I'm guessing he was referring to the EB parameter - Excessive Block - which is the limit at which your BU node will provisionally (i.e., up to the AD - Acceptance Depth) accept as a provisionally admissible blockchain tip. For reasons (heh), BU defaults that parameter to 16MB. However, it is just a GUI setting to change it. I have mine set to 2MB.
Dunno, he just said "permits".
I understand that concern. However, I think we will never again see an era of miners accepting zero-fee transactions as they have done in the past. Bear in mind that each additional byte that a miner includes in a block is a real cost to that miner, in the form of a larger probability of his block (if indeed that miner solves that round) being orphaned. Bigger block, more likely to be orphaned. This is where some of us believe the proper market forces should operate to set block size - not some central planning edict from the devs.
It's certainly an optimistic view. I haven't mined in a while (never trusted pre-pay ASIC vendors), but when I did, miners were mostly morons who would happily pay a pool a fee in order to avoid variance while they could mine on a smaller, lower fee (or even no fee) pool and earn more. Maybe they've wised up since you actually have to shell out semi-serious money to be a miner these days. Wasn't it just recently (a year or so) when some large pool was having it's blocks orphaned from some SPV related mining method? Anyway, I'd assume miners to act in their rational self-interests, so there is that.
I would also argue that choosing to run software which limits the block size to 1 MB is not "central planning", but proper market forces choosing that parameter much in the same way they agree to the 21 million coin limit.
I understand that too. Indeed, all things being equal, more nodes is better than less nodes. Couple of points to consider:
- BU does not necessarily lead to larger blocks. I believe it likely will, but it may not. What it does is make it easy for each user to signal his preferences and set his limits. Inasmuch as Bitcoin operates _at_all_ because it harnesses the interests of its participants to 'do right', we believe the participants are the correct parties to determine the maxblocksize.
I'm fairly certain that BU would lead to larger blocks. It seems to be the primary reason for it's existence. As far as participants choosing the maxblocksize, ultimately they will, but with the only metric that matters, their wallet.
- The SegWit Omnibus Changeset allows 4MB blocks as well. Perhaps you do not support The SegWit Omnibus Changeset either, but it does bear mentioning.
4 MB seems huge to me and it might be a strong reason why SegWit isn't gaining acceptance as fast as it otherwise might.
- In the meantime, Bitcoin -- at 1MB blocks -- is hard-capped at ~250,000 transactions per day. Period. The consequences of this could rationally be argued to be constraining new entrants into the system. (Indeed, I would say it is obvious that it does, but grant that others may have a differing opinion.) The pool of node operators is a self-selected subset of Bitcoiners. If we prevent new Bitcoiners from entering the system, the potential population from which node operators are selected cannot grow. Many of us think it likely that some percentage of new entrants will start up nodes. So increasing block size may actually result in more operational full nodes.
When I read a new thread about "slow confirmation" or "expensive transaction fees", I see most people complaining about the inability to send low value transactions, with tiny fees, and have them confirm rapidly. If these are the kind of "new" users we hope to acquire by increasing the block size, I have my doubts that many of them would be interested in the extra expenses incurred from running a full node (especially if the bandwidth requirements are further increased). Maybe I'm wrong.
I run a full node because I am extremely interested in the freedom Bitcoin can provide and I want to do my part to support the health of the network. Censorship-proof transactions along with a seize-proof store of value is immensely important in today's world of ever increasing capital controls, not to mention the escalating war on cash. I don't transact with Bitcoin that often. I certainly don't think that "buying a coffee at Starbucks" is a brilliant use case for Bitcoin.
I say it all the time, but it bears repeating: Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist.
The people complaining about confirmation time or fees seem to want to use Bitcoin for common, everyday purchases and that just doesn't make any sense to me. Bitcoin is far too powerful a tool for our mundane, daily purchases, especially considering the real resources that are required for block chain upkeep and maintenance. Who is more interested in the basically altruistic act of running a full node, the guy who wants unfettered transfer of value between individuals, or the guy paying for his carrots at the grocery store? Maybe you are right and some of those new people will become fanatics like me, but I just don't see it.
I'm not arguing that we should artificially limit the transaction capacity of Bitcoin. I just think we should increase it intelligently, in a way that doesn't just cram more data into the permanent ledger which every full node must keep a copy of forever. Perhaps the reason an increase hasn't happened already is because there is no good solution yet.
Poll
