4 ms·

I don't understand why the segwit softfork and a block size increase would have to be mutually exclusive. As segwit generally improves the protocol (makes it m

by barnacs 10y ago

I don't understand why the segwit softfork and a block size increase would have to be mutually exclusive. As segwit generally improves the protocol (makes it more efficient, fixes a transaction malleability issue, increases capacity and gives way to proposed future improvements) and doesn't require a hardfork, I think it makes sense to apply that first. And if with segwit and all the improvements it enables the capacity still doesn't prove to be enough for the future growth, we can hardfork to dynamically increase the block size. But for now, we need to do something. Why not do the thing that's simpler to put into effect and provides more benefits?

Frogolocalypse 10y ago
Bitcoin nodes have bandwidth limitations, and specifically upload bandwidth. Increasing the blocksize without taking this into consideration kicks nodes off of the network, and decreases decentralization. Right now, a node can be run on a personal internet connection in Australia. Double it, and you hit the limit. Quadruple it, and you effectively stop nodes being hosted here. That's a problem. Larger blocks are not actually necessary with other layered solutions to bitcoin. The people who are pushing big blocks are mostly uninformed of this reality.
- smokeyj 10y ago
  Running a bitcoin node in grandmas Australian basement was never a long term design constraint. In an era of Chinese fabricated asics running on state subsidized energy, I fail to see node centralization as a priority.
  - Frogolocalypse 10y ago
    No, you do not understand, or choose to ignore things that are uncomfortable for you to integrate. It's not 'grandmas basement', it's effectively everyone in Australia. https://www.telstra.com.au/support/category/broadband/fix/how-to-check-your-broadband-connection https://www.telstra.com.au/support/category/broadband/fix/ho... > Connection type : upload bandwidth > ADSL : Up to 1Mbps > ADSL2+ : Up to 1Mbps > Cable (Base Plan) : Up to 1Mbps > Cable (Speed Boost) : Up to 2Mbps > nbn™ Fixed Network (Base Plan) : Up to 5Mbps (only available in a small proportion of locations) > nbn™ Fixed Network (Very Fast Speed Boost) : Up to 20Mbps (only available in a small proportion of locations, and only to business customers) > nbn™ Fixed Network (Super Fast Speed Boost) : Up to 40Mbps (only available in a small proportion of locations, and only to business customers) > nbn™ Fixed Wireless : Up to 5Mbp (only available in a small proportion of locations) Welcome to the world outside of your bubble. A node currently takes up about 35% of the upload bandwidth of an internet connection. At a minimum. > I fail to see node centralization as a priority. And therein lies your problem. While you continue to hold to that belief, you will find that the direction of bitcoin will go contrary to your desires.
wmf 10y ago
That's exactly what reasonable people would do. But people are afraid of a bait-and-switch where they activate segwit and then larger blocks are never delivered. Semi-reasonable people are asking for a bundle that includes segwit and larger blocks but no one is offering that yet.

by barnacs 10y ago

Frogolocalypse 10y ago

Bitcoin nodes have bandwidth limitations, and specifically upload bandwidth. Increasing the blocksize without taking this into consideration kicks nodes off of the network, and decreases decentralization. Right now, a node can be run on a personal internet connection in Australia. Double it, and you hit the limit. Quadruple it, and you effectively stop nodes being hosted here. That's a problem. Larger blocks are not actually necessary with other layered solutions to bitcoin. The people who are pushing big blocks are mostly uninformed of this reality.

smokeyj 10y ago
Running a bitcoin node in grandmas Australian basement was never a long term design constraint. In an era of Chinese fabricated asics running on state subsidized energy, I fail to see node centralization as a priority.
- Frogolocalypse 10y ago
  No, you do not understand, or choose to ignore things that are uncomfortable for you to integrate. It's not 'grandmas basement', it's effectively everyone in Australia. https://www.telstra.com.au/support/category/broadband/fix/how-to-check-your-broadband-connection https://www.telstra.com.au/support/category/broadband/fix/ho... > Connection type : upload bandwidth > ADSL : Up to 1Mbps > ADSL2+ : Up to 1Mbps > Cable (Base Plan) : Up to 1Mbps > Cable (Speed Boost) : Up to 2Mbps > nbn™ Fixed Network (Base Plan) : Up to 5Mbps (only available in a small proportion of locations) > nbn™ Fixed Network (Very Fast Speed Boost) : Up to 20Mbps (only available in a small proportion of locations, and only to business customers) > nbn™ Fixed Network (Super Fast Speed Boost) : Up to 40Mbps (only available in a small proportion of locations, and only to business customers) > nbn™ Fixed Wireless : Up to 5Mbp (only available in a small proportion of locations) Welcome to the world outside of your bubble. A node currently takes up about 35% of the upload bandwidth of an internet connection. At a minimum. > I fail to see node centralization as a priority. And therein lies your problem. While you continue to hold to that belief, you will find that the direction of bitcoin will go contrary to your desires.

wmf 10y ago

That's exactly what reasonable people would do. But people are afraid of a bait-and-switch where they activate segwit and then larger blocks are never delivered. Semi-reasonable people are asking for a bundle that includes segwit and larger blocks but no one is offering that yet.