What are the downsides to 8MB blocks?

[BitProdigy]

My admittedly very limited understanding: Currently because of the limited block sizes the bitcoin network could never handle the traffic if a large amount of new bitcoin users came online and started using bitcoin. The network would be so slow that people would not have a very good experience.

The solution to this is to increase the block size to 8 MB per block allowing for many more transactions and a much faster network capable of handling an event in which a large amount of new users start using bitcoin.

I don't know of the downside though. Why are so many people against this? I don't understand.

[Amph]

afaik some bandwidth problem for miners(chinese) and probably the fact that 8MB is not a final solution, because you need to fork again in the future, that will arise all the same problems, that we are facing right now, for this size increase

[Kazimir]

8MB per 10 minutes is about 13.6 KB/s. What was the problem again?

Not that I think that simply increasing the block size limit to 8MB is a good solution (I'd rather see something more dynamic) but if 13.6 KB/s is actually a problem, maybe you should fix your internet, rather than debate over Bitcoin.

[DarkHyudrA]

8MB per 10 minutes is about 13.6 KB/s. What was the problem again?

Not that I think that simply increasing the block size limit to 8MB is a good solution (I'd rather see something more dynamic) but if 13.6 KB/s is actually a problem, maybe you should fix your internet, rather than debate over Bitcoin.

But the idea isn't send a block of 8MB in 10 minutes
The higher the block, a few more milliseconds it takes to spread the block with a slightly higher chance of getting orphaned right?

[shorena]

8MB per 10 minutes is about 13.6 KB/s. What was the problem again?

Not that I think that simply increasing the block size limit to 8MB is a good solution (I'd rather see something more dynamic) but if 13.6 KB/s is actually a problem, maybe you should fix your internet, rather than debate over Bitcoin.

Miners cant wait 10 minutes to have their newly mined block trasfered to the next node.

[cellard]

The biggest downside is basically the fact that the blocksize will be bigger, therefore limiting the amount of people that can access to it, or they could still access to it but it will be slower to download it.

[Derrike]

It will solve the spam attacks problem.
And also the transactions with less fee or may be no fee will be confirmed much faster.
But on the down side, the block will take much time to propagate through the network.
So

[gentlemand]

We'll lose all our beloved 1mb maniacs.

[LiteCoinGuy]

the only problem is a group of 5% that want to stay at 1MB forever.

no bandwidth problem. no storage problem.

i would like to see mass adoption. i would like to follow satoshis view of big blocks. i would like to have a permission less and cheap blockchain (cheap transactions) for everybody in the world.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1141086.0

[Kazimir]

It will solve the spam attacks problem.

How is that? What prevents anyone from sending 8 times (or 100 times) as much spam as what we've seen recently?

What we need is a slight change in the default fee setting for Bitcoin nodes, that still allow very cheap payments (also micropayments) but helps against mass spam / dust transactions. Something similar to what Litecoin does, by requiring an additional small fee for each small output in a tx (and perhaps for each small input as well, while we're at it).

[Velkro]

I don't know of the downside though. Why are so many people against this? I don't understand.

By me there is no downsides. Against are only people that have interest in it (building on top of bitcoin other networks like colored coins/lightchain and other garbage projects :/)

[LiteCoinGuy]

It will solve the spam attacks problem.

How is that? What prevents anyone from sending 8 times (or 100 times) as much spam as what we've seen recently?

What we need is a slight change in the default fee setting for Bitcoin nodes, that still allow very cheap payments (also micropayments) but helps against mass spam / dust transactions. Something similar to what Litecoin does, by requiring an additional small fee for each small output in a tx (and perhaps for each small input as well, while we're at it).

100 times more money.

[Derrike]

It will solve the spam attacks problem.

How is that? What prevents anyone from sending 8 times (or 100 times) as much spam as what we've seen recently?

What we need is a slight change in the default fee setting for Bitcoin nodes, that still allow very cheap payments (also micropayments) but helps against mass spam / dust transactions. Something similar to what Litecoin does, by requiring an additional small fee for each small output in a tx (and perhaps for each small input as well, while we're at it).

It will stop spam attacks problem because at this time the blocks are of much less size and many transactions are left in the mem pool.
But by increasing blocks size, the blocks will have more capability to accept more and more transactions(approximately 5 to 8 times the current rate) by which the mem pool will be emptied quickly and our transaction get confirmed quickly, even at the time of a spam attack.

[thejaytiesto]

afaik some bandwidth problem for miners(chinese) and probably the fact that 8MB is not a final solution, because you need to fork again in the future, that will arise all the same problems, that we are facing right now, for this size increase

There will never be a magic final solution. The technology will need to be changed to scale it up over time. The 8mb increase every 2 year scheme by Gavin seems like the most reasonable approach.

[BitProdigy]

Based on these replies it still seems like the best thing to do at the moment. I would rather go through the fork now then have to do it later. Even though another one is necessary later, maybe it won't be necessary until all of the new users who might come to bitcoin are already used to it, instead of having to fork right after they have arrived, scaring them away.

[Snorek]

There are some problems with bigger blocks, as far as I can understand bigger blocks means:

1. You need to have more HDD place to store bigger blockchain.
2. Transactions fees will be actually higher, RIP bitcoin microtransactions.
3. Higher blocks also requires higher internet bandwidth.

[Dire]

This is a good question, I've also wanted to clearly know the answer to this.

What about companies that have API's or have built something connected to the blockchain? Will they have to do something at the fork? All of them? Because I imagine that would be a nightmare to do every two years.

Or is it not like that?

[RoadTrain]

By Jorge Timon: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg01266.html

We've identified a fundamental disagreement in:

- The block size maximum consensus rule serves to limit mining centralization

But as said I believe at least 2 different formal proofs can be
produced that in fact this is the case. One of them (the one I'm
working on) remains true even after superluminal communication, free
unlimited global bandwidth and science fiction snarks.
But let's just list the concerns first.

I believe there's 2 categories:

1) Increasing the block size may increase centralization.

- Mining centralization will get worse (for example, China's aggregate
hashrate becomes even larger)
   - Government control in a single jurisdiction could enforce
transaction censorship and destroy irreversibility of transactions
      - Some use cases that rely on a decentralized chain (like
trustless options) cannot rely on Bitcoin anymore.
      - Reversible transactions will have proportional fees rather
than flat ones.
         - Some use cases that rely on flat fees (like remittance) may
not be practical in Bitcoin anymore
- The full node count will decrease, leaving less resources to serve SPV nodes.

2) Trying to avoid "hitting the limit" permanently minimizes minimum
fees (currently zero) and fees in general

- If fees' block reward doesn't increase enough, the subsidy block
reward may become insufficient to protect the irreversibility of the
system at some point in time, and the system is attacked and destroyed
at that point in time
- Miners will continue to run noncompetitive block creation policies
(ie accepting free transactions)
- More new Bitcoin businesses may be created based on unsustainable
assumptions and consequently fail.
- "Free transactions bitcoin marketing" may continue and users may get
angry when they discover they have been lied about the sustainability
of that property and the reliability of free transactions.

Please suggest more concerns or new categories if you think they're needed.

Look here as well: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12110565#msg12110565

[DarkHyudrA]

This is a good question, I've also wanted to clearly know the answer to this.

What about companies that have API's or have built something connected to the blockchain? Will they have to do something at the fork? All of them? Because I imagine that would be a nightmare to do every two years.

Or is it not like that?

An increase in size of the blocks changes nothing to the nodes and daemons, only, of course, in the main mining code.

[Meuh6879]

8MB per 10 minutes is about 13.6 KB/s. What was the problem again?

upload problem.