Bitcoin Forum

It's been awhile since blocksize has been talked about.. curious to everyones opinion.

I'm not 100% convinced that it is necessary.. I just hope they don't go and screw it up..

Then vote stay the same.

I think a move to 8MB and hold is a safe move.

Eh I'm fine with whatever bitcoin currently is. And I think most opinions about blocksize are still unchanged, you might wanna check the old threads.

I choose 8MB because I think that's what the Chinese miners favor. Without their agreement it's pointless changing the block size, and they don't want anything bigger than 8MB as far as I know. The block size argument is damaging bitcoin's image, and I hope it gets resolved before next year.

Lol what's wrong with 4. I'm not sure that the 4MB option is getting a fair hearing  ;D


(tip: split "miners decide/dynamic" into separate categories, both have separate BIPs that could arguably represent each voting option)

2 MB so we have extra time to work on the Lightning Network. 8 maybe is a good idea too, but it may be too much of a hardcore step of a sudden that may bring some problems. If there is an huge adoption all of a sudden, its not like 8 would be enough anyway, we need LN.

Didn't know 4mB was a thing.. lol.

I am lazy and didn't want to change the poll opitions lol.

Hum.. lots of different opinions... complicates things greatly this does.

Sorry for being such an ignorant noob but how exactly do you place your vote? There is nothing to click.. ??

/thread

(not saying I support 2MB, but even the over-baked BIP101 schedule isn't enough for worldwide levels of adoption, at least according to it's author)

Modest increase or a dynamic block size (BIP100 isn't the only proposal that has this feature). As long as we don't try predicting the future, we should be fine. Also "miners choose/dynamic" doesn't have to necessarily be true. The block size can be dynamic without the miners choosing anything.

I don't know how the dynamic blocksize BIP works, it sounds too good to be true. If it was that easy, we would have selected that method a long time ago, but im sure there are some underlying problems with it.

Every single proposal that has been made has issues and every single proposal that is going to be made in the future will have it's own issues as well. Nothing is perfect, and we can't just rush into unexplored territory. A dynamic block size system like the one in the BIP100 could possibly be cheated for an example (this is just one of the problems that has to be dealt with before one could even consider its implementation in the main chain).

This is my issue with dynamic... The ability to move the fee around to advantage certian parties...

That is why I am in agreement with 8MB.  I don't see it bloating the blockchain too much and the Chinese farms have agreed to 8MB. 2MB just seems so small.

Exactly how do you think that could happen if the dynamic system is based on the size of the previous block (for example)? That's not directly possible. As I've already said dynamic != miners voting. Miners voting is just one option of a dynamic block size.

Exactly.

The choice is not to pick the "perfect" solution, it is to pick the best compromise. In practice, that means picking the most tolerable imperfection, as perfection is not an available option. Or, at least not so far.

Miners with the ability to upload 100mb/s might pump the blocks to their limit until the block size is so large the miners with crappy interwebz can't win a block due to their inability to propegate it.

Although a range of 1MB to 32MB would prevent this or even 8MB top.

I still have pretty much the same opinion: the best way to please everyone is a dynamic blocksize. Not sure what it should depend on, but it's a more flexible solution that may come across almost every user out there.

My main concern is security of the blockchain.  No matter what security is #1, IMO we should always be growing in hashing power.

this can be translated in the fact that what will be the best choice for us, will be the perfect choice that was needed

personally i'm with the dynamic block if it can be implemented well

Increase it! 2MB, 4MB whatever. But decentralisation must be retained! Big blocks and centralization will make us really vulnerable and therefore is strictly to avoid!

What about BIP 103? What about "dont care as long as O(1) propagation + LN is done" and a multitude of other options?

I dont think you can put all possible options in a vote.

Yes, it's been awhile since we had one of these block size increase pools! :)

I say 8MB and keep it there for a while until we don't see the consequences, etc! Even Chinese miners have said yes to 8MB and they were making the most problems about this increase!

Voted 2mb. Maybe more down the line.

2 Mb. Just because it's politically easier to implement. It'll buy us some time.
Time to implement something different, like lightning.

