Block Size Debate, finally an ideal solution: Bitcoin Unlimited

[Hyena]

I have been in the Bitcoin business since 2011. I have obviously followed the block size debate and even tried to propose solutions myself.

Today I was watching this video (Waves Weekly Crypto Roundup. Golem Project E06). In the very end it mentions that now a mining pool with 7% of hashing power supports Bitcoin Unlimited and thus Segwit will never get 95% of consensus. At first I thought it was really bad news for Bitcoin but then I started to investigate what the hell is Bitcoin Unlimited. Turns out that Bitcoin Unlimited is the ultimate free market solution to the block size debate. We already have child-pays-for-parent system implemented in Bitcoin. Now, removing the maximum block size limit is the next logical step. I am surprised that I didn't think of it myself a year ago. This is simply ingenious.

A miner will not all of sudden start to produce 1 GiB blocks because it will be orphaned for sure. Free market is the natural protection against any attempts to abuse the absence of block size limit. The block size limit doesn't belong to the protocol layer as a strict number. Instead, it should be determined by the free market. Bitcoin Unlimited is the way to go. It's fully compatible with the philosophy of Satoshi Nakamoto. I support it because I support the free market.

So, if Bitcoin Unlimited is so great, then why isn't everyone talking about it? I guess it's because several big boys have invested a lot of money into Segwit and other alternatives. Also, big miners with shitty internet speed do not like the idea of a theoretically unlimited block size. You know how this kind of situation is also called? Self-interest and corruption at the expense of the greater good. From this day I finally have a strong opinion on the block size debate and this is great. All I needed is to see that the removal of block size limit is a step in favour of the free market and that free market itself will eliminate all the problems that might rise from this. However, if you know that there is an option even better than Bitcoin Unlimited then please let me know in this thread as my decision about supporting Bitcoin Unlimited is not final.

[Dank14]

Your explanation about bitcoin unlimited is not comprehensive enough. Could you shed more light on what it is all about in simple English i.e no technical terms... thanks.

[pereira4]

If only it was that easy as "going unlimited", then we would be doing it already. But as everything not only in software engineering but in life, there are drawbacks and compromises you take when going a certain direction. Bitcoin unlimited has been already refuted as an optimal way to scale, just search for the posts containing "unlimited" on this forum by gmaxwell or "nullc" in reddit, its a good way to learn.

[Hyena]

Your explanation about bitcoin unlimited is not comprehensive enough. Could you shed more light on what it is all about in simple English i.e no technical terms... thanks.

That's a good question. I am also just new to the idea of Bitcoin Unlimited and thus I will probably not have all the answers. For example, Bitcoin Unlimited may or may not include features that I would never support. For that reason I am a bit suspicious about it. Why have all this software and why call it Bitcoin Unlimited if the only thing it's supposed to do is to completely remove the block size limit? They say that Bitcoin Unlimited allows you to track the competing forks. So simply put: it just has several bells and whistles in addition to the removal of maximum block size limit constant.

But if we throw out the unnecessary bells and whistles then the solution to the block size debate is simply to remove the block size limit. The miners will have their owns limits anyway. Those limits are going to be derived from the internet connection speed. The miner faces a trade off of losing the block reward if their block gets orphaned due to being too big in size. The free market solves everything. And it will be much more decentralized.

[Hyena]

If only it was that easy as "going unlimited", then we would be doing it already. But as everything not only in software engineering but in life, there are drawbacks and compromises you take when going a certain direction. Bitcoin unlimited has been already refuted as an optimal way to scale, just search for the posts containing "unlimited" on this forum by gmaxwell or "nullc" in reddit, its a good way to learn.

So I did search as you suggested. With no success. This is not a good contribution to this thread. I am overwhelmed by irrelevant search results.

In some post gmaxwell says this:

I believe a good proxy for this is the total number of coins transferred in the tx.

Probably not, due to all the non-bitcoin overlay things people are interested in. (E.g. the altcoins, colored coins, etc).

I disagree with the claim that its unrelated. Scarcity of block space is what enables a market for it; absent complete miner collusion, with unlimited block sizes there is a defection problem (the rational move for the miner is to take very low fee paying transactions instead of turning their nose up at them in order to drive the market price for fees above zero).

This does not make him sound very competent as he is referring to his personal fantasy of what would happen with unlimited block sizes. Miners want to maximize their profits. Nothing else needs to be said. The free market will solve all the problems. When the demand for bigger blocks gets real high then miners will start to confirm bigger blocks as the TX fees will eventually grow big enough to justify the risk of mining a block that gets orphaned. Also, miners are motivated to confirm TXs and not just mine empty blocks because this gives bitcoins their value. Only a mining pool willing to operate in a loss wishing to destroy the  Bitcoin network would not serve the best interests of the Bitcoin network.

Free market has always been the key to freedom and decentralization. It's really impossible to oppose this idea and support Bitcoin at the same time.

[Jet Cash]

Variable length blocks have been discussed a lot. It was one of the first questions I asked when I joined this forum.
What's to stop miners ignoring transactions, and just banging out transactionless blocks to get on the chain first.

I still believe that increasing block generation frequency, and bringing in SegWit and the other enhancements is the best way forward.

