/biz/ - Business & Finance

Are 1gb or 1tb blocks even possible and the likelihood of them happening?


Complete brainlet here

>>9631863
No, it's a complete fantasy. Internet speeds and storage space are not advancing anywhere near the speed needed to do this in the next decade. You could theoretically do it on large cloud providers and datacenters but it would be highly centralized and easily censored by governments. Modest increases to anything between something like 2mb - 32mb though conserving bandwidth will always make it more resilient to censorship and internet disruptions.

>>9631858
Well, think about transferring 1 terabyte over the web per 10 min block time.
is that possible?

Probably not right now. But likely will be in future.

1 gig in 10 mins is possible now, so I think we are sweet for the next 5 years or so. Even if tech doesn't advance at all

>>9632297
1 gb isn't possible, look at the approximate figures https://iancoleman.io/blocksize/#block-size=1000
It's out of reach for even most small to medium businesses. You would be limited to using a handful of thin online wallets from various providers, if you're going to centralize it that much you may as well just use something like XRP and not pay faggot miners billions of dollars. There's many flaws with BTC but BCH only exists to make miners money, the more TX they can cram onto SHA256 chains the more money they get, altcoins mined with GPUs or 2nd layer protocols mean less money for chinese mining cartels.

>>9632381

Interesting, so it is mostly bandwidth that is the limitation?

wait a sec, but miners get paid more with small blocks. People compete and offer higher and higher fees to get their transaction into the next block. Like in December last year when it cost $50 per transaction to get a BTC transaction though. Miners were making a killing.
With big blocks that never get full, miner fees will be many but much much lower.
However the currency will be much more useful to the masses as they can actually send transaction. so overall its better for miners if the network grows by making commerce easy. This is a win-win situation, which farsighted miners are going for: grow the network and build the tech that is necessary:
Push technology forward in the kind of arms race that hasn't happened since WW2.
=Sounds pretty exciting to be a big block miner DESU

It's important to know that BCH has raised the maximum block size to 32 MB, not the minimum. Currently the blocks are less than 100 kB in size on average.

It took about 5 years for Bitcoin to get to 1 MB. So even if people use BCH with accelerating rate it will still take, let's say, 40 years before each block start getting near full.

So to answer your question, it's likely to happen but not for a very long time. People will have a lot of time to figure out good ways to distribute blocks that are larger than 32 MB (remember again, "1 TB" blocks would just be the max size).

Side note: You need about 450 kbps to download 32 MB in 10 minutes. In 40 years that speed (55 KiB/s) won't be a problem for most people, even in poor countries.

>>9632542

Bstream are leftist cucks who think Bitcoin mining is "wasteful"

Buy as many PoW coins as you can bub, because you're spot on about the arms race in tech (as well as electricity and energy solutions). It's going to be all about competition and skin in the game. The pedophiles working on Core (most of whom are late adopters, most pitiful of all Adam Back who literally criticized Bitcoin directly to Satoshi before the first build was even released) don't have any.

Or use 0xBTC on the ethereum chain, which will be PoS EOY

>>9632542
Xthin and CompactBlocks currently reduce the amount of data required to send a blocks data
So a 1GB block doesn't actually require 1GB of data when being sent to another miner.


Other proposals like Graphene would make the amount of data required to be sent to other nodes nothing or negligible the vast majority of the time.
All nodes have their own mempool. Why should a miner send a copy of all tx's in a new block when all those nodes already have them in their mempool?
Graphene would make it so the vast majority of the network builds the new block from all the tx in their own mempool, and only request the few missing tx it may have.
Most tx are seen by the majority of the network within seconds.

Bandwidth is NOT an issue for scaling.

>>9632542
>wait a sec, but miners get paid more with small blocks. People compete and offer higher and higher fees to get their transaction into the next block. Like in December last year when it cost $50 per transaction to get a BTC transaction though. Miners were making a killing.
It's complex, chinese miners started doing spam transactions back around 2014 to fill up blocks and drive TX fees higher, back then they demanded no one increase the block size. As altcoins, scaling solutions such as segwit or 2nd layer options became popular they realized they screwed themselves. Since they discovered they can't drive fees too high, if they can't get higher fees the only option is to increase the volume of low fee TX. 30,000 low fee TX are as good as 1000 high fee TX, they don't care if it is turned into a shitty chinese version of paypal or visa, all they want to do is maximize total fees per block.

