress-test bitcoin's technical limits in the real world relatively early in its history.

What do you mean you have modified the fee settings? Were you not doing what the Bitcoin client has always been doing? In other words: 27kB for storing high-priority transactions (regardless of the fee), and the remainder of the block always preferring fee-based transactions.Well. I am partaged on what to think about satoshidice. On one hand they pollute the block chain, but on the other hand they do help stress-test bitcoin's technical limits in the real world relatively early in its history.

Peter Todd



Offline



Activity: 1106

Merit: 1045







LegendaryActivity: 1106Merit: 1045 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 03:56:09 AM #23 Quote from: deepceleron on March 06, 2013, 11:26:16 PM Add an additional .001 optional fee in your client and your transaction will be in the next block. The blockchain flooders are cheapskates. Transactions are not supposed to be cheap enough that you can blast hundreds of them out an hour with your gambling bot.



This.



I'm running a timestamping service that's been making about two or three transactions an hour for the past few days, each with 0.0005BTC fees. Looks like about 90% to 95% of my transactions are confirming in the next block, and the rest within another block.



Seriously, if you can't spend a 0.001BTC - a bit less than 5 cents - to publish a transaction that thousands of computers have to verify and store for eternity in the one rock-solid high value decentralized currency known to man, stop complaining. I'm surprised the large-blocks/low-fees group hasn't been compared to the usual socialists wanting to centralize profit and decentralized costs yet... or maybe they have - following the forums with this crap is a full-time job.



You know, my timestamping thing, OpenTimestamps if you want to know,(1) has been called blockchain spam by some. For the technically inclined, no it doesn't bloat the UTXO space, but it does add blockchain space. However, it and other abuses like



On the other hand, if we go ahead and let the maximum block size get as large as miners want, there's no reason not to use it for all sorts of BS things, and little we can do to stop abuse without centralization. Sadly, I suspect as it becomes more and more expensive to participate as a full-fledged miner, instead we'll just see the number of pools decrease, and P2Pool die off from lack of miners, until central efforts to "stop spam transactiosn" start happening, and then you're one step away from "stop silk road" being possible.



1) FWIW, it's not quite ready to be called production yet, but if you can find the software on github, go ahead and try it out. This.I'm running a timestamping service that's been making about two or three transactions an hour for the past few days, each with 0.0005BTC fees. Looks like about 90% to 95% of my transactions are confirming in the next block, and the rest within another block.Seriously, if you can't spend a 0.001BTC - a bit less than 5 cents - to publish a transaction that thousands of computers have to verify and store for eternity in the one rock-solid high value decentralized currency known to man, stop complaining. I'm surprised the large-blocks/low-fees group hasn't been compared to the usual socialists wanting to centralize profit and decentralized costs yet... or maybe they have - following the forums with this crap is a full-time job.You know, my timestamping thing, OpenTimestamps if you want to know,(1) has been called blockchain spam by some. For the technically inclined, no it doesn't bloat the UTXO space, but it does add blockchain space. However, it and other abuses like storing files in the blockchain will naturally be crowded out as transactions become more expensive, so the total damage will always be limited without centralized enforcement efforts like Mike's pleadings for miner's to "stop the satoshidice spam". Already TX fees would cost me $100USD/month to run the timestamper if every block had a timestamp transaction in it, so I'll soon have plenty of reasons to change the way it works, just like the price of gas gives people incentives not to waste it.On the other hand, if we go ahead and let the maximum block size get as large as miners want, there's no reason not to use it for all sorts of BS things, and little we can do to stop abuse without centralization. Sadly, I suspect as it becomes more and more expensive to participate as a full-fledged miner, instead we'll just see the number of pools decrease, and P2Pool die off from lack of miners, until central efforts to "stop spam transactiosn" start happening, and then you're one step away from "stop silk road" being possible.1) FWIW, it's not quite ready to be called production yet, but if you can find the software on github, go ahead and try it out. BTC: 1FCYd7j4CThTMzts78rh6iQJLBRGPW9fWv PGP: 7FAB114267E4FA04

eleuthria



Offline



Activity: 1750

Merit: 1007









LegendaryActivity: 1750Merit: 1007 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 04:13:14 AM #24 Quote from: mrb on March 07, 2013, 03:30:38 AM Quote from: eleuthria on March 07, 2013, 12:46:09 AM BTC Guild started setting up a new server this morning running modified block rules. Currently trying out a 500,000 byte maxblocksize. The problem is with larger blocks, you increase the chance of orphans since it will take at least twice as long to propagate, if not more. I've modified the fee settings to prefer fee based transactions when increasing the block size past 50 KB, so hopefully the increase in fees per block offset the orphan rate increase.



What do you mean you have modified the fee settings? Were you not doing what the Bitcoin client has always been doing? In other words: 27kB for storing high-priority transactions (regardless of the fee), and the remainder of the block always preferring fee-based transactions.

What do you mean you have modified the fee settings? Were you not doing what the Bitcoin client has always been doing? In other words: 27kB for storing high-priority transactions (regardless of the fee), and the remainder of the block always preferring fee-based transactions.

The old settings were default, with the 250,000 byte limit, 27k for high-priority (regardless of fee). The new settings we're trying (subject to change, and not on all servers yet) is 500kB block max size, no reserved space for no-fee transactions with high priority, and a minimum size set to 50 kB to grab high priority/no-fee transactions if there aren't that many unconfirmed paid transactions. The old settings were default, with the 250,000 byte limit, 27k for high-priority (regardless of fee). The new settings we're trying (subject to change, and not on all servers yet) is 500kB block max size, no reserved space for no-fee transactions with high priority, and a minimum size set to 50 kB to grab high priority/no-fee transactions if there aren't that many unconfirmed paid transactions. RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015

optimator



Offline



Activity: 351

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 351Merit: 250 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 04:23:41 AM #25 Quote from: disclaimer201 on March 07, 2013, 02:59:12 AM I lost a lot of money today because of this shit. And I don't care for satoshi dice. Let them move to litecoin or ban them from spamming the network and my harddrives.



Sorry to hear about your financial loss. That sucks.



But, I must say, it rubs me wrong when I hear complaints about "spamming the blockchain" and the evil of satoshi dice. Where do you see bitcoin going? Do you want to keep it as a little pet or do you want it to become a global currency beyond the borders of governments?



Clearly, the way bitcoin was designed was to encourage the gradual adoption of transaction fees, as those fees will replace the revenue lost from the block reward halvings. However, those transaction fees will go to the miners and the nodes will still need to store the transactions.



I see the "solution" to these problems as designing ways to creatively solve the "problem". For example, implementing a parsed version of the blockchain to remove older transactions.



We shouldn't run from or discourage satoshi dice, we need to embrace it as a precursor of what is to come.



Cheers! Sorry to hear about your financial loss. That sucks.But, I must say, it rubs me wrong when I hear complaints about "spamming the blockchain" and the evil of satoshi dice. Where do you see bitcoin going? Do you want to keep it as a little pet or do you want it to become a global currency beyond the borders of governments?Clearly, the way bitcoin was designed was to encourage the gradual adoption of transaction fees, as those fees will replace the revenue lost from the block reward halvings. However, those transaction fees will go to the miners and the nodes will still need to store the transactions.I see the "solution" to these problems as designing ways to creatively solve the "problem". For example, implementing a parsed version of the blockchain to remove older transactions.We shouldn't run from or discourage satoshi dice, we need to embrace it as a precursor of what is to come.Cheers! Get paid in bitcoin

Smoovious



Offline



Activity: 504

Merit: 500



Scattering my bits around the net since 1980







Hero MemberActivity: 504Merit: 500Scattering my bits around the net since 1980 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 06:51:27 AM #26 Personally, I see the miners who are refusing all transactions (so their blocks propagate faster, less chance of orphans), who are only mining for the reward, completely ignoring that the purpose of mining is to process transactions in the first place, as being a bigger problem than Satoshi Dice is.



As long as Satoshi Dice's transactions are following the rules, that's all that matters to me. I don't care what the purpose the transactions are for. Not my business.



Look at the block explorer from time to time. I see plenty of found blocks that have 0 transactions in it, just the reward generation.



That is the big problem.



-- Smoov



Akka



Offline



Activity: 1204

Merit: 1001









LegendaryActivity: 1204Merit: 1001 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 10:03:31 AM #33 Quote from: Smoovious on March 07, 2013, 06:51:27 AM Personally, I see the miners who are refusing all transactions (so their blocks propagate faster, less chance of orphans), who are only mining for the reward, completely ignoring that the purpose of mining is to process transactions in the first place, as being a bigger problem than Satoshi Dice is.



As long as Satoshi Dice's transactions are following the rules, that's all that matters to me. I don't care what the purpose the transactions are for. Not my business.



