Why is the 1 MB blocksize limit for?

[Anonymous Kid]

Okay okay, before you rush and say "To prevent spam attacks!!", please wait and read this whole thread.

^The above argument is what I hear all the time. However, there is something not quite right about that reasoning. It doesn't make sense.

Let's start with a little background info...

Satoshi implemented the 1 MB blocksize limit without telling anyone; He just did it randomly. There was no discussion beforehand and after he did it, he did not mention it anywhere. People had to look at the code/use it to see the change. The mannerism in which the 1 MB blocksize limit was added is already strange in itself and as soon as it was done, debates/arguments among the community started happening.

Satoshi never told people that the 1 MB limit was to prevent spam - its just what everyone inferred.

Okay... history lesson over.

Now here is why it doesnt make sense:

The process of a transaction getting confirmed and added to the blockchain goes like this:

1) Tx. is broadcast with a custom fee
2) Tx. is added to the mempool
3) Miner collects tx. from the mempool (usually they will pic tx. based on which has the highest fee and work their way down from there)
4) Miner adds tx. to their block
5) Miner calculates the proof of work
6) Miner publishes block to the blockchain

Okay now we have the process outlined we can analyse the miners incentives/behaviour. I'll be using game theory to explain this and here is where it gets interesting.

The miners main goal is to make profit. This is why he adds tx. to his block in the first place (it allows for more fees and thus, more profits). So we can assume that without the blocksize limit, the miners would add infinite tx. to their block right? WRONG!

Allow me to explain:

Look at step 3.. Collecting the tx. from the mempool and adding it to their block takes a set amount of time and the longer that the miner spends collecting the tx. and adding it to their block, the less time they can spend calculating the proof of work - thereby giving their competition (other miners) the edge. The miners would naturally (based on game theory) find a nash equilibrium between collecting as many tx. as possible and finding enough time to calculate the proof of work in order to give them the maximum profitability. Thus, we can assume, that without a blocksize limit (infinite), the block size would stay relatively the same.

This is why an infinite block size limit is not an issue. I honestly cannot understand why he added the 1 MB limit.
Can someone please, please explain? I have been pondering this for over a month now. Thanks.

[1714136793]

1714136793

[1714136793]

1714136793

[1714136793]

1714136793

[1714136793]

1714136793

[HitbtcSCAM]

who knows why the CIA did that

[Anonymous Kid]

who knows why the CIA did that

I cant tell if this is sarcasm or not, but it does seem like a viable possibility - a subtle way to try and break bitcoin from within

[baradfo]

Okay okay, before you rush and say "To prevent spam attacks!!", please wait and read this whole thread.

^The above argument is what I hear all the time. However, there is something not quite right about that reasoning. It doesn't make sense.

Let's start with a little background info...

Satoshi implemented the 1 MB blocksize limit without telling anyone; He just did it randomly. There was no discussion beforehand and after he did it, he did not mention it anywhere. People had to look at the code/use it to see the change. The mannerism in which the 1 MB blocksize limit was added is already strange in itself and as soon as it was done, debates/arguments among the community started happening.

Satoshi never told people that the 1 MB limit was to prevent spam - its just what everyone inferred.

Okay... history lesson over.

Now here is why it doesnt make sense:

The process of a transaction getting confirmed and added to the blockchain goes like this:

1) Tx. is broadcast with a custom fee
2) Tx. is added to the mempool
3) Miner collects tx. from the mempool (usually they will pic tx. based on which has the highest fee and work their way down from there)
4) Miner adds tx. to their block
5) Miner calculates the proof of work
6) Miner publishes block to the blockchain

Okay now we have the process outlined we can analyse the miners incentives/behaviour. I'll be using game theory to explain this and here is where it gets interesting.

The miners main goal is to make profit. This is why he adds tx. to his block in the first place (it allows for more fees and thus, more profits). So we can assume that without the blocksize limit, the miners would add infinite tx. to their block right? WRONG!

Allow me to explain:

Look at step 3.. Collecting the tx. from the mempool and adding it to their block takes a set amount of time and the longer that the miner spends collecting the tx. and adding it to their block, the less time they can spend calculating the proof of work - thereby giving their competition (other miners) the edge. The miners would naturally (based on game theory) find a nash equilibrium between collecting as many tx. as possible and finding enough time to calculate the proof of work in order to give them the maximum profitability. Thus, we can assume, that without a blocksize limit (infinite), the block size would stay relatively the same.