Unless someone holocausts the chinese miners they will likely end up killing or crippling crypto. Bcash is the perfect example why, in terms or TX speed and scaling options its a pile of shit but it's value was instantly higher than numerous technically superior alts since it has a wealthy chinese mining cartel willing to hurl hundreds of millions at it to prop up the price. None of the bcash supporters actually care about TX speed or cost or scaling.

>>9632959
>Xthin and CompactBlocks currently reduce the amount of data required to send a blocks data
>So a 1GB block doesn't actually require 1GB of data when being sent to another miner.
Stuff that doesn't currently exist on the bcash network. It's no different to BTC maxis claiming BTC scaling is 100% solved with lightning when it's yet to be deployed and widely used. The idiocy of cashlets is astounding, they go around complaining BTC scaling options suck because they rely on software or tech that hasn't been completely developed yet, when confronted with the exact same issues on bcash they then see no problem with claiming some untested software or magical internet technology will fix it.

>>9632247
This.

Tb blocks is a meme. Probably more marketing than anything.

>>9631863
Yep 1gb already been tested. Won't work on a raspberry ok though

Basically we learned that the core client was badly implemented and bigger blocks are not an issue.

For scaling, either go with Moore's law for conservative upgrades or allow businesses to play the part of decentralised nodes to validate.

That means miners btw

pic related the only relevant bitcoin, dont waste your time debating this

>>9633425
The picture is from BCH presentation

>>9632542
Orphan blocks would increase exponentially at one point too.
It's just not possible to scale to visa levels without other ways of decreasing transaction size, or simply something smart.
And why do we need all transactions in the chain?
if we can compress a few transactions into one, why not do that?
X pays Y, Y pays Z, Z pays A, A pays B. Can be compressed into X pays B.

>>9631858
>human driven activities
Implying they'll count for shit in a few years

>>9633419
>Yep 1gb already been tested. Won't work on a raspberry ok though
Not true, the bottleneck is bandwidth and long term storage, loading 1gb blocks on an offline network and saying it works is a complete scam. If you did 1gb blocks now that were anywhere near full the network would completely fail. As I said earlier, you could theoretically do it with centralized servers on amazon AWS or similar but at that point you're just paying miner scum needless fees for a service now worse than paypal or visa, at least those aren't controlled by the CCP.

BCH is 100% a chinese scam.

>>9631858
Who cares about BTC and BCH ???

BTC and BCH WILL MAKE U NEVER RICH!!!

0xBitcoin will certainly make u wealthy

brainlet here, Why do block sizes even have to be capped? Why can't they be dynamically sized based on the amount of tx's?

>>9633716
People will do extremely wasteful TXs and quickly cause huge block sizes. You could easily spam the network to the point it collapses. No one even knows if bcash 32mb blocks will work properly with real world loads since the network is basically empty the entire time, at this point bcash big blocks are only for advertising, they could enable 1tb blocks right now since no one is using it for anything.

Big blocks = More maximum onchain throughput, but more node centralization. Its not so much 1mb vs 8mb but BCH seems to believe that moore's law will allow the block size to increase infinitely instead of accepting that there is a limit at one point.

But big blocks don't increase confirmation time. So BCH is useless in point of sales applications without relying on 0 confirmation transactions. In fact BCH is being developed with the full intention of using 0 confs which can only be partially confirmed by using trusted payment processing services provided by BitPay or coinbase. Bitcoin cash devs openely admit this and in their design assume the usage of these private, centralized services by retailers.

The BCH ecosystem as a whole, which is BCH chains + 0 conf transactions + BitPay / Coinbase / etc. payment processing nodes, is not a cryptocurrency solution. It is not fully trustless or secure.

Then you have BTC + LN which can provide both high throughput, instant transactions, which are verifiable without trusting any centralized service. The BTC chain's block size itself can be increased, bitcoin supporters just recognize there is a limit to how high that can be.

