I think all the suggestions recommending cutting the block time down also suggest reducing the rewards to compensate. -- *James G. Phillips IV* *"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 Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:43 AM, gabe appleton wrote: > Sync time wouldn't be longer compared to 20MB, it would (eventually) be > longer under either setup. > > Also, and this is probably a silly concern, but wouldn't changing block > time change the supply curve? If we cut the rate in half or a power of two, > that affects nothing, but if we want to keep it in round numbers, we need > to do it by 10, 5, or 2. I feel like most people would bank for 10 or 5, > both of which change the supply curve due to truncation. > > Again, it's a trivial concern, but probably one that should be addressed. > On May 25, 2015 11:52 PM, "Jim Phillips" wrote: > >> Incidentally, even once we have the "Internet of Things" brought on by >> 21, Inc. or whoever beats them to it, I would expect the average home to >> have only a single full node "hub" receiving the blockchain and >> broadcasting transactions created by all the minor SPV connected devices >> running within the house. The in-home full node would be peered with high >> bandwidth full-node relays running at the ISP or in the cloud. There are >> more than enough ISPs and cloud compute providers in the world such that >> there should be no concern at all about centralization of relays. Full >> nodes could some day become as ubiquitous on the Internet as authoritative >> DNS servers. And just like DNS servers, if you don't trust the nodes your >> ISP creates or it's too slow or censors transactions, there's nothing >> preventing you from peering with nodes hosted by the Googles or OpenDNSs >> out there, or running your own if you're really paranoid and have a few >> extra bucks for a VPS. >> >> -- >> *James G. Phillips IV* >> >> >> >> *"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 10:23 PM, Jim Phillips >> wrote: >> >>> I don't see how the fact that my 2Mbps connection causes me to not be a >>> very good relay has any bearing on whether or not the network as a whole >>> would be negatively impacted by a 20MB block. My inability to rapidly >>> propagate blocks doesn't really harm the network. It's only if MOST relays >>> are as slow as mine that it creates an issue. I'm one node in thousands >>> (potentially tens or hundreds of thousands if/when Bitcoin goes >>> mainstream). And I'm an individual. There's no reason at all for me to run >>> a full node from my home, except to have my own trusted and validated copy >>> of the blockchain on a computer I control directly. I don't need to act as >>> a relay for that and as long as I can download blocks faster than they are >>> created I'm fine. Also, I can easily afford a VPS server or several to run >>> full nodes as relays if I am feeling altruistic. It's actually cheaper for >>> me to lease a VPS than to keep my own home PC on 24/7, which is why I have >>> 2 of them. >>> >>> And as a business, the cost of a server and bandwidth to run a full node >>> is a drop in the bucket. I'm involved in several projects where we have >>> full nodes running on leased servers with multiple 1Gbps connections. It's >>> an almost zero cost. Those nodes could handle 20MB blocks today without >>> thinking about it, and I'm sure our nodes are just a few amongst thousands >>> just like them. I'm not at all concerned about the network being too >>> centralized. >>> >>> What concerns me is the fact that we are using edge cases like my home >>> PC as a lame excuse to debate expanding the capacity of the network. >>> >>> -- >>> *James G. Phillips IV* >>> >>> >>> >>> *"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 10:02 PM, Thy Shizzle >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>> Sent: ‎26/‎05/‎2015 12:53 PM >>>> To: Thy Shizzle >>>> Cc: Mike Hearn ; Bitcoin Dev >>>> >>>> >>>> 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* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *"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 >>>> 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 >>>> Sent: ‎26/‎05/‎2015 12:27 PM >>>> To: Mike Hearn >>>> Cc: Bitcoin Dev >>>> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Mike Hearn 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* >>>> >>>> >>>> *"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.* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud >> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications >> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights >> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. >> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >>