[POLL] Is bigger block capacity still a taboo?

[alani123]

Circa 2014 the block size wars took bitcoin by storm.
Eventually after a lot of drama that has been well documented elsewhere (I made my own attempt documenting a time line of the blocksize wars, its outcomes and conclusions here).

But I'm starting this poll in hopes of getting the community's opinion. So for this post I'll not go through my opinion in the OP.
Please feel free to answer the question in the poll and even better if you can also explain your answer.

Back in 2015, and after the adoption of a compromise in the form of SegWit, the topic of the block capacity was very taboo.
Well, we're in 2023 now, and for different reasons congestion is still an issue. Increasing the capacity of bitcoin blocks could potentially be a solution to the issues of high fees and congestion.

So I think it's worth exploring what people think about this issue. Please share your thoughts below.

[alani123]

I'll start by dedicating this thread to stompix (honestly, no hate, debate with him is enjoyable even though we sometimes disagree) who dared me to make this thread.

Be my guest to open a topic about increasing the capacity, I'm grabbing my popcorn!
Common, do it, I can't wait for it!

It's already 2023 now and I think having a taboo over mere discussion of block capacity shouldn't be shunned or considered taboo.

Continuing the debate:

As for me, I was just this week shown how it's physically impossible to have blocks larger than 4MB because only nodes that own a Titan computer and their own private global fiber optic cables would be able to cope with larger blocks!

Well well well... This is an age old arguement.
Quoting my post that I also linked in the OP:

The concerns over big and dynamic blocks in 2015
It's important to not forget what the talking points for each proposed solution were back when it was decision time.
In early 2016, Jonas Schnelli, a full time bitcoin Core maintainer, was quoted stating the following against 2MB blocks.

There are consequences with 2-megabyte blocks. Chinese miners -- they are now [for] 2- megabyte blocks, but maybe it will turn out to be a problem for them . . . Every second really counts . . . When you mine a block that is no longer valid and you don’t get the information that a new block is here, you’re wasting lots of energy. If it’s just ten seconds you mine on the wrong block, you lose energy, and you lose coins in the end. That’s why, with Chinese miners [especially], every second counts, and [with] 2-megabyte [blocks], it’s twice the bandwidth you need.

In this quote its easy to see how conservative bitcoin developers sought to be with the blockchain size, and how an increase in block size might severely affect the decentralization of bitcoin due to bandwidth constraints in many parts of the world. Contrary to the path projects like Ethereum have followed by having a full blockchain size in the terrabytes, bitcoin still chooses to form its network with full nodes. Users of bitcoin can still to this day download and easily synchronize the full blockchain therefore also contributing to decentralization. This lack of compromise is what has defined bitcoin through the years.

Yet, in the end, we got 4MB blocks and still no super computers are needed. It's probably safe to say that even higher max block size increases could be easily accommodated by a run in the mill home computer. Moore's law is still a thing. Computing and storage space becomes cheaper. So, surpassing 1MB blocks didn't destroy BTC. Even 4MB blocks didn't. But now, so many years after 2015, storage, memory and computing power are cheaper than ever. So this argument doesn't stand.

But what do you know! It doesn't even matter if bitcoin full node requirements are raised. Why? Because decentralization doesn't necessarily guarantee trustlessness and immutability. And in a way, mining nodes are already way fewer and with much higher requirements than normal network nodes. So we've already been beyond the point where maximizing decentralization mattered ever since ASICs were introduced for bitcoin. Even satoshi admitted to such:

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

Besides, 10 minutes is too long to verify that payment is good.  It needs to be as fast as swiping a credit card is today.

See the snack machine thread, I outline how a payment processor could verify payments well enough, actually really well (much lower fraud rate than credit cards), in something like 10 seconds or less. If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

But people often forget that satoshi didn't romanticize decentralization over trustlessness and immutability. Instead only this part of the quote became famous.

If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

[franky1]

i no longer see that period as a blocksize war era...
after all those fighting against increasing it even fighting against 2mb, ended up being the ones making it 4mb*
*(1mb base tx (input-output-value) count | 3mb bloaty weighted junk space(signing policy doesnt need 3x space))

i instead call it the war to fight for brand control of bitcoin. where core are now the central point of failure
we no longer have a bitcoin that used the solutions to the byzantine generals problem. we just have one master general and obediant soldiers

we are no longer in the era of dial-up or base 0.5mb ADSL.. internet has sped up alot more than certain people want to admit
hard drives can store more then all historic, PLUS a decade of future blockdata for less than 10 bitcoin fees this week

the issue is not hard drive costs if people can store a decade of data for less than doing 10 payments this week. the real problem is the desire of certain people to hinder transaction counts, to not allow the spread of miner bonuses across more users. but instead force less users to pay more.. or what they prefer is people to move to their middle men services to get extra fee's not going to miners bonus

[Kruw]

Increasing block space capacity is even more of a taboo now than it was in the 2015-2017 era.  Since then, we have proof that:

- Lightning works to provide far lower fees and far faster confirmation than on chain payments
- There is an infinite amount of demand for block space (inscriptions) no matter how big you make the blocks
- Competing chains with more block space than Bitcoin (specifically, Ethereum) still have even higher fees than Bitcoin

With these above results, one could only conclude big block proponents are attempting blockchain suicide.  The only improvement since 2015 that vindicates big block proponents is zerosync (still in progress*).