[Mokuton]

You gotta hardfork for this. Someone would make Bitcoin Classic lol

[Kprawn]

You know sometimes people are just swimming against the current, to show that they are different or to get some attention. The whole

Bitcoin Core vs Bitcoin Unlimited rivalry is only a power play between two groups of people who want to be on top. { Playing King of the Hill}

The only thing this has accomplished, was to divide the Bitcoin community and to strengthen the position of it's competitors. {This is what

they wanted from the start}

[franky1]

EPIC fail for the forum
moderators are either:
stupid by thinking bitcoin unlimited it an altcoin. when it has been running on bitcoins network and intends to use bitcoins consensus.. its only the mods that want unlimited to split off..

if not stupid they they are proving they want to destroy diversity by centralizing bitcoin to be in control of one team without a diverse free choice.

funny how this topic got moved to the alt section. id love to know which mod moved it.


in short.
to explain this topic

right now there are over 5000 nodes.
some nodes are set at anything below 1mb.
some nodes are set at anything below 2mb.
some are set at anything below 4mb
some are set at anything below 8mb.
some are set at  anything below 16mb
some are even set at anything below 32mb.

and they all work happily because mining pools realise that the only blocksize right now that is acceptable to all of those diverse nodes
is:
1mb right now.

yes that right. right now and for many months nodes have had their individual rules and pools have set their own arbitrary limits that fulfil the majority..
and yes they are all running on the bitcoin network. (so dont believe the bull crap about anything not core being an altcoin)

if the nodes refusing to go above 1mb dont change. then pools wont risk making blocks over 1mb..
if the nodes desiring below 1mb do change. then pools will happily make blocks over 1mb as long as the size of the blocks is acceptable to the majority..

bitcoin unlimited is just highlighting diversity and decentralization be continuing to keep that control within the diverse nodes.. rather then playing a script of oliver twist of asking one group of devs "please sir can i have some more" and waiting 2 years for a half-answer.

i feel ashamed of whoever the mod that moved this topic is, as that mod is an obvious person that wants centralized decisions made by people who should not be making decisions on behalf of a decentralized network.

[topesis]

I don't know when people will learn that increase in  size  is not always the solution to every problem, Let's give SW a chance here and see the output

[franky1]

I don't know when people will learn that increase in  size  is not always the solution to every problem, Let's give SW a chance here and see the output

funny thing is core wants 4mb weight. but that 3mb extra is not going to help quadruple capacity to 4x, but instead only 1.6-2x.. and then the other space is used by mundane data for different features like payment codes used for confidential transactions and other Id information for hopping to sidechains.

so if core think 4mb bloat is acceptable, strangely now it fits their "needs".. i have to ask what has changed on internet speeds and hard drive storage since last year that suddenly made their own doomsday scare stories disappear.

even things like linear scaling was never an issue. you just had to limit the amount of signatures allowed per transaction and then implement the new libsecp256k1 to make things more efficient.

as for malleability. this issue was about double spending.. which pretended to be solved. but suddenly RBF, CPFP and GOP are now new features being invented which can reintroduce new double spend methods for unconfirmed transactions.

but hey lets brush it under the carpet and instead push people offchain.. thus diluting the node count by people not using bitcoins onchain network 99.9% of the time to no longer care about bitcoins blockchain and only care about running an offchain or sidechain node they need to use daily.

[jbreher]

Welcome, Hyena - I've been running BU for months. Not too hard to find info: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/

BU is architected in the principle that most 'consensus' parameters should be set as an emergent property of the system, by each user making their own choices. Rather than by edict of a centralized dev team.

Practically, it is largely a fork of Core from some months ago, to which has been added:
- Articles of Federation naming the governance policy
- user-settable MAXBLOCKSIZE for acceptance
- user-selectable 'depth' before an even larger block becomes accepted (# of blocks mined atop the large block)
- Xtreme thin blocks, which reduces the network propagation delay of new blocks
- couple other enhancements

It runs happily on the main Bitcoin chain, alongside Core and others. Of course, once larger blocks become part of its blockchain, that chain will diverge from Core. There is a 75% threshold before it will start creating blocks larger than Core.

[Hyena]

I feel violated by the act of moderators moving this topic. It was never intended for altcoin discussion because Bitcoin Unlimited is not an altcoin. It is a solution to the block chain debate and the whole bitcoin community should be aware of it as an option. This is the first time I feel discriminated by the moderators of this forum as they clearly serve an egoistic agenda. Is there any place to discuss Bitcoin where free speech is not censored like that? I was going to support segWit because I thought that we could gradually introduce both to Bitcoin: unlimited blocks and segwit. Now that I see my ideas suppressed I am going to revolt against the core team and boycott the SegWit. I am going to start using Bitcoin Unlimited (which I didn't have in mind before mods moved my topic). I am also going to start BU propaganda from my free time and resources because that's what you get when you humiliate me by suppressing my opinion.

