📅 Original date posted:2015-05-26
📝 Original message:Indeed Jim, your internet connection makes a good reason why I don't like 20mb blocks (right now). It would take you well over a minute to download the block before you could even relay it on, so much slow down in propagation! Yes I do see how decreasing the time to create blocks is a bit of a band-aid fix, and to use tge term I've seen mentioned here "kicking the can down the road" I agree that this is doing this, however as you say bandwidth is our biggest enemy right now and so hopefully by the time we exceed the capacity gained by the decrease in block time, we can then look to bump up block size because hopefully 20mbps connections will be baseline by then etc.
________________________________
From: Jim Phillips<mailto:jim at ergophobia.org>
Sent: 26/05/2015 12:53 PM
To: Thy Shizzle<mailto:thyshizzle at outlook.com>
Cc: Mike Hearn<mailto:mike at plan99.net>; Bitcoin Dev<mailto:bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You
Frankly I'm good with either way. I'm definitely in favor of faster
confirmation times.
The important thing is that we need to increase the amount of transactions
that get into blocks over a given time frame to a point that is in line
with what current technology can handle. We can handle WAY more than we are
doing right now. The Bitcoin network is not currently Disk, CPU, or RAM
bound.. Not even close. The metric we're closest to being restricted by
would be Network bandwidth. I live in a developing country. 2Mbps is a
typical broadband speed here (although 5Mbps and 10Mbps connections are
affordable). That equates to about 17MB per minute, or 170x more capacity
than what I need to receive a full copy of the blockchain if I only talk to
one peer. If I relay to say 10 peers, I can still handle 17x larger block
sizes on a slow 2Mbps connection.
Also, even if we reduce the difficulty so that we're doing 1MB blocks every
minute, that's still only 10MB every 10 minutes. Eventually we're going to
have to increase that, and we can only reduce the confirmation period so
much. I think someone once said 30 seconds or so is about the shortest
period you can practically achieve.
--
*James G. Phillips IV*
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts>;
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ergophobe>;
*"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals."
-- David Ogilvy*
*This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice
before printing.*
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle at outlook.com> wrote:
> Nah don't make blocks 20mb, then you are slowing down block propagation
> and blowing out conf tikes as a result. Just decrease the time it takes to
> make a 1mb block, then you still see the same propagation times today and
> just increase the transaction throughput.
> ------------------------------
> From: Jim Phillips <jim at ergophobia.org>
> Sent: 26/05/2015 12:27 PM
> To: Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net>
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You
>
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>
> This meme about datacenter-sized nodes has to die. The Bitcoin wiki is
> down right now, but I showed years ago that you could keep up with VISA on
> a single well specced server with today's technology. Only people living in
> a dreamworld think that Bitcoin might actually have to match that level of
> transaction demand with today's hardware. As noted previously, "too many
> users" is simply not a problem Bitcoin has .... and may never have!
>
>
> ... And will certainly NEVER have if we can't solve the capacity problem
> SOON.
>
> In a former life, I was a capacity planner for Bank of America's
> mid-range server group. We had one hard and fast rule. When you are
> typically exceeding 75% of capacity on a given metric, it's time to expand
> capacity. Period. You don't do silly things like adjusting the business
> model to disincentivize use. Unless there's some flaw in the system and
> it's leaking resources, if usage has increased to the point where you are
> at or near the limits of capacity, you expand capacity. It's as simple as
> that, and I've found that same rule fits quite well in a number of systems.
>
> In Bitcoin, we're not leaking resources. There's no flaw. The system is
> performing as intended. Usage is increasing because it works so well, and
> there is huge potential for future growth as we identify more uses and
> attract more users. There might be a few technical things we can do to
> reduce consumption, but the metric we're concerned with right now is how
> many transactions we can fit in a block. We've broken through the 75%
> marker and are regularly bumping up against the 100% limit.