[CreepyUncleJoe]

In 2017, the high fees and slow confirmation times pushed many large merchants away from Bitcoin. Increasing block capacity could help address these issues and encourage broader merchant acceptance.

[franky1]

Increasing block space capacity is even more of a taboo now than it was in the 2015-2017 era.  Since then, we have proof that:

- Lightning works to provide far lower fees and far faster confirmation than on chain payments
- There is an infinite amount of demand for block space (inscriptions) no matter how big you make the blocks
- Competing chains with more block space than Bitcoin (specifically, Ethereum) still have even higher fees than Bitcoin

With these above results, one could only conclude big block proponents are attempting blockchain suicide.  The only improvement (still in progress*) since 2015 that vindicates big block proponents is zerosync.

lightning has flaws and bugs.. even the LN devs admit to it. they admit they cant code a fix for their flaws, its why then then create middlemen services(for extra fee's/rents/subscriptions)  to work as workarounds
lightning has not solved anything.

lightning has not proved its aim at reducing congestion.. lightning does not even do "confirmation" value transfer security
bitcoin can if core deem it their plan. close the exploits that allow 'inscriptions'

if you want to go play on another network thats less secure. you are ok to.. but bitcoiners want bitcoin solutions

[jrrsparkles]

the issue is not hard drive costs if people can store a decade of data for less than doing 10 payments this week. the real problem is the desire of certain people to hinder transaction counts, to not allow the spread of miner bonuses across more users. but instead force less users to pay more.. or what they prefer is people to move to their middle men services to get extra fee's not going to miners bonus

Valid point but increasing the block size further will end up in empty/half filled blocks all the time if the ordinals don't spam the network even right now so 1MB block size still is being effective and also keeps the rewards as much as possible for the miners.

[digaran]

Stompix is the expert listen to him. Lol^8196.
Taboo is: not talking about miners scamming users, large pools I mean.
Taboo is: not talking about the inaction of developers.
Taboo is: staying silent and let potential long term userbase migrate to other networks.

I would say if someone comes up with a plan that doesn't involve lining up their own pockets, that has no ties to corporations, with a decent upgrade proposal that could keep everyone or the majority fairly happy and satisfied, that doesn't alter the true nature of Bitcoin, that doesn't betray Satoshi's vision the essence of true decentralized banking system where transfer of monetary values is the top priority, that doesn't want to comply with regulations and work for governments, that the code is very well written to make necessary upgrades easier than before.  PLEASE don't wake me up and let me join them. It was a good dream though.🥱

[alani123]

Increasing block space capacity is even more of a taboo now than it was in the 2015-2017 era.  Since then, we have proof that:

- Lightning works to provide far lower fees and far faster confirmation than on chain payments
- There is an infinite amount of demand for block space (inscriptions) no matter how big you make the blocks
- Competing chains with more block space than Bitcoin (specifically, Ethereum) still have even higher fees than Bitcoin

With these above results, one could only conclude big block proponents are attempting blockchain suicide.  The only improvement (still in progress*) since 2015 that vindicates big block proponents is zerosync.

Aren't you a developer? I thought you'd know the difference between Ethereum and Bitcoin. Even though the Ethereum Blockchain is above 15 TB, minimum gas requirements put it in a situation where fees can never be low. And to think, these gas requirements were programmed while ETH had an ICO pricing it at 30 or so cents. So this is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. It's a different architecture, very inefficient, and built on a very different approach.

As of the lightning network, it has been in development for so many years and still no end on sight to ever being viable. I wrote about it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471172.40

Also, economic wise, lower fees will result in higher transaction numbers which will potentially balance out the total amount of fees to a bigger number. It's basic economic principles: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5474087.0

[PrivacyG]

If the Block capacity increases.  Do we get the Network congestion problem solved or do we get even more problems?

Think of it like this.  I, along many others, avoid moving Coins at all during congestion time.  But once the congestion is over, I start moving the Coins I wanted to move.  If Block size permits more, I imagine I will broadcast Transactions more often unless the congestion happens again.  And we get back to the same cycle.

How will the Block size increase help in this situation and not create even more problems?

