Adjustable Blocksize Cap: Why not?

[PrimeNumber7]

Your suggestion effectively allows the miners to decide the blocksize. It would be trivial and cost-free for the miners to either send many transactions to themselves with an arbitrary transaction fee, or to include fewer transactions than is economically logical. 

Actually, there is the cost of opportunity because miners don't get paid mining their own transactions. Also, I don't see why a miner would purposely raise his own storage cost...

A miner does not get paid to confirm his own transactions, but he also does not pay anything to confirm his own transaction. If the maximum block size is based on the last x number of blocks, including additional transactions will increase the maximum block size in the future. There is some opportunity cost, in the form of the greater chance that a block will be orphaned when it includes an additional transaction.

The additional storage cost of including a transaction is close to zero.

These discussions could potentially lead to good ideas.

One idea that i could think is determine block size limit based on hardware/internet growth. There's one BIP about it which is, BIP 103 Block size following technological growth (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0103.mediawiki).

The hard part are,
1. Determine the proper percentage for block size limit growth. The BIP mention 17.7% growth/year.
2. Until when the the limit growth happen? The BIP mention until July 2063, but i doubt today's growth will reflect growth in next 42 years.

That BIP might be reasonable. There does need to be a vibrant fee market, or else the miners will bid down transaction fees to zero, which creates other problems.

If something like this BIP were to be implemented, I would suggest the automatic growth be limited to 10 years, and after 5 years, a new hard fork can be implemented (if there is consensus) to extend the growth indefinitely.

[1714601306]

1714601306

[1714601306]

1714601306

[1714601306]

1714601306

[pooya87]

Let' be realistic here, even if they would have the same number of transactions as BTC, doge fees would be cheaper,

All copies of bitcoin suffer the same flaws and shortcomings as bitcoin. Under the same exact circumstances, they all act the same.
If doge was spammed attacked for 18 months where 80k transactions were injected into its mempool within seconds and size of its mempool went up 600% over its block cap, the fees would be exactly the same as bitcoin.
We have seen similar fee spikes in all copies of bitcoin that inherit its issues, from ethereum to litecoin and even useless bcash even when its mempool was empty

[topcoin360]

Your suggestion effectively allows the miners to decide the blocksize. It would be trivial and cost-free for the miners to either send many transactions to themselves with an arbitrary transaction fee, or to include fewer transactions than is economically logical.  

Actually, there is the cost of opportunity because miners don't get paid mining their own transactions. Also, I don't see why a miner would purposely raise his own storage cost...

A miner does not get paid to confirm his own transactions, but he also does not pay anything to confirm his own transaction. If the maximum block size is based on the last x number of blocks, including additional transactions will increase the maximum block size in the future. There is some opportunity cost, in the form of the greater chance that a block will be orphaned when it includes an additional transaction.

It doesn't make any sense. When the demand for block space exceeds the supply you'd rather mine high paying real transactions than your own no paying fake transactions.

The additional storage cost of including a transaction is close to zero.

Does that mean there is no miracle solution to spams?

[Wind_FURY]

For OP.
Your reasoning is correct and based on common sense. If all technologies are improving,then it is necessary and possible to increase the block. There is no reason to freeze the block size.
 
The problem is that the Bitcoin community is mostly zombified. They are sincerely convinced that the block cannot be increased. They have no real reason, but they are convinced of it.
Therefore, they will generate refutations for any proposal to increase the block. They generate such arguments against increasing at a high rate. All of them without proof, just look plausible.
 If you take the time to prove one claim untenable, another will immediately appear. And the number of such pseudo-true statements is not limited.
For example, "spam from miners". This problem is not there, it is just made up. This problem was not present when the blocks were half-empty, this problem is not present when the blocks became full. And there is no evidence of the existence of "spam from miners".