Since I don't agree with moderators and I would expect them to undo their action I am going to open a new topic for a new idea that just came to my mind: Solution to the Block Size Debate for Miners

[greenuser]

"Free market" is New world Order and has to fail.  The internet is a battlefield that is only just starting to spill blood. It will soon become full war. Not between nations but between the people and the ruling classes. It started with Brexit and is spreading into the US. The people will take back control but first we must crash fiat. It has started with the GB £ and the US $ will follow

Bitcoin must not go mainstream, It must stay the payment system for the Resistance to the New world Order.  A global insurrection against banker occupation has began. If we scale too quickly they will hijack our tech. I'm with segregated witness. Let's see the banking system fail first and then we will see if we get 95%

[franky1]

"Free market" is New world Order and has to fail.  The internet is a battlefield that is only just starting to spill blood. It will soon become full war. Not between nations but between the people and the ruling classes. It started with Brexit and is spreading into the US. The people will take back control but first we must crash fiat. It has started with the GB £ and the US $ will follow

Bitcoin must not go mainstream, It must stay the payment system for the Resistance to the New world Order.  A global insurrection against banker occupation has began. If we scale too quickly they will hijack our tech. I'm with segregated witness. Let's see the banking system fail first and then we will see if we get 95%

check out where Greg maxwells wages are coming from..
check out where matt corallos wages are coming from
check out where pieter wuilles wages are coming from
that $75mill investment so far into blockstream has come from the banking groups.

think about it, research it and realise who is controlling it.

[greenuser]

"Free market" is New world Order and has to fail.  The internet is a battlefield that is only just starting to spill blood. It will soon become full war. Not between nations but between the people and the ruling classes. It started with Brexit and is spreading into the US. The people will take back control but first we must crash fiat. It has started with the GB £ and the US $ will follow

Bitcoin must not go mainstream, It must stay the payment system for the Resistance to the New world Order.  A global insurrection against banker occupation has began. If we scale too quickly they will hijack our tech. I'm with segregated witness. Let's see the banking system fail first and then we will see if we get 95%

check out where Greg maxwells wages are coming from.. that $75mill investment so far into blockstream has come from the banking groups.
think about it, research it and realise who is controlling it.

All they care for is fiat. Fiat has to go

[franky1]

"Free market" is New world Order and has to fail.  The internet is a battlefield that is only just starting to spill blood. It will soon become full war. Not between nations but between the people and the ruling classes. It started with Brexit and is spreading into the US. The people will take back control but first we must crash fiat. It has started with the GB £ and the US $ will follow

Bitcoin must not go mainstream, It must stay the payment system for the Resistance to the New world Order.  A global insurrection against banker occupation has began. If we scale too quickly they will hijack our tech. I'm with segregated witness. Let's see the banking system fail first and then we will see if we get 95%

check out where Greg maxwells wages are coming from.. that $75mill investment so far into blockstream has come from the banking groups.
think about it, research it and realise who is controlling it.

All they care for is fiat. Fiat has to go

blockstream want to go offchain. guess who will be running the lightning hubs and sidechains..locking funds into dual signed addresses where the second signature is... guess who

[jbreher]

I feel violated by the act of moderators moving this topic.

Just another symptom of the thought-control that has led to you not learning of BU until now.

[Hyena]

"Free market" is New world Order and has to fail.  The internet is a battlefield that is only just starting to spill blood. It will soon become full war. Not between nations but between the people and the ruling classes. It started with Brexit and is spreading into the US. The people will take back control but first we must crash fiat. It has started with the GB £ and the US $ will follow

Bitcoin must not go mainstream, It must stay the payment system for the Resistance to the New world Order.  A global insurrection against banker occupation has began. If we scale too quickly they will hijack our tech. I'm with segregated witness. Let's see the banking system fail first and then we will see if we get 95%

While I agree with most of what you said I cannot interpret free market as a symptom of the new world order. Quite the opposite. No idea how you came up with that. Sorry.

"Free market" is New world Order and has to fail.  The internet is a battlefield that is only just starting to spill blood. It will soon become full war. Not between nations but between the people and the ruling classes. It started with Brexit and is spreading into the US. The people will take back control but first we must crash fiat. It has started with the GB £ and the US $ will follow

Bitcoin must not go mainstream, It must stay the payment system for the Resistance to the New world Order.  A global insurrection against banker occupation has began. If we scale too quickly they will hijack our tech. I'm with segregated witness. Let's see the banking system fail first and then we will see if we get 95%

check out where Greg maxwells wages are coming from..
check out where matt corallos wages are coming from
check out where pieter wuilles wages are coming from
that $75mill investment so far into blockstream has come from the banking groups.

think about it, research it and realise who is controlling it.

Thanks for pointing that out. Follow the money. Good idea.

EDIT:
For anyone new to this thread, listen to this video. I just discovered it and it sure is relevant to this topic.

[ArticMine]

If it only were that simple. I have also been in the Bitcoin business since 2011. The fundamental failure of applying Monero type scaling models, where the miners are penalized a percentage of the blockreward if they mine bigger blocks, to Bitcoin is what happens when the block reward runs out. If the block reward runs out there is no penalty and no incentive for the miners to secure the coin. If one reads Peter R. Rizun's paper https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf, one will understand that the effective miner penalty for increasing the blocksize due to orphan blocks is proportional to the block reward.

