Eliminating the block limit

[Netnox]

Very interesting and i like it, no block limit allows for Bitcoin to grow much more and big institutions can join the network. Even 8 MB is ridiculously low and won't give Bitcoin a real value as an online payment system.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3kz5vo/gavin_andresen_at_2300_minute_mark_in_my_heart_of/

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3l0ylf/proposing_bitcoin_core_unlimited/

[Carlton Banks]

No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.

Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.

Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.

Then, the limit can be removed.

[unamis76]

Eliminating block limits entirely would require for the block size to be throttled by the block and would need something (which I don't know what it is) to prevent that spam would simply raise block size in a crazy way (this considering that pools wouldn't be limiting block size)

[KhalDrago]

I agree with this.. eliminate that block limit shit which is holding bitcoin from going mainstream..we dont have years ok..wallstreet is trying to get in so gtfo that shitty limit..whiners really need to step fcking back..yall holding up bitcoins progress.

The transaction demand is the transaction demand. It's determined by the number of requests for block space not the limit on block space. There is no way to stop a node connected to a miner from submitting a new transaction. Therefore the argument that the block limit controls bandwidth is nonsense.
If blocks are so large that the majority of the hashng power cannot keep up with larger blocks from one super connected miner, that miner's blocks will not be built upon. There is an incentive, therefore, to produce blocks that are visible to as much hashing power as possible. Ta da... The network is incentivised to self limit.
No hard limit. Soft limit easy to set. Lots of statistics gathering. This problem would look after itself.

[adamstgBit]

No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.

Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.

Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.

Then, the limit can be removed.

I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want.

i think we need to
1) improve block propagation / the network's topology
2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks
3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure.

[brg444]

No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.

Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.

Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.

Then, the limit can be removed.

I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want.

i think we need to
1) improve block propagation / the network's topology
2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks
3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure.

Block size limit is about making certain attacks impossible.

You don't even understand how Bitcoin works Adam why should we consider your opinion?

[adamstgBit]

No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.

Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.

Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.

Then, the limit can be removed.

I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want.

i think we need to
1) improve block propagation / the network's topology
2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks
3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure.

Block size limit is about making certain attacks impossible.

You don't even understand how Bitcoin works Adam why should we consider your opinion?

everyone hates you and with good reasons.

yes you are right Block size limit is making alot of these possible attacks impossible. but it's a very indirect way of dealing with these possible attacks. a few well designed rules can rule out these attacks MORE effectively.

[brg444]

No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.

Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.

Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.

Then, the limit can be removed.

I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want.

i think we need to
1) improve block propagation / the network's topology
2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks
3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure.

Block size limit is about making certain attacks impossible.

You don't even understand how Bitcoin works Adam why should we consider your opinion?

everyone hates you and with good reasons.

yes you are right Block size limit is making alot of these possible attacks impossible. but it's a very indirect way of dealing with these possible attacks. a few well designed rules can rule out these attacks MORE effectively.

Yes all the trolls hate me because I call them out on their BS. Surprisingly I was getting along fine with most of the smart people at the conference this weekend.

Still, your opinion of me doesn't change the fact that technically you are completely lost as to how Bitcoin operates and therefore your opinion should not be considered. Sorry if that hurts your feelings 

[adamstgBit]

No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.

Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.

Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.

Then, the limit can be removed.

I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want.

i think we need to
1) improve block propagation / the network's topology
2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks
3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure.

Block size limit is about making certain attacks impossible.

You don't even understand how Bitcoin works Adam why should we consider your opinion?

everyone hates you and with good reasons.

yes you are right Block size limit is making alot of these possible attacks impossible. but it's a very indirect way of dealing with these possible attacks. a few well designed rules can rule out these attacks MORE effectively.

Yes all the trolls hate me because I call them out on their BS. Surprisingly I was getting along fine with most of the smart people at the conference this weekend.

Still, your opinion of me doesn't change the fact that technically you are completely lost as to how Bitcoin operates and therefore your opinion should not be considered. Sorry if that hurts your feelings 

your one arrogant son of a bitch.

[brg444]

No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.

Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.

Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.

Then, the limit can be removed.

I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want.

i think we need to
1) improve block propagation / the network's topology
2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks
3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure.

Block size limit is about making certain attacks impossible.

You don't even understand how Bitcoin works Adam why should we consider your opinion?

everyone hates you and with good reasons.

yes you are right Block size limit is making alot of these possible attacks impossible. but it's a very indirect way of dealing with these possible attacks. a few well designed rules can rule out these attacks MORE effectively.

