Proposing "Bitcoin Core Unlimited"

locuester · 2時間前

I've never told anyone, but that's been my Raspberry Pi 2 node's policy for almost a year. No limit bitcoin is the answer to long term running a node. I don't have to worry about upgrading unless there is some protocol change other than blocksize. I merge those in manually, increment the version, and deploy.

For anyone clicking that link, the node is down right now. That's a first for such an extended period, but I've got a lot of network changes going on at home so it doesn't surprise me. Someone might have screwed up a port forwarding address on our outer firewall.

yeeha4 · 5時間前

/r/bitcoin_unlimited

peoplma · 2時間前

Here's an off the cuff idea. Why not make a cutoff so that blocks are deemed invalid if not received after a certain amount of time has passed after the timestamp in the header. Say... 2-3min, clock starts at the moment the node begins downloading it (plenty of time to propagate through the entire network). This will make extremely large blocks invalid because they won't propagate fast enough, so protects against artificially big block attacks by miners. Additionally, it scales the block size limit with bandwidth availability of the network inherently, as bandwidth gets better larger and larger blocks can propagate in 2min. So take the cap off block size completely and instead make blocks that are too old "time out" and become invalid and not recognized by the nodes.

This would also protect against selfish mining.

kingofthejaffacakes · 1時間前

Strongly agree.

The limit was put in to prevent spam; but that spam has failed to materialise. In fact, in terms of malicious actions, it would be cheap to attack bitcoin right now by filling every block to make a denial-of-service.

I've often wondered why, when discussing potential governmental attacks on bitcoin, everyone goes straight for "it would be cheap (on government scales) to buy enough hashing power to get 51% of the network", when it would be even cheaper to buy enough bitcoins bounce 1MB worth of transactions (with fees) backward and forward for a few months.

That attack is enabled precisely because there is a limit.

What's best of all is that the patch is basically two lines to core (there's no reason to bundle other changes with it, that only complicated the debate).

if (blockHeight > SOME_NUMBER)
  hardlimit = UINT_MAX;

(Obviously not that, but you get the idea).

cypherdoc2 · 4時間前

This is the right answer, imo.

We might as well go for it now. This would be the only way to maximize Bitcoin's potential. We can always soft fork down if necessary.

The motivation of the communities economic actors is infinite because fiat money printing is infinite.

And Bitcoin really is about Sound Money.

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-23#post-738

randy-lawnmole · 2時間前

I tend to agree with this in principle. However it needs to be done in combination with some increased incentives to run a full node.

lucasjkr · 1時間前

Problem with this approach is that the true, believers that "core" is the one true way, will go out out of their way to make huge blocks just to break it, never mind that if no limit had been imposed by Satoshi way back when (instead just relying on fees to limit spam), then there'd likely be no problem these days...

kcfnrybak · 1時間前

This would effectively solve the "Fidelity Problem".

Guy_Tell · 1時間前

the community will immediately try hard to make an even better Bitcoin successor

Wishful-thinking words from a man who obviously has no stake in Bitcoin.

If you want people to invest in Bitcoin, they need to have confidence that the system is stable and secure. That's why the Core devs are so careful about security and changes.

If every 5 years we need to reboot from a new cryptocurrency because we killed the previous one, people won't invest in it anymore and moreover all of the network effect built during these years will be lost (infrastructure, smartest devs working on Bitcoin, wealth distribution, etc...).

Bitcoin fully benefits from the Lindy effect, in other words time is playing in Bitcoin's favor. The longer Bitcoin survives => the longer (remaining) life expectancy => the more confidence people have in it => the more value it gains.

I fear very much killing Bitcoin because we may not have another chance in our life time.

rino2012 · 1時間前

Decentralizing power from the core devs is usu. a good idea imo. In this case, we'd be offloading block size decisions onto the mining community, and they have always walked back from the 50% centralization threshold, if for nothing else than keeping their coins valuable.

SoCo_cpp · 1時間前

There was a limit for a reason! This hippy shit may be emotionally appealing to people who don't understand what a blocksize is, but it fails all technical merit.

bitcoinxt

調停者