The only reason miner penalties that are proportional to the block reward work in Monero is that Monero has a perpetual block reward (tail emission). Bitcoin does not.

There is a reason why there are many in Bitcoin that are opposed to increasing the blocksize. They understand that without a a minimum perpetual block reward (tail emission), Bitcoin has to rely on fees to provide an incentive to the miners. This means one has to limit the blocksize in order to force the fees to go up.
 
Edit 1; Dogecoin unlimited may work but not Bitcoin unlimited.
Edit 2: I have listened to the video and yes I see how Blockstream when combined with a very small blocksize does become a tool for the existing banking system. This however does not change the reality that there is currently no viable solution for decentralized blocksize scaling without a tail emission. If someone has such a solution I would like to see it.

[Hyena]

If it only were that simple. I have also been in the Bitcoin business since 2011. The fundamental failure of applying Monero type scaling models, where the miners are penalized a percentage of the blockreward if they mine bigger blocks, to Bitcoin is what happens when the block reward runs out. If the block reward runs out there is no penalty and no incentive for the miners to secure the coin. If one reads Peter R. Rizun's paper https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf, one will understand that the effective miner penalty for increasing the blocksize due to orphan blocks is proportional to the block reward.

The only reason miner penalties that are proportional to the block reward work in Monero is that Monero has a perpetual block reward (tail emission). Bitcoin does not.

There is a reason why there are many in Bitcoin that are opposed to increasing the blocksize. They understand that without a a minimum perpetual block reward (tail emission), Bitcoin has to rely on fees to provide an incentive to the miners. This means one has to limit the blocksize in order to force the fees to go up.
 
Edit 1; Dogecoin unlimited may work but not Bitcoin unlimited.
Edit 2: I have listened to the video and yes I see how Blockstream when combined with a very small blocksize does become a tool for the existing banking system. This however does not change the reality that there is currently no viable solution for decentralized blocksize scaling without a tail emission. If someone has such a solution I would like to see it.

Although your reasoning is plausible I would still argue that a free market solution would fix everything. Miners that are not satisfied with the rewards gained from the fees can feel free to quit mining. I will gladly be amongst the ones filling their place.

[ArticMine]

...

Although your reasoning is plausible I would still argue that a free market solution would fix everything. Miners that are not satisfied with the rewards gained from the fees can feel free to quit mining. I will gladly be amongst the ones filling their place.

A free market implies payment. How are the miners supposed to be paid without a block reward?

[Hyena]

...

Although your reasoning is plausible I would still argue that a free market solution would fix everything. Miners that are not satisfied with the rewards gained from the fees can feel free to quit mining. I will gladly be amongst the ones filling their place.

A free market implies payment. How are the miners supposed to be paid without a block reward?

TX fees.

[franky1]

we should not implement monero's version..
by that i mean
NOTHING should ever even come close to messing with the block reward mechanism. no way to higher it or reduce it.. apart from the built in halving mechanism that should continue doing what its doing.
again nothing else should mess with the reward mechanism now or in the future.


however over the next few DECADES the fee's become more important so miners will want to slowly have more transactions so that the fee's dont have to become expensive to subsidize the drop in reward per 4 years..

its better to have 9000 transactions at 1cent rather than 1 transaction at 9000cents.

and yes that might only be $90 but like i said the reward:fee switch over is not a problem today. but in DECADES so in DECADES we would hopefully be at more than 9000 transactions a block.
even if the doomsday agenda crew keep putting capacity of DECADES into rhetoric of this or last year. not understanding things grow.
after all.. 2 years ago core was saying 2mb bloat would kill chinese miners. but now saying 4mb bloat is ok.. funny that.
afterall.. 16 years ago the largest hard drive you could get was 4GB..
things grow and change given time

[Hyena]

we should not implement monero's version..
by that i mean
NOTHING should ever even come close to messing with the block reward mechanism. no way to higher it or reduce it.. apart from the built in halving mechanism that should continue doing what its doing.
again nothing else should mess with the reward mechanism now or in the future.


however over the next few DECADES the fee's become more important so miners will want to slowly have more transactions so that the fee's dont have to become expensive to subsidize the drop in reward per 4 years..

its better to have 9000 transactions at 1cent rather than 1 transaction at 9000cents.

and yes that might only be $90 but like i said the reward:fee switch over is not a problem today. but in DECADES so in DECADES we would hopefully be at more than 9000 transactions a block.
even if the doomsday agenda crew keep putting capacity of DECADES into rhetoric of this or last year. not understanding things grow.
after all.. 2 years ago core was saying 2mb bloat would kill chinese miners. but now saying 4mb bloat is ok.. funny that.
afterall.. 16 years ago the largest hard drive you could get was 4GB..
things grow and change given time

+1

I have spread the Bitcoin Unlimited propaganda on the bitcoin's own block chain now.


Interestingly, Bitcoin Unlimited is a featured wallet at bitcoin.com. This just made me trust Bitcoin Unlimited even more.