Look at the block explorer from time to time. I see plenty of found blocks that have 0 transactions in it, just the reward generation.



That is the big problem.



-- Smoov





I agree this is a point.



I know mining is a (mostly) free marked. But this guys are basically hurting the bitcoin users.



Wouldn't it be possible to thread this behavior as an attack on bitcoin, therefor not accepting this blocks, when there is a significant amount of transactions required?



Something like: if unconfirmedtransaktions >= 1000kb and blocksize <= 150kb then

reject block



Of course at least 51% of all miners would have to agree to this, otherwise miners that agree would only hurt them self. I agree this is a point.I know mining is a (mostly) free marked. But this guys are basically hurting the bitcoin users.Wouldn't it be possible to thread this behavior as an attack on bitcoin, therefor not accepting this blocks, when there is a significant amount of transactions required?Something like: if unconfirmedtransaktions >= 1000kb and blocksize <= 150kb thenreject blockOf course at least 51% of all miners would have to agree to this, otherwise miners that agree would only hurt them self. All previous versions of currency will no longer be supported as of this update

dustintrammell

Full Member



Offline



Activity: 156

Merit: 103





Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.







VIPFull MemberActivity: 156Merit: 103Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult. Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 10:37:46 AM #36 Quote from: johnyj on March 07, 2013, 07:50:31 AM

I don't understand why gaming has to use the blockchain, feels like using armored money transport vehicles to transfer casino chips

It doesn't, and in my opinion is the wrong thing to do. My site,



Further, games, applications, and other sites that are integrated directly into the Bitcoin network have increased attack surface. By being integrated, they necessarily must have direct access (or a more intricate abstraction layer) to either bitcoind or the Bitcoin network directly. This means that they have access to one or more wallets, which increases the risk of funds in those wallets being stolen by an attacker that compromises that system. BitDraw avoids this entirely by using an offline wallet, not having any access to it from the web application or server itself, and handling withdrawals via manual processing. The latter won't scale, but we'll address that when it actually becomes an issue. It doesn't, and in my opinion is the wrong thing to do. My site, BitDraw (provably fair features coming soon!) of course uses the blockchain to process deposits and withdrawals, as it must, but all other transactions between players, or between the players and the site, are handled within our system and are not exposed to the blockchain.Further, games, applications, and other sites that are integrated directly into the Bitcoin network have increased attack surface. By being integrated, they necessarily must have direct access (or a more intricate abstraction layer) to either bitcoind or the Bitcoin network directly. This means that they have access to one or more wallets, which increases the risk of funds in those wallets being stolen by an attacker that compromises that system. BitDraw avoids this entirely by using an offline wallet, not having any access to it from the web application or server itself, and handling withdrawals via manual processing. The latter won't scale, but we'll address that when it actually becomes an issue. Dustin D. Trammell

Twitter: @druidian

PGP: E0DC F55C 9386 1691 A67F FB18 F6D9 5E52 FDA6 6E16

dustintrammell

Full Member



Offline



Activity: 156

Merit: 103





Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.







VIPFull MemberActivity: 156Merit: 103Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult. Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 10:44:05 AM #37 Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 07, 2013, 09:38:23 AM The blockchain is a system for transferring value, of which the final total is specified in advance. Those are the terms of the social contract every Bitcoin holder has adopted understanding. Those are the terms every node has agreed to voluntarily participate in the network.

Nodes and miners have not unanimously agreed to have their resources/time spent inefficently processing informational messages like "you lose", "you win", or even "I bet on <this> game with <this> much". This was never part of the agreement.



Would the latter two of those "messages" not represent a transfer of value, of which you just stated that Bitcoin is a system for? I presume (I haven't looked at exactly how Satoshi Dice works) that when you place a wager, the player is transferring value to Satoshi Dice. Then, if they win, Satoshi Dice is transferring value back. I see no transfer of value in the "You Lose" message as I would assume Satoshi Dice keeps the value, so I completely agree with you there, that would be a completely informational message. Would the latter two of those "messages" not represent a transfer of value, of which you just stated that Bitcoin is a system for? I presume (I haven't looked at exactly how Satoshi Dice works) that when you place a wager, the player is transferring value to Satoshi Dice. Then, if they win, Satoshi Dice is transferring value back. I see no transfer of value in the "You Lose" message as I would assume Satoshi Dice keeps the value, so I completely agree with you there, that would be a completely informational message. Dustin D. Trammell

Twitter: @druidian

PGP: E0DC F55C 9386 1691 A67F FB18 F6D9 5E52 FDA6 6E16

Mike Hearn



Offline



Activity: 1526

Merit: 1008







LegendaryActivity: 1526Merit: 1008 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 11:05:57 AM #40 Quote from: eleuthria on March 07, 2013, 12:46:09 AM BTC Guild started setting up a new server this morning running modified block rules. Currently trying out a 500,000 byte maxblocksize. The problem is with larger blocks, you increase the chance of orphans since it will take at least twice as long to propagate, if not more. I've modified the fee settings to prefer fee based transactions when increasing the block size past 50 KB, so hopefully the increase in fees per block offset the orphan rate increase.



I'm actually hopeful that you won't notice much difference in propagation times.



We're talking about 500kb data structures here. Any mining pool worth its salt is running out of decent colo facilities in the USA or Europe with good connectivity. Transmission time is negligible at current sizes. The slow part is validation and disk IO. However Bitcoin 0.8 has two features that should make acceptance of a new block fast:



1) The signature cache means that when you see a transaction appear in a block, you are very likely to have already checked its signatures when it was previously broadcast through the memory pool (your node is "warm"), so there's little or no ECDSA computations required.

2) LevelDB means the difficult parts of managing the disk is done on a separate thread. In theory you should need only a handful of disk IOPs to accept a new block because all the compaction is done on a separate core in the background.



I think it should be quite feasible to accept and announce a new block in something like 30-40 msec.



So I'll be very interested to see if practice matches theory - if it does then you should not see a 2x propagation time, certainly not more than 2x. And if you do then we just need to fix it I'm actually hopeful that you won't notice much difference in propagation times.We're talking about 500kb data structures here. Any mining pool worth its salt is running out of decent colo facilities in the USA or Europe with good connectivity. Transmission time is negligible at current sizes. The slow part is validation and disk IO. However Bitcoin 0.8 has two features that should make acceptance of a new block fast:1) The signature cache means that when you see a transaction appear in a block, you are very likely to have already checked its signatures when it was previously broadcast through the memory pool (your node is "warm"), so there's little or no ECDSA computations required.2) LevelDB means the difficult parts of managing the disk is done on a separate thread. In theory you should need only a handful of disk IOPs to accept a new block because all the compaction is done on a separate core in the background.I think it should be quite feasible to accept and announce a new block in something like 30-40 msec.So I'll be very interested to see if practice matches theory - if it does then you should not see a 2x propagation time, certainly not more than 2x. And if you do then we just need to fix it

Mike Hearn



Offline



Activity: 1526

Merit: 1008







LegendaryActivity: 1526Merit: 1008 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 11:40:18 AM #42 I didn't forget that - that's where my estimate comes from.



Signature checks are free assuming your have a warm node and actually saw the broadcasts of the transactions in the blocks, because of the sig cache.



Receive/send of a 500kb piece of data should be extremely fast for most mining pools. I haven't bothered to calculate transmission time, but it's going to be really low.



Latency of the inv/getdata cycle is should be around 500msec even if you are going across the Atlantic, unless your main loop is excessively loaded.



Disk IOPs to write the database batch to the leveldb log file might be a handful of seeks if you're on a mostly unfragmented disk - 30-40msec.



Misc additional processing time? Negligible again.

os2sam



Offline



Activity: 3066

Merit: 1067





Think for yourself







LegendaryActivity: 3066Merit: 1067Think for yourself Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 11:45:49 AM #43 Two questions:



How was this soft block size limit derived? And why?



What is the Hard block size limit?



Sam A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.

Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Top-posting.

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

drawingthesun



Offline



Activity: 1148

Merit: 1002







LegendaryActivity: 1148Merit: 1002 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 12:02:52 PM #46 Quote from: os2sam on March 07, 2013, 11:56:05 AM Well no, not really. The block size should be regulated by fee's not an artificial cap.



Thanks for the answer to my last question though.

Sam



This is correct, or Bitcoin will be replaced by another. Do the devs really think people will be ok with Bitcoin, a currency worth 100 Billion in 20 years, with a 1MB blocksize cap? Nope.



If the Devs really think SD is a problem, they haven't seen anything yet. Bitcoin can't handle more than 1000 transactions a second? There is no way a Bitcoin will have value in 20 years!



