<div dir="ltr"><div>The nice thing about 1 MB is that you can store ALL bitcoin transactions relevant to your lifetime (~100 years) on one 5 TB hard drive (1*6*24*365*100=5256000). Any regular person can run a full node and store this 5 TB hard drive easily at their home. With 10 MB blocks you need a 50 TB drive just for your bitcoin transactions! This is not doable for most regular people due to space and monetary constraints. Being able to review all transactions relevant to your lifetime is one of the key important properties of Bitcoin. How else can people audit the financial transactions of companies and governments that are using the Bitcoin blockchain? How else can we achieve this level of transparency that is essential to keeping corrupt governments/companies in check? How else can we keep track of our own personal transactions without relying on others to keep track of them for us? As time passes, storage technology may increase, but so may human life expectancy. So yes, in this sense, 1 MB just may be the magic number.<br><br></div>Assuming that we have a perfectly functional off-chain transaction system, what do we actually gain by going from 1 MB to 1000 MB (my approximate limit for regular users having enough processing power)? If there is no clear and substantial gain, then it is foolish to venture into this territory, i.e. KEEP IT AT 1 MB! For example Angel said he wants to see computers transacting with computers at super speeds. Why do you need to do this on the main chain? You will lose all the transparency of the current system, an essential feature.<br><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Angel Leon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gubatron@gmail.com" target="_blank">gubatron@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I believe 100MB is still very conservative, I think that's barely 666 tps.<div><br>I also find it not very creative that people are imagining these limits for 10 billion people using bitcoin, I think bitcoin's potential is realized with computers transacting with computers, which can eat those 666 tps in a single scoup (what if bittorrent developers got creative with seeding, or someone created a decentralized paid itunes on top of bitcoin, or the openbazaar developers actually pulled a decentralized amazon with no off-chain transaction since they want the thing to be fully decentralized, bitcoin would collapse right away)<br><br>I truly hope people see past regular people running nodes at home, that's never going to happen. This should be about the miner's networking, storage and cpu capacity. They will have gigabit access, they will have shitload of storage, and they already have plenty of processing power, all of which are only going to get cheaper.<br><br>In order to have the success we all dream we'll need gigabit blocks. Let's hope adoption remains slow.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div><a href="http://twitter.com/gubatron" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/gubatron</a><br></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Alan Reiner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:etotheipi@gmail.com" target="_blank">etotheipi@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Actually I believe that side chains and off-main-chain transactions will be a critical part for the overall scalability of the network. I was actually trying to make the point that (insert some huge block size here) will be needed to even accommodate the reduced traffic. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I believe that it is definitely over 20MB. If it was determined to be 100 MB ten years from now, that wouldn't surprise me.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my overpriced smartphone</p><div><div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On May 8, 2015 1:17 PM, "Andrew" <<a href="mailto:onelineproof@gmail.com" target="_blank">onelineproof@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Alan Reiner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:etotheipi@gmail.com" target="_blank">etotheipi@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<br>
This isn't about "everyone's coffee". This is about an absolute
minimum amount of participation by people who wish to use the
network. If our goal is really for bitcoin to really be a global,
open transaction network that makes money fluid, then 7tps is
already a failure. If even 5% of the world (350M people) was using
the network for 1 tx per month (perhaps to open payment channels, or
shift money between side chains), we'll be above 100 tps. And that
doesn't include all the non-individuals (organizations) that want to
use it. <br></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
The goals of "a global transaction network" and "everyone must be
able to run a full node with their $200 dell laptop" are not
compatible. We need to accept that a global transaction system
cannot be fully/constantly audited by everyone and their mother.
The important feature of the network is that it is open and anyone
*can* get the history and verify it. But not everyone is required
to. Trying to promote a system wher000e the history can be forever
handled by a low-end PC is already falling out of reach, even with
our miniscule 7 tps. Clinging to that goal needlessly limits the
capability for the network to scale to be a useful global payments
system <br></div></blockquote><div><br><div>These are good points and got me thinking (but I think you're
wrong). If we really want each of the 10 billion people soon using
bitcoin once per month, that will require 500MB blocks. That's about 2
TB per month. And if you relay it to 4 peers, it's 10 TB per month.
Which I suppose is doable for a home desktop, so you can just run a
pruned full node with all transactions from the past month. But how do
you sync all those transactions if you've never done this before or it's
been a while since you did? I think it currently takes at least 3 hours
to fully sync 30 GB of transactions. So 2 TB will take 8 days, then you
take a bit more time to sync the days that passed while you were
syncing. So that's doable, but at a certain point, like 10 TB per month
(still only 5 transactions per month per person), you will need 41 days
to sync that month, so you will never catch up. So I think in order to
keep the very important property of anyone being able to start clean and
verify the thing, then we need to think of bitcoin as a system that
does transactions for a large number of users at once in one
transaction, and not a system where each person will make a ~monthly
transaction on. We need to therefore rely on sidechains, treechains,
lightning channels, etc...<br><br></div>I'm not a bitcoin wizard
and this is just my second post on this mailing list, so I may be
missing something. So please someone, correct me if I'm wrong. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 05/07/2015 03:54 PM, Jeff Garzik
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alan
Reiner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:etotheipi@gmail.com" target="_blank">etotheipi@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> (2) Leveraging fee
pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually really
a bad idea. It's really bad while Bitcoin is still
growing, and relying on fee pressure at 1 MB severely
impacts attractiveness and adoption potential of Bitcoin
(due to high fees and unreliability). But more
importantly, it ignores the fact that for a 7 tps is
pathetic for a global transaction system. It is a
couple orders of magnitude too low for any meaningful
commercial activity to occur. If we continue with a cap
of 7 tps forever, Bitcoin <b>will</b> fail. Or at
best, it will fail to be useful for the vast majority of
the world (which probably leads to failure). We
shouldn't be talking about fee pressure until we hit 700
tps, which is probably still too low. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span><div> [...]<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>1) Agree that 7 tps is too low<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>2) Where do you want to go? Should bitcoin scale up to
handle all the world's coffees? <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is hugely unrealistic. 700 tps is 100MB blocks,
14.4 GB/day -- just for a single feed. If you include
relaying to multiple nodes, plus serving 500 million SPV
clients en grosse, who has the capacity to run such a
node? By the time we get to fee pressure, in your
scenario, our network node count is tiny and highly
centralized.<br>
<br>
</div>
3) In RE "fee pressure" -- Do you see the moral hazard to a
software-run system? It is an intentional, human decision
to flood the market with supply, thereby altering the
economics, forcing fees to remain low in the hopes of
achieving adoption. I'm pro-bitcoin and obviously want to
see bitcoin adoption - but I don't want to sacrifice every
decentralized principle and become a central banker in order
to get there.<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud<br>
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications<br>
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights<br>
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.<br>
<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y" target="_blank">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target="_blank">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development" target="_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div>PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28 49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647</div>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud<br>
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications<br>
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights<br>
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.<br>
<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y" target="_blank">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target="_blank">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development" target="_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28 49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647</div>
</div>