Scalling Bitcoin through increase in block size

[crypto2rule]

I see more and more comments about community losing patience with Bitcoin developments. One result of it was the creation of Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size of Bitcoin but it seems it is not enough. I wonder why they did not created from the beginning a block size of 100MB, 200 or maybe 300MB? Why limit themselves to 8MB? By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...
I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?

[SivaSankarSMS]

Hello everyone , block size increase for bitcoin one of the result or otherwise ,but bitcoin is increase the growth in future.

[OmegaStarScream]

I see more and more comments about community losing patience with Bitcoin developments. One result of it was the creation of Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size of Bitcoin but it seems it is not enough. I wonder why they did not created from the beginning a block size of 100MB, 200 or maybe 300MB? Why limit themselves to 8MB? By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...
I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?

To run a full node, you are required to download the whole blockchain and as years pass, the file will become much bigger (with a larger block) which make the average user unable to do it and this will leave us with only big corporations doing it (centralization). There will be a point where Bcash will face the same issues we used to face before SegWit so yeah, increasing the block size is not the solution for the long term.

[amishmanish]

There have been a lot of posts and replies on this scaling issue. For example, here is a reply. There are a few Bcash shills in the topic too.

What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?

Solving concerns of decentralization with increased block size are mostly hardware capacity dependent. Hardware capacity vs cost ration is not expected to increase in the same way as the blockchain size with a increased block size.

That is why it is logical to go for scaling through innovations like SegWit and LN. An agreed upon blocksize increase can be done when other implementations have become mature and robust enough.

[Pursuer]

I see more and more comments about community losing patience with Bitcoin developments.

then you are looking at 8+ months old comments.

One result of it was the creation of Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size of Bitcoin but it seems it is not enough.

would you mind explaining how you came up with that conclusion? bitcoin cash currently has 8 MB blocks and they are empty (each block is 200 kB on average!) and how do you say it is not enough

I wonder why they did not created from the beginning a block size of 100MB, 200 or maybe 300MB? Why limit themselves to 8MB?

possibly because they were well aware of the dangers of increasing the block size to a huge amount all of a sudden. look at last months spam attack against bitcoin cash. it didn't cost a thing and it lasted more than week. blocks were full, transactions were delayed and you had to pay a higher fee if you wanted to get in a block (sounds familiar doesn't it?) and syncing becomes that much harder with bigger blocks.
one of the problems with bigger blocks as OmegaStarScream said is the size and storage but also it is the usage of hardware when you have to use your CPU power to verify transactions (signatures).

By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...

yes it will fix it but only temporarily.

I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?

there is a much better solution and that I called second layer which is basically what you keep hearing as Lightning Network.

[bobylevamo]

I see more and more comments about community losing patience with Bitcoin developments. One result of it was the creation of Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size of Bitcoin but it seems it is not enough. I wonder why they did not created from the beginning a block size of 100MB, 200 or maybe 300MB? Why limit themselves to 8MB? By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...
I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?

I think we will see more of splitting of bitcoins like bitcoin cash. This is good for investors in long run as well.

[bug.lady]

I see more and more comments about community losing patience with Bitcoin developments. One result of it was the creation of Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size of Bitcoin but it seems it is not enough. I wonder why they did not created from the beginning a block size of 100MB, 200 or maybe 300MB? Why limit themselves to 8MB? By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...
I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?

To run a full node, you are required to download the whole blockchain and as years pass, the file will become much bigger (with a larger block) which make the average user unable to do it and this will leave us with only big corporations doing it (centralization). There will be a point where Bcash will face the same issues we used to face before SegWit so yeah, increasing the block size is not the solution for the long term.

In the beginning of 21st century it seemed unthinkable that high quality video could be transmitted over Internet, more of that: people were unable to stream music at that time because they had very small bandwidth. And look where we are now. You have VOD readily available and affordable, for 5$ a month or whatever.

I think the same will happen to block size. Number of people on Earth is more or less limited and everybody can do only so many transactions a day. Number of transactions daily is limited that way, too. That top limit can be accommodated into blocks with that and that size. No more is needed. So we should increase the block size, knowing, that it will need to happen only to those limits, and knowing, that very soon the disk space to accommodate those limits will be very affordable for an average Joe.

[Pursuer]

I see more and more comments about community losing patience with Bitcoin developments. One result of it was the creation of Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size of Bitcoin but it seems it is not enough. I wonder why they did not created from the beginning a block size of 100MB, 200 or maybe 300MB? Why limit themselves to 8MB? By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...
I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?

