From all of us newbies: Can you PLEASE dumb down this whole block size debate?

[Chris!]

Lately I've been seeing on Bitcointalk that blocks should be changed from 1mb to 2mb (or more) and people should be changing from some kind of node to another. It seems that some people have very strong opinions about one or another.

I'm not just arbitrarily choosing to post this now. I've been reading through websites and the forum work weeks now but it's mostly just people that know a hell of a lot more about bitcoin than I do! Someone needs to dumb it down for us newbies!

What's the difference between bitcoin core, bitcoin classic, bitcoin XT and what does it mean to have a block that is 1mb? What takes up the data, and why do they need to hold more data? Why would 1gb not be a logical choice? From what I understand, it would slow down transaction confirmations. Why/how? Explain the math behind it if you can.

I'm hoping to consolidate all of the information I learn into the first post so other newbies like me can have a one-stop-shop for finding out what this whole block size debate is about. Any insight is appreciated. Thank you!

[Iseecookies]

Think it would be easier understand if the fud was turned down a notch. Kind of the issue with anything that may alter bitcoin. Vested interests usually bark the loudest. Almost worth hunting it down on your own.

[achow101]

The current network consensus is to have a maximum block size of 1 Mb. This means that 1 Mb of transactions can be stored in one block. Transactions have a data size, usually between 200 and 500 bytes and this is what takes up space in a block.

The issue that some people have with 1 Mb blocks is that at some point, there will be so many transactions that all blocks will be reaching the maximum number of transactions that they can contain. The idea is that increasing the maximum block size will allow for more transactions to be included in a block. This would then allow more transactions to confirm in one block and, in theory, keep fees low as long as there is space in blocks for transactions.

Additionally, when blocks become full, there is an idea that this will create a fee market. This essentially means that fees will increase as people have "bidding wars" with their fees to have their transactions included in a block since there would not be enough block space for all of the unconfirmed transactions. This would drive up fees and thus earn more income for miners but could potentially drive away users as the fees become too high.

Larger blocks have their drawbacks, as do smaller blocks. Larger blocks require more data to be transferred, and as blocks grow larger, the bandwidth requirement increases. There is also a verification slowdown that is caused by large blocks. The time required to verify a block grows exponentially in relation to the block size. These factors can lead to slowdowns in the propagation of blocks and therefore increase the orphan rate of miners. This additional bandwidth requirement can also make it difficult for more full nodes and miners to come online.

Smaller blocks, on the other hand, can restrict the network capacity. They can prevent many transactions from being confirmed if there are too many transactions in the pool of unconfirmed transactions. This can cause delays for transaction confirmation.


Increasing the maximum block size is just one of the proposed solutions for increasing the number of transactions that the Bitcoin network can process. Alternatives include the lightning network, sidechains, and segregated witness among a variety of other proposals.


Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Classic, and Bitcoin XT are various clients that implement slightly different consensus rules when it comes to the block size limit, which is also why some people consider Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin XT as altcoins since Bitcoin Core is considered the reference implementation.

Bitcoin Core proposes to use segregated witness. Segregated witness is a solution to transaction malleability which has a side effect of decreasing the size of a transaction and thus increasing the number of transactions which can be put into a block. This also solves the exponential verification time problem and makes it linear.

Bitcoin Classic is a fork of Bitcoin Core which proposes to use a hard fork to increase the maximum block size to 2 Mb.

Bitcoin XT is a fork of Bitcoin Core which proposes to use a hard fork to increase the maximum block size to 8 Mb and to constantly increase at a rate which doubles the maximum every two years until a final size of 8 Gb is reached.


Please note that this post is supposed to be neutral and informational. If there is anything wrong about the information, please let me know and I will fix it.

Edit: typos

[Chris!]

Think it would be easier understand if the fud was turned down a notch. Kind of the issue with anything that may alter bitcoin. Vested interests usually bark the loudest. Almost worth hunting it down on your own.

I'm hoping to just make a post with no bias, only information. I see lots of passion from people but I'm not sure what the fuss is about as of yet.

Reserving this spot, this is going to be a long one.

Haha good. Here we go

[tobacco123]

Reserving this spot, this is going to be a long one.

Really looking forward to what you are going to type! This is an important topic for the bitcoin community so I guess newbies like myself are taking the opportunity to learn more about the fundamentals of bitcoin.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I too look forward to the responses here, as I'm somewhat of a moron when it comes to cryptography and computers.  I never participate in any of the threads dedicated to the blocksize debate because it would be gibberish.  Cheers, hope to read good stuff.

[AgentofCoin]

...
Someone needs to dumb it down for us newbies!
...

The most simplistic.

