Interesting....



  • @theoneandonely tec yes thats a simple solution but then you get the issue of the ever growing block chain growing much faster. anyone running a local wallet has to store a copy of the block chain on the computer and it's growing in size every 4 min so you would want to keep the block size as small as posible or in a few years you end up with GIGANTIC data base and will turn people away from running node's witch will weaken the network



  • Ah okay, thank you I understand now.



  • @theoneandonely several solutions i have see tossed around is lower the block target forge from 4 min to 2 min and cut block forge payout by 50% to keep the minting of new coins the same but dubble the # of transaction's , the con to this is you also dubble the work done by mining equip and reduce HDD life, also it would add Electic cost. another popular one is to make the blocks bigger like you sugested and offset the size with a Data base "lite" wallet witch would only store a protion of the block chain like say the last 100k block's but make anyone running a pool or solo mining use the full block chain , with a drive for the people that can also host full chain's.



  • @Gibsalot You sum it very well but i am pretty sure those are not the only options and i know there is another backup plans to solve this issues... Many things can be done if we think outside the box and we have a lot of good people around here that are amazing in exactly that xP



  • @gpedro im sure there are many more possible solutions being discussed and the final solution has probly not even been thought of yet. i was just going for the ones i have seen discussed in a few places.



  • @Gibsalot Well the 2nd one seems pretty solid in my eyes right now. And people could still vouluntarily download the full blockchain if they want... But I dont get the 1st solution. Wouldnt halving the block time (4 minutes to 2 minutes) also be doubeling the transaction number which means the size could theoretically double per block. Which eventually means the same problem as the 2nd one only that the 2nd solution also provides a solution to this problem!



  • @gibsalot I think you are on the right track here. Some of us have been here since the coins infancy and certain people have brought it to where we are now. At this point a plan to fix it is the next step. Create a special committe to put forward solutions with the pros and cons. We do advise from a new person who has experience with altcoins and wallets not sure who that could be. Someone who has a long standing coin now?



  • @Burstde a fix will need to be put in place eventuly , i dont think we are in any rush to do so as the community still has room to grow. what we need is a constructive group disscussion for anyone in the community to throw out idea's and anyone can way the pro's and con's , also with actual coder's who know the system to way in and say weather or not thats acctuly how it work's or could be done. im not a coder at all, im self taught computer litterite lol i can install windows and most prog but have trouble changing setings on my phone lol.



  • Well why don't we be a test case for increasing block size, let's be conservative and say x2, that way we can get a gage on how much block chain bloat occurs.



  • @socal increasing size need hardfork



  • @Gibsalot what about a variable block size? (255 to 65025) that would allow the system to handle spikes.



  • @socal like @LithStud stated any change to the way blocks work would be a hard fork, witch means the whole network has to switch to the new chain, or risk a split in the community and burst becoming two coins. @iKnow0 that would be a def contender in my book no idea what it would take to code somthing like that im sure its possible.



  • @Gibsalot I know it would take a hardfork and now that I think about it I know Adam and his goons would fight it just because it's an issue he is causing and the solution came from us



  • @socal i dont think he would fight aginsed a hard fork , hes a smart guy and he knows that for burst to get as big as he says it will a change will have to happen , i see him more fighting over witch solution is best vs no fix at all.



  • I hope that doesn't happen..



  • I'm pretty sure Adam has his reasons for doing whatever he's doing. From what I know he's a huge Burst supporter so I'm sure everything he does is to help the community or the coin in any kind of way.


  • admin

    @shbour Feel free to explain how the community being unable to use the coin is good for either the community or the coin.


  • admin

    @iKnow0 a variable blocksize is the way to go in my opinion but not to handle spikes, to handle real growth of transactions volume. This is the exact opposite. If someone wants to fill up the blocks with dust, he has to pay the price for it.

    @Gibsalot The problem I see today is that the Wallet GUI doesn't check and recommend you to increase the fee during high load times for an instant transaction. This fix is only in the graphical interface and solves the problem.

    Increasing the block size will just lead to more spam, because it will get cheaper. Miners will earn less and we additionally have the worst situation ever to face a hard fork. Hard forks should only be done when there is a technical problem in the protocol and everybody agrees on fixing it.

    Better send some Burst in @LithStud 's direction, so he is motivated to implement the solution I mentioned above. -> BURST-S94A-Z3T5-TDZT-AK6NB



  • @iKnow0 block size isnt limited by amount of transactions but rather than size. we have a limit of 44kb per block now if that was varriable. we would be onto a winner



  • @Lexicon What was the logic in having a fixed limit of 44kb per block? Would there be any downside to increasing it?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Burst - Efficient HDD Mining was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.