My favorite one - the solution that was suggested at the conference: introduce the second type of blocks that contain transactions only and issued 60 times more often, every 10 seconds or so. Those blocks are not for determining winner of reward, so they won't cause orphan problems. This solution will give us 60 times more space for transactions and reduce confirmation time 60-fold!  I think it is the perfect solution, even better than lightning, since it's not hub-based.

1 MB forever

That's a really good idea, I wonder why that hasn't been attracting more attention? That's the first time I've heard that idea, I kind of like it.

I think it should be dynamic, or even just for a week, we try our am the options, and miners vote on a specific option. That way we'll get the best option possible.

This sounds like a wise plan.

is my understanding correct...is the controversy over block larger size...going from 1mb to 2mb or 8mb or even higher... due to the fact that it would be more costly to run full nodes...being that 2mb is more costly to purchase than 1 mb?

I wonder myself  ???  Here is the link to the paper. https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/presentations/Day1/8-Ittay-eyal-testbed-for-bitcoin-scaling.pdf
The description is in the second half, it's called Bitcoin-NG.
I've found some articles about it http://hackingdistributed.com/2015/10/14/bitcoin-ng/, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-ng-or-how-cornell-researchers-think-a-radical-redesign-can-solve-bitcoin-s-scaling-issues-1447108649
And here is the discussion or Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3or365/bitcoinng_proposal_for_a_secure_faster_better/

Thanks Wary, I'm going to take a look at that info.

Im in favor of BIP 105 or something similar.

I did not vote because I feel that any scaling strategy should involve more that one dimension, i.e. the blocksize cannot be determined on its own in isolation of everything else.

It was super annoying to see big block pushers who kept screaming "Blocksize must go up because Bitcoin needs to scale!" whereas six months ago they probably had no experience and no clue as to what scaling a distributed system involves. They seem to have shut up a bit now.

everyone's opinion is still the same.

bitcoin will fail if we increase blocksize
and
bitcoin will fail if we dont increase blocksize.   

i can't say i am glad to see this post.  blocksize debate is getting tired.

Those non mining blocks for transactions sounds very promising.

Wrong, Bitcoin will never fail, universe will collapse before it fails. Lightning Network will allow to payments to scale globally, without the need of an insane block size will would surely result in corporations running nodes instead of random people all over the planet. Don't be a pessimist, we are making solid progress.

You're the one who's wrong and who isn't reading anything. If we increase with the right proposal Bitcoin will not fail. If we do not do anything Bitcoin will also not fail. Bitcoin has already succeeded.

That's sounding super well-rounded to me, +1

4MB max in 2016, doubling at the halvings. (2MB would/could/should have been the limit at the drop to 25btc block rewards.)

Growth in the max could be halted or slowed by soft fork if alternative scaling solutions present themselves and are proven to be both functional and desired by the market.  


There's something nice about the available space in a block for fee paying txs doubling at the same time the reward is cut.

IMO they need to figure out some limit which reflects the limits of technology ( today's avg internet speeds ) and just hardcore the limit to that, that's it.

This is the solution that came out of people associated with p2ppool: fold p2ppool protocol into core protocol as a proof-of-propagation through proof-of-work. It is at over a year old, I've discussed it on this board in October 2014:
 
Re: Increasing the block size is a good idea; 50%/year is probably too aggressive 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=815712.msg9245823#msg9245823

and I don't recall if I haven't seen it elsewhere before.

But then as usual within the Bitcoin milieu: it is more interesting to try to follow who was opposing that type of proposal and with what kind of argumentation; e.g.

A loner, Dottie. A rebel.

 8)

Bitcoin is going fine as is. Do we really want to change this greatness not knowing what is going to happen? The 1MB block size was made to stop spam and we should keep it that way. Bitcoin doesn't need to change so why are we arguing about this.

Thoughtless increase of the block size leads to more monopolization of mining. So I'm more inclined to option 2 megabytes. This is the best option at the moment.

Perhaps 8MB is too much then... hum..  2MB just seems like such a small step. 

4 or 8 to start.  I submitted a proposal to the conference (which was rejected), 4-8-16-32, doubling every year.  If it started at 8, it could double every two years.

I'm a firm believer that in the short term, it would be really stupid for us to cap user growth.  It would be stupid for us to cap user growth in any time frame, but there are other scaling solutions that will work or are highly likely to work, they just happen to be one, two or three years away from being implemented.  That is the gap we need to bridge.