We hold the limit (stay at 1mb), in the interest of protecting the original ideals of the white paper of decentralization and etc.
The benefit is that it prevents theoretical problems that can cause Bitcoin to stray from what protects it from regulations and destruction.
The downside is it causes a slow down in mass adoption, causes filled blocks, creates higher fees, forces users to use other systems.

or

We increase the limit (higher than 1mb), in the interest of protecting the original ideals of the white paper of currency and etc.
The benefit is that it continues and allows for mass adoption, prevents filled blocks, prevents higher fees, allows users to stay on Bitcoin blockchain.
The downside is it causes the theoretical problems that can cause Bitcoin to stray from what protects it from regulations and destruction.

[kn_b_y]

Increasing the maximum block size is just one of the proposed solutions for increasing the number of transactions that the Bitcoin network can process. Alternatives include the lightning network, sidechains, and segregated witness among a variety of other proposals.
....
Bitcoin Core proposes to use segregated witness. Segregated witness is a solution to transaction malleability which has a side effect of decreasing the size of a transaction and thus increasing the number of transactions which can be put into a block. This also solves the exponential verification time problem and makes it linear.

I might be wrong about this, so please correct me. I'd be interested to know the truth...

Doesn't the segregated witness transaction malleability fix pave the way for the lightning network? They are not competing solutions, rather one enables the other.

And also, from what I understand, the blocksize reduction achieved by culling unlock scripts from transactions that segregated wintess brings will be insignificant compared to effect of the lightning network.

[achow101]

Doesn't the segregated witness transaction malleability fix pave the way for the lightning network? They are not competing solutions, rather one enables the other.

Yes, part of what segwit does is make a part of the lightning network easier to do.

None of these solutions are competing with each other, they can all coexist. It is possible to have all of these solutions at the same time, and I think that that will happen at some point in the future.

And also, from what I understand, the blocksize reduction achieved by culling unlock scripts from transactions that segregated wintess brings will be insignificant compared to effect of the lightning network.

Probably. Segwit has an effective increase as a doubling of the maximum block size. AFAIK the lightning network, and sidechains as well, could in theory go infinitely.

[btcbug]

I too have spent some time recently trying to make sense of all the craziness. See my thread here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396236.msg14179560#msg14179560 where I have posted a couple good articles.

[vinaha]

Since I'm a noob (status), I'd just like to say I don't give one satoshi about this non-issue drama.

[Kakmakr]

Add to that the human factors involved with the different implementations, like personal interest <Greed> and people who wants to have the power and the control and you can see why there are such huge problems, getting anything done. Some people will do anything to be the Lead team in this project and others are butt hurt because they lost that position. This issue is much deeper than the technical merit of these implementations. The human factors are the main stumbling block now. ^hmmmm^

[louisLavery]

Thanks to knightdk for putting it clearly and without bias.
Seems to me the exponential time to verify blocks needs to be solved in the long run for bitcoin to be of any real use.

[watashi-kokoto]

Why should we be giving ideas to a false flag undercover shill

[franky1]

in short:

a historic scenario that shows there was no big doomsday then so there are no doomsdays now:
in 2013 miners finally got passed a bug that allowed them to start making blocks bigger than 500k. and guess what. they instantly didnt make 0.99mb blocks continuously that very same day.
it took 2 years to grow that large. slowly and naturally without asking anyone for expanding restraints. there was no power struggle acting out an oliver twist scene ("please sir can i have some more")

current situation:
we are starting to bottleneck again and its time to expand. remember increasing the capacity is about POTENTIAL growth. not a doomsday about instant doubling of bloat. let call this a "buffer" because people cant seem to grasp that capacity is about what is capable within a cap, (potential) .. rather than the bloat doomsday of what will happen when the code is activated.

so that denounces all fears of why we should wait 2 years just to get some code activated based on bloat doomsday

next there are 12 different implementations and only one of them is core. we should not feed into the core vs classic debate, nor let only core dictate and veto any/all features the community wants.. but instead think about 2mb AND segwit together harmoniously so that its not a endless debate every 2 years with a further 2 years of waiting and delays.

2mb+segwit offers upto 4x the POSSIBLE BUFFER CAPACITY. which should allow long enough time to not need to scream at the core overlords.

also by getting it added to the April release with a grace period allows more time for people to upgrade. rather then having everyone in a mad rush to upgrade in april for segwit and then having to do it again in july.

sticking only with 1mb+segwit forever is another bad idea because it forces people to seek out less secure and centralized offchain solutions. so extra capacity onchain helps everyone. and allows freedom of choice to stay onchain or utilize offchain possibilities. rather than forcing people offchain.

delaying the code and then extending the grace period helps no one.

do not be fooled by the us vs them. and instead think both together because thats essentially what bitcoin should be, everyone together with no one in power

[Lauda]

We hold the limit (stay at 1mb), in the interest of protecting the original ideals of the white paper of decentralization and etc.
or
The downside is it causes the theoretical problems that can cause Bitcoin to stray from what protects it from regulations and destruction.