To run a full node, you are required to download the whole blockchain and as years pass, the file will become much bigger (with a larger block) which make the average user unable to do it and this will leave us with only big corporations doing it (centralization). There will be a point where Bcash will face the same issues we used to face before SegWit so yeah, increasing the block size is not the solution for the long term.

In the beginning of 21st century it seemed unthinkable that high quality video could be transmitted over Internet, more of that: people were unable to stream music at that time because they had very small bandwidth. And look where we are now. You have VOD readily available and affordable, for 5$ a month or whatever.

I think the same will happen to block size. Number of people on Earth is more or less limited and everybody can do only so many transactions a day. Number of transactions daily is limited that way, too. That top limit can be accommodated into blocks with that and that size. No more is needed. So we should increase the block size, knowing, that it will need to happen only to those limits, and knowing, that very soon the disk space to accommodate those limits will be very affordable for an average Joe.

the real question is
1. how much do you think is the block size limit that is needed for scaling? 8 MB? 32 MB? 100 MB?
2. how big a block do you think most people can handle with all these "advancements"? 8 MB? 32 MB? 100 MB?

it is said that VISA handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps) if we want to get to that number we need 540 MB blocks.
2000 transaction/second * 60 second * 10 Min (1 block) = 1,200,000 transactions * 450 Byte on average tx size = 540,000,000 Byte or ~540 MB

unless your goals for scaling is A LOT smaller than this, there is no point in increasing the block size alone for scaling.

[bug.lady]

By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...

yes it will fix it but only temporarily.

No, not temporarily. Permanently. The maximum number of transactions is limited: it is number of people and organizations on Earth (limited) times the number of transactions they do in 10 minutes (limited). So the space needed to accommodate that number of transactions (aka block size) is limited too.

I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?

there is a much better solution and that I called second layer which is basically what you keep hearing as Lightning Network.

People have doubts about Lightning Network. I am not taking sides here, but there is talk about high fees in the future and domination of LN by banks and corporations.

The onchain solution, on the other hand, doesn't have those doubts. I believe we must persevere until the time comes the disk space is cheaper and everybody can afford (if they choose so) to run a full node with blocks of limited size, but larger than they are currently.

[bug.lady]

I see more and more comments about community losing patience with Bitcoin developments. One result of it was the creation of Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size of Bitcoin but it seems it is not enough. I wonder why they did not created from the beginning a block size of 100MB, 200 or maybe 300MB? Why limit themselves to 8MB? By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...
I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?

To run a full node, you are required to download the whole blockchain and as years pass, the file will become much bigger (with a larger block) which make the average user unable to do it and this will leave us with only big corporations doing it (centralization). There will be a point where Bcash will face the same issues we used to face before SegWit so yeah, increasing the block size is not the solution for the long term.

In the beginning of 21st century it seemed unthinkable that high quality video could be transmitted over Internet, more of that: people were unable to stream music at that time because they had very small bandwidth. And look where we are now. You have VOD readily available and affordable, for 5$ a month or whatever.

I think the same will happen to block size. Number of people on Earth is more or less limited and everybody can do only so many transactions a day. Number of transactions daily is limited that way, too. That top limit can be accommodated into blocks with that and that size. No more is needed. So we should increase the block size, knowing, that it will need to happen only to those limits, and knowing, that very soon the disk space to accommodate those limits will be very affordable for an average Joe.

the real question is
1. how much do you think is the block size limit that is needed for scaling? 8 MB? 32 MB? 100 MB?
2. how big a block do you think most people can handle with all these "advancements"? 8 MB? 32 MB? 100 MB?

it is said that VISA handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps) if we want to get to that number we need 540 MB blocks.
2000 transaction/second * 60 second * 10 Min (1 block) = 1,200,000 transactions * 450 Byte on average tx size = 540,000,000 Byte or ~540 MB

unless your goals for scaling is A LOT smaller than this, there is no point in increasing the block size alone for scaling.

Your calculation is valid, but it should be the ultimate goal. We don't need to achieve it now. Currently (unfortunately, but this is our reality) VISA is still more popular than BTC when it comes to paying for stuff. But knowing that the limit exists puts those who are concerned about disk space at peace, and we can do the increases slowly, only to be able to accommodate the local tx peaks, like the one we had in Dec'17.

Also, the average tx size is smaller with SegWit.