Why are they so stubborn? This is the single biggest hole in our Bitcoin fantasy. This is correct, or Bitcoin will be replaced by another. Do the devs really think people will be ok with Bitcoin, a currency worth 100 Billion in 20 years, with a 1MB blocksize cap? Nope.If the Devs really think SD is a problem, they haven't seen anything yet. Bitcoin can't handle more than 1000 transactions a second? There is no way a Bitcoin will have value in 20 years!Why are they so stubborn? This is the single biggest hole in our Bitcoin fantasy.

Mike Hearn



Offline



Activity: 1526

Merit: 1008







LegendaryActivity: 1526Merit: 1008 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 12:16:31 PM #47



I actually want to see the block size limit removed, Bitcoin to scale up, and after that sort of thing is done SatoshiDice type sites won't be as much of an issue anymore. I think Gavin feels the same way, as does sipa. Not sure how Matt feels.



retep (Peter Todd) doesn't feel that way, however, though he's written some great posts and useful patches, he hasn't been working on Bitcoin as long as Gavin or I have.



Luke-Jr has the most extreme view of all of us, he sees SD as being abusive and filters out their transactions from his pool.



I included the option of filtering SD transactions out in my initial post because that's a short-term hack that buys additional time, if for some reason expanding the soft limit is not deemed acceptable or is insufficient. I don't think that'll be the case though. So, to be clear, "the devs" is not a single unified hive mindI actually want to see the block size limit removed, Bitcoin to scale up, and after that sort of thing is done SatoshiDice type sites won't be as much of an issue anymore. I think Gavin feels the same way, as does sipa. Not sure how Matt feels.retep (Peter Todd) doesn't feel that way, however, though he's written some great posts and useful patches, he hasn't been working on Bitcoin as long as Gavin or I have.Luke-Jr has the most extreme view of all of us, he sees SD as being abusive and filters out their transactions from his pool.I included the option of filtering SD transactions out in my initial post because that's a short-term hack that buys additional time, if for some reason expanding the soft limit is not deemed acceptable or is insufficient. I don't think that'll be the case though.

Zangelbert Bingledack



Offline



Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000







LegendaryActivity: 1036Merit: 1000 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 12:27:17 PM #48 A few years (or maybe even months) from now, we will look back at blocking SD like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. SD may be shady and abusive, but WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE BABY! Personal feelings and vendettas about inappropriate uses of the blockchain are going to look really silly when serious volume and attacks are unleashed at a dizzying pace in this exponential growth environment.

matakaonew



Offline



Activity: 12

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 12Merit: 0 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 12:42:20 PM #49 I really think it is better to rise the transaction size, the idea to filter someone like satoshiDice goes directly against all our freedom philosophy. everyone should be able to use the network like if they where anonymous. Whe just can't use information about satoshi to arbitrary censor it. That's just wrong.



thx for reading! i'm new here because i love the principles of bitcoin.

stewdk



Offline



Activity: 46

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 46Merit: 0 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 01:14:06 PM

Last edit: March 07, 2013, 02:16:12 PM by stewdk #51

If you make a bet on satoshidice, you will usually know if it lost before getting any confirmations. If miners prioritized non-satoshidice transactions, then all you need to do to cancel your losing bet is double spend the coins with a high transaction fee.



More info is here:



Rejecting SD transactions is NOT a solution. Filtering out satoshidice transactions would make it trivial to double spend a losing bet. Therefore I think it would be a bad idea for mining pool operators to make satoshidice transactions low priority or reject them alltogether.If you make a bet on satoshidice, you will usually know if it lost before getting any confirmations. If miners prioritized non-satoshidice transactions, then all you need to do to cancel your losing bet is double spend the coins with a high transaction fee.More info is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130764.0 Rejecting SD transactions is NOT a solution.

drawingthesun



Offline



Activity: 1148

Merit: 1002







LegendaryActivity: 1148Merit: 1002 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 02:00:24 PM #52 Quote from: Mike Hearn on March 07, 2013, 12:16:31 PM



I actually want to see the block size limit removed, Bitcoin to scale up, and after that sort of thing is done SatoshiDice type sites won't be as much of an issue anymore. I think Gavin feels the same way, as does sipa. Not sure how Matt feels.



retep (Peter Todd) doesn't feel that way, however, though he's written some great posts and useful patches, he hasn't been working on Bitcoin as long as Gavin or I have.



Luke-Jr has the most extreme view of all of us, he sees SD as being abusive and filters out their transactions from his pool.



I included the option of filtering SD transactions out in my initial post because that's a short-term hack that buys additional time, if for some reason expanding the soft limit is not deemed acceptable or is insufficient. I don't think that'll be the case though.

So, to be clear, "the devs" is not a single unified hive mindI actually want to see the block size limit removed, Bitcoin to scale up, and after that sort of thing is done SatoshiDice type sites won't be as much of an issue anymore. I think Gavin feels the same way, as does sipa. Not sure how Matt feels.retep (Peter Todd) doesn't feel that way, however, though he's written some great posts and useful patches, he hasn't been working on Bitcoin as long as Gavin or I have.Luke-Jr has the most extreme view of all of us, he sees SD as being abusive and filters out their transactions from his pool.I included the option of filtering SD transactions out in my initial post because that's a short-term hack that buys additional time, if for some reason expanding the soft limit is not deemed acceptable or is insufficient. I don't think that'll be the case though.

That's good to know some Dev's agree that the blocksize is an issue.

I see the potential of Bitcoin being a global currency, and its this hedge that gives it value even today. If most people knew that Bitcoin can only currently scale to perhaps double or triple its current volume without problems then i'd wager Bitcoin would not be going up in value, people really think Bitcoin can replace the banks, VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, etc... In reality Bitcoin can not scale to this level.





Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on March 07, 2013, 12:27:17 PM A few years (or maybe even months) from now, we will look back at blocking SD like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. SD may be shady and abusive, but WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE BABY! Personal feelings and vendettas about inappropriate uses of the blockchain are going to look really silly when serious volume and attacks are unleashed at a dizzying pace in this exponential growth environment.





I totally agree, all this fuss over SD? Do they have any idea what will happen if this takes off? And if they want to keep 1MB then I can not fathom Bitcoin becoming the cryto-currency of choice. If we can't solve this then another will. The 1MB limitation is massive.





Quote from: matakaonew on March 07, 2013, 12:42:20 PM I really think it is better to rise the transaction size, the idea to filter someone like satoshiDice goes directly against all our freedom philosophy. everyone should be able to use the network like if they where anonymous. Whe just can't use information about satoshi to arbitrary censor it. That's just wrong.



thx for reading! i'm new here because i love the principles of bitcoin.



Exactly, so apparently now certain pools are refusing SD. I never knew this and I think its disgraceful, why are Bitcoin's worth $40+ and in the future $hundreds+? Because people think this is the network that will change the world, a 10 minute 1MB block won't change the world though. PayPal/banks/MasterCard will laugh us into $0 Bitcoin territory. (I think my local bank processes more transactions per second than Bitcoin can handle maxing out the 1MB, and this is a small outback branch in Australia)





Quote from: dirksizzlebod on March 07, 2013, 12:49:10 PM Quote from: disclaimer201 on March 07, 2013, 02:59:12 AM I lost a lot of money today because of this shit. And I don't care for satoshi dice. Let them move to litecoin or ban them from spamming the network and my harddrives.



If bitcoin miners can't handle one high frequency gambling game, bitcoin is totally fucked.

If bitcoin miners can't handle one high frequency gambling game, bitcoin is totally fucked.

Your right, Bitcoin is fucked if we can't sort this out, and filtering SD is the most stupid solution. With so many different blocksize solutions being posted I don't understand the willingness to ignore them. Who cares if we create a hard fork? We will have Bitcoin in both and the network that can scale correctly will win.(hopefully) That's good to know some Dev's agree that the blocksize is an issue.I see the potential of Bitcoin being a global currency, and its this hedge that gives it value even today. If most people knew that Bitcoin can only currently scale to perhaps double or triple its current volume without problems then i'd wager Bitcoin would not be going up in value, people really think Bitcoin can replace the banks, VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, etc... In reality Bitcoin can not scale to this level.I totally agree, all this fuss over SD? Do they have any idea what will happen if this takes off? And if they want to keep 1MB then I can not fathom Bitcoin becoming the cryto-currency of choice. If we can't solve this then another will. The 1MB limitation is massive.Exactly, so apparently now certain pools are refusing SD. I never knew this and I think its disgraceful, why are Bitcoin's worth $40+ and in the future $hundreds+? Because people think this is the network that will change the world, a 10 minute 1MB block won't change the world though. PayPal/banks/MasterCard will laugh us into $0 Bitcoin territory. (I think my local bank processes more transactions per second than Bitcoin can handle maxing out the 1MB, and this is a small outback branch in Australia)Your right, Bitcoin is fucked if we can't sort this out, and filtering SD is the most stupid solution. With so many different blocksize solutions being posted I don't understand the willingness to ignore them. Who cares if we create a hard fork? We will have Bitcoin in both and the network that can scale correctly will win.(hopefully)

Anon136



Offline



Activity: 1666

Merit: 1211









LegendaryActivity: 1666Merit: 1211 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 02:29:02 PM #55 Quote from: drawingthesun on March 07, 2013, 12:02:52 PM Quote from: os2sam on March 07, 2013, 11:56:05 AM Well no, not really. The block size should be regulated by fee's not an artificial cap.



