Why not increase the block size?

[merc1er]

This is serious. Convince me please.

[1714819943]

1714819943

[1714819943]

1714819943

[bob123]

This topic already has been discussed in countless threads.
I'd suggest you search the forum using the upper right search bar. You'll find more threads than you'd wish.

A few points:

• Increasing the size by a linear factor is not scaling; this is simply postponing the problem, that's not scaling - by definition
• It creates more problems (network propagation, memory-/CPU- usage, etc..) than it solves
• It contributes to extreme centralization
• ...

Anyone who claims increasing the blocksize is a good way to scale, didn't research enough regarding this topic
There haven't been any tests made on how the network reacts to bigger blocks.
Calling the increase of the blocksize a scaling solution without proper testing (e.g. for new vulnerabilities) is simply retarded.


If you want to read more arguments, with a more detailed explanation, use the search function.

[Zin-Zang]

This is serious. Convince me please.

Hmm,
There is no technical reason that the block size can not be increased to 8MB with no real concern.

The other side makes an argument , the increased blocksize will cause less people to run full non-mining nodes.

The problems with their argument is this, Bitcoin Cash has proven 8mb is doable without any major issues,
Bitcoin Cash increase to 32 mb is too much too soon as their 8mb blocks were not even full.

The Facts are this those bitcoin non-mining nodes receive no income to run a node, where as a Dash Masternode or a PoS Node do earn income.
They really have no financial incentive, except safeguarding for FREE , bitcoin specs.

Why the others think people are going to keep providing free service when miners rake in all the money is beyond me.

Fact , a BlockSize increase would increase transaction capacity, 8MB has proven not much of a strain at all even for Bitcoin Cash who moved to 32 mb.
*Even moving to a real 4mb block size and not that 4mb weighted segwit nonsense would have had more transaction capacity.*

There other argument is increasing the blocksize won't really scale, the problem with that is they don't need to scale to match visa, they only need to scale to match what bitcoin requires, which 8 mb would handle easily for the foreseeable future.

The real reason they want to hamper bitcoin onchain blocksize is to force people to use their offchain solution called LN.
LN will eventually enact a fractional reserve system like the Banks are used too.
It was their diabolical plan all along , IE: The Banks that were funding bitcoin development.
https://www.ccn.com/mastercard-wants-to-patent-a-fractional-reserve-cryptocurrency-bank/

Of course they deny it, and the people posting in this forum are clueless to the above, but it is the real reason they never actually wanted to improve bitcoin's on chain transaction capacity. Time will show you the truth, just keep looking for new articles about crypto and enacting a fractional reserve, as the banks plan for you to think you thought of doing it instead of them.

Little Side Node:
The Miners do have a hail mary pass that can kill the LN network, whether they use it or not is up to them.
It is called a 51% Ignore Segwit Attack and merely by refusing to add segwit transactions to their blocks, they can literally kill the LN network.
So the Bankers Victory over Bitcoin is not written in stone yet.  Time will tell.

FYI:
Bitcoin could easily increase their nodes just by paying small % of the mined blocks to the node system, like Dash does.
So the Node operators could cover their expenses without worry. Not going to happen however, btc miners too greedy.

[aliashraf]

This is serious. Convince me please.

Hmm,
There is no technical reason that the block size can not be increased to 8MB with no real concern.

The other side makes an argument , the increased blocksize will cause less people to run full non-mining nodes.

The problems with their argument is this, Bitcoin Cash has proven 8mb is doable without any major issues,
Bitcoin Cash increase to 32 mb is too much too soon as their 8mb blocks were not even full.

Actually, BCH network proves nothing, it doesn't process enough transactions, there is not enough transactions out there to process.

On the other hand calculating the situation with a practically loaded network with larger block size would easily show a specific level of centralization side effect because of propagation delay and proximity premium for larger pools, they switch to mining new blocks more earlier while the remaining of the network have to validate much more transactions.

On the contrary, a one-time block time decrease, would be helpful for decentralization because of reducing variance (by increasing the sample numbers). Generally, variance is a more critical problem for centralization compared to propagation delay, so block time decrease has a net positive outcome in terms of decentralization.

[warboat]

The problems with their argument is this, Bitcoin Cash has proven 8mb is doable without any major issues,
Bitcoin Cash increase to 32 mb is too much too soon as their 8mb blocks were not even full.

It does not have to crank out 32mb blocks everytime. The blocksize expands UP TO 32mb as needed.
Currently block reward is around $80k per block and it has only about 1500 tx in a block. This means ALL BTC holders are paying about $50 per TX in coin inflation. Clearly, the miners can easily scale TX volume onchain with plenty of margin for profit. This is the real cost of TX, not just the amount the sender pays for the TX. TX volume clearly needs to scale onchain.
The reason non-mining nodes are not rewarded in PoW systems is because proof-of-node is corruptible paradigm. Non-mining nodes are basically just triple checking the double checking done by miners using the tech equivalent of an abacus.
If non-mining nodes cannot keep up, then they should not be protected. This is natural selection process and it must be allowed to occur. If you try to save the retards, you end up with a retarded network.

[bob123]

The problems with their argument is this, Bitcoin Cash has proven 8mb is doable without any major issues,

Btrash bcash didn't prove anything.

The transaction volume on bcash is so extremely low, that blocks are always empty. They even would be called empty with 1 MB block size.

The last 10 blocks have a median size of less than 50 KB. That's 1/20th of the old legacy bitcoin block size. Honestly.. that's a joke. Dogecoin has more transactions than btrash.