This is why an infinite block size limit is not an issue. I honestly cannot understand why he added the 1 MB limit.
Can someone please, please explain? I have been pondering this for over a month now. Thanks.

I know that Satoshi was concerned heavily on security at the time of creation, could that possibly be an answer to your question? I would have to delve into more postings here and elsewhere to come up with more of a concrete answer. But my initial answer would have to center on that line of thinking.

[tuskacz]

That is why bitcoin cash was created to have 8MB block size which allows faster processing.

[stompix]

Allow me to explain:

Look at step 3.. Collecting the tx. from the mempool and adding it to their block takes a set amount of time and the longer that the miner spends collecting the tx. and adding it to their block, the less time they can spend calculating the proof of work - thereby giving their competition (other miners) the edge. The miners would naturally (based on game theory) find a nash equilibrium between collecting as many tx. as possible and finding enough time to calculate the proof of work in order to give them the maximum profitability. Thus, we can assume, that without a blocksize limit (infinite), the block size would stay relatively the same.

It doesn't work like that.
Miners are not spending time collecting tx and there is no time for collecting and time for solving.
The only race is to have their block broadcast first and not get orphaned.
And based on you theory we should only see empty blocks in the chain.

I cant tell if this is sarcasm or not, but it does seem like a viable possibility - a subtle way to try and break bitcoin from within

Yeah, the CIA planned on how to break bitcoin before anybody heard of it.
Maléfique!!!!

[Anonymous Kid]

It doesn't work like that.
Miners are not spending time collecting tx and there is no time for collecting and time for solving.
The only race is to have their block broadcast first and not get orphaned.
And based on you theory we should only see empty blocks in the chain.

Yes it does work like that because there are bottlenecks as to how fast you can collect and add a tx. into a block. Its not 'instantaneous'.

And no, we would not only see empty blocks; Thats the whole thesis of game theory.
Also, if we would see empty blocks then, then why aren't we seeing empty blocks now? There is no requirement for the miners to fill the 1 MB block. They could leave it empty if they wanted. <-- *hint* They don't because of game theory.

[Anti-Cen]

The developers are ruled by the miners and are just coming up with excuses and Segwit wallets
are hardly any cheaper in fees than normal fees so they will keep yapping and ensure the
block-chain is slow regardless of block sizes.

Lightning Network is about turning Miners into banks and we are being sold a lie, bread today,
jam tomorrow. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2776719.msg28395400#msg28395400

if ETH can get the transactions per second up from 7 to 15 like years ago then it does not
take a programmer to know the development team here could do it also.

[fanbeila]

I think that satoshi might have not thought that this huge volume of people would be starting to use bitcoins which would make it highly congested.

[btcgreen63]

Thus, we can assume, that without a blocksize limit (infinite), the block size would stay relatively the same.

Where does this conclusion come from as opposed to blocks half the current size or double the current size? It is solving the hash puzzle that takes the time, not gathering up transactions.

You can't just increase the block size. It puts pressure on the cost of storage and bandwidth. Here's what a recent study says:

Critical system parameters, such as the maximum block size and block frequency,
can be increased when the provisioned bandwidth increases. The increase
in provisioned bandwidth suggests that the block size can be increased by a factor
of 1.7 without increasing centralization beyond its de facto level in 2016.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.03998.pdf

Increasing the block size increases centralization.

[stompix]

Yes it does work like that because there are bottlenecks as to how fast you can collect and add a tx. into a block. Its not 'instantaneous'.

And no, we would not only see empty blocks; Thats the whole thesis of game theory.
Also, if we would see empty blocks then, then why aren't we seeing empty blocks now? There is no requirement for the miners to fill the 1 MB block. They could leave it empty if they wanted. <-- *hint* They don't because of game theory.

Ok, I'll bite.

How long does it take for a tx to be collected and added into a block?
Do you have a time for this? Or for 10 tx let's say.

We don't see 0 blocks mainly because pools are not risking to be target for the public outrage and lose miners from a more than certain boycott.
Second, what are you trying to say with your example?
I just said it , you don't see 0 blocks because it gives you almost no advantage, you use the same argument to prove that size does matter?
What is this, contrareverseantireverseupdown strategy?

[timmas]

I'm pretty sure that miners continually redefine the block that they are working on to include more transactions as they are received/prioritized by the node.