<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1y2wcan7yptzyrg55znun2r66q8dgery6vehmyhnq0fhx09d2pndskl9apx

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsz98vwelzq43zp522pf7f4padqrk5v3jdxvmajtes85mn8jk4qekcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnwv46qzrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcplzdwa

Publishing to

relay.nostr.net

nos.lol

relay.damus.io

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:58:40 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-03-31
📝 Original message:I didn't say typical, I said every. Currently a raspberry pi on shitty adsl
can run a full node. What's wrong with needing a high end pc and good
connectivity to run a full node?
People that want to, can. People that don't want to, won't, no matter how
low spec the machine you need.
If nobody uses bitcoin, all the security in the world provides no value.
The value of bitcoin is provided by people using bitcoin, and people will
only use bitcoin if it provides value to them. Security is one aspect
only. And the failure to understand that is what has led to the block size
debate.
Rodney
On 1 Apr 2017 10:12, "Eric Voskuil" <eric at voskuil.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 03/31/2017 02:23 PM, Rodney Morris via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> If the obsession with every personal computer being able to run a
> fill node continues then bitcoin will be consigned to the dustbin
> of history,
The cause of the block size debate is the failure to understand the
Bitcoin security model. This failure is perfectly exemplified by the
above statement. If a typical personal computer cannot run a node
there is no security.
e
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJY3uJ8AAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOrBoH/1VdXQObKZ2JPHL387Sd8qT4
zzWt8tKFD+6/uCS8re97h1lZcbwb3EzBOB1J15mJ3fqTOU/rPCitN+JZAMgpw/z9
NGNp4KQDHo3vLiWWOq2GhJzyVAOcDKYLsY8/NrHK91OtABD2XIq9gERwRoZZE4rb
OPSjSAGvDK8cki72O7HpyEKX5WEyHsHNK/JmBDdTjlzkMcNEbBlYMgO24RC6x+UA
8Fh17rOcfGv6amIbmS7mK3EMkkGL83WmsgJKXNl4inI1R8z5hVKRqOFMPxmTDXVc
dEHtw8poHOX1Ld85m0+Tk2S7IdH66PCnhsKL9l6vlH02uAvLNfKxb+291q2g3YU=
=HPCK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170401/748c1f45/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:36:19 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-17
📝 Original message:Words cannot capture how much I wish Satoshi had put logic like this (or
even just a simple block size doubling every reward halving) in place when
he put in the "temporary" 1MB anti-spam block size limit...
I see problems to this approach. The biggest one I see is that a miner
with 11% of hash power could sabotage block size increases by only ever
mining empty blocks.
I haven't run any statistics or simulations, but I'm concerned that the
interplay between the random distribution of transaction arrival and the
random distribution of block times may lead to false signals.
A 90% full block 1 minute after the previous block is a more "serious"
problem than a 90% full block 30 minutes after the previous block. A 90%
full block after a 90% full block is a more "serious" problem than a 90%
full block after an empty block.
I would expect a robust approach in this manner to look at block sizes
weighted by block times, but this is an interesting proposal regardless.
But I think you'll run up against one of the great schisms in this debate -
those that believe blocks should always be full (or close to it), to
encourage a "fee market" and to encourage off-chain transactions, and those
that think that the blockchain should be useable by almost anyone for
almost anything, implying there should always be spare space in blocks,
with off-chain transactions reserved for microtransactions and zero-conf
(and possibly low-fee transactions). At least, that's my take on it.
Rodney
>
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:51:26 +0100
> From: Btc Drak <btcdrak at gmail.com>
> To: Patrick Strateman <patrick.strateman at gmail.com>
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size
> Max Cap
> Message-ID:
> <CADJgMzvV7cSW9aBnAf5zX7FDxN5E=AW=rET2i9EnysLao=
> vVyw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Nobody is going to click that...
>
> I guess I am nobody. Here's a copy of the text:-
>
> *Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
> <http://upalc.com/maxblocksize.php>*
>
> *Assumption*: This article is for those, who already understand the bitcoin
> protocol and aware of the block size controversy. Details of the problem
> statement can be found in BIP 100
> <http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf>.
> Satoshi's opinion regarding block size can be found here
> <https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366>. I will
> be
> directly going into the solution without explaining the problem in details.
>
>
> *Solution*: Difficulty changes at every 2016 block, i.e. at every 2016
> block each full node does a calculation to find the next target. We will do
> just another calculation here. Nodes will also calculate what % of blocks
> in the last difficulty period is higher than 90% of the maximum block size,
> which is 1 MB for now. If it is found that more than 90% blocks in the last
> difficulty period is higher than 90% of the maximum block size, then double
> the maximum block size. If not, then calculate what % of blocks in the last
> difficulty period is less than 50% of the maximum block size. If it is
> higher than 90%, then half the maximum block size. If none of the above
> condition satisfies, keep the maximum block size as it is.
>
> Please note that, while calculating the % of blocks, it is better to take
> into account the first 2000 of the 2016, than the whole of 2016. This helps
> to avoid the calculation mistake if some of the last few blocks get
> orphaned.
>
>
> *Reasoning*: This solution is derived directly from the indication of the
> problem. If transaction volume increases, then we will naturally see bigger
> blocks. On the contrary, if there are not enough transaction volume, but
> maximum block size is high, then only few blocks may sweep the mempool.
> Hence, if block size is itself taken into consideration, then maximum block
> size can most rationally be derived. Moreover, this solution not only
> increases, but also decreases the maximum block size, just like difficulty.
>
>
> *Other Solutions of this Problem*:-
>
> Making Decentralized Economic Policy
> <http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf> - by
> Jeff Garzik
>
> Elastic block cap with rollover penalties
> <https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521> ? by Meni Rosenfeld
>
> Increase maximum block size
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki> - by
> Gavin
> Andresen
>
> Block size following technological growth
> <https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6> - by Pieter Wuille
>
> The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments
> <https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf> - by Joseph Poon &
> Thaddeus Dryja
>
>
> Please share your opinion regarding this solution below. For mail
> communication, feel free to write me at bitcoin [at] upalc.com.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150817/29fde6cb/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:47:54 UTC

- reply