2MB Pros and Cons

[adamstgBit]

*sigh* Fine whatever, may the DDos be with you sir.

lol sorry...

ill try to reword a little, and make it less.... absolute.

[1715002678]

1715002678

[1715002678]

1715002678

[1715002678]

1715002678

[adamstgBit]

There is a risk of splitting into 2 chains, but properly implementing the hardfork with a 75% threshold and lengthy grace period, makes the risk of a "war" breaking out filled with pain & confusion for users and merchant, unlikely

this now highlights the seriousness / extreme consequence of forking while leaving a group behind

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

altcoin hostility. altcoins existed since litecoin, and are the original scaling mechanism envisioned by Satoshi. Simply start 2000 Bitcoin clones with 1MB blocks each and you have 2GB worth of blocks (visa scale) - instantly!  limited bitcoin capacity allows altcoins to innovate, experiment and explore novel concepts. If Bitcoin actually becomes challenged by an alt (it won't), it can adopt

This I agree with, the only problem is that so many altcoins are scams that there is little trust in altcoins.

I won't go near them because every single one I have looked at either has a huge premine or other shady aspect to it, or doesn't keep up with changes in core that we know are necessary fixes.

But in the future I believe there will be region specific altcoins that work (region specific meaning businesses in a certain geographic region are more likely to accept them) and that bitcoin will largely be the mechanism by which people exchange from one altcoin to another when they travel or do business outside their region.

all this talk reminds me that bitcoin has seen a lose in market share, poeple appear to be moving to ETH as a safe haven to bitcoin's scaling crisis

I don't know why people are moving to Eth, it looks dangerous to me.

I think the reason why a good alt-coin hasn't arisen yet is because it is expensive to properly maintain a code branch and the demand just isn't there yet for serious continued funding of an alt-coin.

Ethereum seems to be spending a lot of money on marketing even though it isn't being used for anything novel, only the promise that it someday will be used for something novel, but I just do not see a market demand for what it is promising.

A lot of people make speculative buys into something they do not believe in simply because they predict a pump they can profit from before the dump, and that's unfortunately I think why people are buying Eth.

Bitcoin does not yet have a scalability problem. It can handle the transactions it gets right now just fine. With SegWit it will handle an increased TX rate. The point will come where it needs something else - whether that is sidechains, alt-coins, or a block size increase remains to be seen.

That being said, I am not opposed to 2MB blocks - we can get the code for it now, to trigger if the last 1000 blocks used 950 MB or something (filtering out empty blocks). That way it is only implemented if the 1 MB blocks are not big enough with SegWit.

[adamstgBit]

altcoin hostility. altcoins existed since litecoin, and are the original scaling mechanism envisioned by Satoshi. Simply start 2000 Bitcoin clones with 1MB blocks each and you have 2GB worth of blocks (visa scale) - instantly!  limited bitcoin capacity allows altcoins to innovate, experiment and explore novel concepts. If Bitcoin actually becomes challenged by an alt (it won't), it can adopt

This I agree with, the only problem is that so many altcoins are scams that there is little trust in altcoins.

I won't go near them because every single one I have looked at either has a huge premine or other shady aspect to it, or doesn't keep up with changes in core that we know are necessary fixes.

But in the future I believe there will be region specific altcoins that work (region specific meaning businesses in a certain geographic region are more likely to accept them) and that bitcoin will largely be the mechanism by which people exchange from one altcoin to another when they travel or do business outside their region.

all this talk reminds me that bitcoin has seen a lose in market share, poeple appear to be moving to ETH as a safe haven to bitcoin's scaling crisis

I don't know why people are moving to Eth, it looks dangerous to me.

I think the reason why a good alt-coin hasn't arisen yet is because it is expensive to properly maintain a code branch and the demand just isn't there yet for serious continued funding of an alt-coin.

Ethereum seems to be spending a lot of money on marketing even though it isn't being used for anything novel, only the promise that it someday will be used for something novel, but I just do not see a market demand for what it is promising.

A lot of people make speculative buys into something they do not believe in simply because they predict a pump they can profit from before the dump, and that's unfortunately I think why people are buying Eth.