[franky1]

we should not implement monero's version..
by that i mean
NOTHING should ever even come close to messing with the block reward mechanism. no way to higher it or reduce it.. apart from the built in halving mechanism that should continue doing what its doing.
again nothing else should mess with the reward mechanism now or in the future.


however over the next few DECADES the fee's become more important so miners will want to slowly have more transactions so that the fee's dont have to become expensive to subsidize the drop in reward per 4 years..

its better to have 9000 transactions at 1cent rather than 1 transaction at 9000cents.

and yes that might only be $90 but like i said the reward:fee switch over is not a problem today. but in DECADES so in DECADES we would hopefully be at more than 9000 transactions a block.
even if the doomsday agenda crew keep putting capacity of DECADES into rhetoric of this or last year. not understanding things grow.
after all.. 2 years ago core was saying 2mb bloat would kill chinese miners. but now saying 4mb bloat is ok.. funny that.
afterall.. 16 years ago the largest hard drive you could get was 4GB..
things grow and change given time

+1

I have spread the Bitcoin Unlimited propaganda on the bitcoin's own block chain now.
[/url]

Interestingly, Bitcoin Unlimited is a featured wallet at bitcoin.com. This just made me trust Bitcoin Unlimited even more.

personally everyone switching to bitcoin unlimited is just as bad as everyone switching over to core.. it removes diversity.. however core should have its own user defined blocksize option instead of node users needing to cry to core for more and having devs say yes or no. like some oliver twist food scene.
'please sir can i have some more'

no one should have sole power over change. it should remain decentralized and diverse. but allow the freedom of growth by not stifling growth for corporate greed/ego/profit agenda

[Hyena]

personally everyone switching to bitcoin unlimited is just as bad as everyone switching over to core.. it removes diversity.. however core should have its own user defined blocksize option instead of node users needing to cry to core for more and having devs say yes or no. like some oliver twist food scene.

no one should have sole power over change. it should remain decentralized and diverse. but allow the freedom of growth by not stifling growth for corporate greed/ego/profit agenda

Yeah I would stay at core but have a custom block size limit for my node and reject SegWit. I think I could compile my own custom build from core's src code having block size increased and segwit disabled.

[ArticMine]

...

TX fees.

I was actually expecting this response. What then prevents TX fees from going to zero if there is an unlimited blocksize? Keep in mind that if all TX fees do is overcome the orphan block penalty the net fee paid to the miner would still be zero.

[jbreher]

If one reads Peter R. Rizun's paper https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf, one will understand that the effective miner penalty for increasing the blocksize due to orphan blocks is proportional to the block reward.

The only reason miner penalties that are proportional to the block reward work in Monero is that Monero has a perpetual block reward (tail emission). Bitcoin does not.

Fundamental misunderstanding. The orphan cost is indeed proportional to the block reward. But the block reward includes both the block subsidy, and the collective transaction fees.

[jbreher]

personally everyone switching to bitcoin unlimited is just as bad as everyone switching over to core.. it removes diversity..

Sure - _everyone_ switching over to BU reduces diversity - of implementation. However, in the current environment, almost half switching over would increase diversity of implementation.

[jbreher]

...

TX fees.

I was actually expecting this response. What then prevents TX fees from going to zero if there is an unlimited blocksize? Keep in mind that if all TX fees do is overcome the orphan block penalty the net fee paid to the miner would still be zero.

Your reply to expected statement is weaksauce. Obviously, what prevents TX fees from going to zero is that miners will not mine if there is no incentive. This is the same situation whether blocks are unlimited by the protocol, or limited to 1MB.

[ArticMine]

...

Fundamental misunderstanding. The orphan cost is indeed proportional to the block reward. But the block reward includes both the block subsidy, and the collective transaction fees.

block reward (presently 25 Ƀ)

This is from page 2 of the paper. So no the block reward does not include the fees. The point of the paper is to use orphan blocks to set a fee. Otherwise one ends up going in circles.

[ArticMine]

...

Your reply to expected statement is weaksauce. Obviously, what prevents TX fees from going to zero is that miners will not mine if there is no incentive. This is the same situation whether blocks are unlimited by the protocol, or limited to 1MB.

Competition among the miners will drive the fees to zero, unless what is proposed here is a mining cartel.

Edit: ... and yes when the TX fees do reach zero the miners will stop mining and the coin becomes insecure.

[jbreher]

The point of the paper is to use orphan blocks to set a fee. 

No. The point of the paper is to quantify the incentive for miners to mine. It shows that rational block size choice by miners is limited by the fact that larger blocks are orphaned more often than smaller blocks. Accordingly, blocks will be no larger than the point where marginal transaction fee equals marginal orphan probability cost.

[jbreher]

Competition among the miners will drive the fees to zero, unless what is proposed here is a mining cartel.

Which of course explains why we can choose between a new iPhone or a new Galaxy at a cost of zero.

Really?

[ArticMine]

The point of the paper is to use orphan blocks to set a fee. 

No. The point of the paper is to quantify the incentive for miners to mine. It shows that rational block size choice by miners is limited by the fact that larger blocks are orphaned more often than smaller blocks. Accordingly, blocks will be no larger than the point where marginal transaction fee equals marginal orphan probability cost.