>
> It is time to stop debating this and take action to expand capacity. The
> only questions that should remain are how much capacity do we add, and how
> soon can we do it. Given that most existing computer systems and networks
> can easily handle 20MB blocks every 10 minutes, and given that that will
> increase capacity 20-fold, I can't think of a single reason why we can't go
> to 20MB as soon as humanly possible. And in a few years, when the average
> block size is over 15MB, we bump it up again to as high as we can go then
> without pushing typical computers or networks beyond their capacity. We can
> worry about ways to slow down growth without affecting the usefulness of
> Bitcoin as we get closer to the hard technical limits on our capacity.
>
> And you know what else? If miners need higher fees to accommodate the
> costs of bigger blocks, they can configure their nodes to only mine
> transactions with higher fees.. Let the miners decide how to charge enough
> to pay for their costs. We don't need to cripple the network just for them.
>
> --
> *James G. Phillips IV*
> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts>;
>
> *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals."
> -- David Ogilvy *
>
> *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think
> twice before printing.*
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150526/40d01923/attachment.html>;
Thy Shizzle [ARCHIVE] /
npub183…eeux6
2023-06-07 15:35:21
in reply to nevent1q…tuqk
Author Public Key
npub1836zrd49hyr9aad6tvgng94uyy4r3xjcs5lkdza0ld9g5p8jkd0speeux6Published at
2023-06-07 15:35:21Event JSON
{
"id": "e0344b78be500f1d6f57f0b49d6259cbe4f77f6fcb3ba588c19bdd2941fe3368",
"pubkey": "3c7421b6a5b9065ef5ba5b113416bc212a389a58853f668baffb4a8a04f2b35f",
"created_at": 1686152121,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e038424a0880fdf88b11436b26b240dbde656936eaeaf91ae69915695ced453d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"46b5c3dca6c725f79842c2e5c7f5e8028b4c5f7cb003d3d966e37af99faafe3b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3c7421b6a5b9065ef5ba5b113416bc212a389a58853f668baffb4a8a04f2b35f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-26\n📝 Original message:Indeed Jim, your internet connection makes a good reason why I don't like 20mb blocks (right now). It would take you well over a minute to download the block before you could even relay it on, so much slow down in propagation! Yes I do see how decreasing the time to create blocks is a bit of a band-aid fix, and to use tge term I've seen mentioned here \"kicking the can down the road\" I agree that this is doing this, however as you say bandwidth is our biggest enemy right now and so hopefully by the time we exceed the capacity gained by the decrease in block time, we can then look to bump up block size because hopefully 20mbps connections will be baseline by then etc.\n________________________________\nFrom: Jim Phillips\u003cmailto:jim at ergophobia.org\u003e\nSent: 26/05/2015 12:53 PM\nTo: Thy Shizzle\u003cmailto:thyshizzle at outlook.com\u003e\nCc: Mike Hearn\u003cmailto:mike at plan99.net\u003e; Bitcoin Dev\u003cmailto:bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\u003e\nSubject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You\n\nFrankly I'm good with either way. I'm definitely in favor of faster\nconfirmation times.\n\nThe important thing is that we need to increase the amount of transactions\nthat get into blocks over a given time frame to a point that is in line\nwith what current technology can handle. We can handle WAY more than we are\ndoing right now. The Bitcoin network is not currently Disk, CPU, or RAM\nbound.. Not even close. The metric we're closest to being restricted by\nwould be Network bandwidth. I live in a developing country. 2Mbps is a\ntypical broadband speed here (although 5Mbps and 10Mbps connections are\naffordable). That equates to about 17MB per minute, or 170x more capacity\nthan what I need to receive a full copy of the blockchain if I only talk to\none peer. If I relay to say 10 peers, I can still handle 17x larger block\nsizes on a slow 2Mbps connection.\n\nAlso, even if we reduce the difficulty so that we're doing 1MB blocks every\nminute, that's still only 10MB every 10 minutes. Eventually we're going to\nhave to increase that, and we can only reduce the confirmation period so\nmuch. I think someone once said 30 seconds or so is about the shortest\nperiod you can practically achieve.