When you doubt the credibility of this argument, there will be arguments in the form of "lack of processor power, RAM, block propagation speed over the network, etc." I emphasize that all these statements are without evidence. And you will have to look for evidence that they are untenable. If you expose these statements, the following will appear: like "increasing the block increases censorship", etc.

How to break through this swamp is not understood.

p/s/ why was the Khaos77 post deleted?

Your idea to “scale” Bitcoin is to increase transaction-throughput despite the technical costs on the network? OK. Block size increases, simply centralizes validators. That’s not “scaling”.  None of it is “pseudo-statements”. You are on a disinformation campaign, sir.

BUT, newbies. Listen to him, and learn the HARD WAY. That’s how I learned.

[zbig001]

Decentralization is hard to gain and easy to lose, I'm afraid..
And achieving Byzantine fault tolerance quality is much easier than actual decentralization.

In the case of Bitcoin, to achieve just Byzantine security, three nodes responsible for block production and validation would be enough, I suppose.

But would it really have anything to do with decentralization?
Of course not....

Do not forget that mining pools are not a threat to Bitoin's decentralization just because miners can unsubscribe at any time and start running full nodes on their own.
If the owner of a large mining pool does anything harmful to Bitcoin, it will instantly lose miners and market position and its potential to harm ends.

Bitcoin's mining industry is still far from the theoretical limits of its development.

Now there are tens of thousands of full nodes dealing only with validation, in the future such a number of full nodes may turn out to be necessary for the free operation of fully developed mining.

[stompix]

If doge was spammed attacked for 18 months where 80k transactions were injected into its mempool within seconds and size of its mempool went up 600% over its block cap, the fees would be exactly the same as bitcoin.

You've gone full 101% cultist mode.
I was pointing a fact, I was never telling you that long-term larger blocks are the solution, but you went into a full defensive mode going to extremes.
What if there is an EMP that will target only doge wallets? What if the reptilians will unleash a new version of the alien parasite that will target only Doge owners?
Then it will surely prove Bitcoin is better!

The whole thing is pretty simple, can the Bitcoin network confirm 1  million transactions a day? No, it can't in the current state. Can doge do it? Yes, it can.
Can the LN outperform Doge, yes, it can!
You're telling me that an F50 Ferrari isn't faster than a Moskvitch because they are both out of gas.

We have seen similar fee spikes in all copies of bitcoin that inherit its issues, from ethereum to litecoin and even useless bcash even when its mempool was empty

Bitcoin is currently doing  314,531 tx in the last 24 with an average $17.09 USD fee, Ethereum which is also quite slow compared to others is doing 1,121,409 a day with $5.8 USD in fees.

Leave the cultism aside, it's pretty simple and obvious to everybody.
ON CHAIN bitcoin will never be able to confirm the same amount of transactions as Doge, never! It doesn't matter how many cars are on the highway, what color they have, and where they are heading!

[GGUL]

Your idea to “scale” Bitcoin is to increase transaction-throughput DESPITE the technical costs on the network?

Again you lie, again you create another strange statement. I do not know anyone on the forum who would like to increase the block despite the technical costs. Why do you invent it?
There is a concept of estimating technical costs. According to my calculations, if the owner of a full node makes an average of one transaction per month, then it is more profitable to keep a full node with a 10mb block and pay cents in the form of a transaction fee than to keep a full node with a 1MB block and pay 5-10$ fee per transaction. Therefore, the statement that when the block is increased, the user's costs will necessarily increase is already incorrect.

If we look at your statement above for pseudo-valid statements:

OP, it isn't that simple. Research the effects of increasing the block size cap on network latency, network security, and how the costs in the network transfers from the miners to the nodes.

"on network latency" - unsubstantiated. If you just take the calculator and take the block size of 10mb, you will see that there is no problem with this. But you didn't make any calculations, you don't need to know the truth. You need to refute the possibility of increasing the block by any effort.
"network security" - unsubstantiated.
"costs in the network transfers from the miners to the nodes" - unsubstantiated.