I am completely comfortable capping at 32MB for now (for the foreseeable future), and to understand why, lets look at some rough numbers.

32-MB would allow for 60-Million tx per week, and 3-Billion tx per year.  I see the Lightning Network as a certainty, but one that is understandably taking time to implement.  Lightning will have a multiplier effect, so that each on-chain transaction will be able to back some greater-number of lightning transactions.  What is unclear is what this multiple will be, and the multiple itself will like grow with time as the lightning network grows and matures.  It could be 10-1 or 100-1 within a few years of being implemented.  So in a sense, the total bitcoin transaction rate could be as high as 1,000 tx/sec or 10,000 tx/sec using those two multiples as examples.  That is based off the idea of a 32-MB block yielding 100 on-chain tx/sec, multiplied by 10 and 100.

Even though the number of tx/sec could essentially be unlimited with lightning, the number of USERS who have access to the blockchain would effectively still be finite.  Lets imagine Lightning taking on the role of today's credit cards.  Users would need to settle on occasion, at least monthly.  32-MB blocks would allow roughly 200-Million people to each make a single monthly transaction.  Considering the fee market under such conditions, the idea of paying $1 for a monthly settlement transaction seems reasonable, though perhaps on the expensive side, and $0.33 per tx shouldn't dissuade any phone / computer user from participating.  Those two fee rates would generate $3-billion and $1-billion per year in total fees, respectively, which will go a long way towards paying for network security.

Bitcoin-NG.  I've read the paper (and understand 95% of it).  I think it will work, and it solves a few of the trickiest scaling problems. The Bitcoin-NG system eliminates miner-bandwidth differentials as a source of centralizing pressure.  Single-packet latency sill matters, as it does currently, but such is unaffected by block size.  With NG, it becomes reasonable to use a significant fraction of a user or miners total available bandwidth and processing power to process blocks.  A 20% capacity on a 20-Mbit/s connection can yield 30-MB / minute, which would give the equivalent of 300-MB blocks under the current system.  Such would have a native, on-chain capacity of 1,000 tx/sec, for 600-million monthly users, who should each be able to perform 10's to 100's of Lightning transactions per month.

And Sidechains... they hold great promise as well, but they are not as well defined as Lightning or NG.

Hopefully we can all see that 32-MB blocks can get us very far when combined with Lightning, so it should be safe for Bitcoin as medium or long-term cap  Bitcoin-NG will allow Bitcoin blocks to effectively be some multiple larger than they otherwise would, say 5x to 10x.  In the short term, we must expand capacity to grow the system.  Choking off user growth is the biggest security risk to the network.  Big blocks have their own issues, but 4 or 8 MB would not materially change the centralization pressures today, and 32-MB will not either, say 4 or 6 years out, as electricity costs continue to dominate the equation.

you seem to have a handle on this....what happens when there is a paradigm shift in electrical generation....granted not 4-6 years out ..but maybe in 20 yrs or so when nuclear fusion could be a reality.

There are too many variables at play to know what 20-years out looks like, and dozens of different hypotheses would probably all be just as likely.  It's really important to keep in mind that if bitcoin is still around in 6 to 10 years from now, the user base will be much, much bigger.  There will probably be a thousand core-devs.  Governance of protocol and code bases will probably be handled very differently than they are now.  With different stakeholders and different methods, Bitcoin will most likely move in directions that today do not seem possible.  We need to keep the torch going so that we may pass it on, and with all luck, things will head in a direction that would make us all - or most of us at least - proud.

Bitcoin is already on it's second generation of users and custodians.  It is not the same group that was using it in 2010-2012.  Sure, many of us are still here, and with big roles in today's community, but we have had to welcome, or grudgingly accept, the inclusion of banks, V.C. firms, governmental rulings, and large bitcoin companies in the process.  There is also far more research and thinking going on, so the technology keeps getting better too.

i am merely describing the sentiment of the agenda and fan boys (either side).

"If we do not do anything Bitcoin will also not fail. Bitcoin has already succeeded. "



in order to cap user growth as you say it first has to be at a maximum.  which it is nowhere near.