\n\n--\n*James G. Phillips IV*\n\u003chttps://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts\u003e\n\u003chttp://www.linkedin.com/in/ergophobe\u003e\n\n*\"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals.\"\n-- David Ogilvy*\n\n *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice\nbefore printing.*\n\nOn Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Thy Shizzle \u003cthyshizzle at outlook.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Nah don't make blocks 20mb, then you are slowing down block propagation\n\u003e and blowing out conf tikes as a result. Just decrease the time it takes to\n\u003e make a 1mb block, then you still see the same propagation times today and\n\u003e just increase the transaction throughput.\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e From: Jim Phillips \u003cjim at ergophobia.org\u003e\n\u003e Sent: 26/05/2015 12:27 PM\n\u003e To: Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e\n\u003e Cc: Bitcoin Dev \u003cbitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\u003e\n\u003e Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e This meme about datacenter-sized nodes has to die. The Bitcoin wiki is\n\u003e down right now, but I showed years ago that you could keep up with VISA on\n\u003e a single well specced server with today's technology. Only people living in\n\u003e a dreamworld think that Bitcoin might actually have to match that level of\n\u003e transaction demand with today's hardware. As noted previously, \"too many\n\u003e users\" is simply not a problem Bitcoin has .... and may never have!\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ... And will certainly NEVER have if we can't solve the capacity problem\n\u003e SOON.\n\u003e\n\u003e In a former life, I was a capacity planner for Bank of America's\n\u003e mid-range server group. We had one hard and fast rule. When you are\n\u003e typically exceeding 75% of capacity on a given metric, it's time to expand\n\u003e capacity. Period. You don't do silly things like adjusting the business\n\u003e model to disincentivize use. Unless there's some flaw in the system and\n\u003e it's leaking resources, if usage has increased to the point where you are\n\u003e at or near the limits of capacity, you expand capacity. It's as simple as\n\u003e that, and I've found that same rule fits quite well in a number of systems.\n\u003e\n\u003e In Bitcoin, we're not leaking resources. There's no flaw. The system is\n\u003e performing as intended. Usage is increasing because it works so well, and\n\u003e there is huge potential for future growth as we identify more uses and\n\u003e attract more users. There might be a few technical things we can do to\n\u003e reduce consumption, but the metric we're concerned with right now is how\n\u003e many transactions we can fit in a block. We've broken through the 75%\n\u003e marker and are regularly bumping up against the 100% limit.\n\u003e\n\u003e It is time to stop debating this and take action to expand capacity. The\n\u003e only questions that should remain are how much capacity do we add, and how\n\u003e soon can we do it. Given that most existing computer systems and networks\n\u003e can easily handle 20MB blocks every 10 minutes, and given that that will\n\u003e increase capacity 20-fold, I can't think of a single reason why we can't go\n\u003e to 20MB as soon as humanly possible. And in a few years, when the average\n\u003e block size is over 15MB, we bump it up again to as high as we can go then\n\u003e without pushing typical computers or networks beyond their capacity. We can\n\u003e worry about ways to slow down growth without affecting the usefulness of\n\u003e Bitcoin as we get closer to the hard technical limits on our capacity.\n\u003e\n\u003e And you know what else? If miners need higher fees to accommodate the\n\u003e costs of bigger blocks, they can configure their nodes to only mine\n\u003e transactions with higher fees.. Let the miners decide how to charge enough\n\u003e to pay for their costs. We don't need to cripple the network just for them.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e *James G. Phillips IV*\n\u003e \u003chttps://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e *\"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals.\"\n\u003e -- David Ogilvy *\n\u003e\n\u003e *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think\n\u003e twice before printing.*\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150526/40d01923/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "86fa7b96bc8ba94af5934ad9b8079ddca652f6af3d488922d48a0a1815ad91667b6612286c5686643221dc4ce977096c32e0f08b19a8c5c6334ac3937c3275a7"
}