[Pursuer]

No, not temporarily. Permanently.

it is temporarily fixed until the block size (ie 8MB) is filled, then next target and next target... and as I calculated in my previous comment you will need nearly unlimited block size for that. and that is not considering spam attacks.

People have doubts about Lightning Network. I am not taking sides here, but there is talk about high fees in the future and domination of LN by banks and corporations.

most of the information online about Lightning Network is either FUD or advanced and hard to understand.
from what I understand the network has no chance of being centralized. there will always be nodes run by individuals even if banks run LN nodes too. and if you don't like them you can choose not to use them. just choose a different route which goes through the rest of the nodes.
not to mention, thanks to onion routing, any node that receives a transaction can not tell where the start and end of this tx are coming from.

Your calculation is valid, but it should be the ultimate goal. We don't need to achieve it now. Currently (unfortunately, but this is our reality) VISA is still more popular than BTC when it comes to paying for stuff. But knowing that the limit exists puts those who are concerned about disk space at peace, and we can do the increases slowly, only to be able to accommodate the local tx peaks, like the one we had in Dec'17.

Also, the average tx size is smaller with SegWit.

well those who say we need block size increase say we do not need SegWit so the average tx size is 450 bytes. and with SegWit we are getting a capacity increase (on chain scaling). I would agree that it is not enough. but I also say the way to go is not to increase the block size as BCH did.

[fhl182]

I see more and more comments about community losing patience with Bitcoin developments. One result of it was the creation of Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size of Bitcoin but it seems it is not enough. I wonder why they did not created from the beginning a block size of 100MB, 200 or maybe 300MB? Why limit themselves to 8MB? By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...
I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?

To run a full node, you are required to download the whole blockchain and as years pass, the file will become much bigger (with a larger block) which make the average user unable to do it and this will leave us with only big corporations doing it (centralization). There will be a point where Bcash will face the same issues we used to face before SegWit so yeah, increasing the block size is not the solution for the long term.

In the beginning of 21st century it seemed unthinkable that high quality video could be transmitted over Internet, more of that: people were unable to stream music at that time because they had very small bandwidth. And look where we are now. You have VOD readily available and affordable, for 5$ a month or whatever.

I think the same will happen to block size. Number of people on Earth is more or less limited and everybody can do only so many transactions a day. Number of transactions daily is limited that way, too. That top limit can be accommodated into blocks with that and that size. No more is needed. So we should increase the block size, knowing, that it will need to happen only to those limits, and knowing, that very soon the disk space to accommodate those limits will be very affordable for an average Joe.

the real question is
1. how much do you think is the block size limit that is needed for scaling? 8 MB? 32 MB? 100 MB?
2. how big a block do you think most people can handle with all these "advancements"? 8 MB? 32 MB? 100 MB?

it is said that VISA handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps) if we want to get to that number we need 540 MB blocks.
2000 transaction/second * 60 second * 10 Min (1 block) = 1,200,000 transactions * 450 Byte on average tx size = 540,000,000 Byte or ~540 MB

unless your goals for scaling is A LOT smaller than this, there is no point in increasing the block size alone for scaling.

I don't see 540 MB blocks as a problem at all. People download fullHD and 4k video streams every day at their laptop while running youtube. There is enough bandwidth and space for big blocks these days.

[bug.lady]

Also, the average tx size is smaller with SegWit.

well those who say we need block size increase say we do not need SegWit so the average tx size is 450 bytes. and with SegWit we are getting a capacity increase (on chain scaling). I would agree that it is not enough. but I also say the way to go is not to increase the block size as BCH did.

Thank you for a good discussion. Obviously, I am a living example of a person saying that we need to eventually increase the block size and work on more efficient ways to store and execute transactions (SegWit is just a one example here)

I simply think that bitcoin as a technology cannot get frozen. It must develop and adapt as the technology available around it changes constantly. In our constantly changing world, stagnation is death.

[Uzunhahn]

If I understand this well Bitcoin is messed up at the moment. We all know that some things have to change, but things change in Bitcoin are getting harder and harder.

[Pursuer]

-snip-

I don't see 540 MB blocks as a problem at all. People download fullHD and 4k video streams every day at their laptop while running youtube. There is enough bandwidth and space for big blocks these days.

that is 540 MB per block. there is one block every 10 minute on average which means 144 blocks per day or 144* 540 MB = ~77.76 GB per day. and you are storing this amount every day
in other words comparing this process with video streaming is wrong on so many levels! first is that you don't store the videos you stream. you just watch temporarily. second you don't verify anything, you just watch a video which will consume little CPU power but a block needs to be verified, you don't just download it. you have to check every byte to see if it is a valid thing or fake. and that takes CPU and RAM and eventually you will find yourself needing only a strong computer to handle a full node and end up with master nodes aka centralization.