Thanks for the answer to my last question though.

Sam



This is correct, or Bitcoin will be replaced by another. Do the devs really think people will be ok with Bitcoin, a currency worth 100 Billion in 20 years, with a 1MB blocksize cap? Nope.



If the Devs really think SD is a problem, they haven't seen anything yet. Bitcoin can't handle more than 1000 transactions a second? There is no way a Bitcoin will have value in 20 years!



Why are they so stubborn? This is the single biggest hole in our Bitcoin fantasy.

This is correct, or Bitcoin will be replaced by another. Do the devs really think people will be ok with Bitcoin, a currency worth 100 Billion in 20 years, with a 1MB blocksize cap? Nope.If the Devs really think SD is a problem, they haven't seen anything yet. Bitcoin can't handle more than 1000 transactions a second? There is no way a Bitcoin will have value in 20 years!Why are they so stubborn? This is the single biggest hole in our Bitcoin fantasy.

it only means that we will inevitably need to embrace multiple blockchains. They could be clones of bitcoin or they could be competing cryptocurrencies like litecoin. With a little luck cryptocurrency echanges will be decentralized censorship resistant and ubiquitous in the future. If this is the case than this will make the whole problem a non problem. I dont think this means is that bitcoin will be worth nothing some day, what i do think this means is that bitcoin as we know it has a soft cap on its value. Probably this cap is much higher than 43 dollars or w/e bitcoin is valued at right now. it only means that we will inevitably need to embrace multiple blockchains. They could be clones of bitcoin or they could be competing cryptocurrencies like litecoin. With a little luck cryptocurrency echanges will be decentralized censorship resistant and ubiquitous in the future. If this is the case than this will make the whole problem a non problem. I dont think this means is that bitcoin will be worth nothing some day, what i do think this means is that bitcoin as we know it has a soft cap on its value. Probably this cap is much higher than 43 dollars or w/e bitcoin is valued at right now.

If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041 If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?

mintymark



Offline



Activity: 286

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 286Merit: 250 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 02:50:53 PM #56 > apparently now certain pools are refusing SD. I never knew this and I think its disgraceful



+1 to this.



Isn't this whats called a which hunt? Certain Bitcoin users being filtered out according to who they are? what happened to anonymity ? what happened to fairness? This is not in accordence with what most people understand to be the principles of Bitcoin.



This is not the solution to this problem.



[[ All Tips gratefully received!! ]]

15ta5d1N8mKkgC47SRWmnZABEFyP55RrqD

drawingthesun



Offline



Activity: 1148

Merit: 1002







LegendaryActivity: 1148Merit: 1002 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 02:56:00 PM #57 Quote from: Anon136 on March 07, 2013, 02:29:02 PM it only means that we will inevitably need to embrace multiple blockchains. They could be clones of bitcoin or they could be competing cryptocurrencies like litecoin. With a little luck cryptocurrency echanges will be decentralized censorship resistant and ubiquitous in the future. If this is the case than this will make the whole problem a non problem. I dont think this means is that bitcoin will be worth nothing some day, what i do think this means is that bitcoin as we know it has a soft cap on its value. Probably this cap is much higher than 43 dollars or w/e bitcoin is valued at right now.



Multiple blockchains sounds like a mess, considering people are putting their faith into these currencies and a lot of their value comes from scarcity, i'm not sure there is going to be a future with a lot of alt-chains with similar prices. I imagine 1 chain/system will emerge and it will be the one that really solves the block size issue.



Also the only reason Bitcoins are worth $1 - $100 or even more is because many people think that Bitcoin has no transaction cap at all. People think this is the future and the future does not cap out at 7 transactions a second. Multiple blockchains sounds like a mess, considering people are putting their faith into these currencies and a lot of their value comes from scarcity, i'm not sure there is going to be a future with a lot of alt-chains with similar prices. I imagine 1 chain/system will emerge and it will be the one that really solves the block size issue.Also the only reason Bitcoins are worth $1 - $100 or even more is because many people think that Bitcoin has no transaction cap at all. People think this is the future and the future does not cap out at 7 transactions a second.

CIYAM



Offline



Activity: 1890

Merit: 1004





Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer







LegendaryActivity: 1890Merit: 1004Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 02:57:31 PM #58 Quote from: mintymark on March 07, 2013, 02:50:53 PM This is not the solution to this problem.



The *solution* is at this stage very unclear (thus all the threads about this issue).



Understand that if the max. block size were simply abolished then apart from it being a hard-fork (equals Bitcoin turns into BitcoinA, BitcoinB, etc.) the likelihood of people with average hardware (myself included) deciding to keep using the Satoshi client (i.e. full block chain stored on your hardware) will dramatically be reduced (if it were to grow 10x the size in the next few months I would most likely opt out of doing this).



Understand that also most so-called *miners* are actually just *hashers* (they don't *need* the block chain) - so a likely outcome of an unlimited block size would be that mostly only the *pools* would have the entire block chain (everyone else would end up using lightweight clients).



If this occurred then the entire "decentralisation" of Bitcoin would actually be at risk and this is the *real* problem that needs to be worked out (rather than arguing about the legitimacy or otherwise of SD tx's).

The *solution* is at this stage very unclear (thus all the threads about this issue).Understand that if the max. block size were simply abolished then apart from it being a hard-fork (equals Bitcoin turns into BitcoinA, BitcoinB, etc.) the likelihood of people with average hardware (myself included) deciding to keep using the Satoshi client (i.e. full block chain stored on your hardware) will dramatically be reduced (if it were to grow 10x the size in the next few months I would most likely opt out of doing this).Understand that also most so-called *miners* are actually just *hashers* (they don't *need* the block chain) - so a likely outcome of an unlimited block size would be that mostly only the *pools* would have the entire block chain (everyone else would end up using lightweight clients).If this occurred then the entire "decentralisation" of Bitcoin would actually be at risk and this is the *real* problem that needs to be worked out (rather than arguing about the legitimacy or otherwise of SD tx's).



GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

runeks



Offline



Activity: 952

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 952Merit: 1000 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 03:02:30 PM #60



Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 07, 2013, 09:38:23 AM Quote from: Smoovious on March 07, 2013, 06:51:27 AM As long as Satoshi Dice's transactions are following the rules, that's all that matters to me. I don't care what the purpose the transactions are for. Not my business. SatoshiDice does not follow the rules:

The blockchain is a system for transferring value, of which the final total is specified in advance. Those are the terms of the social contract every Bitcoin holder has adopted understanding. Those are the terms every node has agreed to voluntarily participate in the network.

Nodes and miners have not unanimously agreed to have their resources/time spent inefficently processing informational messages like "you lose", "you win", or even "I bet on <this> game with <this> much". This was never part of the agreement.

The blockchain is a system for transferring value, of which the final total is specified in advance. Those are the terms of the social contract every Bitcoin holder has adopted understanding. Those are the terms every node has agreed to voluntarily participate in the network.Nodes and miners haveunanimously agreed to have their resources/time spentlike "you lose", "you win", or even "I bet on game with much". This was never part of the agreement. how you use that protocol is completely up to those who use it. As long as they follow the protocol.



Quote For an easy analogy, this would be like WalMart charging your credit card for every item you pick up off the shelf, and refunding you if you put it back (actually worse, since SD uses 2 transactions for every action).

Not even VISA/MC could handle that kind of abuse, and their system (being centralised) is far more efficient than Bitcoin.

What are you talking about? VISA/Mastercard would welcome this with open hands! They make a 3% fee for every transaction in their network. If they see a bottleneck they fix it, cause it's making them truckloads of money!



Refusing to accept fee-paying transactions is like a store-owner getting mad at his customers for emptying his shelves. "What are you doing? You buying all my products leave nothing for all the other people!". The sane approach is to increase prices (fees) if demand is too great.



Quote from: Mike Hearn on March 07, 2013, 12:16:31 PM I included the option of filtering SD transactions out in my initial post because that's a short-term hack that buys additional time [...] I very much agree with this. Think forward to a situation where 300 "SD"-style services exist, and miners need to maintain 300 different filters to filter out "abusive" transactions. This simply isn't workable.



Quote from: matakaonew on March 07, 2013, 12:42:20 PM I really think it is better to rise the transaction size, the idea to filter someone like satoshiDice goes directly against all our freedom philosophy. everyone should be able to use the network like if they where anonymous. Whe just can't use information about satoshi to arbitrary censor it. That's just wrong.

