What is the best block size limit?

[stuff0577]

Any Idea on what is the best number? or a dynamic one will do.

please share your Idea. Thanks

[el kaka22]

Any Idea on what is the best number? or a dynamic one will do.

please share your Idea. Thanks

I think a dynamic one is fine. We can use data such as addresses used within last n blocks (i.e. popularity of BTC that time).
However, the current 1MB limit is fine for the current popularity. When BTC get more popularity, then 2MB would be fine that time, etc.

[Undermood]

This is what we have been debating! There are a lot of related threads about same topic! OP, please search before you post a topic! IMO many ppl bother to reply to the same questions.

[oblivi]

Any Idea on what is the best number? or a dynamic one will do.

please share your Idea. Thanks

I think a dynamic one is fine. We can use data such as addresses used within last n blocks (i.e. popularity of BTC that time).
However, the current 1MB limit is fine for the current popularity. When BTC get more popularity, then 2MB would be fine that time, etc.

Yeah but the thing is
1) You have to have your block size ready BEFORE the surge in popularity happens to avoid the network being bloated.
2) If a dynamic solution was that easy it would already been implemented, I think there are some serious difficulties behind this method. I would like some experts to address this more technically. It obviously sounds like the most logical answer, but I don't know the details and cons of actually implementing it.

[quietguy]

Dynamic is good. but raising it to a solid 20mb would suffice for many years to come

[ashour]

It is really difficult to say, different people need different block sizes. Some people/companies profit with small block size and some with big blocks sizes. I think that a auto-adjustable block size fork would be the best solution for the current block debate.

[knight22]

Remove the limit completely. It's useless and does not provide any real protection.

[coalitionfor8mb]

8MB is the answer.

As of right now We Stand Divided.

If in order for us to move forward we need to Grow Up and fork Bitcoin, we should.

YouShould.

[LiteCoinGuy]

the best would be to increase it slowly over time.

an 25-30% increase per years should be fine.

[VeritasSapere]

The block size limit should be based on the limitations of the technology at the time. It should be increased, since one megabyte is just an arbitrary number and does not reflect the limitations of our technology today. Not having a blocksize limit at all might work as well, since miners have full discretion in terms of which and how many transactions they include in the blocks that they mine.

[CounterEntropy]

Dynamic block size limit is the best any day.

Check BIP 106: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0106.mediawiki

[stuff0577]

Dynamic block size limit is the best any day.

Check BIP 106: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0106.mediawiki

Yeah It's think It will be the best option. but we have to consider security the most

[Quantus]

I would leave it at 1MB till every block is 90%+ full for 6 months. If fees go above 15 cents we could bump it up to 1.5MB with out to many issues. If the miners are using all the space.


I'm not worried about the sky falling because the only people using Bitcoin right now are those that have no other choice but to use it and the fanatics, the diehards, the believers.
Even if every full node on the planet melted into slag we could still resurrect the network if we have a copy of the blockchain.

[Amph]

Dynamic block size limit is the best any day.

Check BIP 106: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0106.mediawiki

is this working in this way?

if we reach 2mb traffic the client change automatically the limit to two, if we reach 4mb the client change again to 4mb, etc...?

if this is correct and it working as intended, i think it's the best solution out there

[Lauda]

Remove the limit completely. It's useless and does not provide any real protection.

No. Flawed papers on how the fee market exists without a limit should not be looked at as the ultimate solution.

Dynamic is good. but raising it to a solid 20mb would suffice for many years to come

This would cause the propagation time to be too long, and would cause quite the problems. The orphan rates would spike every now and then.

@OP I do not think that we could decide on a single block size limit to be the "best". Maybe even if we did, it would be the "best" today, but what about tomorrow?  This discussion has been going on for quite a long time. There is no concurrent problem either. In my own opinion, I would probably agree to a dynamic block size limit with certain limitations/rules.

[fairglu]

Dynamic is good. but raising it to a solid 20mb would suffice for many years to come

This would cause the propagation time to be too long, and would cause quite the problems. The orphan rates would spike every now and then.

Propagation times and orphan rates would pretty much guarantee that very large blocks would be orphaned.
No thrifty pool operator would make large blocks anyway beyond a few experiments: it just would not be worth the orphan risk unless those large blocks are full of high fee tx (and even then)

There are already regularly nearly empty and fully empty blocks because of propagation and orphan issues.

IMHO the block size debate is like counting angels on a pinhead: it is rather pointless unless propagation & orphan issues are fixed.

[coalitionfor8mb]

Dynamic is good. but raising it to a solid 20mb would suffice for many years to come

This would cause the propagation time to be too long, and would cause quite the problems. The orphan rates would spike every now and then.

Propagation times and orphan rates would pretty much guarantee that very large blocks would be orphaned.
No thrifty pool operator would make large blocks anyway beyond a few experiments: it just would not be worth the orphan risk unless those large blocks are full of high fee tx (and even then)

There are already regularly nearly empty and fully empty blocks because of propagation and orphan issues.

IMHO the block size debate is like counting angels on a pinhead: it is rather pointless unless propagation & orphan issues are fixed.

If we look at it in Fairlight, fairglu , we will understand that removing the limit altogether (or placing it too high) creates an incentive to do just that (fix propagation & orphan issues), which in turn allows the network to consolidate around high-bandwidth lanes leaving the home-based demographic out of the picture, while Bitcoin becomes nothing but a Dead Ringer to its true self.

Oh, and by the way, truth doesn't need a BIP.  

[LiteCoinGuy]

Dynamic block size limit is the best any day.

Check BIP 106: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0106.mediawiki

is this working in this way?

if we reach 2mb traffic the client change automatically the limit to two, if we reach 4mb the client change again to 4mb, etc...?

if this is correct and it working as intended, i think it's the best solution out there

but what is the limit? otherwise some miner could force the system to adapt 3 GB blocks within 1 year or so.

[Mickeyb]

the best would be to increase it slowly over time.

an 25-30% increase per years should be fine.

Yes but you never know what size of the blocks you will need. So in a sense, you are playing a guessing game and maybe wasting resources or centralizing Bitcoin too much if you pick a wrong size. You might even choke it if we get a huge increase in transactions and you didn't raise the limit enough.

This dynamic thing that people are mentioning seems very interesting. Is this really not feasible and are there some insurmountable difficulties to cross with this? And what are those? Some more technical people to answer this would be welcome.

[coalitionfor8mb]

the best would be to increase it slowly over time.

an 25-30% increase per years should be fine.

Yes but you never know what size of the blocks you will need. So in a sense, you are playing a guessing game and maybe wasting resources or centralizing Bitcoin too much if you pick a wrong size. You might even choke it if we get a huge increase in transactions and you didn't raise the limit enough.

This dynamic thing that people are mentioning seems very interesting. Is this really not feasible and are there some insurmountable difficulties to cross with this? And what are those? Some more technical people to answer this would be welcome.

First, the idea is to keep it in the KISS category (Keep It Simple Stupid, no offense, it's an official term) as Gavin pointed out.

Second, if we (who?) push the limit and it gives, then what's the point of having it in the first place?

Third, here.