How do you prevent a a 51% attack on Christmas Day when the blocksize is falling sharply, and there are hardly any TXs? This would be the optimal time for a 51% attack on Bitcoin unlimited if the statistics from VISA regarding peak transaction volumes on  December 23, and December 24 are any indication.

As for "free" cellphones, I'll stick with my rooted Nexus 4 and save over 20 CAD per month by avoiding a contract. The only "free lunch" in cellphone contracts is for the service provider.

[jbreher]

How do you prevent a a 51% attack ...

You don't. A 51% attack is a 51% attack, no matter the block size. What are you trying to get at? Are you trying to assert that your absurd hypothetical is somehow unique to the large block case?

As for "free" cellphones...

Way to completely avoid the point. No rational producer produces for no profit. Another (even more) absurd hypothetical.

[Hyena]

...

TX fees.

I was actually expecting this response. What then prevents TX fees from going to zero if there is an unlimited blocksize? Keep in mind that if all TX fees do is overcome the orphan block penalty the net fee paid to the miner would still be zero.

There are 2 kinds of maximum block sizes. The theoretical/logical one currently is 1 MiB. The practical one is much higher and is dependent on the network speed of most miners. It is impossible to exceed the practical block size limit because when exceeded your block will simply be orphaned. Even 95% consensus would not allow us to have blocks larger than the practical maximum block size. It is very possible to exceed the logical block size limit on the other hand but it requires consensus. That said, in both cases we do have a maximum block size limit which means TX fees won't go to zero. Even if they did go to zero due to altruistic miners there are block rewards which are essentially equivalent to TX fees paid by all Bitcoin stakeholders collectively.

In the hypothetical situation where Bitcoin price is too damn low and block reward is worth nothing miners will start dropping out. Those with cheaper electricity or simply altruistic miners will remain. Tor nodes don't get no block reward but they still exist! Sure the network is slow but it is wrong of you to assume that every person on Earth is egoistic. Also, stakeholders are definitely willing to protect their investment by providing additional security to Bitcoin network. Finally, 51% attack is not as destructive as you think it is. If it's executed by ASICs then the community will simply change the mining algorithm. The true value of Bitcoin is not held in its protocol but in its block chain. The block chain is distributed and cannot be attacked in any way. 51% attack does nothing to the old blocks. That's why Bitcoin Unlimited is not an altcoin! Ethereum Classic is a good example of how a fork will turn out. Stakeholders will lose nothing. We don't need consensus. Both parties can have their own fork of Bitcoin and go on their own way. Eventually the most effective one will prevail.

Now we obviously have a bunch of egoistic manboys on both sides who think their fork should be THE BITCOIN and the other fork should be something else. I don't have an answer to this, it's just stupid. But as I have said before this situation will be solved by itself. No party is stupid enough to fork right now without having a consensus. As demand for blocks goes up TX fees will gradually rise. The backlog of TXs will also rise. Eventually miners will start noticing that they are missing out a lot of profits because they are not mining for larger blocks. At that point they will switch to Bitcoin Unlimited. With Bitcoin-core miners actually are the losers because Bitcoin gets more centralized around the Core Maffia which will impose their will over the miners even more. Smart miners are going to choose Bitcoin Unlimited.

[franky1]

personally everyone switching to bitcoin unlimited is just as bad as everyone switching over to core.. it removes diversity..

Sure - _everyone_ switching over to BU reduces diversity - of implementation. However, in the current environment, almost half switching over would increase diversity of implementation.

agreed.

id rather see 5 different implementations. each with ~20% popularity.. thus avoid a devteam 51% takeover

[franky1]

Ethereum Classic is a good example of how a fork will turn out. Stakeholders will lose nothing. We don't need consensus. Both parties can have their own fork of Bitcoin and go on their own way. Eventually the most effective one will prevail.

Now we obviously have a bunch of egoistic manboys on both sides who think their fork should be THE BITCOIN and the other fork should be something else. I don't have an answer to this, it's just stupid. But as I have said before this situation will be solved by itself. No party is stupid enough to fork right now without having a consensus.

i think its best you highlight ethereums "fork" was an intentional split. otherwise it confuses the issue of what a fork is

soft fork= no permanent split, no consensus needed by user level nodes, only consensus needed by pools to activate
hard consensual fork= no permanent split, consensus needed by user level  nodes first then pools second to activate
hard controversial fork = no permanent split, consensus isn't set, lots of orphaning occurs because no one can agree
hard intentional split fork=  permanent split, nodes 'ban IP' the opposition nodes to avoid them orphaning own desires, altcoin is created

[Hyena]

Ethereum Classic is a good example of how a fork will turn out. Stakeholders will lose nothing. We don't need consensus. Both parties can have their own fork of Bitcoin and go on their own way. Eventually the most effective one will prevail.

Now we obviously have a bunch of egoistic manboys on both sides who think their fork should be THE BITCOIN and the other fork should be something else. I don't have an answer to this, it's just stupid. But as I have said before this situation will be solved by itself. No party is stupid enough to fork right now without having a consensus.

i think its best you highlight ethereums "fork" was an intentional split. otherwise it confuses the issue of what a fork is

soft fork= no permanent split, no consensus needed by user level nodes, only consensus needed by pools to activate
hard consensual fork= no permanent split, consensus needed by user level  nodes first then pools second to activate
hard controversial fork = no permanent split, consensus isn't set, lots of orphaning occurs because no one can agree
hard intentional split fork=  permanent split, nodes 'ban IP' the opposition nodes to avoid them orphaning own desires, altcoin is created

The next big bitcoin rally brings a new wave of people first time into the Bitcoin business. We can call them "the next generation of Bitcoiners".