Keep in mind that one could easily argue that Bitcoin's best aspect is decentralization. It is very important that this aspect does not get harmed. The Winklevoss twins agree with this as well.

Probably. Segwit has an effective increase as a doubling of the maximum block size. AFAIK the lightning network, and sidechains as well, could in theory go infinitely.

Segwit is around 180-190% (realistic usage) which comes pretty close. The Lightning Network does have a theoretical infinite capacity, not so sure about Sidechains.

Add to that the human factors involved with the different implementations, like personal interest <Greed> and people who wants to have the power and the control and you can see why there are such huge problems, getting anything done.

There's where the urgency to go mainstream is coming from, greed.

Why should we be giving ideas to a false flag undercover shill

They will come, it is just a matter of time.

[nuevo]

Here's what I don't understand about the blocksize debate, why is it that anyone in the community insists on being right over being happy? Why can't all sides come together for the greater good? Everyone involved in bitcoin regardless of the reason is a member of the bitcoin community and while we might all have different reasons for being here, we all want sustainable growth and continued adoption. I know that all sides might have conflicting viewpoints at times and that's ok, but to say that it's all or nothing is kinda like the kid who threatens to take his ball home if he doesn't like the rules.

Arguing about the blocksize debate is like telling people they should only eat one type of pizza. Everyone has a favorite and sometimes we can convince ourselves that our personal preference is what is best for everyone. Meanwhile, those outside the pizza joint want a slice but can't get in because we in the community are too busy arguing about what fucking pizza we want to bake, so everyone will go hungry.

We understand what we want and we're all bright enough to be here, lets work together towards the common goal and stop fighting.

Maybe those who have much more say in this than me can order some fucking pizza, hack it up, and solve this shit.

The "blocksize debate" won't be the worst thing the bitcoin community endures, it's just the problem du jour.

[Jet Cash]

The thing about blocksize is that it is simplistic and trivial, and people can grasp the concept instantly. The other simplistic solution is increasing the block creation frequency, but this would mean that mining rewards will need to be adjusted at the same time. imho, both of these solutions will have to be implemented at some stage in the future, but there is no immediate need for them. The better and more sophisticated solutions are harder to comprehend, but are equally important. SegWit, sidechains and other peripheral networks are beneficial and have also been mentioned.

I believe that the core team has the ability and the foresight to enable Bitcoin to expand and grow for the future.

[franky1]

We hold the limit (stay at 1mb), in the interest of protecting the original ideals of the white paper of decentralization and etc.
or
The downside is it causes the theoretical problems that can cause Bitcoin to stray from what protects it from regulations and destruction.

Keep in mind that one could easily argue that Bitcoin's best aspect is decentralization. It is very important that this aspect does not get harmed. The Winklevoss twins agree with this as well.

Probably. Segwit has an effective increase as a doubling of the maximum block size. AFAIK the lightning network, and sidechains as well, could in theory go infinitely.

Segwit is around 180-190% (realistic usage) which comes pretty close. The Lightning Network does have a theoretical infinite capacity, not so sure about Sidechains.

Add to that the human factors involved with the different implementations, like personal interest <Greed> and people who wants to have the power and the control and you can see why there are such huge problems, getting anything done.

There's where the urgency to go mainstream is coming from, greed.

Why should we be giving ideas to a false flag undercover shill

They will come, it is just a matter of time.

lol Lauda quotes the mindset of corporate finance(winklevoss) as a voice of decentralization. is this comedy night??
the winkles want people to hand them funds to lock into a trust and use their centralized server to trade "shares" off chain..

lol lauda thinks the need for more real ONCHAIN capacity is about greed. yet its greed that wants to keep it low to artificially inflate fee's for greed then greedily push people onto centralized networks by force using the same reason. again it must be comedy night

[franky1]

There are core, classic and xt supporters. So, they will give different information and sometimes give FUD which make many people confused.
All of them have their own agenda and each of them their idea is better than others, so there's been long debate about it.

I think there's no way to tell newbie about this problem well since there are many FUD or fanboys around.

thats why 2M+segwit solves everything.
no need for a 2x POSSIBLE capacity growth based on IF people use different types of transactions. and then another TRUE capacity increase a year later IF core doesnt veto it.

its better to just have 2mb+segwit in April. with a grace period and then allow EVERYONE to have more freedom and choice because EVERY implementation has the code.. the way it should be