Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary

rusty.ozlabs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 96 posts

Re: The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary

#31

Post by wsxcde »

CydeWeys wrote: post #7

An important thing to consider is that, while there probably is an ideal block size for the current set of conditions (risk of centralization, average Bitcoin network latency, rate of transactions), there's no a priori reason that it should be 1 MB. It may well be less than 1 MB, or it may well be more. 1 MB is arbitrary. My best guess is that the optimal current block size is somewhat larger than 1 MB.

> My best guess is that the optimal current block size is somewhat larger than 1 MB.

I disagree. There's good reason to believe the ideal block size is now smaller than 1 MB because large pools have been caught red-handed not validating blocks. (Which is like their ONE job and the the thing they get paid the big bucks for!)

Presumably, the only reason they're doing this is because orphan rates are too high, which in turn suggests block sizes are too high.

Re: The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary

#32

Post by nly »

t0mbstone wrote: post #9

The problem with bitcoin is the idea that it even requires a mining pool or transaction fee. Bitcoin will die the moment someone figures out how to build a decentralized crypto-currency that doesn't need a stupid idea like "mining" to be functional and secure.

Federated cryptocurrency isn't new. If you're willing to tie it in to to the traditional banking system then you can build a way more scalable and liberating digital currency than Bitcoin. The incentives just aren't there for banks to do so. It'd be great for us though.

Re: The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary

#33

Post by Bae8anoh »

jackgavigan wrote: post #26

What's really interesting for me about the Blocksize Debate is what it reveals about Bitcoin's governance. Most of the people involved agree that the blocksize limit should be increased (with the notable exception of Peter Todd) and the main disagreement seems to be about how (and how quickly) and the increase should happen. There also seems to be a hint of power struggle in the backlash against Gavin's push to incre…

Read up on the history of Mike Hearn, he has wanted to fork Bitcoin into his own governance for years, this is just an excuse.

In 2011 he was proposing to Satoshi that he should take over the project[0], in 2013 he was trying to pitch the concept that development was stagnant and that a fork was needing to fix it[1][2], and now in 2015 it's again come about that he has found an excuse to attempt it (this time with some mild enthusiasm from part of the community). In the past Mike Hearn has pitched censorship features in Tor[3], attempting to subvert the inclusion of privacy fixes in Tor[4], proposed "redlists" of supposedly undesirable transactions in Bitcoin[5]. The current branch of Bitcoin XT already includes an alarmingly ill advised hardcoded blacklist of supposedly Tor exit nodes which are de-prioritized[6].

The measure of "consensus" has already slipped down to 75% when it become clear that 95% of the hashrate was never going to happen. The solution from Mike Hearn is that if miners don't want to get to 75%, he will simply hardcode his own centralized markers into Bitcoin wallets[7] to make sure it happens regardless. This is unbelievably toxic stuff, and spells certain death of Bitcoin if it goes ahead.

[0]: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=3kt5Reeh

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/29qafs/circle_ceo_...

[2]: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-core-development-falling-beh...

[3]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2014-July/007...

[4]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2014-July/007...

[5]: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/505-coi...

[6]: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/73c9efe74c5cc8fa...

[7]: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34162353/

Re: The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary

#34

Post by murbard2 »

davidgerard wrote: post #16

Important point about this debate: * There is not the organic transaction growth for this to even be a problem, and there is no evidence there ever will be. Bitcoin's only real-world use case is illicit goods. * Even 20MB blocks would be susceptible to a cheap spam attack like the DDOS "stress test" a few weeks ago. This is the quintessential bikeshed: a fight to the death for insanely low stakes.

> Bitcoin's only real-world use case is illicit goods.

That's ridiculous, what about illicit services?