Bitcoin does not yet have a scalability problem. It can handle the transactions it gets right now just fine. With SegWit it will handle an increased TX rate. The point will come where it needs something else - whether that is sidechains, alt-coins, or a block size increase remains to be seen.

That being said, I am not opposed to 2MB blocks - we can get the code for it now, to trigger if the last 1000 blocks used 950 MB or something (filtering out empty blocks). That way it is only implemented if the 1 MB blocks are not big enough with SegWit.

you're underestimate Ethereum. maybe you should watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C3jCV-JxYk
you're right about it being very dangerous, I wouldn't feel comfortable with serious money in ETH, but having SOME is probably not the worst idea. At this time ETH does seem to be in a bubble, and thats definitely being fueled by bitcoins scaling crisis. when the hype about bitcoin "dying" or "unable to scale" dies down, ETH price might take a nosedive, hell it not unlikely it'll take a nosedive regardless, it's gone up to high too fast at this point...

But it's a fairly strong reminder that Bitcoin isn't the only game in town, bitcoin's network effect can only carry it so far, at the end of the day bitcoin NEEDS to be better than the alternatives if it is to remain #1.

[Quantus]

Holy war sounds better but thank you, you have been very accommodating and fair.
Lets pray Segregated witness can deliver on that 50 to 60% increase in block space and fix the unintentional malleability issues in a soft fork. It would be a huge morale boost.

When the day dose come to ramp up to 2MB I hope we have 95%+ agreement but even if we don't I have some faith the community will come together to prevent network Armageddon. But if we can't I trust the core developers will be yelling from the roof tops for everyone to roll back to the last mutually accepted valid transaction checkpoint before the Hard fork and save the day.

[hv_]

Might a higher b size lead to a better miner distribution ? (Firewall issue,...)

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

altcoin hostility. altcoins existed since litecoin, and are the original scaling mechanism envisioned by Satoshi. Simply start 2000 Bitcoin clones with 1MB blocks each and you have 2GB worth of blocks (visa scale) - instantly!  limited bitcoin capacity allows altcoins to innovate, experiment and explore novel concepts. If Bitcoin actually becomes challenged by an alt (it won't), it can adopt

This I agree with, the only problem is that so many altcoins are scams that there is little trust in altcoins.

I won't go near them because every single one I have looked at either has a huge premine or other shady aspect to it, or doesn't keep up with changes in core that we know are necessary fixes.

But in the future I believe there will be region specific altcoins that work (region specific meaning businesses in a certain geographic region are more likely to accept them) and that bitcoin will largely be the mechanism by which people exchange from one altcoin to another when they travel or do business outside their region.

all this talk reminds me that bitcoin has seen a lose in market share, poeple appear to be moving to ETH as a safe haven to bitcoin's scaling crisis

I don't know why people are moving to Eth, it looks dangerous to me.

I think the reason why a good alt-coin hasn't arisen yet is because it is expensive to properly maintain a code branch and the demand just isn't there yet for serious continued funding of an alt-coin.

Ethereum seems to be spending a lot of money on marketing even though it isn't being used for anything novel, only the promise that it someday will be used for something novel, but I just do not see a market demand for what it is promising.

A lot of people make speculative buys into something they do not believe in simply because they predict a pump they can profit from before the dump, and that's unfortunately I think why people are buying Eth.

Bitcoin does not yet have a scalability problem. It can handle the transactions it gets right now just fine. With SegWit it will handle an increased TX rate. The point will come where it needs something else - whether that is sidechains, alt-coins, or a block size increase remains to be seen.

That being said, I am not opposed to 2MB blocks - we can get the code for it now, to trigger if the last 1000 blocks used 950 MB or something (filtering out empty blocks). That way it is only implemented if the 1 MB blocks are not big enough with SegWit.

you're underestimate Ethereum. maybe you should watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C3jCV-JxYk
you're right about it being very dangerous, I wouldn't feel comfortable with serious money in ETH, but having SOME is probably not the worst idea. At this time ETH does seem to be in a bubble, and thats definitely being fueled by bitcoins scaling crisis. when the hype about bitcoin "dying" or "unable to scale" dies down, ETH price might take a nosedive, hell it not unlikely it'll take a nosedive regardless, it's gone up to high too fast at this point...