Yes all the trolls hate me because I call them out on their BS. Surprisingly I was getting along fine with most of the smart people at the conference this weekend.

Still, your opinion of me doesn't change the fact that technically you are completely lost as to how Bitcoin operates and therefore your opinion should not be considered. Sorry if that hurts your feelings 

your one arrogant son of a bitch.

What I find arrogance is your insistence on forcing your ignorance on people.

[adamstgBit]

No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.

Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.

Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.

Then, the limit can be removed.

I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want.

i think we need to
1) improve block propagation / the network's topology
2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks
3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure.

Block size limit is about making certain attacks impossible.

You don't even understand how Bitcoin works Adam why should we consider your opinion?

everyone hates you and with good reasons.

yes you are right Block size limit is making alot of these possible attacks impossible. but it's a very indirect way of dealing with these possible attacks. a few well designed rules can rule out these attacks MORE effectively.

Yes all the trolls hate me because I call them out on their BS. Surprisingly I was getting along fine with most of the smart people at the conference this weekend.

Still, your opinion of me doesn't change the fact that technically you are completely lost as to how Bitcoin operates and therefore your opinion should not be considered. Sorry if that hurts your feelings 

your one arrogant son of a bitch.

What I find arrogance is your insistence on forcing your ignorance on people.

i know you are but what i am

[adamstgBit]

No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.

Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.

Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.

Then, the limit can be removed.

I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want.

i think we need to
1) improve block propagation / the network's topology
2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks
3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure.

if anyone has anything constructive to say, like maybe expanding on this and discussing what possible attacks we open ourselves up to when block limit is increased, what these rules to prevent such attacks ought to be, would be good.

[spartacusrex]

Can you 2 stop flirting please.

As to having NO Block Size Limit.

I also think that having a limit 'hard' coded is not the answer.

Yes there will be a limit per block. But that size needs to be determined by the miners. In some fashion.. Soft-limit.

It needs to be able to grow/shrink. It needs to move with the pressures of a real life functioning system.

The System for correctly incentivising the miners has yet to appear though it seems..

For instance :

Let's say the miners were allowed to change the block size by, as a hypothetical, up to 50% a year, based on miner hash power votes etc ..  and no limit set on how large the blocks can go.

If a miner tries to make the blocks too large won't the other miners simply not mine on that chain? Or the block might propagate more slowly and simply miss out. Yes you can do what you like with 51% but then again you always could.

So then the majority of the miners could be sure that the block size would not tax their current internet speeds and hard drives, until they ARE ready for it of course. Then, game on.

If there is demand for block size change they can decide if it is worth it and choose what to do.

Let's leave them to sort it out.

Is there an issue with this ?

If so, what is it and can we fix it ?

[brg444]

Can you 2 stop flirting please.

As to having NO Block Size Limit.

I also think that having a limit 'hard' coded is not the answer.

Yes there will be a limit per block. But that size needs to be determined by the miners. In some fashion.. Soft-limit.

It needs to be able to grow/shrink. It needs to move with the pressures of a real life functioning system.

The System for correctly incentivising the miners has yet to appear though it seems..

For instance :

Let's say the miners were allowed to change the block size by, as a hypothetical, up to 50% a year, based on miner hash power votes etc ..  and no limit set on how large the blocks can go.

If a miner tries to make the blocks too large won't the other miners simply not mine on that chain? Or the block might propagate more slowly and simply miss out. Yes you can do what you like with 51% but then again you always could.

So then the majority of the miners could be sure that the block size would not tax their current internet speeds and hard drives, until they ARE ready for it of course. Then, game on.

If there is demand for block size change they can decide if it is worth it and choose what to do.

Let's leave them to sort it out.

Is there an issue with this ?

If so, what is it and can we fix it ?

Miners are not a group and they do not act as one. They have different resources and profit margins therefore the biggest and most connected ones will be benefit from larger blocks which will eventually drive smaller miners out of the picture.

I guess you can deduct what this leads to...

[spazzdla]

What happens when the blockchain reaches 100 000 Terra bytes?

What then op?