>>9633800
ah so people are bastards basically.

>>9633716

Block sizes don't have to capped, eth for example has a dynamically increasing block size and time. But there has to be some cost to a transaction to prevent spamming transactions. Eth has gas limits for example.

>>9634138
The biggest culprits are exchanges and businesses. Give them no limits on data and they will waste it doing internal transfers on chain or they give every sale it's own BTC address so they don't have to track who bought what themselves. Exchanges are the worst since they just pass the fees from their bloat onto customers.

Miners would probably end up refusing to mine stupidly large blocks which would drive bcash tx fees to high levels if it were ever widely adopted.

>>9634250

Not to mention if miners don't unconditionally accept every BCH transaction BCH's 0 conf solution for retial / point of sales completely breaks. Even when relying on centralized systems to reduce the possibility of double spending, miners may not accept a transaction.

The answer is that it is quite technical and you are better off looking into the political if you arent technical enough to understand the technical.

There's so much nonsense in this thread alone...

The sad fact of life is that bitcoin has been taken over by the same interests that it were meant to replace. They censor. They push propaganda. They own all the biggest communication channels. This is not some conspiracy theory it's easily verifiable fact, they don't hide it very well.

LN for example is funded through something called DCG which has the same chairman as the FED. Mastercard has also put in money. Blockstream has been funded by AXA which the chairman is the head of Bilderberg. AXA is currently the second most powerful company on earth according to a german study. bitcoin.org, bitcointalk.com, /r/bitcoin is all owned by a nebulous character called theymos who has censored all talk of alternative clients of bitcoin since XT(many years ago. It was about to get majority support of the community until theymos started censoring all mention of it and all it's nodes started getting DDOSed).

This isn't even the tip of the iceberg...

Bitcoin cash is simply an alternative implementation of the bitcoin protocol as outlined in the whitepaper. The same whitepaper that Blockstream has tried to rewrite... The same whitepaper that core now claims can't work... Nothing is really too low for these people and they are supported by a huge shill army on literally all social media. Bitcoin cash is the continuation of satoshi's vision and in consert with that they have reinstated 0conf and low fees which again makes bitcoin usable for coffe purchases or POS; which of course was destroyed by core. It's a PR battle going on, but if you look at the simple facts it shouldnt be too hard to figure out which coin to support.

>muh big blocks
2015 wants its meme back

>>9632870
Yup, until someone bothers to spam attack your shitty network and fill it with trash, making it impossible to download from scratch (see Ethereum for reference).

>>9634325
they have also reinstated several op_codes removed by core. This makes stuff like memo.cash and blockpress.com possible... The project has literally been taken to shit for many years now because of blockstream or old money institutions... a false problematique of block size has been introduced and they use it to pretend blockchain can't scale and therefore "use our easily controlled LN network defeating the purpose of bitcoin itself"!.

>>9632870

This is such a hilarious dismissal of the issue. The argument is literally that BCH won't have BTC's current transaction rate for another 40 years, at which point it will run into the exact same scaling issue BTC is running into. Not to mention BCH dev's say 1TB blocks are needed to support current credit card transactions, not 32MB. And the hope is that cryptocurrencies will lead to an economy with far higher transaction rates than current credit card levels.

>>9634401
Wrong. The false narrative is implying centralizing nodes into a handful of (((specialized))) corporations running them has no negative side effects.

If you accept the mainstream derping about "banking the unbanked" (which itself is just a PR ruse of the USG's to get their fingers into the blockchain), you'll find yourself wanting to do something stupid about minimum transaction values in the Bitcoin network. Once you reduce the minimum fee for broadcasting, a whole slew of smaller transactions will want into each block. That demand will put upward pressure on the price each transaction must pay for inclusion into each 1MB block, pressure that can only be alleviated by increasing the maximum block size. So there you have it: the USG is once again exploiting your kindhearted desire to make the world a better place for someone to whom you're entirely unrelated to fuck up the blockchain.

>>9633716
>>9633800
>>9634138

This person is lying to you, by the way. 8MB blocks were stress tested and the blockchain ran flawlessly. Miners make the most money by adding real world value to what they are accumulating.

