Why all blocksize propositions are round numbers ?

[Erkallys]

Actually the blocksize is 1 MB, and Bitcoin classic propose to increase it to 2 MB, Bitcoin XT to 8 MB. Why no one actually proposed 1,25 MB or 1,5 MB blocks ? Is it "allowed" by Bitcoin's code ? Is there any other reason that make that no proposition like this exist ? 1,25 MB or 1,5 blocks would be a softer transition than going directly to 2 MB.

[achow101]

I don't think there really is any reason for it. I think that it is just because people like round numbers, not decimals. Also, if the increase is really small, like only 0.25 Mb, then it really isn't worth going through the pain of hard forking for such a small increase.

[guoyu78]

it's the same if you count in byte ( you loss decimals ) but a change is hard to accept for both ways....

[Peter Todd]

Because they're not based on science.

[Erkallys]

I don't think there really is any reason for it. I think that it is just because people like round numbers, not decimals. Also, if the increase is really small, like only 0.25 Mb, then it really isn't worth going through the pain of hard forking for such a small increase.

So there's no real reason except marketing. Also, I don't think that they should do an hard fork, whichever number they choose.

Because they're not based on science.

How could they be based on science ? Please explain.

[RocketSingh]

Actually the blocksize is 1 MB, and Bitcoin classic propose to increase it to 2 MB, Bitcoin XT to 8 MB. Why no one actually proposed 1,25 MB or 1,5 MB blocks ? Is it "allowed" by Bitcoin's code ? Is there any other reason that make that no proposition like this exist ? 1,25 MB or 1,5 blocks would be a softer transition than going directly to 2 MB.

To the best of my understanding, neither BIP 103 nor BIP 106 Proposal 2 will yield round number as block size max cap.

[Erkallys]

Actually the blocksize is 1 MB, and Bitcoin classic propose to increase it to 2 MB, Bitcoin XT to 8 MB. Why no one actually proposed 1,25 MB or 1,5 MB blocks ? Is it "allowed" by Bitcoin's code ? Is there any other reason that make that no proposition like this exist ? 1,25 MB or 1,5 blocks would be a softer transition than going directly to 2 MB.

To the best of my understanding, neither BIP 103 nor BIP 106 Proposal 2 will yield round number as block size max cap.

These are flexible blocksize propositions, they are specific cases. When it is a constant blocksize, it is round numbers.

[watashi-kokoto]

What about 1.337 MB?

[Jet Cash]

Why not pi. Then we can argue about the number of decimal places.

[Erkallys]

Actually the blocksize is 1 MB, and Bitcoin classic propose to increase it to 2 MB, Bitcoin XT to 8 MB. Why no one actually proposed 1,25 MB or 1,5 MB blocks ? Is it "allowed" by Bitcoin's code ? Is there any other reason that make that no proposition like this exist ? 1,25 MB or 1,5 blocks would be a softer transition than going directly to 2 MB.

I'm speculating here without real research, but it's likely because of computational efficiency. Things work best as powers of 2, e.g. 1,048,576 (1MB), 2,097,152 (2MB), etc.

This haven't been proposed yet, and I have to confess that it is a really clever idea ! It seems the most probable reason with the psycological effect proposed early.

[DannyHamilton]

I'm speculating here without real research, but it's likely because of computational efficiency. Things work best as powers of 2, e.g. 1,048,576 (1MB), 2,097,152 (2MB), etc.

No.  The current block limit is not a power of 2:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/605c17844ea32b6d237db6d83871164dc7d59dab/src/consensus/consensus.h#L10

Code:

/** The maximum allowed size for a serialized block, in bytes (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

[Glucose]

I'm speculating here without real research, but it's likely because of computational efficiency. Things work best as powers of 2, e.g. 1,048,576 (1MB), 2,097,152 (2MB), etc.

