Block issue SOLVED!? Extension Blocks

[amacar2]

I like this part

a third option in the scaling debate that would bring about a block size increase and malleability fix via soft fork, or a change that doesn't risk splitting the bitcoin blockchain.

Hard fork will be disaster for bitcoin network. Haven't gone through all technical details behind this new solution but if it is only soft fork than it is far better than BU.

[1714897443]

1714897443

[1714897443]

1714897443

[Thatstinks]

So here is a question, in order to move forward with Extension Blocks, what needs to be done and who needs to agree?

[jonald_fyookball]

I like this part

a third option in the scaling debate that would bring about a block size increase and malleability fix via soft fork, or a change that doesn't risk splitting the bitcoin blockchain.

Hard fork will be disaster for bitcoin network. Haven't gone through all technical details behind this new solution but if it is only soft fork than it is far better than BU.

Why will it be a disaster if everyone is in consensus about a HF?
 

[arklan]

I like this part

a third option in the scaling debate that would bring about a block size increase and malleability fix via soft fork, or a change that doesn't risk splitting the bitcoin blockchain.

Hard fork will be disaster for bitcoin network. Haven't gone through all technical details behind this new solution but if it is only soft fork than it is far better than BU.

Why will it be a disaster if everyone is in consensus about a HF?
 

because that consensus will never happen.

[franky1]

purse and bitpay..

hmm
DCG again.. hmmm

though extension blocks is another backdoor implementation.. it still does not address the issues of native key users.

[jonald_fyookball]

I like this part

a third option in the scaling debate that would bring about a block size increase and malleability fix via soft fork, or a change that doesn't risk splitting the bitcoin blockchain.

Hard fork will be disaster for bitcoin network. Haven't gone through all technical details behind this new solution but if it is only soft fork than it is far better than BU.

Why will it be a disaster if everyone is in consensus about a HF?
 

because that consensus will never happen.

IF everyone agrees then it can happen, so this is not a reason.

[andrew24p]

extension blocks arent going to get passed, the devs seemed to be pretty split on them and feel like they are sacrificing security for community consensus.

[BitFinnese]

We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.

i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after.
my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN
bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO

I think the problem with most miners is that they don't understand with the future holds with all these changes coming to the space, fear of unknown

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them.  Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

[anonymoustroll420]

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them.  Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

Whats funny is BU plans to add LN too.

[Killerpotleaf]

We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.

i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after.
my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN
bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO

I think the problem with most miners is that they don't understand with the future holds with all these changes coming to the space, fear of unknown

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them.  Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

if somthing "kills" miners its toxic to bitcoin...

if bitcoin is secured by the incentive to mine 2.5BTC every time minutes then it is very INSECURE

as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

[andrew24p]

We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.

i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after.
my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN
bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO

I think the problem with most miners is that they don't understand with the future holds with all these changes coming to the space, fear of unknown

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them.  Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

if somthing "kills" miners its toxic to bitcoin...

if bitcoin is secured by the incentive to mine 2.5BTC every time minutes then it is very INSECURE

as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

The miners are screwing themselves over by proving to be bad actors.

[jonald_fyookball]

as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

[Killerpotleaf]

as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

[AngryDwarf]

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

It actually does not need a block limit. Miners can dynamically produce their own block sizes to cope with mempool transaction pool demand pressure and by artificially delaying lower paying transactions fees. If bitcoin price rockets out of the solar system, big blocks full of 1 sat transaction fees and no coinbase reward will work perfectly fine.

[wck]

as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

Seems like there could be an enforced minimal fee to prevent spam and past that a sliding schedule that controls how soon the transaction gets put in a block.   While it would be artificial it could increase fee revenue.    After all why should buying a car and driving it off the lot be the same as buying a cup of coffee?   If you needed quicker confirmation you should pay a higher fee for that.

There are several dynamics that can be played around with:
1) Size of transaction --- basically what we have now  ... if you use a lot of data it costs more
2) Speed of the transaction --- Seems logically that there should be a fee schedule and low fee payers simply wait longer even if the wait is artificial.
3) Amount of the transaction --- Maybe it does make sense to have some very small fee the scales on on transaction size.  Say something like 0.01%  <== Okay I know this is evil     

[jonald_fyookball]

as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

You make a lot of sense but i'm not sure we need a blocksize limit to do this. 
I'm curious if you've read Peter Rizun's whitepaper about the fee market sans blocksize limit.

