Quote from: iluvpie60 on July 12, 2017, 04:33:58 PM

Quote from: pereira4 on July 12, 2017, 04:11:18 PM

Quote from: The One on July 12, 2017, 04:07:44 PM

Quote from: iluvpie60 on July 12, 2017, 03:26:28 PM

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size(which is extremely unlikely but lets go with that) 1MB or 2MB or 3MB or 4 MB or 10 MB.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain

1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 MB blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bucks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mb(mega bits) and in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600 10MB blocks in 10 minutes.

I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that means almost everyone in the world would be using BTC to make 100MBblocks full every 10 minutes every day every week every year...

So what is the issue? Please lay it out for me, I have been away for awhile. Am I missing something? Maybe poorer people cant afford to host a node is the issue? But are they hosting it now anyways, probably not...

It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss.

There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised.

I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all.

Quote from: The One on July 12, 2017, 03:56:31 PM

Quote from: iluvpie60 on July 12, 2017, 03:19:06 PM

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size, 1mb or 2mb or 3 mb or 4 mb.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain

1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 mb blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bcks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mbp and in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600 10MB blocks in 10 minutes.

I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that won't happen!

It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss.

There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised.

I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all.

Nice copy-pasted answer. At least big blocktard sockpuppets should put some more effort into varying their answers.

Anyway, we don't need big blocks because the mempool is not full, except when it gets attacked by Roger Ver and other rich attackers:

Quote from: pereira4 on July 08, 2017, 04:59:42 PM

The Bitmain-Ver PBOC sponsored attack on Bitcoin is increasingly obvious as the spam attacks become increasingly less organic and happening right in key moments where hardfork FUD is being spread.

Segwit2x will soon join XT, Classic, and Unlimited into the also ever increasing list of Failed Bitcoin Takeover attempts.

Sorry, no hard forks for you.

It's objectively stupid to risk a hardfork that only contains a 2MB increase when we don't need to. If we are hardforking you should look into other interesting technology and not the dumb blocksize increase only:

https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

We also do NOT want to hardfork with unsafe code, developed in an unsafe amount of time, risking a 40 billion market in the process.

We do not need bigger blocks now, it's objectively a mistake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ

Oh I agree hardforks cause chaos and are risky.

My point was more I dont see how segwit makes sense to do. Offchain stuff is more centralized and vunerable vs onchain.

I am aware of the above also, the graph and spam attacks.

Though censorship is not ideal, why not include in the code to disable sending of 1 satoshi transactions. Maybe in 20 years if there is a need to send a 1 sat transaction it can be solved a different way. Btc would need to be worth a lot for 1 sat transaction to be important in any way.

I think people will just use ETH for stuff like that.

I dont want segwit.

I think the fear of hardforks to increase blocksize correct. But only if the code is a secret. If the code is open to all for months i dont see why raising it would be a problem in the future.

Yes mempool isnt full any more I am also aware of that. Just the things people said about blocksize being too big arent justified. Having a 20MB block right now still wont see it filled. And people could still run their nodes and what not.

Blocking 1 satoshi transactions could work, but they would just raise it to 2, then to 3... when does it become economically unviable to stop spam without having an impact on how bitcoin works?

When second layer solutions are working, we will be able to get microtransactions, so im not sure how that would work out.

In any case... hardforking now is a mistake, everyone knows this.

Segwit has been insanely tested and it's not a hardfork so its not the end of the world.

The priority now is to avoid BitmainCoin fork.