And you say:None of it is “pseudo-statements”.

OK. Block size increases, simply centralizes validators. That’s not “scaling”.  

I've been waiting for this. Pseudo-arguments such as "disk size, processor power, RAM, internet speed, etc." come to an end.
Then there is the main argument of "the increasing centralization (reduction of decentralization)".

So, for newbies. (since there is a tradition to address newbies.). When the arguments "increasing centralization (decreasing decentralization)" appear, then the constructive discussion ends. Because these statements "increasing centralization (decreasing decentralization)" are usually presented as self-sufficient. For some reason, it is considered that it is not necessary to provide any evidence.

If my opponent wanted to confirm his words with evidence, then he should have provided:
1) How it measures the level of centralization (decentralization).
2) What is the level of centralization (decentralization) now, at 1mb block.
3) What is the level of centralization (decentralization) will be if we increase the block, for example, to 10MB.

[DooMAD]

I wonder how a convincing argument convinced you that the block can't be increased?

You're moving the goalposts a bit there.  I didn't say I was convinced it can't be increased.  Just that increases should be moderate, not excessive.  

If the arguments against increasing the block were convincing, then they should remain the same now. All you have to do is get them out, dust them off, and give them to the public.

In the end, I think it was ultimately more of an economic question than it was a technical one for me.  Whether or not the Bitcoin network could theoretically cope with larger blocks without sacrificing nodecount is completely immaterial if the nodes in question have no interest in allowing you to get past the first hurdle.  It pretty much boils down to this.  We can argue over technical details for the rest of time, but the fact is, the arguments mean nothing if the people who secure the chain simply don't want to offer more of their own resources in order to permit a further increase beyond what SegWit is already achieving.

[aliashraf]

Wake up **** is playing you for fools.
All because he took a payout from the bankers.

Why should you do this buddy? Be nicer to yourself in the first place and to prominent figures like the one who are used to attack, now for a while. I'm personally against many ideas and the whole vision of him, but we desperately need the mountain of knowledge and expertise he got for the future improvements, and should appreciate his contributions in the past, after all.

That said, you have every right to challenge any idea or philosophy you find inappropriate, expressing your thoughts as long as it is not about spreading baseless claims or scam projects which I'm sure is not the case with you.

[amishmanish]

Why do we keep having these redundant discussions? There already are Alts with every possible change you can think of.

Why should Bitcoin do something that it hasn't set out to do? We should discuss block size increase when LN and initiatives to reduce transactions size have provably failed.

A block-size increase is the last step in a lasting solution. The other steps of a "lasting solution" INCLUDE the development and usage of the ecosystem in ways that lead to a justifiable fee market for the very long term. Your view may depend on what "lasting" means to you.

[topcoin360]

Guys, I didn't know how hard it was to understand that what's protecting the network is the honest hashrate not the block size limit. Would you all repeat after me: The network is safe as long as 51% of the hashrate is honest. The network is safe as long as 51% of the hashrate is honest. The network is safe as long as 51% of the hashrate is honest. Satoshi Nakamoto probably took 5sec to choose a 1MB block cap and it was to prevent a congestion attack on the network, at that time it was more than enough to answer the need of the users and the internet speed was slower but things have changed since then. And guys BIP 103 are you kidding me!? We can't even predict the price of btc tommorow morning with a margin of error of less than 20% and you think we are able to plan the next 42 years?? I don't know if we all live on the same planet but on mine btc is still at a very early stage and is still pretty useless so we shouldn't even worry about experimenting new things...

That said, here is my new proposal
The block size limit increases/decreases in proportion to the change in the average transaction fee from the previous block with a 0.1MB min and a 10MB max. The 10MB is to celebrate the 1st decade of bitcoin. Open for debate!

P.s.

Please no more spam/orphan block kumbaya bs theories on this thread. Ty.