But it's a fairly strong reminder that Bitcoin isn't the only game in town, bitcoin's network effect can only carry it so far, at the end of the day bitcoin NEEDS to be better than the alternatives if it is to remain #1.

I don't think BTC scaling is behind it, I really don't. Most alt-coins go through periods where they bubble and I don't think it has anything to do with bitcoin.

Most people I know who have taken money out of bitcoin because of fears of the future don't limit themselves to crypto as options for where to invest what they took out of BTC and it would be dumb to limit oneself to crypto. There are lots of markets that experience growth.

A lot of ETH startup is in bitcoin, so if bitcoin drops in value, so does the amount of funds ETH has for development...

[Lauda]

Bump to 2MB could signalize: raising cap forever is okay. Changing hard rules anytime is fine.

Getting on a slippery slope. With large enough blocks, only high-end  datacenter servers could participate in Bitcoin.

You make a point here. This could signalize that anything could be changed (e.g. supply), which I'm certain almost nobody wants.

after the 75% trigger plus a grace period, your "holy war" wouldn't go very far.

Stop talking about BIP109. If we are talking about a 2 MB block size limit then we are talking about the pure limit (i.e. no additions). We do not know what the consensus threshold is, so this is irrelevant.

you're underestimate Ethereum.

Please don't talk about shitcoins here. ETH realistically has a value lower than Doge (can be used for more things right now).

Might a higher b size lead to a better miner distribution ? (Firewall issue,...)

No. If anything it could lead to more centralization.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Bump to 2MB could signalize: raising cap forever is okay. Changing hard rules anytime is fine.

Getting on a slippery slope. With large enough blocks, only high-end  datacenter servers could participate in Bitcoin.

You make a point here. This could signalize that anything could be changed (e.g. supply), which I'm certain almost nobody wants.

I'd say it's a particularly bad point. We've been soft forking in changes left, right and center. Is the BIP process a slippery slope, too?

This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fear mongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience ... in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

If increase block size to 2MB is difficult because it requires hard fork and it won't be final solution, why don't increase block size to bigger size so we don't need another hard fork because i'm sure hard fork will be harder because bitcoin'll be more popular and it means more miners, pool, company and so on.

Hard froks aren't necessarily bad. There's even a school of thought that suggests we ought to be doing them at regular intervals.








@Lauda please respond to my post in context. It's clearly not the same thought after you cut it up like that and totally miss the point?

[Lauda]

I'd say it's a particularly bad point. We've been soft forking in changes left, right and center. Is the BIP process a slippery slope, too?

We have been soft forking features and developing Bitcoin further. I don't think that we could see a possible threat in this.

why don't increase block size to bigger size so we don't need another hard fork because i'm sure hard fork will be harder because bitcoin'll be more popular and it means more miners, pool, company and so on.

Because it is not safe to do; look at the list of cons. Resource usage would be even greater, the problem with a dangerous TX would also be expanded and such. Even a 2 MB block size limit is possibly unsafe without constraining limits.

[Lutzow]

One of the useful OP out there unlike the price will hit xxxx USD in year xxxx. With this blockchain issue though which will occur again after few more years, some of the altcoins will be looked at by business organizations. Stability is needed and issues like these (uncertainty in the solution) will only hurt bitcoin if not now, in the future.

[johnyj]

Bump to 2MB could signalize: raising cap forever is okay. Changing hard rules anytime is fine.

Getting on a slippery slope. With large enough blocks, only high-end  datacenter servers could participate in Bitcoin.

Look at what a segwit soft fork can do: It can change the max effective block size to 4MB WITHOUT any nodes' permission (except miners), this is even  more slippery slope, anything can be changed via a soft fork without user even notice it

If you want to change some hard rules, you can only do it through a hard fork, since that requires a major consensus. That is to make sure everyone get informed, it is the benefit of a hard fork

By the way, you won't get large enough blocks, because majority of miners will simply orphan them

[Preclus]

Regarding this statement:

"4) More fees collected by miners on each block
unknown effect, What if the fees per TX half and the amount of TX's doubles? The amount of collected fees would remain the same in this case. "

If blocks stayed under 1MB there would be no change in fees even with 2MB block support. The statement makes it sounds like changing the system to support 2MB blocks would cause miner transaction fees to increase regardless of the actual size of the block.

