全 63 件のコメント

[–]iWeyerd 39ポイント40ポイント  (4子コメント)

Blocks not to scale..

[–]bakonydraco 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

By my estimation, the bigger block has sides 1.41 times that of the smaller block, so the volume is 2.81 times greater. Maybe it's 7 times as dense?

[–]ericools 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's bigger on the inside.

[–]Cross_of_Coronado 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And Matthew McConaughey is in there, trying to give us a massage.

[–]paavokoya 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Grower not a shower

[–]d4d5c4e5 19ポイント20ポイント  (5子コメント)

Next stop: 2038.

[–]rabbitlion 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

And after that, 2100...

[–]TNoD 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You mean 15:30:08 on Sunday, 4 December 292,277,026,596...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem#Solutions

[–]rabbitlion 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

2100 is a separate problem, that many applications will not take into account the lack of a leap year.

[–]exdirrk 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Noooo I want to go back in time

[–]FaceDeer 98ポイント99ポイント  (21子コメント)

It's a good analogy. Y2k turned out to be a non-disaster because there was a huge amount of concern about it beforehand, leading to a huge amount of effort being put into preventing the problem. Had it been ignored there would have been trouble.

[–]batquux 46ポイント47ポイント  (4子コメント)

Thank you for acknowledging this. People like to make fun of Y2K as a big hyped up non-issue, but I was one of the millions of IT workers putting in hundreds of millions of hours to fix it before it hit the fan.

[–]ColaEuphoria 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Did programmers in the 1980s actually believe the year 2000 would never come? It feels like that's how they acted.

[–]rnicoll 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Generally it was presumed the code would be replaced long before 2000.

Edit: In much the same way everyone's saying "Oh we'll fix block limits another way before they're an issue"

[–]NotADovakin -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was a problem that was more than a decade away, and large integers were expensive.

[–]EivindBerge 16ポイント17ポイント  (11子コメント)

A good analogy, except there was no one actively opposing efforts to deal with the Y2K problem. Bitcoin is not so lucky, since we have people opposing a fix for ideological reasons.

[–]Economist_hat 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Bitcoin is not so lucky, since we have people opposing a fix for ideological reasons.

And we need those people in order to make a change.

For the Y2K bug, you could work on your own Y2K problems regardless of what others felt.

[–]lifeboatz 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

there was no one actively opposing efforts to deal with the Y2K problem.

I'll mildly disagree with this. People were actively opposed to the costs involved, and writing the check. But then all you had to do was say "OK, so we'll put your name down as the executive that signed off on no Y2K expenses....", and then the money would flow.

You can bet that Peter Todd would be one who steps forward and says "I told ya so" if there's any glitch in moving to bigger blocks.

[–]allenpiscitello 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

If you think they are opposing for ideological reasons, you don't understand why people are against it.

[–]dumptrucks 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

It certainly is an ideological debate.

Whether Bitcoin should be a 'store of value' or a currency that everyone uses to buy coffees with, is an ideological question directly related to block size.

[–]Taek42 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's definitely partially ideological. Larger blocks hurt decentralization, even if they don't hurt small miners. Wanting more and easier validating nodes is more of an ideological problem than a fundamental network security problem.

I say this as someone who opposes block size increases mostly because I believe that it's better to have read-access to the blockchain than it is to have write-access to the blockchain. That's an ideological belief.

[–]allenpiscitello 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

The ideological reasons come from technical arguments, though. Certainly ideology plays a part.

[–]Noosterdam 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

A lot of people are working on alternatives to raising the blocksize, though, because there's also an "OMG centralization" angle. It's a matter of, "What do we do about blocksize to avoid Scylla (the possible crash landing of full blocks and backlog) and Charybdis (possible centralization concerns from large blocks)?"

[–]aaaaaaaarrrrrgh 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

OMG centralization

20 MB blocks mean that a non-mining full node needs ~270 kbit/s downstream. Since you also want control traffic, tx's that get sent to you outside of blocks, ... make that 1 Mbit/s. If you can watch Netflix on your device without puking pixels, you can run a full node.

Now, upstream for miners is a bit more difficult. If you want to reduce the risk of your block being orphaned, you want to push it out fast. If you want less than a 1% chance of someone else mining a block while you upload yours, that would be 100 times as much, so ~ 30 Mbit. Let's make that 150 so you can upload your block to five people at the same time. That costs you around seven bucks a month. This is, of course, assuming you don't use a mining pool anyways, which you likely will if you're small enough to worry about things like that. Or you can simply mine empty blocks, if that's what you choose to do. Then your additional outbound bandwidth requirements are 0.

Coincidentally, one such box will also supply the required bandwidth to feed 200+ full nodes during the 99.99+% of the time where you aren't uploading your block.

[–]my_blue_snog_box 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Upvote for both good points and referencing Scylla and Charybdis.

[–]donbrownmon[🍰] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

A lot of people are working on alternatives to raising the blocksize

Lightning Network will also need a blocksize increase, I understand.

[–]Noosterdam 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

True eventually. Right now everyone is for raising the blocksize "eventually," and LN does work at current blocksize, so it's not really relevant to the present consensus-making.