[pooya87]

You've gone full 101% cultist mode.
I was pointing a fact, I was never telling you that long-term larger blocks are the solution, but you went into a full defensive mode going to extremes.

I don't know why it comes out that way to you, all I mean is that if you want to compare two cryptocurrencies you must compare them under the same circumstances not take the capped usage of bitcoin and compare it with the theoretical possibility in another coin.

Bitcoin is currently doing  314,531 tx in the last 24 with an average $17.09 USD fee, Ethereum which is also quite slow compared to others is doing 1,121,409 a day with $5.8 USD in fees.

Ethereum block size is about 1.6-1.8 MB per 10 minute which is pretty close to what bitcoin has per 10 minute. Meanwhile bitcoin transaction sizes are usually 200-250 bytes for 1 input 2 outputs but ethereum transaction sizes are around 110 bytes. both have bigger txs so lets use the averages:

	ETH	BTC
Average # of tx/hour:	47,447	14,160
Average # blocks/hour	276	7
Average # tx/block	172	2,022
Average block size in kBytes	41	1430
Average tx size in kBytes	0.23	0.707
Ratio		3.07
tx/24hour	1,138,717	339,844
Ratio	3.35

Now its a much better perspective rather than just comparing counts. With 3x smaller transactions, ETH is doing about 3x more tx/day compared to bitcoin.
The amount of data being processed is roughly the same. The level of decentralization is not even comparable.

[amishmanish]

--preposterous rant snipped--

That said, here is my new proposal
The block size limit increases/decreases in proportion to the change in the average transaction fee from the previous block with a 0.1MB min and a 10MB max. The 10MB is to celebrate the 1st decade of bitcoin. Open for debate!

P.s.

Please no more spam/orphan block kumbaya bs theories on this thread. Ty.

Okay, so who are you exactly?

I don't mean to ask for your real identity but you seem to have all the answers about what Bitcoin is or not and what it should be. I would like to know if the person behind this has thought this enough or you are just trolling.

Have you implemented or have seen the implementation of such dynamic sizing? Any studies or data to show how this would work on a network where blocks are to be produced every 10 minutes on average and decisions like the allowed blocksize has to be taken as part of the verification process.

[aliashraf]

--preposterous rant snipped--

That said, here is my new proposal
The block size limit increases/decreases in proportion to the change in the average transaction fee from the previous block with a 0.1MB min and a 10MB max. The 10MB is to celebrate the 1st decade of bitcoin. Open for debate!

P.s.

Please no more spam/orphan block kumbaya bs theories on this thread. Ty.

Okay, so who are you exactly?

I don't mean to ask for your real identity but you seem to have all the answers about what Bitcoin is or not and what it should be. I would like to know if the person behind this has thought this enough or you are just trolling.

Have you implemented or have seen the implementation of such dynamic sizing? Any studies or data to show how this would work on a network where blocks are to be produced every 10 minutes on average and decisions like the allowed blocksize has to be taken as part of the verification process.

I just found @topcoin360's idea worthy and your harsh statements inappropriate.

[amishmanish]

I just found @topcoin360's idea worthy and your harsh statements inappropriate.

If you ignore my opening statement and just read the rest of it, you would see I am just asking him to back his idea with some data or a code implementation he has done or seen. It would be educating to look up for some of us. Otherwise, we just end up doing this in the Development and Technical section without any reason.

This kind of thing is also then more suitable for "Bitcoin Discussion". That sub could use some of this brainstorming and intellectual back and forth rather than what we otherwise do there.

Also, I AM trying to take it seriously as he named an optimization algorithm in his opening post. Yet, for someone who thinks that BCash is the real bitcoin, i just want to be sure.

[Wind_FURY]

Your idea to “scale” Bitcoin is to increase transaction-throughput DESPITE the technical costs on the network?

Again you lie, again you create another strange statement. I do not know anyone on the forum who would like to increase the block despite the technical costs. Why do you invent it?