While I agree that filtering out Satoshi Dice transactions seems like a hack, it certainly does not go against any "freedom philosophy". Quite the contrary: not having the freedom to filter out SD transactions would go against our "freedom philosophy". Miners have every right to filter out the transactions they don't want in their block. This is not censorship. No one has a right to get his or her transaction into the block chain. It's a privilege that is increasingly likely to be fulfilled the higher the transaction fee you pay. The trick is to incentivize miners to include transactions by attaching fees to them. I must admit I don't get it. If I were a miner, I would take in the most transactions possible that give me the highest income. If Bitcoin can't function in this way it's broken by design.I have not adopted any "social contract". A miner can include whichever transaction he wishes to include. There is no agreement. There is a protocol. The protocol is the agreement,you use that protocol is completely up to those who use it. As long as they follow the protocol.What are you talking about? VISA/Mastercard! They make a 3% fee for every transaction in their network. If they see a bottleneck they fix it, cause it's making them truckloads of money!Refusing to accept fee-paying transactions is like a store-owner getting mad at his customers for emptying his shelves. "". The sane approach is to increase prices (fees) if demand is too great.I very much agree with this. Think forward to a situation where 300 "SD"-style services exist, and miners need to maintain 300 different filters to filter out "abusive" transactions. This simply isn't workable.While I agree that filtering out Satoshi Dice transactions seems like a hack, it certainly does not go against any "freedom philosophy". Quite the contrary: not having the freedom to filter out SD transactions would go against our "freedom philosophy". Miners have every right to filter out the transactions they don't want in their block. This is not censorship. No one has a right to get his or her transaction into the block chain. It's a privilege that is increasingly likely to be fulfilled the higher the transaction fee you pay. The trick is to incentivize miners to include transactions by attaching fees to them.

matakaonew



Offline



Activity: 12

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 12Merit: 0 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 03:13:34 PM #61 I really think that if bitcoin can't adapt to a very broad spectrum of events, like the mini crash of yesterday, another cryptocurrency will win the race. It's not that we have to win, by no mean, but we must continue to make bitcoin the best, with all we got witch is strongly related to winning the crypto-currency race.



So, the block size limit should be raised and should even adapt itself to the needs of the network. The only concern i can credit is if there is no limit, witch may brings centralization pretty fast.



The limits should be a function of the number of transaction pending in order that they get in the block chain with an expected waiting time of around 10 minutes.



i'm still new to bitcoin logic but something as simple as that could evaluate real time transaction size limit.



(Nb of transaction pending * mean transaction size (kb))/C



or if it is more usefull



(Size of all transaction pending)/C



Where C is a fine tune constant near 1 or exactly 1. if it is exactly one, someone will eventually confirm a block containing all the transaction (pending at time = some time) witch may not be what we want tough.



the idea is to accept a confirmed block only if, at time=t, the size limit chosen by the pool was under or equal to this hard limit. This way no miner can choose to work on a very large block and work out all the transaction by himself)









niko



Offline



Activity: 756

Merit: 500





There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.







Hero MemberActivity: 756Merit: 500There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins. Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 03:18:06 PM #62 Quote from: Mike Hearn on March 07, 2013, 12:16:31 PM I actually want to see the block size limit removed, Bitcoin to scale up, and after that sort of thing is done SatoshiDice type sites won't be as much of an issue anymore. I think Gavin feels the same way, as does sipa. Not sure how Matt feels.

@Mike: for the sake of informed discussion here, would you please briefly explain the economics of fees in the scenario you are proposing? What is the incentive for payers to include fees, and for miners to keep mining? @Mike: for the sake of informed discussion here, would you please briefly explain the economics of fees in the scenario you are proposing? What is the incentive for payers to include fees, and for miners to keep mining? They're there , in their room.

Your mining rig is on fire, yet you're very calm.

muyuu

Legendary



Offline



Activity: 966

Merit: 1000









DonatorLegendaryActivity: 966Merit: 1000 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 03:23:05 PM #63 Satoshidice just rushed us into this situation. But let's be clear: we'd eventually get here if adoption rises to somewhere remotely close to mainstream.



Luke's patch is fine, but either enforcing some fees or reducing block size sound like the way things will eventually have to go. GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)

forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ

niko



Offline



Activity: 756

Merit: 500





There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.







Hero MemberActivity: 756Merit: 500There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins. Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 03:48:08 PM #70 Quote from: VinceSamios on March 07, 2013, 03:25:08 PM Bitcoin needs to be able to handle 5000 transactions per second, eventually.



Was that "eventually" intentional? Do you think the limit should be set now to accommodate the anticipated future volume? If so, are you not concerned with the incentive structure you are imposing between now and then? Or did you think that the limit should be dynamically adjusted as we go, to (almost) accommodate the growth? Was that "eventually" intentional? Do you think the limit should be setto accommodate the anticipatedvolume? If so, are you not concerned with the incentive structure you are imposing between now and then? Or did you think that the limit should be dynamically adjusted as we go, to (almost) accommodate the growth? They're there , in their room.

Your mining rig is on fire, yet you're very calm.

drawingthesun



Offline



Activity: 1148

Merit: 1002







LegendaryActivity: 1148Merit: 1002 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 03:56:31 PM #73 Quote from: CIYAM Open on March 07, 2013, 03:27:37 PM Quote from: VinceSamios on March 07, 2013, 03:25:08 PM Bitcoin needs to be able to handle 5000 transactions per second, eventually.



Why?



Why?

Its simple, because a currency needs to be spendable. If the network can't handle this many transactions then its not scalable for the world. A lot of people here believe in Bitcoin becoming a global currency, and this is why people are paying a lot of money for a Bitcoin.



I get this feeling some people against the blocksize increase think that 7 transactions a second is fine and Bitcoin will be like gold and it'll be this massive store of wealth. Well if millions of people can't move their wealth around your Bitcoins will be worthless, no matter how many thousands you have.



Bitcoins only have value because people think (incorrectly) that Bitcoin can scale up as a payment network and store of wealth, If you told CNN/BBC and every new adopter that the network is actually capped at a max of 7 transactions a second* and that a decent amount of the main developers think this is fine, and that no one will ever need a transaction volume higher than 1000 transactions a second. Then you will see that $45 drop and it will not recover. It won't recover because another system will take its place.



Remember VISA/MasterCard/PayPal only represent a fraction of money moved in the world. Everyday hundreds of millions of people are paid into their bank accounts from work, billions are moving cash to one another. If bitcoin sticks to 7 transactions a second and another crypto-currency that can handle 10,000 transactions a second comes about, one that allows users to download part of the blockchain and allows users to connect into a node instead of being a entire node themselves, that currency will win.



*I heard from a forum member a while back the max transactions per second is 7 before the 1MB is no longer sufficient. Its simple, because a currency needs to be spendable. If the network can't handle this many transactions then its not scalable for the world. A lot of people here believe in Bitcoin becoming a global currency, and this is why people are paying a lot of money for a Bitcoin.I get this feeling some people against the blocksize increase think that 7 transactions a second is fine and Bitcoin will be like gold and it'll be this massive store of wealth. Well if millions of people can't move their wealth around your Bitcoins will be worthless, no matter how many thousands you have.Bitcoins only have value because people think (incorrectly) that Bitcoin can scale up as a payment network and store of wealth, If you told CNN/BBC and every new adopter that the network is actually capped at a max of 7 transactions a second* and that a decent amount of the main developers think this is fine, and that no one will ever need a transaction volume higher than 1000 transactions a second. Then you will see that $45 drop and it will not recover. It won't recover because another system will take its place.Remember VISA/MasterCard/PayPal only represent a fraction of money moved in the world. Everyday hundreds of millions of people are paid into their bank accounts from work, billions are moving cash to one another. If bitcoin sticks to 7 transactions a second and another crypto-currency that can handle 10,000 transactions a second comes about, one that allows users to download part of the blockchain and allows users to connect into a node instead of being a entire node themselves, that currency will win.*I heard from a forum member a while back the max transactions per second is 7 before the 1MB is no longer sufficient.

muyuu

Legendary



Offline



Activity: 966

Merit: 1000









DonatorLegendaryActivity: 966Merit: 1000 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 03:57:02 PM #74 Quote from: niko on March 07, 2013, 03:48:08 PM Quote from: VinceSamios on March 07, 2013, 03:25:08 PM Bitcoin needs to be able to handle 5000 transactions per second, eventually.



Was that "eventually" intentional? Do you think the limit should be set now to accommodate the anticipated future volume? If so, are you not concerned with the incentive structure you are imposing between now and then? Or did you think that the limit should be dynamically adjusted as we go, to (almost) accommodate the growth?