[–]rnicoll 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed - coverage of Y2k bugs the hell out of me. Having known people auditing and fixing the code, maybe we weren't going to see civilization fall (certainly, I was in my house with no substantial food stocks - I know others who did buy several months of food ahead though), but a LOT of code was fixed, and incredible numbers of systems upgraded or replaced in time for y2k, and I have no doubt we would have seen widespread disruption and failures otherwise.

[–]Sherlockcoin[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, without that effort it would have been like this: http://www.oocities.org/familyguymoments/203/203_10.jpg

[–]Natanael_L 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

There were actually systems including nuclear reactor systems with two digit time counters. Far more code than you think is clock e dependent.

[–]Introshine 26ポイント27ポイント  (0子コメント)

I did a lot of programming before 2000 to fix old databases and IBM systems. It would have been messy if all that work was not done. We had a team of 15 guys working for 4 months to only fix a few networks/companies.

[–]BrainlessTales 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

I originally made the Y2K as my 2,000th comic. :) It's fun to see one other than the roller coaster in here. http://www.brainlesstales.com/2012-10-26/omg-y2k

[–]dapea 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You'd be great on Catch Phrase!

[–]michelfo 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think a better comparison would be the transition IPv6. We've been out of IPv4 addresses for some time, but things continue to work mostly because many people/devices are behind a Network Address Translation. Many things are tricky to do when you're behind NAT, but it's rather hard to see when IPv6 will become mainstream at this point.

Similarly, we could extend the block size, but this is a protocol change. Changing a protocol implemented by many systems all around the world gets trickier and trickier with time (especially if it isn't a trivial change). If we can't figure out how to make the block size higher, we might be condemned to workaround solutions (sidechains, side channels...) for a long time, like NAT is essential for IPv4 right now.

[–]xd1gital 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The transition to IP6 is different because the Internet Protocol 4 is built into hardware already. Right now with bitcoin we still have chance to make changes in the protocol until it's too late

[–]aminok 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Bitcoin could still successfully pull off a hard fork.

[–]aaaaaaaarrrrrgh 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

I guess Y2K was the opposite of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Had literally nothing been done to prepare, some of the more tame doomsday scenarios would likely have been pretty realistic. Since a lot was done, nothing happened, and everyone is now making fun of the doomsday scenarios.

[–]pinhead26 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

...and last year it was GHash reaching 51%.

[–]petertoddPeter Todd - Bitcoin Expert 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

Do you realize how much the response to GHash reaching 51% spooked GHash themselves? They invited myself, Jeff Garzik, and a bunch of other representatives from the mining, investment, banking, VC, and payments sides of the Bitcoin ecosystem to an emergency meeting to figure out what to do about it. A common thread among the investors/VC's there is that GHash reaching 51% seriously called into question the value of the Bitcoin ecosystem, and that GHash should be taking this seriously as they're shooting themselves in the foot. The outcome of that meeting was a vague plan to limit the size of the GHash pool, which I suspect they actually implemented by pointing their hashing power to other pools to cover up their total hashing power - although I have no way of knowing. Far from an ideal response, but a lot better than the outcome would have been if there had been no community outcry at all.

[–]jimmydorry 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is interesting and I feel it is worthy of a separate reddit post.

[–]_Mr_E 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So you're saying the incentives worked?

[–]Noosterdam 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

With a community of people many of whose life savings hang in the balance, there is always something to fret about.

[–]redfacedquark 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The main difference is that y2k was many thousands of different software systems in various states of abandonment. Bitcoin is a small number of apps still under active development.

[–]BS_Filter 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I haven't met a single person that doesn't want 20MB blocks. So who are these people?

[–]magrathea1 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

mac users not affected?

[–]rydan 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

No they weren't. When I was a kid in the 80s I regularly just pumped the calendar decades if not centuries into the future.

[–]magrathea1 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I know.. It was a joke... I've been a mac user since the fat mac

[–]HvyD 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This all to prop up the Technology and make it more robust, push out the token. With this split, the original will dive down to make room for the new. The new will be starting Fresh at the bottom. This is a path to make the token obsolete to push forward the technology.

[–]the_sunship 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

i want my c crane wind up radio....

[–]EivindBerge 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Let's get this fixed, preferably with dynamic increases, and then we can all party like it's 1999. It's hard to appreciate Bitcoin until this issue is resolved.

[–]Yacuna_Benjamin 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Glad to see that you used our blocksize graphic for this :) Happy to support the cryptocurrency community

[–]Sherlockcoin[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes Yacuna , good images ;) I hope the exchange is also good..

[–]catsfive 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It seems to me that 1MB is actually a good limit. And limits can actually work in our favour. Am I an idiot? (There, that'll get this reply started on the right foot.) I am not necessarily comfortable with Bitcoin growing and developing into doing things other than just being a currency. Maybe I'm a n00b, but, how much more information does a transaction need to have? Are we weaving V8 contracts into the blockchain, now?

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]waigl 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I can only assume you have never actually seen a Commodore 64 or a typewriter. This doesn't look like either.

    [–]knahrvorn 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Actually it doesn't look like a typical computer from 2000, either :-)

    [–]MeanOfPhidias -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yeah, it's about as big a deal too