Online Cash Bitcoin Could Challenge Governments, Banks

As I understand it, the increased network traffic is only between the network nodes involved in the transaction verification, eh? Speeding up validation of transactions with an increased blocksize only happens at each node involved in the transaction verification, i.e. each node must agree on the change. Centralization vs. decentralization is an architecture feature of the network connections.

The questions I am asking is how does increased blocksize favor centralizaion over decentralization, and how does freezing blocksize favor decentralization?

Are you saying that the architecture of the network (decentralization vs. centralization) is dynamically malleable?

What I don't understand is how can a difference in blocksize matter if for example with increased blocksize, granted there is more network traffic to move, but the assumption that more network traffic moving implies centralization over decentralization seems to me to be something that needs to be determined in terms of whether or not that behavior is detrimental or not (as you say favors centralization - i.e. centralization not being favored as a preferred transaction attribute).

Just because centralized computers are assumed to be faster (more powerful) in order to process more transactions per unit time in terms of transaction throughput, does not mean that with more (increased) network traffic between network nodes implies an imbalance in the approval throughput of a decentralized network solution afaik. There probably are dependencies, but why should blocksize be the determining factor that regulates the network throughput, and thus favors any approach over another?

So, has anyone done any testing of the increased blocksize and what were their results?

-- Tom


-- Tom

 

Well, the thing is that every full client must have a copy of the blockchain. So there's increased traffic for all full clients.

I don't think that small-blocksize advocates are arguing that increasing blocksize will immediately increase traffic levels, or immediately favor centralization over decentralization. It's just, they argue, that increasing blocksize will allow the system to grow larger. In perhaps a wasteful way. And become more centralized, because fewer participants will be able to handle the traffic.

Sure. I could be running a full node, and then pull the plug because it's using too much bandwidth.

It's a "we hate banks" vibe

Again, as I understand it, increased blocksize will make a more capable system possible, and that will eventually push more traffic. If blocksize isn't increased, low-priority transactions just won't be completed. The system will self-limit, and remain decentralized.

I don't think that it's that sort of argument. It's about how the system will evolve, not how it will work now.

But maybe I'm just confused

 

Thanks mirimir - maybe I'm just confused too!

-- Tom

 

It seems to me that hardware and bandwidth issues are going to become formidable using either model (blocksize paradigm) for homeowner type participants. If you forecast out 5 years you can get a feel for where the total blockchain size is headed. Now a newbie wants to run a full node. Starting from scratch that'll be tera if not peta bytes. Even though the blockchain will be over 10 years old at that point, you still have to be able to move a genesis block coin address if an early adopter decides to move coins.

Now enter the possibility of running 50K transactions a second and maybe more if things took off. All the full nodes are mining and keeping the total blockchain in "sync" and they are tasked with confirmations on a huge scale. We will configure some streamlining of the process but still the bandwidth won't run on a dsl line as we know them now!! Who knows what side channels, mini-forks, etc... may be implemented. But it all has to be preserved as a unit to maintain complete integrity.

If Bitcoin is still around and functioning I am betting I wouldn't recognize what it'll be if I looked at it today without being able to watch it "evolve" for those 5 years.

If my basic speculation/analysis proves correct, it would in essence have impact on what might appear to be centralization. That isn't really an accurate definition of the word, but it will for sure impact the number of node operators because a casual/infrequent user won't run one.

 

This shows some promise. They are working on the "trust issues" part of the math sequencing. If this holds water after being examined top to bottom, then much of the blocksize argument would in essence be moot. Not totally, but transaction speed time is currently an impediment for many. It isn't for me because my transactions don't need lightning speeds.

I am not totally sold on this but it is a definite "watcher" and possible game changer!

 

Behind the Biggest Bitcoin Heist in History: Inside the Implosion of Mt. Gox dated May 19, 2016

-- Tom

 

Built for Bitcoin, Blockchain Goes Beyond Crypto-Currency

-- Tom

 

Even the US Postal service wants to start using blockchain tech

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurit...ice-wants-start-using-blockchain-tech/128597/

 

One of the biggest bitcoin startups just took 'bitcoin' out of its Twitter bio

-- Tom

 

Ethereum Developer Explores the Dark Side of Bitcoin-Inspired Technology

-- Tom

 

Ethereum’s $150-Million Blockchain-Powered Fund Opens Just as Researchers Call For a Halt

-- Tom

 

Mt. Gox trustee wraps up claim reviews, millions in refunds available/

-- Tom

 

By Chris Foxx

Australia to sell £8m of seized bitcoins - BBC News

 

Researchers Criticize New DAO Ethereum VC Fund

Note: The linked file in the above quote can be downloaded (in several formats) by visiting the linked file, and selecting "Download as" from the embedded view of the file under "File" below the Title "A Call for a Temporary Moratorium on “The DAO”".

-- Tom

 

A Call for a Temporary Moratorium on “The DAO”.

-- Tom

 

We are watching this one over at btc talk too.

 

The Uncanny Mind That Built Ethereum

-- Tom

 

Hacker May Have Taken $50 Million From Cybercurrency Project

-- Tom

 

Bitcoin Guarantees Strong, not Eventual, Consistency

-- Tom

 

DAO May Be Dead After $60 Million Theft

-- Tom

 

An open letter from attacker: http://pastebin.com/CcGUBgDG

 

Andrew O'Hagan has written a very long article on Bitcoin / Wright / Nakamoto in the London Review of Books.
The most extensive account I have read ..... by a long way .....
Fact , fiction , a bit of both ... who knows ?