Was that "eventually" intentional? Do you think the limit should be setto accommodate the anticipatedvolume? If so, are you not concerned with the incentive structure you are imposing between now and then? Or did you think that the limit should be dynamically adjusted as we go, to (almost) accommodate the growth?

It's just a judgement call.



If you think the problem will go away before getting there, for some external development - say, Ripple integration or some other hybrid solution becoming common - then yeah, you can opt for Luke's patch and the problem is delayed for likely several years.



If you think this moment is as good as any other to press the community into looking for a solution, then you don't touch the block soft limit and you keep accepting all transactions.



Honestly, I think having people pay fees for the right to bloat the blockchain is something we should do sooner rather than later.



Bitcoin simply doesn't compete with paypal at this point. Only marginally if at all. It's just a judgement call.If you think the problem will go away before getting there, for some external development - say, Ripple integration or some other hybrid solution becoming common - then yeah, you can opt for Luke's patch and the problem is delayed for likely several years.If you think this moment is as good as any other to press the community into looking for a solution, then you don't touch the block soft limit and you keep accepting all transactions.Honestly, I think having people pay fees for the right to bloat the blockchain is something we should do sooner rather than later.Bitcoin simply doesn't compete with paypal at this point. Only marginally if at all. GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)

forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ

Mike Hearn



Offline



Activity: 1526

Merit: 1008







LegendaryActivity: 1526Merit: 1008 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 04:00:05 PM #76 Quote from: niko on March 07, 2013, 03:18:06 PM Quote from: Mike Hearn on March 07, 2013, 12:16:31 PM I actually want to see the block size limit removed, Bitcoin to scale up, and after that sort of thing is done SatoshiDice type sites won't be as much of an issue anymore. I think Gavin feels the same way, as does sipa. Not sure how Matt feels.

@Mike: for the sake of informed discussion here, would you please briefly explain the economics of fees in the scenario you are proposing? What is the incentive for payers to include fees, and for miners to keep mining?

@Mike: for the sake of informed discussion here, would you please briefly explain the economics of fees in the scenario you are proposing? What is the incentive for payers to include fees, and for miners to keep mining?

Payers have no incentive to ever include any fees, including today, because they are not the ones who actually care about double spending risk. After all, you know you're trustworthy, right?



It's actually the recipient that cares about confirmation. And recipients have many ways to incentivize mining. For example, via network assurance contracts, which I have proposed many times in various other discussions. If you see mining as a public good then assurance contracts are a method that's been both widely theoretically studied and implemented in practice (most obviously kickstarter, other examples are around too).



There is also the rather obvious and oft-overlooked fact that mining generates waste heat, and there are lots of people/places that actually need heat. Because mining hardware is small, portable and scalable, if you're already heating something with electrical resistance it may make sense to use mining ASICs instead and at that point you don't really care about the cost. You still need a full node or a pool to take part but I think that'll be easy to run even at high traffic levels. Payers have no incentive to ever include any fees, including today, because they are not the ones who actually care about double spending risk. After all, you know you're trustworthy, right?It's actually the recipient that cares about confirmation. And recipients have many ways to incentivize mining. For example, via network assurance contracts, which I have proposed many times in various other discussions. If you see mining as a public good then assurance contracts are a method that's been both widely theoretically studied and implemented in practice (most obviously kickstarter, other examples are around too).There is also the rather obvious and oft-overlooked fact that mining generates waste heat, and there are lots of people/places that actually need heat. Because mining hardware is small, portable and scalable, if you're already heating something with electrical resistance it may make sense to use mining ASICs instead and at that point you don't really care about the cost. You still need a full node or a pool to take part but I think that'll be easy to run even at high traffic levels.

deepceleron



Offline



Activity: 1512

Merit: 1001









LegendaryActivity: 1512Merit: 1001 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 04:20:48 PM

Last edit: March 07, 2013, 04:47:52 PM by deepceleron #77 The reduction of Satoshi's 0.01 minimum fee to 0.0005 was an error. A divine design was altered by whims and perceived exponential growth of Bitcoin value, without considering future impact on the network. Whims like those seen all over this forum in the past few weeks.



The transaction volume currently being experienced, which pays an average of 0.5 bitcoin per block, would instead be paying 10 bitcoin per block, on track to replace the mining reward on schedule. Bitcoin would be used for transferring currency between individuals in exchange for goods and services, instead of for frivolous applications.



Instead we have this thread.



The solution is to pay more for your transactions instead of demanding more for less. The current block size and new higher fee prioritization code allows us to crowd out the spammy with only nominal fees, even though it is still not necessary to include more than the default fee for next-block service. Economics will regulate the applications of Bitcoin to those uses that are worth paying a reasonable fee for reasonably fast processing. Unfortunately version 0.3.23 broke proper economics.

michaelmclees



Offline



Activity: 633

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 633Merit: 500 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 04:29:16 PM #78 Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 07, 2013, 09:38:23 AM SatoshiDice does not follow the rules:

The blockchain is a system for transferring value, of which the final total is specified in advance. Those are the terms of the social contract every Bitcoin holder has adopted understanding. Those are the terms every node has agreed to voluntarily participate in the network.

Nodes and miners have not unanimously agreed to have their resources/time spent inefficently processing informational messages like "you lose", "you win", or even "I bet on <this> game with <this> much". This was never part of the agreement.

Nor is the system supposed to hold up to flooding. If you go back to even the original paper by Satoshi, miners are expected to filter out flooding attacks like this. The proposed transaction fee solution works in most cases, but not SatoshiDice because they have social-engineered gamblers into covering the fees for them, and to make it worse the gamblers are willing to pay a higher fee than real users. If Bitcoin had achieved critical mass already, we might have been able to just say "too bad, deal with higher fees", but at this pre-adoption stage the response to that would almost certainly be "screw you, I'll stick with VISA".



Couldn't disagree more. There is no social contract with Bitcoin, and to the extent any contract at all exists, Satoshidice follows it. That nodes and miners have agreed to process SD transactions is self evident, despite your protests and claims to the contrary; unanimity was never a requirement. Couldn't disagree more. There is no social contract with Bitcoin, and to the extent any contract at all exists, Satoshidice follows it. That nodes and minersto process SD transactions is self evident, despite your protests and claims to the contrary; unanimity was never a requirement.

2112



Offline



Activity: 2128

Merit: 1038









LegendaryActivity: 2128Merit: 1038 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 04:34:17 PM #81 Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 07, 2013, 10:56:44 AM While there is a value attached to the latter two, it is primarily a message. Otherwise, a gamer would just transfer a deposit, play, and withdraw (as I notice your site does) - no message passing involved.



For an easy analogy, this would be like WalMart charging your credit card for every item you pick up off the shelf, and refunding you if you put it back (actually worse, since SD uses 2 transactions for every action).

Not even VISA/MC could handle that kind of abuse, and their system (being centralised) is far more efficient than Bitcoin.

Luke-Jr is again posting about something that he has not even basic understanding: financial networks. This by itself isn't new.



But I think it is worthwhile to show that the classic credit card are using two messages per transaction: authorization and capture.



http://www.authorize.net/support/merchant/Submitting_Transactions/Credit_Card_Transaction_Types.htm



Typical self-serve fuel pump would use two transactions: the authorization to unlock the dispenser and capture one the dispenser is put back in the locked position. Physical store checkout stand transactions typically roll those two phases into a single compressed form.



Directly the above information has no bearing to Bitcoin. But the "payment protocol" is an area of the active development in Bitcoin. It would be great that more people understood how the typical payments work and think on how to translate them to the Bitcoin global broadcast network.



One thing is to prevent double-spends. But there is additional value to be gained from discovering who even attempted to authorize more spending that they really had available funds. Luke-Jr is again posting about something that he has not even basic understanding: financial networks. This by itself isn't new.But I think it is worthwhile to show that the classic credit card are using two messages per transaction: authorization and capture.Typical self-serve fuel pump would use two transactions: the authorization to unlock the dispenser and capture one the dispenser is put back in the locked position. Physical store checkout stand transactions typically roll those two phases into a single compressed form.Directly the above information has no bearing to Bitcoin. But the "payment protocol" is an area of the active development in Bitcoin. It would be great that more people understood how the typical payments work and think on how to translate them to the Bitcoin global broadcast network.One thing is to prevent double-spends. But there is additional value to be gained from discovering who even attempted to authorize more spending that they really had available funds.

Long-term mining prognosis: Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0 Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0

conv3rsion



Offline



Activity: 310

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 310Merit: 250 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 04:35:27 PM #82 No one is going to use Bitcoin, even for high value transactions, if they have to



1) Pay a fee to have their local currency converted to bitcoins

2) Pay a large transaction fee

3) Cover the fee of the recipient converting bitcoins back to their local currency



These steps will be necessary if bitcoins are expensive to spend. And bitcoins will be expensive to spend if the number of transactions is artificially limited.