There is a concept of estimating technical costs. According to my calculations, if the owner of a full node makes an average of one transaction per month, then it is more profitable to keep a full node with a 10mb block and pay cents in the form of a transaction fee than to keep a full node with a 1MB block and pay 5-10$ fee per transaction. Therefore, the statement that when the block is increased, the user's costs will necessarily increase is already incorrect.

With 10MB blocks, costs of running a node would increase exponentially. The node operator would stop running the node eventually, centralizing the network. That’s not “scaling”. Scaling is to increase transaction-throughput without sacrificing decentralization.

If we look at your statement above for pseudo-valid statements:

OP, it isn't that simple. Research the effects of increasing the block size cap on network latency, network security, and how the costs in the network transfers from the miners to the nodes.

"on network latency" - unsubstantiated. If you just take the calculator and take the block size of 10mb, you will see that there is no problem with this. But you didn't make any calculations, you don't need to know the truth. You need to refute the possibility of increasing the block by any effort.
"network security" - unsubstantiated.
"costs in the network transfers from the miners to the nodes" - unsubstantiated.

And you say:None of it is “pseudo-statements”.

OK. Block size increases, simply centralizes validators. That’s not “scaling”.  

I've been waiting for this. Pseudo-arguments such as "disk size, processor power, RAM, internet speed, etc." come to an end.
Then there is the main argument of "the increasing centralization (reduction of decentralization)".

So, for newbies. (since there is a tradition to address newbies.). When the arguments "increasing centralization (decreasing decentralization)" appear, then the constructive discussion ends. Because these statements "increasing centralization (decreasing decentralization)" are usually presented as self-sufficient. For some reason, it is considered that it is not necessary to provide any evidence.

If my opponent wanted to confirm his words with evidence, then he should have provided:
1) How it measures the level of centralization (decentralization).
2) What is the level of centralization (decentralization) now, at 1mb block.
3) What is the level of centralization (decentralization) will be if we increase the block, for example, to 10MB.

You can’t bend the Laws of Physics. Block propagation slows down as block size grows.

[zbig001]

Would we really be able to apply "meters" to decentralization?

For a given payment system: there are middlemen present, or they are not.
It's a binary phenomenon...

In other words, it can only be that:
1) you have the freedom to send funds to any person you choose, receive funds from anyone who chooses to send them to you, or hold funds for as long as you see fit
or,
2) you do not have this freedom.

So, for me, the factors that are important for maintaining decentralization (we assume that Bitcoin is decentralized) is the same class of factors as those describing the chance of death while performing certain activities.

Since life/death is also a binary phenomenon, and at the stake here is the loss of something indisputably valuable.

We could try to use the language/the tools of statistics here, most probably.

[GGUL]

I wonder how a convincing argument convinced you that the block can't be increased?

Just that increases should be moderate, not excessive.  

I understand your moderate position.
I just can't figure out how moderate growth is better than natural growth. After all, your moderate growth implies an artificial restriction of growth. Questions appear. What for? We tell users: some of your transactions are unworthy to get into the blockchain. What do we gain by throwing out some part of the transactions? My answers to these questions are: nothing. Only slowing down the development of Bitcoin.

With 10MB blocks, costs of running a node would increase exponentially.

Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Another statement without proof.

You can’t bend the Laws of Physics. Block propagation slows down as block size grows.

We are discussing raising the block to 10mb here. For this case, there is no problem with the distribution of blocks over the network at the current Internet speed. You do not take into account the growth of Internet speed, as well as the development of technology. I understand you don't know about the Compact block technology.
You were zombified 4 years ago, since then you have not turned on your brain.  

Would we really be able to apply "meters" to decentralization?

For a given payment system: there are middlemen present, or they are not.
It's a binary phenomenon...