Saying bcash has provem 8mb is doable, is delusional.

There other argument is increasing the blocksize won't really scale, the problem with that is they don't need to scale to match visa, they only need to scale to match what bitcoin requires, which 8 mb would handle easily for the foreseeable future.

Please explain:
How can increasing something by a linear factor be called scaling ?

Spoiler: It can't, because that's not scaling. That's ignoring and postponing a problem.

LN will eventually enact a fractional reserve system like the Banks are used too.
It was their diabolical plan all along , IE: The Banks that were funding bitcoin development.

Dafuq. Did you smoke too much weed or where do these retarded conspiracy theories come from ?  

[Wind_FURY]

This is serious. Convince me please.

Because it will not have consensus.

Because it will cause a chain-split again.

Because it will divide the community again.

Because hard forks are exclusive and they shut out nodes.

Bitcoin Cash is available, if you want the bigger blocks.

[warboat]

The problems with their argument is this, Bitcoin Cash has proven 8mb is doable without any major issues,

Btrash bcash didn't prove anything.

The transaction volume on bcash is so extremely low, that blocks are always empty. They even would be called empty with 1 MB block size.

The last 10 blocks have a median size of less than 50 KB. That's 1/20th of the old legacy bitcoin block size. Honestly.. that's a joke. Dogecoin has more transactions than btrash.

Saying bcash has provem 8mb is doable, is delusional.

There other argument is increasing the blocksize won't really scale, the problem with that is they don't need to scale to match visa, they only need to scale to match what bitcoin requires, which 8 mb would handle easily for the foreseeable future.

Please explain:
How can increasing something by a linear factor be called scaling ?

Spoiler: It can't, because that's not scaling. That's ignoring and postponing a problem.

Increasing capacity by ANY amount is scaling. In the world of tech, we scale to the limit of technology and demand, we don't need to scale things to infinity to have a scaling solution.
Bitcoin Cash YESTERDAY, put thru blocks of over 10kb and even blocks of over 20mb to prove that it is feasible to process that many TX at low fees simply by not hitting the capacity limit and thus imposing fee competition. BTC is the cruel joke at such low limits so close to being triggered and setting off competitive TX fees.

[warboat]

This is serious. Convince me please.

Because it will not have consensus.

Because it will cause a chain-split again.

Because it will divide the community again.

Because hard forks are exclusive and they shut out nodes.

Bitcoin Cash is available, if you want the bigger blocks.

We just had a hard fork with the inflation bug, nodes that didn't upgrade got shut out. That's actually good. why would you want to include retarded nodes?

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

This is serious. Convince me please.

Hmm,
There is no technical reason that the block size can not be increased to 8MB with no real concern.

The other side makes an argument , the increased blocksize will cause less people to run full non-mining nodes.

The problems with their argument is this, Bitcoin Cash has proven 8mb is doable without any major issues,
Bitcoin Cash increase to 32 mb is too much too soon as their 8mb blocks were not even full.

The Facts are this those bitcoin non-mining nodes receive no income to run a node, where as a Dash Masternode or a PoS Node do earn income.
They really have no financial incentive, except safeguarding for FREE , bitcoin specs.

Why the others think people are going to keep providing free service when miners rake in all the money is beyond me.

Fact , a BlockSize increase would increase transaction capacity, 8MB has proven not much of a strain at all even for Bitcoin Cash who moved to 32 mb.
*Even moving to a real 4mb block size and not that 4mb weighted segwit nonsense would have had more transaction capacity.*

There other argument is increasing the blocksize won't really scale, the problem with that is they don't need to scale to match visa, they only need to scale to match what bitcoin requires, which 8 mb would handle easily for the foreseeable future.

The real reason they want to hamper bitcoin onchain blocksize is to force people to use their offchain solution called LN.
LN will eventually enact a fractional reserve system like the Banks are used too.
It was their diabolical plan all along , IE: The Banks that were funding bitcoin development.
https://www.ccn.com/mastercard-wants-to-patent-a-fractional-reserve-cryptocurrency-bank/

Of course they deny it, and the people posting in this forum are clueless to the above, but it is the real reason they never actually wanted to improve bitcoin's on chain transaction capacity. Time will show you the truth, just keep looking for new articles about crypto and enacting a fractional reserve, as the banks plan for you to think you thought of doing it instead of them.

Little Side Node:
The Miners do have a hail mary pass that can kill the LN network, whether they use it or not is up to them.
It is called a 51% Ignore Segwit Attack and merely by refusing to add segwit transactions to their blocks, they can literally kill the LN network.
So the Bankers Victory over Bitcoin is not written in stone yet.  Time will tell.

FYI:
Bitcoin could easily increase their nodes just by paying small % of the mined blocks to the node system, like Dash does.
So the Node operators could cover their expenses without worry. Not going to happen however, btc miners too greedy.

Honestly, I ran a full node until recently, but the space was too much so I caved and pruned.

[warboat]

here, read this report from the recent BCH stress test.
https://stresstestbitcoin.cash/assets/reports/taste_test_report.pdf
they got as much as 73,000 TX into 1 block.
hit peak rates of 125tx/s.
This is Bitcoin scaling.....TODAY....NOW

[warboat]

With these trade-off :
1. Higher cost to run full-nodes
2. Leads to less full-nodes

You scale Bitcoin to cater for users. You don't scale Bitcoin to cater for full nodes. If full nodes cannot handle the UTXO sets, then too bad, don't hold back a world scale paradigm just to please the minority.