Large transaction fees makes Bitcoin uncompetitive and it makes it less useful. If you have to exchange bitcoins back to cash, to spend them on ordinary purchases, why bother at all?



This is technology, if it can't scale, it will be replaced by something that can. The people investing in bitcoins are doing it because they believe it can be digital cash. 7 transactions per second is not digital cash. Its not digital gold either, gold does not cost large amounts of money to trade.

SgtSpike



Offline



Activity: 1372

Merit: 1001









LegendaryActivity: 1372Merit: 1001 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 04:36:38 PM #83 Quote from: deepceleron on March 07, 2013, 04:20:48 PM The solution is to pay more for your transactions instead of demanding more for less.

Exactly this.



For everyone sending transactions, start putting fees in them HIGHER than whatever SatoshiDice is paying. This would relegate SD transactions to be the least-prioritized transactions on the network, and they would only fill up the remainder of blocks after all of the more "legitimate" transactions have been processed



That said, we will eventually need to be increasing block sizes, so why not start now? I completely agree that the network needs to be able to handle more transactions to go "mainstream", and I think we should begin planning based on what current hardware can handle, not on an arbitrary limit that we think will be enough.



Currently, the network at 1 MB per block can create about 52 GB of blockchain data in a year. I'm not sure about the rest of you, but that amount is certainly feasible for me to store indefinitely. A 2 TB drive can be had for $99. That'll store 19 years of data, so less than $6/year to store the blockchain. Is that really so unreasonable?



So say we increase the maximum block size to 5 MB per block. That would create up to 260GB of blockchain data in a year. Again, a 2 TB drive would store 7 years of data for $99. So that's what, $12 or $13 a year?



Now certainly, there is no monetary compensation or incentive for people to choose to store the whole blockchain, and I don't expect many people to do so regardless of what block size is ultimately chosen. But those who are interested in maintaining Bitcoin's integrity as a decentralized currency certainly will, and will definitely be willing to spend a token amount ($12-$13 a year) to maintain their Bitcoins' value. Exactly this.For everyone sending transactions, start putting fees in them HIGHER than whatever SatoshiDice is paying. This would relegate SD transactions to be the least-prioritized transactions on the network, and they would only fill up the remainder of blocks after all of the more "legitimate" transactions have been processedThat said, we will eventually need to be increasing block sizes, so why not start now? I completely agree that the network needs to be able to handle more transactions to go "mainstream", and I think we should begin planning based on what current hardware can handle, not on an arbitrary limit that we think will be enough.Currently, the network at 1 MB per block can create about 52 GB of blockchain data in a year. I'm not sure about the rest of you, but that amount is certainly feasible for me to store indefinitely. A 2 TB drive can be had for $99. That'll store 19 years of data, so less than $6/year to store the blockchain. Is that really so unreasonable?So say we increase the maximum block size to 5 MB per block. That would create up to 260GB of blockchain data in a year. Again, a 2 TB drive would store 7 years of data for $99. So that's what, $12 or $13 a year?Now certainly, there is no monetary compensation or incentive for people to choose to store the whole blockchain, and I don't expect many people to do so regardless of what block size is ultimately chosen. But those who are interested in maintaining Bitcoin's integrity as a decentralized currency certainly will, and will definitely be willing to spend a token amount ($12-$13 a year) to maintain their Bitcoins' value.

matakaonew



Offline



Activity: 12

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 12Merit: 0 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 04:45:30 PM #86 We need a direct proportion between the number of pending transaction in the memory and the limit size in real time.



someone's with me on this?



when a block is found, confirmation take in account the pending network memory size peak since the last block found



then, miner will have son incentive to add low fee transaction because they can always add a quite good proportion of all the pending transactions?

tigereye



Offline



Activity: 79

Merit: 10









MemberActivity: 79Merit: 10 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 04:46:05 PM #87 Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 07, 2013, 09:38:23 AM SatoshiDice does not follow the rules:

The blockchain is a system for transferring value, of which the final total is specified in advance. Those are the terms of the social contract every Bitcoin holder has adopted understanding. Those are the terms every node has agreed to voluntarily participate in the network.

Nodes and miners have not unanimously agreed to have their resources/time spent inefficently processing informational messages like "you lose", "you win", or even "I bet on <this> game with <this> much". This was never part of the agreement. My cognitive dissonance alarm is ringing.



On the one hand you're against people including 'informational messages' in the blockchain, even if actual value is transferred...

On the other hand your mining pool has embedded prayers and scripture into the blockchain.



Perhaps you've recently changed your opinion on blockchain bloat?



Regardless, I think S.Dice performs a few services to Bitcoin as a whole and is a good thing:

It stress tests the Bitcoin network. Without it we wouldn't truly know how the network would handle transaction volumes that we see today as it accounts for a large proportion of global volume.

It provides an incentive to use Bitcoin. While many are of the opinion that gambling is wrong, far more people around the globe enjoy it. S.Dice provides a simple way to gamble and has introduced Bitcoin to new users as a result; people can't gamble online as easily with cash.

It lets us anticipate future requirements for Bitcoin sooner, as Mike has pointed out with respect to the soft block limit. This is like a small alarm: we're 1/4 of the way to a breaking point so let's start thinking about the best way to solve this problem now.

Yes, S.Dice produces a large volume of transactions, but S.Dice is NOT an attack of the network. Every transaction into S.Dice is a transfer of legitimate value, and every response is another transfer of value. An attack would transfer NO value, or such negligible value that it is worthless.

Refusing to process these transfers in value is similar to a net-neutrality issue: it's a "currency-neutrality" issue.



Bitcoin was developed to prevent any party from declaring who can and cannot participate in a financial network. Blacklisting a set of addresses from having their transactions included in the blockchain seems like a step backwards and is the antithesis of Bitcoin's raison d'etre.



My cognitive dissonance alarm is ringing.On the one hand you're against people including 'informational messages' in the blockchain, even if actual value is transferred...On the other hand your mining pool has embedded prayers and scripture into the blockchain.Perhaps you've recently changed your opinion on blockchain bloat?Regardless, I think S.Dice performs a few services to Bitcoin as a whole and is a good thing:Yes, S.Dice produces a large volume of transactions, but S.Dice is NOT an attack of the network. Every transaction into S.Dice is a transfer of legitimate value, and every response is another transfer of value. An attack would transfer NO value, or such negligible value that it is worthless.Refusing to process these transfers in value is similar to a net-neutrality issue: it's a "currency-neutrality" issue.Bitcoin was developed to prevent any party from declaring who can and cannot participate in a financial network. Blacklisting a set of addresses from having their transactions included in the blockchain seems like a step backwards and is the antithesis of Bitcoin's raison d'etre. If my posts have helped, consider leaving a tip! 1AE5e56ivvaGMJJmLrZoLgiZXPx93CddyA

Prattler



Offline



Activity: 192

Merit: 100







Full MemberActivity: 192Merit: 100 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 05:04:18 PM #91 Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 07, 2013, 04:31:30 PM Handling 1000 transactions per second for 10 active users (SatoshiDice) and handling 1000 tx/sec for 100000 active users are two totally different things.

The latter grows the infrastructure, the former overloads it.

Thanks Luke-Jr for taking the time to explain it to people. Bitcoin can scale up, but it's quite expensive! Expensive as in not just hardware and bandwidth, but also network decentralization and availability to enthusiasts.



Let's say you're a bitcoin enthusiast and you want to run a full node. Will you spend $1,000 just to service Satoshi Dice? No way! Will you spend $10,000 to be part of a world changing global money system? HELL YEAH!



Bitcoin will scale up, but it would be best if it kept small until there is actual user demand who want to transfer value. Sathosi Dice are mostly bots and they mostly transfer information, not value.

Thanks Luke-Jr for taking the time to explain it to people. Bitcoin can scale up, but it's quite expensive! Expensive as in not just hardware and bandwidth, but also network decentralization and availability to enthusiasts.Let's say you're a bitcoin enthusiast and you want to run a full node. Will you spend $1,000 just to service Satoshi Dice? No way! Will you spend $10,000 to be part of a world changing global money system? HELL YEAH!Bitcoin will scale up, but it would be best if it kept small until there is actual user demand who want to transfer value. Sathosi Dice are mostly bots and they mostly transfer information, not value.

Gavin Andresen



Offline



Activity: 1652

Merit: 1066





Chief Scientist







LegendaryActivity: 1652Merit: 1066Chief Scientist Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 05:10:27 PM #93



First: I sent a message to the big mining pools, reminding them of the run-time options they can set to control the size of the blocks they create. I did not tell them what they should or shouldn't do, I think we need to move beyond centralized decision-making.