[hv_]

If increase block size to 2MB is difficult because it requires hard fork and it won't be final solution, why don't increase block size to bigger size so we don't need another hard fork because i'm sure hard fork will be harder because bitcoin'll be more popular and it means more miners, pool, company and so on.

More clever (and there are those suggestions) is a trailing max size adjustment to some moving hist average. I'd prefer that.

[Lauda]

this is even  more slippery slope, anything can be changed via a soft fork without user even notice it

Untrue. This is off-topic.

By the way, you won't get large enough blocks, because majority of miners will simply orphan them

No.

With this blockchain issue though which will occur again after few more years, some of the altcoins will be looked at by business organizations. Stability is needed and issues like these (uncertainty in the solution) will only hurt bitcoin if not now, in the future.

With or without a 2 MB block size limit, these "blockchain issues" will happen. This is because there are people who are willing to and are able to attack the network with spam. During the spam last week I had no trouble transacting at all because I've used proper fees. The network was designed as such.

he statement makes it sounds like changing the system to support 2MB blocks would cause miner transaction fees to increase regardless of the actual size of the block.

Exactly. We can't really know that the amount of fees will get increased. It is just an assumption I guess.

[DooMAD]

he statement makes it sounds like changing the system to support 2MB blocks would cause miner transaction fees to increase regardless of the actual size of the block.

Exactly. We can't really know that the amount of fees will get increased. It is just an assumption I guess.

Perhaps the wording should read:
"4)  More fees potentially collected by miners on each block"

I'd also suggest a similar tweak for number 7, but then it ends up sounding the same as #1:
"7)  More capacity to accommodate potential wider adoption"

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

he statement makes it sounds like changing the system to support 2MB blocks would cause miner transaction fees to increase regardless of the actual size of the block.

Exactly. We can't really know that the amount of fees will get increased. It is just an assumption I guess.

Perhaps the wording should read:
"4)  More fees potentially collected by miners on each block"

Not sure that even is true, as smaller block can result in higher fees.

I actually want the fees to remain high enough to make spamming the blockchain expensive. And I want the block small enough that if someone is willing to pay to spam the blockchain, it won't grow fast enough to reduce what decentralization there is.

E.g. could a corporate interest pay to spam the block such that it consistently has 16 MB blocks knocking a lot of miners out so that the corporate interest can seize control of the blockchain in their data center ?

With 2 MB blocks I don't think that specific fear exists, but at some point it does exist.

[DooMAD]

he statement makes it sounds like changing the system to support 2MB blocks would cause miner transaction fees to increase regardless of the actual size of the block.

Exactly. We can't really know that the amount of fees will get increased. It is just an assumption I guess.

Perhaps the wording should read:
"4)  More fees potentially collected by miners on each block"

Not sure that even is true, as smaller block can result in higher fees.

I actually want the fees to remain high enough to make spamming the blockchain expensive. And I want the block small enough that if someone is willing to pay to spam the blockchain, it won't grow fast enough to reduce what decentralization there is.

E.g. could a corporate interest pay to spam the block such that it consistently has 16 MB blocks knocking a lot of miners out so that the corporate interest can seize control of the blockchain in their data center ?

With 2 MB blocks I don't think that specific fear exists, but at some point it does exist.

It all depends on the traffic we're getting at any given moment.  Any time that transactions would currently be left in the mempool queue waiting for a non-full block, those transactions and their fees could then be processed, so, in theory at least, the fees collected in that block will then be higher.  More traffic equals more fees in total.

[Quantus]

You can't have micro transactions and good spam protection at the same time. You have to pick one.

As for sigwit causing 4mb blocks that's not true they will be adding limiters into the code to prevent that.  

Con: less spam protection.