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

The new generation of Bitcoiners will have to choose a wallet. They will read the descriptions of Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Core. I'm sure they will choose BU because it's an elegant solution while SegWit is an ugly hack.

Even if the network is unable to come to a preliminary consensus and multiple forks come to be, it is possible to build a Bitcoin wallet that tracks ownership on all forks. What needs to be propagated is the fact that the longest chain is the true Bitcoin block chain. It is the responsibility of wallet providers to prevent users from spending coins that don't belong to the longest block chain.

[smoothie]

...

Although your reasoning is plausible I would still argue that a free market solution would fix everything. Miners that are not satisfied with the rewards gained from the fees can feel free to quit mining. I will gladly be amongst the ones filling their place.

A free market implies payment. How are the miners supposed to be paid without a block reward?

TX fees.

How do you ensure enough fees exist if there is no cap on block size/space?

[Hyena]

...

Although your reasoning is plausible I would still argue that a free market solution would fix everything. Miners that are not satisfied with the rewards gained from the fees can feel free to quit mining. I will gladly be amongst the ones filling their place.

A free market implies payment. How are the miners supposed to be paid without a block reward?

TX fees.

How do you ensure enough fees exist if there is no cap on block size/space?

How do you ensure enough fees exist if there is 1 MiB cap on block size/space?

In some of my earlier posts I have indicated that there is no such thing as "no cap on block size". There is always going to be a hard cap defined by the network parameters. It is so whether the consensus likes it or not. Since the effective maximum block size is dependent on the overall network speed it does not belong to a protocol layer. Instead, each and every node should be able to define their own preferred maximum block size just like nodes can define their own TX fee. What core is trying to accomplish is like trying to enforce a predefined TX fee for every node with an ugly hack. Bitcoin wallet software is already complex. Making it even more complex will just prevent new developers from contributing. For a MIT licensed open-source project this is hypocrisy overload. Not to mention that blockstream is not the owner nor the creator of Bitcoin. Yet they act like they were. This is unacceptable.

[yelllowsin]

I have been in the Bitcoin business since 2011. I have obviously followed the block size debate and even tried to propose solutions myself.

Today I was watching this video (Waves Weekly Crypto Roundup. Golem Project E06). In the very end it mentions that now a mining pool with 7% of hashing power supports Bitcoin Unlimited and thus Segwit will never get 95% of consensus. At first I thought it was really bad news for Bitcoin but then I started to investigate what the hell is Bitcoin Unlimited. Turns out that Bitcoin Unlimited is the ultimate free market solution to the block size debate. We already have child-pays-for-parent system implemented in Bitcoin. Now, removing the maximum block size limit is the next logical step. I am surprised that I didn't think of it myself a year ago. This is simply ingenious.

A miner will not all of sudden start to produce 1 GiB blocks because it will be orphaned for sure. Free market is the natural protection against any attempts to abuse the absence of block size limit. The block size limit doesn't belong to the protocol layer as a strict number. Instead, it should be determined by the free market. Bitcoin Unlimited is the way to go. It's fully compatible with the philosophy of Satoshi Nakamoto. I support it because I support the free market.

So, if Bitcoin Unlimited is so great, then why isn't everyone talking about it? I guess it's because several big boys have invested a lot of money into Segwit and other alternatives. Also, big miners with shitty internet speed do not like the idea of a theoretically unlimited block size. You know how this kind of situation is also called? Self-interest and corruption at the expense of the greater good. From this day I finally have a strong opinion on the block size debate and this is great. All I needed is to see that the removal of block size limit is a step in favour of the free market and that free market itself will eliminate all the problems that might rise from this. However, if you know that there is an option even better than Bitcoin Unlimited then please let me know in this thread as my decision about supporting Bitcoin Unlimited is not final.

Hi, first thanks for taking a step on supporting BU (Bitcoin Unlimited). I don't support SegWit either, it is a very complex implementation that is not needed right now. Bitcoin scaling problems right now could be solved simply with BU. They try to convince you that SegWit is needed, but only for their own interested as Blockstream private company supports now the Bitcoin Core members.

My vote is for maintaing the current bitcoin code and give support to Bitcoin Unlimited which is running just fine and basically only increase the block size.

Bitcoin Unlimited = Make Bitcoin great again  

[kiklo]

Bitcoin Unlimited won't happen unless the Chinese Mining Pools agree to implement it ,
since they control over 51% of the mining hash.

 

[tokeweed]

It's funny how mods transferred this thread to the altcoin section.    I can imagine some people who are supporting Bitcoin Unlimited getting really butthurt with this.  Maybe it's time for it's followers to converge at forum.bitcoin.com.  That's Ver's forum and I'm pretty sure you guys will find like minded people.