[LiteCoinGuy]

iam in favor of a smooth increase instead of no limit but anyway, here is a nice research about the blocksize problem:

However, with greater adoption of Bitcoin, there is a long-term secular pressure to increase the block size. Even for a conservative application of Bitcoin in global settlements, with low transaction volume per person per year, the transaction capacity needs to be raised well above the upper limits of most block size proposals

This means larger blocks are inevitable. Unfortunately, this means that data-center mining and full nodes may be inevitable too depending on hardware and network infrastructure performance over time. The centralization risk depends on the adoption curve, the degree that layer 2 networks remove transactions off-chain, and number of on-chain transactions that are attempted despite the presence of layer 2 systems.

Failing to raise the transaction capacity centralizes the number of actors with access to the blockchain, recreating a financial system that presently exists. Ironically, while the network may be able to run on anyone’s computer, none of the participants may be able to afford to use it. This scenario describes the left side of the Bitcoin failure bathtub.

https://medium.com/@OB1Company/scaling-bitcoin-9366988972b6

[spartacusrex]

Miners are not a group and they do not act as one. They have different resources and profit margins therefore the biggest and most connected ones will be benefit from larger blocks which will eventually drive smaller miners out of the picture.

I guess you can deduct what this leads to...

Hmm.. I see.

No solutions ? Even crazy ones ?


1)Would it work if some other group could choose the size ?

Not the miners, say the stake holders ? Maybe using some POS mechanism.

2) Could we make it so that Blocksize does not matter to the miners.. ? They only really care about the header anyway, that's the bit they crunch.

Isn't there some idea to disperse the headers, in some clever cryptographic way, before the blocks ? That way everyone still gets it in a timely manner.

What happens when the blockchain reaches 100 000 Terra bytes?

What then op?

There are various ideas floating around about block chain compression.

If all of those were implemented, I think you could come up with a much more compact representation.

I agree that Bitcoin could get pretty big though..

[Carlton Banks]

No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.

Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.

Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.

Then, the limit can be removed.

I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want.

i think we need to
1) improve block propagation / the network's topology
2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks
3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure.

if anyone has anything constructive to say, like maybe expanding on this and discussing what possible attacks we open ourselves up to when block limit is increased, what these rules to prevent such attacks ought to be, would be good.

Lol sorry Adam, I was busy for a short while.

I think you have it well covered there. From what I understand right now, that's a great way of presenting the most workable strategy, but without my overwrought language (plus extras I didn't think of).

Block propagation is an overlooked facet of this debate, and a reminder that we're often focused on the aspects of this potential solution that pertain only directly to blocksize, but there are several more, both lateral and holistic, ways of looking at this debate, and this is the first time I think I've seen it brought up on the main board (like how Sergio Demian Lerner cut through the debate by suggesting halving the interval between blocks).

What should the rules be? People have established so far that there should be some kind of way to stop blocksize being grown at a rate that threatens the network in various ways, but also that it needs to have some natural low amount of decay built into the "steady" state (to help keep maintain that fee pressure to satisfy your 3rd point). I'm sure there are more to add to those.

[brg444]

Miners are not a group and they do not act as one. They have different resources and profit margins therefore the biggest and most connected ones will be benefit from larger blocks which will eventually drive smaller miners out of the picture.

I guess you can deduct what this leads to...

Hmm.. I see.

No solutions ? Even crazy ones ?


1)Would it work if some other group could choose the size ?

Not the miners, say the stake holders ? Maybe using some POS mechanism.

2) Could we make it so that Blocksize does not matter to the miners.. ? They only really care about the header anyway, that's the bit they crunch.

Isn't there some idea to disperse the headers, in some clever cryptographic way, before the blocks ? That way everyone still gets it in a timely manner.

What happens when the blockchain reaches 100 000 Terra bytes?

What then op?

There are various ideas floating around about block chain compression.

If all of those were implemented, I think you could come up with a much more compact representation.

I agree that Bitcoin could get pretty big though..

1) Yes, it does work and that is done by the consensus of peers in the system determining the block size based on cost to become and remain a peer.

2) There is already work being done in this regard but this does not address the need for miners to validate content of their block. It is not exactly true that they only care about the header. If they mine non-standard transactions they risk getting forked off.

[SebastianJu]

Always when i read someone speaking out against the total drop of the blocksize limit with the argument that we would have a lot of spam then, i wonder where this spam suddenly should come from. I mean there was no spam in all this time until not, where the 1MB blocks are nearly full. But when the blocksize limit is dropped, or only set higher, then suddenly spam attacks will appear.

Even when the fees are lower then, it would not be a problem when that would mean some miners have to be switched off because they get inefficient. The bitcoin network is 100 times more secure than needed. One would say that this means way way too many miners are attracted by the high rewards that are paid at the moment.