Sure tx spam can ruin the idea of dynamic blocks in favor of larger miners, that was about the only truth in what he's telling you. 32MB blocks are fine. Satoshi supported it implicitly. Gavin Andresen supports it. Mike Hearne supported it. Anyome who isn't a pussy scumbag and actually has passion for Bitcoin, or is invested in it heavily, supports it aside from slushpool, who are just corecucks.

Try to do some research instead of asking anons for their version of the truth. As cringeworthy as it may sound, r/btc has a lot of quality content and arguments in favor of raised blocksize limits.

>>9634368
BCH was already "spammed". All it lead to were more money to the miners... See, that's why you want a big block size, so that "spammers" can't destroy the network like they can on btc...

>>9634167
ETH is already a clusterfuck of a bloated blockchain that cannot ever be downloaded from scratch because there are sections filled with absolute trash which will make your computer go into overdrive trying to valite them.

Try syncing a full node from scratch with the original client. They've basically get rid of sections of the blockchain to sync and they call it (fast mode) or somesuch. Ethereum is such a joke, can't wait for the day it collapses.

>>9634478
Of course Gavin CIAndresen, Mike "benevolent dictator" Hearn and co would support it. Satoshi just failed to predict several things such as mining pools leading to centralization et al.

See:

https://coinjournal.net/gavin-andresen-mike-hearn-will-be-the-benevolent-dictator-of-bitcoinxt/

http://shitco.in/2015/08/19/the-bitcoin-xt-trojan/

You summerfags need to do a lot of reading before attempting to know what's up.

>>9634490
Wrong. It has never been spammed to the extent BTC was spammed (for months). It was just a test, a small peak.

A maintained amount of spam would wipe most people running nodes.

>>9634472
ah yeah, the "bigger than floppy size blocks will centralize goy!!!" argument and the "million dollar mining farms can't afford a hd" argument and the "non-mining nodes totally secure the network!!!" argument...

I'm not wasting any more time on this thread. I've given it the time-allotment im willing to and have to go back to work. After all im not paid to push these ridiculous arguments like you are. With the information iv'e presented it should be easy to navigate the swamp of propaganda if one wants to and see behind the curtain for interested parties. Bonjour!

>>9634325
Bitmain completely dwarfs blockstream in size and resources, it takes 10 seconds on google to see AXA only has a minority stake in blockstream. If they were some sort of banker cabal they're extremely useless, any well funded entity would have had no trouble crushing the chinese miners and bitmain to seize control of BTC years ago.

Bitmains backers and funding details are hidden from the public likely due to links with the chinese communist party. I have no way to know if they employ large amounts of shills but given the average bcash fanatic usually can't respond to these questions I'm guessing a large amount of bcash propaganda comes from chinese troll factories.

Lastly, crypto isn't even a huge threat to retail banks, it's the central banks of countries that it disrupts, naturally authoritarian regimes such as the chinese communist party rely the more on currency manipulation via their central banks than most others. Lastly the CCP has a strong desire to make the CNY to be adopted in foreign trade, crypto represents a dual threat in that it damages their domestic control while also threatening CNY gaining use elsewhere.

>>9634512
>durr, why does mike want to "control" (who would want to be lead dev of something they developed??? outrageous) the client he created with gavin
>dueeeeurghh, the blocksize limit is non-urgent but a fee market for Bitcoin that solves a problem we will face in 150 years is
>brainlet.jpg


please fuck off. you aren't misleading anyone with an iq over 65. don't ever call me a summerfag again, shill.

BCH will eventually flip BTC.

I don't like the sounds of this upgrade though.

>>9634565
>get bullshit arguments refuted
>ragequit with even more bullshit arguments
The absolute state of the altcuck.

>>9634570
It's rather obvious all these people aren't from this forum. They try to hard to blend within the 4chan slang by using the word "cuck", Trump memes and hiring a PsyOPs guy like CSW with a cocky personality trying to appeal for the average Trumpfag. It's all so obvious.

>>9634580
>it's urgent to raise the blocksize
>blocks literally empty
>let's put CIAndresen to lead us