[bug.lady]

-snip-

I don't see 540 MB blocks as a problem at all. People download fullHD and 4k video streams every day at their laptop while running youtube. There is enough bandwidth and space for big blocks these days.

that is 540 MB per block. there is one block every 10 minute on average which means 144 blocks per day or 144* 540 MB = ~77.76 GB per day. and you are storing this amount every day
in other words comparing this process with video streaming is wrong on so many levels! first is that you don't store the videos you stream. you just watch temporarily. second you don't verify anything, you just watch a video which will consume little CPU power but a block needs to be verified, you don't just download it. you have to check every byte to see if it is a valid thing or fake. and that takes CPU and RAM and eventually you will find yourself needing only a strong computer to handle a full node and end up with master nodes aka centralization.

Sure, 540 MB is huge, I admit it even though I am an advocate of block increases. This is why I thought of small increases over time, because I am sure that in, say, 10 years 540 MB block will not be considered huge anymore.

Currently 540MB per block (=78 Gb per day) is infeasible also because setting up a new full node requires downloading the full history and it would take months or years if the increment were 78 Gb each day (it takes days or weeks with current block size). However, it is all currently only.

[mOgliE]

Hi,

I understand your thought. Increasing the block would allow for even more exchanges and potentially more "bitcoin" for all miners.

But actually, as the size increasen you must be able to store all related data, about all transactions. As an individual, mining thus become impossible.

So increasing the size would be giving more powers to centralized authorities... Which is exactly what bitcoin is not about!

[Pursuer]

-snip-

I don't see 540 MB blocks as a problem at all. People download fullHD and 4k video streams every day at their laptop while running youtube. There is enough bandwidth and space for big blocks these days.

that is 540 MB per block. there is one block every 10 minute on average which means 144 blocks per day or 144* 540 MB = ~77.76 GB per day. and you are storing this amount every day
in other words comparing this process with video streaming is wrong on so many levels! first is that you don't store the videos you stream. you just watch temporarily. second you don't verify anything, you just watch a video which will consume little CPU power but a block needs to be verified, you don't just download it. you have to check every byte to see if it is a valid thing or fake. and that takes CPU and RAM and eventually you will find yourself needing only a strong computer to handle a full node and end up with master nodes aka centralization.

Sure, 540 MB is huge, I admit it even though I am an advocate of block increases. This is why I thought of small increases over time, because I am sure that in, say, 10 years 540 MB block will not be considered huge anymore.

Currently 540MB per block (=78 Gb per day) is infeasible also because setting up a new full node requires downloading the full history and it would take months or years if the increment were 78 Gb each day (it takes days or weeks with current block size). However, it is all currently only.

I am not against block size increase either. in fact from what I have understood, and also if I recall correctly Andreas Antonopoulos also said we need on-chain scaling along size the second layer solution. a middle ground may be the best way to move forward which is mostly why I was excited about SegWit2x which never happened!

but hopefully with SegWit capacity increase and later on with things such as signature aggregation we can be fine for a while and don't need a hard fork anytime soon.

[monkeydominicorobin]

I see more and more comments about community losing patience with Bitcoin developments. One result of it was the creation of Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size of Bitcoin but it seems it is not enough. I wonder why they did not created from the beginning a block size of 100MB, 200 or maybe 300MB? Why limit themselves to 8MB? By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...
I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?

It is obvious that you are not a programmer since you are clamoring for something which will clog the system. Or is it your intention to clog the system.

[alyssa85]

The block size increase is not going to happen - Segwit2x was it's last chance and no-one is going to bother with another campaign.

Scaling is going to happen via alts. We can already see this in the number of transactions processed per 24 hours.

The number of transactions processed by bitcoin in the last 24 hours was 208,102, and that is way down from this time last year when it was about 250,000. You can see it on the following graph:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactions.html

The number of transactions processed by Ethereum was 847,153 up from 100,000 transactions in Jan 2017

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/ethereum-transactions.html

And you can see similar growth to Ethereum on other alts like Litecoin (which as gone from about 10000 transactions in Jan 2017 to 52,000 transactions now)

Basically scaling is happening very fast - by by-passing bitcoin and using alts.