I did send them a pointer to this very rough back-of-the-envelope estimate on the current marginal cost of transactions:

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482



(if anybody wants to do a better analysis, I'd love to read it).



Second: block size is half of the equation. The other half is transaction fees and competition for getting included into blocks. All of the bitcoin clients need to do a better job of figuring out the 'right' transaction fee, and services that generate transactions will have to adjust the fees they pay (and are, already).



Finally: in my opinion, there is rough consensus that the 1MB block size limit WILL be raised. It is just a question of when and how much / how quickly.

You may have heard me say "Bitcoin is an experiment" before... well, we're finding out right now what happens as the experiment scales up.First: I sent a message to the big mining pools, reminding them of the run-time options they can set to control the size of the blocks they create. I did not tell them what they should or shouldn't do, I think we need to move beyond centralized decision-making.I did send them a pointer to this very rough back-of-the-envelope estimate on the current marginal cost of transactions:(if anybody wants to do a better analysis, I'd love to read it).Second: block size is half of the equation. The other half is transaction fees and competition for getting included into blocks. All of the bitcoin clients need to do a better job of figuring out the 'right' transaction fee, and services that generate transactions will have to adjust the fees they pay (and are, already).Finally: in my opinion, there is rough consensus that the 1MB block size limit WILL be raised. It is just a question of when and how much / how quickly. How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?

Nagato



Offline



Activity: 150

Merit: 100









Full MemberActivity: 150Merit: 100 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 05:22:48 PM #95



Regarding Luke's view on SD, while i personally do not agree with his view that SD MUST not exist in it's current form, it is entirely upto him what txns his pool includes or excludes. If you don't agree with him, start your own pool or join one which has policies which you agree with. This is called freedom.

I agree that SD is extremely wasteful in it's current form, but the ideal way to fix that must come from the market, when people are willing to pay more than SD in fees to ensure their "useful" txns are processed efficiently. Or a SD competitor to offer better odds by using a deposit system to cut down on fees. The market will eventually force SD to change or go out of business.



Mike - Ive been reading up on Assurance Contracts, have some questions.

Quote from: Mike Hearn 5 other nodes indicate their willingness to participate, states how much they'd be willing to contribute, and each one also includes a fresh public key.



1) My question is why will nodes contribute on behalf of everyone(including wasteful nodes)? Or is there a scheme where the payee can filter which txns are subsidised?

2) If it is indeed meant for everyone's benefit,

a) How do you prevent waste by spammers or attackers?

b) Whats to prevent the cultivation of even more wasteful txns(sending msgs over blockchain, storing ascii art in scripts, etc..)

c) How is it sustainable?

I can understand for certain Kickstarter projects, its a 1 time cost. But incentivising miners will be a permanent requirement.

Even if there are big Bitcoin businesses which benefit from sustaining the network, how do we know their contribution will be enough?

Why not let my competitor foot the bill instead while i use the money saved to expand my business?

It just does not make economic sense to me.



I could see NAC subsidising and reducing network fees, but im quite certain the network will fall apart if NACs are going to be the sole source of funding for miners.

This is akin to the Fed bailing out banks for the "stability" of the global financial system. What happens instead is that you encourage banks to lever up even more since they know they are backstopped. Without personal cost/risk, there is no reason for anyone to optimise or reduce waste. If the world could function on the charity of a few, nobody would work.



Having said that, maybe im wrong. If you feel strongly that this will work, please implement it and prove me wrong so that we can all have free Bitcoin txns. Firstly, for all those people crying out the end of Bitcoin if the block size is not lifted to 1GB, do yourselves a favor and go read the blocksize thread. There are many many issues you have no clue of which have been raised in the thread by people who have been thinking about this issue far longer than you know of Bitcoin.Regarding Luke's view on SD, while i personally do not agree with his view that SD MUST not exist in it's current form, it is entirely upto him what txns his pool includes or excludes. If you don't agree with him, start your own pool or join one which has policies which you agree with. This is called freedom.I agree that SD is extremely wasteful in it's current form, but the ideal way to fix that must come from the market, when people are willing to pay more than SD in fees to ensure their "useful" txns are processed efficiently. Or a SD competitor to offer better odds by using a deposit system to cut down on fees. The market will eventually force SD to change or go out of business.Mike - Ive been reading up on Assurance Contracts, have some questions.1) My question is why will nodes contribute on behalf of everyone(including wasteful nodes)? Or is there a scheme where the payee can filter which txns are subsidised?2) If it is indeed meant for everyone's benefit,a) How do you prevent waste by spammers or attackers?b) Whats to prevent the cultivation of even more wasteful txns(sending msgs over blockchain, storing ascii art in scripts, etc..)c) How is it sustainable?I can understand for certain Kickstarter projects, its a 1 time cost. But incentivising miners will be a permanent requirement.Even if there are big Bitcoin businesses which benefit from sustaining the network, how do we know their contribution will be enough?Why not let my competitor foot the bill instead while i use the money saved to expand my business?It just does not make economic sense to me.I could see NAC subsidising and reducing network fees, but im quite certain the network will fall apart if NACs are going to be the sole source of funding for miners.This is akin to the Fed bailing out banks for the "stability" of the global financial system. What happens instead is that you encourage banks to lever up even more since they know they are backstopped. Without personal cost/risk, there is no reason for anyone to optimise or reduce waste. If the world could function on the charity of a few, nobody would work.Having said that, maybe im wrong. If you feel strongly that this will work, please implement it and prove me wrong so that we can all have free Bitcoin txns. FYB-SG Singapore Bitcoin Exchange

muyuu

Legendary



Offline



Activity: 966

Merit: 1000









DonatorLegendaryActivity: 966Merit: 1000 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 05:50:55 PM #96 Quote from: Gavin Andresen on March 07, 2013, 05:10:27 PM



First: I sent a message to the big mining pools, reminding them of the run-time options they can set to control the size of the blocks they create. I did not tell them what they should or shouldn't do, I think we need to move beyond centralized decision-making.



I did send them a pointer to this very rough back-of-the-envelope estimate on the current marginal cost of transactions:

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482



(if anybody wants to do a better analysis, I'd love to read it).



Second: block size is half of the equation. The other half is transaction fees and competition for getting included into blocks. All of the bitcoin clients need to do a better job of figuring out the 'right' transaction fee, and services that generate transactions will have to adjust the fees they pay (and are, already).



Finally: in my opinion, there is rough consensus that the 1MB block size limit WILL be raised. It is just a question of when and how much / how quickly.



You may have heard me say "Bitcoin is an experiment" before... well, we're finding out right now what happens as the experiment scales up.First: I sent a message to the big mining pools, reminding them of the run-time options they can set to control the size of the blocks they create. I did not tell them what they should or shouldn't do, I think we need to move beyond centralized decision-making.I did send them a pointer to this very rough back-of-the-envelope estimate on the current marginal cost of transactions:(if anybody wants to do a better analysis, I'd love to read it).Second: block size is half of the equation. The other half is transaction fees and competition for getting included into blocks. All of the bitcoin clients need to do a better job of figuring out the 'right' transaction fee, and services that generate transactions will have to adjust the fees they pay (and are, already).Finally: in my opinion, there is rough consensus that the 1MB block size limit WILL be raised. It is just a question of when and how much / how quickly.

IMO you should have included Luke's patch and its justification so they can balance their decision.



They are the miners, they should vote on that as well. IMO you should have included Luke's patch and its justification so they can balance their decision.They are the miners, they should vote on that as well. GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)

forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ

Mike Hearn



Offline



Activity: 1526

Merit: 1008







LegendaryActivity: 1526Merit: 1008 Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU March 07, 2013, 06:15:30 PM #97 Quote from: CIYAM Open on March 07, 2013, 04:55:10 PM Well thanks for being the "spokesperson" for everyone here but I think you'll find that quite a few people disagree and if Satoshi really had planned for Bitcoin to be a tx system to compete with the likes of Paypal/Visa then you don't think he might have made a mistake or two (if not then why does this very thread exist)?



Ian, Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes. The block size limit was a quick safety hack that was always meant to be removed.



In fact, in the very first email he sent me back in April 2009, he said this:



Quote from: satoshi Hi Mike,



I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.



There is only one global chain.



The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.



By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.



I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.



Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that.



Satoshi said back in 2010 that he intended larger block sizes to be phased in with some simple if (height > flag_day) type logic, theymos has linked to the thread before.



I think he would be really amazed at how much debate this thing has become. He never attributed much weight to it, it just didn't seem important to him. And yes, obviously, given the massive forum dramas that have resulted it'd have been nice if he had made the size limit floating from the start like he did with difficulty. However, he didn't and now we have to manage the transition.



Quote 1) My question is why will nodes contribute on behalf of everyone(including wasteful nodes)? Or is there a scheme where the payee can filter which txns are subsidised?

The "why" i