No.  The current block limit is not a power of 2:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/605c17844ea32b6d237db6d83871164dc7d59dab/src/consensus/consensus.h#L10

Code:

/** The maximum allowed size for a serialized block, in bytes (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

I guess there is no more choice. The Block size has to increase soon or later. And sooner will be better than later.

I can see how transactions are getting slower and slower. In a few weeks / months the fees are going to explode.

I'll for sure switch to bitcoin classic. 2 MB seems a good first step.

There's probably no reason for 2 MB instead of 1.5 or 5. It's just marketing. 8 MB was too much and noby liked the way the Bitcoin XT project as been presented.

[Erkallys]

I'm speculating here without real research, but it's likely because of computational efficiency. Things work best as powers of 2, e.g. 1,048,576 (1MB), 2,097,152 (2MB), etc.

No.  The current block limit is not a power of 2:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/605c17844ea32b6d237db6d83871164dc7d59dab/src/consensus/consensus.h#L10

Code:

/** The maximum allowed size for a serialized block, in bytes (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

I guess there is no more choice. The Block size has to increase soon or later. And sooner will be better than later.

I can see how transactions are getting slower and slower. In a few weeks / months the fees are going to explode.

I'll for sure switch to bitcoin classic. 2 MB seems a good first step.

There's probably no reason for 2 MB instead of 1.5 or 5. It's just marketing. 8 MB was too much and noby liked the way the Bitcoin XT project as been presented.

Please don't do this big mistake ! Bitcoin Core will increase the blocksize soon or later, so don't help the secessionists !

[DannyHamilton]

I'll for sure switch to bitcoin classic.

I already have.

Please don't do this big mistake ! Bitcoin Core will increase the blocksize soon or later, so don't help the secessionists !

That's ok.  If they increase it to 2 MB then Core and Classic will be compatible.  Then I can just switch back to Core if I like.

[BlockSense]

Yes in general round numbers are probably easier to work with when defining parameters

[shorena]

I'm speculating here without real research, but it's likely because of computational efficiency. Things work best as powers of 2, e.g. 1,048,576 (1MB), 2,097,152 (2MB), etc.

No.  The current block limit is not a power of 2:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/605c17844ea32b6d237db6d83871164dc7d59dab/src/consensus/consensus.h#L10

Code:

/** The maximum allowed size for a serialized block, in bytes (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

Thanks for correcting me! I guess if I took even a few seconds to research I would have come across this 

What you had in mind is 1MiB[1] not 1MB. Sadly its common to use 1MB for both, which means almost anyone is confused with what 1MB actually means (1million bytes or 1024² bytes)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte

[Glucose]

Please don't do this big mistake ! Bitcoin Core will increase the blocksize soon or later, so don't help the secessionists !

As I said, sooner would be better than later.

I trust Bitcoin Core developpers and I would really be happy if they do so. But they have to do it in time. Right now it seems critical and change has to come really fast.

+ Several secessionists are high profile. They are not just a bunch of idiots trying to break bitcoin.

[DumbFruit]

+ Several secessionists are high profile. They are not just a bunch of idiots trying to break bitcoin.

These are not mutually exclusive.

[DannyHamilton]

+ Several secessionists are high profile. They are not just a bunch of idiots trying to break bitcoin.

These are not mutually exclusive.

Those supporting Core are the secessionists, right?

Classic is the original protocol with all of the latest updates, and Core is the software that is trying to split off into their own fork of the blockchain by ignoring some valid blocks and rejecting recent updates.

[DumbFruit]

+ Several secessionists are high profile. They are not just a bunch of idiots trying to break bitcoin.

These are not mutually exclusive.

Those supporting Core are the secessionists, right?

Classic is the original protocol with all of the latest updates, and Core is the software that is trying to split off into their own fork of the blockchain by ignoring some valid blocks and rejecting recent updates.

I'm genuinely surprised that you support Bitcoin Classic, that should give anybody pause. I thought you were joking earlier. Why do you prefer a simple 2MB hardfork over the Segregated Witness softfork?