Re: The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary

#35

Post by givengfffr »

Bae8anoh wrote: post #33
jackgavigan wrote: post #26

What's really interesting for me about the Blocksize Debate is what it reveals about Bitcoin's governance. Most of the people involved agree that the blocksize limit should be increased (with the notable exception of Peter Todd) and the main disagreement seems to be about how (and how quickly) and the increase should happen. There also seems to be a hint of power struggle in the backlash against Gavin's push to incre…

Read up on the history of Mike Hearn, he has wanted to fork Bitcoin into his own governance for years, this is just an excuse. In 2011 he was proposing to Satoshi that he should take over the project[0], in 2013 he was trying to pitch the concept that development was stagnant and that a fork was needing to fix it[1][2], and now in 2015 it's again come about that he has found an excuse to attempt it (this time with so…

The fact you're being down votted speaks volumes of the HN community lack of knowledge and the fandom around Mike and Gavin, both of which are trying to strong arm Bitcoin, Gavin even stopped contributing for a while so he could galavant around and call himself chief scientist. Meanwhile he and Mike threaten other developers on the dev mailing list instead of good faith discission.

Re: The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary

#36

Post by iyvyuhbuub »

t0mbstone wrote: post #9

The problem with bitcoin is the idea that it even requires a mining pool or transaction fee. Bitcoin will die the moment someone figures out how to build a decentralized crypto-currency that doesn't need a stupid idea like "mining" to be functional and secure.

Once you solve the trustless problem without 'mining' ie proof of work you'll likely be in line for a fields medal, so cool bro, go do that.

Re: The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary

#37

Post by freework »

givengfffr wrote: post #35
Bae8anoh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read up on the history of Mike Hearn, he has wanted to fork Bitcoin into his own governance for years, this is just an excuse. In 2011 he was proposing to Satoshi that he should take over the project[0], in 2013 he was trying to pitch the concept that development was stagnant and that a fork was needing to fix it[1][2], and now in 2015 it's again come about that he has found an excuse to attempt it (this time with so…

The fact you're being down votted speaks volumes of the HN community lack of knowledge and the fandom around Mike and Gavin, both of which are trying to strong arm Bitcoin, Gavin even stopped contributing for a while so he could galavant around and call himself chief scientist. Meanwhile he and Mike threaten other developers on the dev mailing list instead of good faith discission.

You are getting downvoted (you and the other green username) because hacker news is not a community that values posts that are purely personal insults. Try posting some ideas next time.

Re: The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary

#38

Post by Bae8anoh »

freework wrote: post #37
givengfffr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact you're being down votted speaks volumes of the HN community lack of knowledge and the fandom around Mike and Gavin, both of which are trying to strong arm Bitcoin, Gavin even stopped contributing for a while so he could galavant around and call himself chief scientist. Meanwhile he and Mike threaten other developers on the dev mailing list instead of good faith discission.

You are getting downvoted (you and the other green username) because hacker news is not a community that values posts that are purely personal insults. Try posting some ideas next time.

There's no insults in my comment, just statements of fact and links to supporting evidence.

Re: The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary

#39

Post by celticninja »

t0mbstone wrote: post #9

The problem with bitcoin is the idea that it even requires a mining pool or transaction fee. Bitcoin will die the moment someone figures out how to build a decentralized crypto-currency that doesn't need a stupid idea like "mining" to be functional and secure.

What is more likely is that when that problem is solved it will be applied to bitcoin rather than create a new coin.

Re: The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary

#40

Post by jojbjinjin »

freework wrote: post #37
givengfffr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact you're being down votted speaks volumes of the HN community lack of knowledge and the fandom around Mike and Gavin, both of which are trying to strong arm Bitcoin, Gavin even stopped contributing for a while so he could galavant around and call himself chief scientist. Meanwhile he and Mike threaten other developers on the dev mailing list instead of good faith discission.

You are getting downvoted (you and the other green username) because hacker news is not a community that values posts that are purely personal insults. Try posting some ideas next time.

Dude, you're cliqueish attitude and HN Mod bullshit is why I no longer bother with accounts. Try reading the substance of the post, don't waste time attacking 'green accounts', or is that your only thing you have to contribute?

Go read the dev mailing list, go look at pull requests, Gavin's become a marketer who appeals to reddit and private contacts with business instead of the technical community. He even got the basic math wrong when he originally proposed 20.

Post reply on HN