I go there from time to time and the traffic is decent.

[azguard]

Bitcoin Unlimited won't happen unless the Chinese Mining Pools agree to implement it ,
since they control over 51% of the mining hash.

 

this wont happen any time soon maybe in several year when they start to lose if the start to lose domination on market
considering they control mining power all over the world think that they will decide how it will be one one way or the other

[flipme]

"Free market" is New world Order and has to fail.  The internet is a battlefield that is only just starting to spill blood. It will soon become full war. Not between nations but between the people and the ruling classes. It started with Brexit and is spreading into the US. The people will take back control but first we must crash fiat. It has started with the GB £ and the US $ will follow

Bitcoin must not go mainstream, It must stay the payment system for the Resistance to the New world Order.  A global insurrection against banker occupation has began. If we scale too quickly they will hijack our tech. I'm with segregated witness. Let's see the banking system fail first and then we will see if we get 95%

While I agree with most of what you said I cannot interpret free market as a symptom of the new world order. Quite the opposite. No idea how you came up with that. Sorry.

"Free market" is New world Order and has to fail.  The internet is a battlefield that is only just starting to spill blood. It will soon become full war. Not between nations but between the people and the ruling classes. It started with Brexit and is spreading into the US. The people will take back control but first we must crash fiat. It has started with the GB £ and the US $ will follow

Bitcoin must not go mainstream, It must stay the payment system for the Resistance to the New world Order.  A global insurrection against banker occupation has began. If we scale too quickly they will hijack our tech. I'm with segregated witness. Let's see the banking system fail first and then we will see if we get 95%

check out where Greg maxwells wages are coming from..
check out where matt corallos wages are coming from
check out where pieter wuilles wages are coming from
that $75mill investment so far into blockstream has come from the banking groups.

think about it, research it and realise who is controlling it.

Thanks for pointing that out. Follow the money. Good idea.

EDIT:
For anyone new to this thread, listen to this video. I just discovered it and it sure is relevant to this topic.

Good that you feel violated, you should realise that Bitcoin is close to its headshot.
Why there's two categories at all? Its all about crypto, some alts maybe better in the meantime.
You BTC cowboys got to be shot off your high horse already and get your shit in order.
You're standing in the way of development and evolution, your pissing all over the place.

You've lost it already. You got nothing to do with the BTC market anymore, anyway, thats Chinese, 99%, the rest will follow and then you can start out like every other alt and you can name it Bitcoin Unlimited or whatever and see how far you'll make it with your outdated pile of crap.

[jbreher]

Good that you feel violated, you should realise that Bitcoin is close to its headshot.
Why there's two categories at all? Its all about crypto, some alts maybe better in the meantime.
You BTC cowboys got to be shot off your high horse already and get your shit in order.
You're standing in the way of development and evolution, your pissing all over the place.

You've lost it already. You got nothing to do with the BTC market anymore, anyway, thats Chinese, 99%, the rest will follow and then you can start out like every other alt and you can name it Bitcoin Unlimited or whatever and see how far you'll make it with your outdated pile of crap.

Comedy Gold.

Butthurt much? Sorry your preferred crypto is but a pimple on Bitcoin's ass.

[Hyena]

Good that you feel violated, you should realise that Bitcoin is close to its headshot.
Why there's two categories at all? Its all about crypto, some alts maybe better in the meantime.
You BTC cowboys got to be shot off your high horse already and get your shit in order.
You're standing in the way of development and evolution, your pissing all over the place.

You've lost it already. You got nothing to do with the BTC market anymore, anyway, thats Chinese, 99%, the rest will follow and then you can start out like every other alt and you can name it Bitcoin Unlimited or whatever and see how far you'll make it with your outdated pile of crap.

Comedy Gold.

Butthurt much? Sorry your preferred crypto is but a pimple on Bitcoin's ass.

+1

I always chuckle when I see butthurt altcoin boys. They secretly hate themselves for not buying into Bitcoin when it was cheap and then hope to undo their mistake by buying into scammy ICOs.

edit:
Great News: Bitmain CEO Jihan Wu Will Firmly Support Funding of Bitcoin Unlimited

[jbreher]

I always chuckle when I see butthurt altcoin boys. They secretly hate themselves for not buying into Bitcoin when it was cheap and then hope to undo their mistake by buying into scammy ICOs.

And they'll hate themselves even more this time next year for not buying in now.

Great News: Bitmain CEO Jihan Wu Will Firmly Support Funding of Bitcoin Unlimited

Interesting article, but full of so much bad reporting that I don't trust any of it.
- implication aim of BU is to create a second chain (rather all be on one chain with user-set blocksize)
- implication aim of BU is to increase the 21M emission limit (ummm... no)

Just another poorly-written advocacy piece.

[Hyena]

Interesting article, but full of so much bad reporting that I don't trust any of it.
- implication aim of BU is to create a second chain (rather all be on one chain with user-set blocksize)
- implication aim of BU is to increase the 21M emission limit (ummm... no)

Just another poorly-written advocacy piece.

Haha you are right. That article is biased so MUCH it sickens me.

I hope this SegWitCoin will be rejected so hard the Core devs get fired by blockstream.