Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)
by
sidhujag
on 05/10/2015, 22:20:47 UTC
Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

1. Isn't efficiency in storage capacity and bandwidth overcoming the demand for it with our current block structure? With bigger blocks perhaps demand capacity and bandwidth will be higher, but the tradeoff is less fees correct?

The key characteristic here is the ability to keep Bitcoin within the range of technology accessible by majority of Bitcoin users. If Bitcoin demonstrates that its demand for block-space outgrows the capabilities of present day home networks, it may turn into a trend that will be very hard to stop especially if the network loses most of its validating full nodes in the process of such expansion.

The limit on block size is supposed to serve as a "brake" and help reverse this trend backwards for a period of time, so that in the long run the costs of validation oscillate within a certain corridor instead of steadily growing. We can think of it as cycles in nature, where the periods of almost empty blocks (perceived as "large") are followed by the periods of almost full blocks (perceived as "small"), pretty much the same way seasons alternate throughout a year.

Either way we are going to have to solve the core of the problem in either case. I mean Satoshi solves the biggest problem of all and we are left with a measly p2p networking problem which we can't solve on our own collectively? :p

Let's think what would happen if political pressure in most of the world causes internet firewalls to go up in most countries (just as it has in China), if they intentially slow down the net they can kill bitcoin, unless we try to work around it, thus solving issues that large blocks would cause aswell, in terms of network delays. That kills one bird out of 2, and I think we will need to sooner or later.

Right now im leaning on not increasing the block size until the time is right... when is it right? When a 0 fee transaction cannot get included in a block for more than 5 days (current bank wire transfer times). By then hopefully we solve the technical problems and are in need for smaller fees.