However, users of bitcoin forums constantly use expressions such as"decrease/increase centralization/decentralization". Even bitcoin developers don't hesitate to use these expressions. Although they must have an engineering mindset.
And it's amazing! How can you claim a decrease/increase in some indicator if you do not know how to measure this indicator, if you have not determined how to measure it? This is nonsense.

[stompix]

I don't know why it comes out that way to you, all I mean is that if you want to compare two cryptocurrencies you must compare them under the same circumstances not take the capped usage of bitcoin and compare it with the theoretical possibility in another coin.

As I was saying, exactly the thing I've mentioned.
I shouldn't compare the maximum 80kmh/ Trabant with a Ferrari because the Ferrari is parked.

But be it like you, next time a spike of 40$ for one transaction will happen be there and tell people it makes no sense to use Doge as it is theoretically possible for transactions on the Doge chain to cost the same.
Have fun telling people that you can fit 5l of water in a 2 littler bottle just as good as you can in a 10l bucket as it is "theoretically possible" that your 2 liters of water is actually milk and the first bottle is a can making the whole comparison impossible since we don't have the correct circumstances.

Now its a much better perspective rather than just comparing counts. With 3x smaller transactions, ETH is doing about 3x more tx/day compared to bitcoin.
The amount of data being processed is roughly the same.

And with an x3 lower average fee which you successfully managed to omit from the equation.

[topcoin360]

I never agree with the number (plan next 40+ years or 17.7% as average growth rate), but the idea of BIP 103 isn't bad and more likely accepted considering Bitcoin community care about running full node at low-cost.
Besides, comparing predicting Bitcoin price and predicting computer/internet growth are like comparing apples and oranges.

There's is the cost of running a full node but there's also the cost of making an on chain transaction which seems to go up as btc gains in popularity. My point is just that it's still too early to plan on the long term. We should try new stuffs and learn from our mistakes, it's the only way we can improve a new tech such as btc.

If you want to call it proposal, there are many missing technical details,
1. What's the reason behind 0.1MB as min and 10MB as max?
2. How many previous block should be considered to calculate average transaction fee?
3. How often should block limit changed?
4. Do you have proposed formula/logic/code to set block size? Here's a very quick example of mine

Code:

A = 5 (acceptable fee/vbyte)
B = 144 (most recent blocks to be considered)

I = average transaction fee (in sat/vbyte) in last B block
N  = old block size limit
N+ = new block size limit

Code:

IF I less than A THEN
  N+ = N * (I/A * 0.2)
ELSE
  N+ = N + N * LOG2(I/A+1)

I think we're making progress here. Ok, let's just call it an idea for now.. I'll answer your questions.

1. What's the reason behind 0.1MB as min and 10MB as max?
The transaction fees will eventually be the only source of income for the miners so we need a system that will force the user to "tip the miner" but which will also allow more block space for peak periods. A 10MB limit seems reasonable, the max yearly storage space that could be required would be approximately 0.5TB. A 0.1MB min gives enough space for most transactions.
2. How many previous block should be considered to calculate average transaction fee?
One.
3. How often should block limit changed?
On every block.
4. Do you have proposed formula/logic/code to set block size?
No. We can discuss it first then move on to the next step. I will review your codes..

Code:

A = 5 (acceptable fee/vbyte)
B = 144 (most recent blocks to be considered)

I = average transaction fee (in sat/vbyte) in last B block
N  = old block size limit
N+ = new block size limit

Code:

IF I less than A THEN
  N+ = N * (I/A * 0.2)
ELSE
  N+ = N + N * LOG2(I/A+1)

Ok so I'll bring some modifications since we didn't agree on everything..

//n  is the block size limit formula
I = old avg transaction fee
I+ = new avg transaction fee
N = old block size limit
N+ = new block size limit
n = N * I+ / I

If n <= 0.1 then
N+ = 0.1

else
N+ = n

else if n >= 10 then
N+ = 10

The logic is there. I think that an immediate adjustment to the change in price would be the best...