[Killerpotleaf]

as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

You make a lot of sense but i'm not sure we need a blocksize limit to do this. 
I'm curious if you've read Peter Rizun's whitepaper about the fee market sans blocksize limit.

yes i read it.
I reference it in my essay:
https://medium.com/@adamstgbit_25789/bitcoin-unlimited-to-bring-stability-to-bitcoins-fee-market-6b5a4f882fc0

Conclusion,
technological limitations create costs to miners for including TX’s in blocks, economical incentives create a balanced fee market based on these costs and TX demand. As subsidy halves again, and again maximizing fee revenue becomes the name of the game for miners, and as competition for collecting these fees grow, so does the NEED to keep a well balanced fee market which yields optimal fees / block. Blocksize cannot outpace TX demand, blocksize cannot outpace bitcoin adoption, node decentralization is in no way threatened by Bitcoin Unlimited’s Emergent Consensus.

[jonald_fyookball]

as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

You make a lot of sense but i'm not sure we need a blocksize limit to do this. 
I'm curious if you've read Peter Rizun's whitepaper about the fee market sans blocksize limit.

yes i read it.
I reference it in my essay:
https://medium.com/@adamstgbit_25789/bitcoin-unlimited-to-bring-stability-to-bitcoins-fee-market-6b5a4f882fc0

Conclusion,
technological limitations create costs to miners for including TX’s in blocks, economical incentives create a balanced fee market based on these costs and TX demand. As subsidy halves again, and again maximizing fee revenue becomes the name of the game for miners, and as competition for collecting these fees grow, so does the NEED to keep a well balanced fee market which yields optimal fees / block. Blocksize cannot outpace TX demand, blocksize cannot outpace bitcoin adoption, node decentralization is in no way threatened by Bitcoin Unlimited’s Emergent Consensus.

I'm slightly confused on your position because it sounds like you agree with Peter that EC can solve the issues...on the other hand, Peter
is advocating that we shouldnt and neednt have a limit that is below market demand, while you are saying blockszie cannot outpace adoption.
I'm not sure if there's an actual disagreement or you're just describing a different property of the natural fee market.

 

[_nur]

We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.

i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after.
my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN
bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO

That would be very good if that is true but if not then we will still be suffering from slow confirmation and many will shift to ethereum. But aside from increasing the blocksize I hope segwit could do something about the miner fees which is very high right now. But anyway if 4mb effective blocksize will be implemented successfully then it will be time for bitcoin to be used in shops not only online.

and many will shift from ethereum to tezos due to dictatorship and centralization not to mention the hardfork problem that leads to ethereum classic and also the unsecure javascript unverified code

[Killerpotleaf]

as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction
is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)
pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.
even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.
1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX
50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.
both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.
we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal  pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

You make a lot of sense but i'm not sure we need a blocksize limit to do this.  
I'm curious if you've read Peter Rizun's whitepaper about the fee market sans blocksize limit.

yes i read it.
I reference it in my essay:
https://medium.com/@adamstgbit_25789/bitcoin-unlimited-to-bring-stability-to-bitcoins-fee-market-6b5a4f882fc0

Conclusion,
technological limitations create costs to miners for including TX’s in blocks, economical incentives create a balanced fee market based on these costs and TX demand. As subsidy halves again, and again maximizing fee revenue becomes the name of the game for miners, and as competition for collecting these fees grow, so does the NEED to keep a well balanced fee market which yields optimal fees / block. Blocksize cannot outpace TX demand, blocksize cannot outpace bitcoin adoption, node decentralization is in no way threatened by Bitcoin Unlimited’s Emergent Consensus.

I'm slightly confused on your position because it sounds like you agree with Peter that EC can solve the issues...on the other hand, Peter
is advocating that we shouldnt and neednt have a limit that is below market demand, while you are saying blockszie cannot outpace adoption.
I'm not sure if there's an actual disagreement or you're just describing a different property of the natural fee market.

I agree that there is a natural cost to miners for including TXs in blocks. But i do not think this will be the limiting factor in determining Blocksize. Peter says we dont need a block size limit at all because miners won't produce blocks that have a bad risk/reward chance-to-orphen/fees.

I'm saying Peter's theory determines an upper limit, but blocksize won't get close to this limit at all because miners will set a limit which will create fee pressure. This will be like 2MB with today level of adoption and maybe 2.2MB 6 months from now. ( obviously no where near peters limit)

miners are in the business of selling blockspace
they can:
 A) offer lots and lots of blockspace for cheap ( near peters cost per byte )
or
 B) offer a very limit amount of blockspace at a high price

which will yield the more revenue?

well... this is a classic economic problem with a straightforward way of determining how to price your good ( or in this case how to size your blocks )



this optimal amount of block space the miners should be offering, depends on fee paying TX demand, which isn't limitless, and very much tied to adoption.

miners are incentivized to set an Excivies Blocksize (EB) which doesn't go over this optimal block size limit.

miners won't create massive blocks unless there is Massive TX demand.

TX demand will take YEARS to get anywhere near needing 16MB blocks.