-----

Yes.  I think it is still a taboo subject.  Many Bitcoiners do not even want to hear about the idea of Block size change.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Neither in favor, nor against.

Bigger blocks pros:
- Less congestion.

Bigger blocks cons:
- More time required for verification (right as well as storage requirement).
- Mining becomes less competitive.

I agree, though, that even lightning is getting expensive to work with 4 MB block size limit (and there isn't a lot of demand for lightning yet).

[franky1]

Neither in favor, nor against.

Bigger blocks cons:
- More time required for verification (right as well as storage requirement).
- Mining becomes less competitive.

lets handle black hatters cons
more time required for verification... LIE
nodes verify 99% of transactions as they are relayed pre confirm.. nodes can handle hundreds of megabytes (as proven by bitcoins node mempools of each node).. and funnily enough devs own admissions that nodes on mainnet and subnetworks can sign and pass millions of transactions a second)
(yep when LN "co-signs a state" both parties can sign relay and check in the same time as verifying a bitcoin transaction.. and if LN can do that then its admitting bitcoin nodes can verify the same "millions of transactions a second" unconfirmed too)


mining becomes less competitive... LIE
there is more to the reward vs fee vs market price economics than just "tx pay more"
16000 X $1 (using unified 4mb instead of segregated 4mb) = $16000
4000 X $2 (usual segregated 4mb when not spammed) = $8000

as you can see mining can get a bigger fee bonus by letting in more transactions without having to cost users more

and by the way.. every time there is a halving idiots think this is the time to 2x+ the fee's to offset the reward halving.. another lie..
its actually where the MARKET increases to compensate the reward halving. but that makes fee's $ more so fee's need to decrease to prolong bitcoin utility and desire of people to want to use bitcoin..

if you want to keep the bitcoin market alive you need to keep BITCOIN usable. otherwise people move over to altcoins that have the same crappy subnetworks. but have cheaper fees

trying to suggest halt bitcoin growth and promote subnetworks solves nothing. because people will just use the same subnetwork. but with an altcoin as a the settlement..

i find it absolutely hilarious how sponsored devs pretending to be bitcoin devs but having subnetwork adoring motives, say how LN can verify a channel partners "state" to the tune of 1million x/sec... but then tries to say bitcoin is broke can cant verify more then 4k/10min before breaking
such lies, such deceit , such scumbag methods of promoting an underclass subnetwork but trying to say its a network "ontop" of bitcoin.. SHAMEFUL tactics
reality is when doing the tests on how fast LN can sign, relay and verify states.. they are admitting how fast bitcoin pre-confirm relay can be

[cryptosize]

Every attempt to increase the block size limit via hard forks (BCH, BSV etc.) has produced blockchains with less security (aka shitcoins):

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-sv-rocked-by-three-51-attacks-in-as-many-months
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2019/05/24/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack/

I wish there was an easy solution, but there isn't in the IT space. I mean, if you could invent an algorithm to compress 4GB of data into a 4MB block, then sure, everyone will applaud it.

People still don't understand why the inferior IPv4 (32-bit) is the dominant protocol compared to the superior IPv6 (128-bit).

Either you understand that backwards compatibility rules the IT sector, or you don't. IT-savvy folks get it.

[franky1]

Every attempt to increase the block size limit via hard forks (BCH, BSV etc.) has produced blockchains with less security (aka shitcoins):

correction.. every attempt done without cores consent has been treated as an opposition
it requires kissing cores ass to get them to code it, other wise all other non core node attempt will get REKT

core reference client dominance is obvious to the network and users.. but "politicallly" they want to tongue in cheek hint they know they are in power without saying it. because saying it admits to the central point of failure problem and it opens them up to litigation..
.. however they do not want to release their control. by being open to other brands offering  protocol level proposals.. because they dont want to relinquish their power

they pretend to be more decentralised by splitting their blockstream dev group into (fake) separate companies of chaincodlabs and brinks but its obviously they are still collectively sister companies of the blockstream group who manage core.

so again it still requires appeasing the core gatekeepers to get the core devs to write code to fix their exploit..
.. but right now due to litigation risk where other parties can ask them to put code in.. they want to pretend they cant put code in on request.

[franky1]

FRANCY1, save me from the sensors who deleted my subject like common spam. Is the truth disturbing? Sorry to impose on myself like this before my probable disappearance...
---------------------

Why Is Money Valuable?

Interestingly enough, the peculiar procedure of economic measurement is opposed to the methods of measurement in science. Indeed measurement in science is based on the impartiality of the measuring technician. Measuring by money is actually based on the bias of everyone involved. What is more, in science units of measurement are presumably stable, yet money as a standard of economic measurement is constantly changing value.
Before I discuss the instability of money, the following question should be answered: why money generally retains value despite many reasons for value variations, why we somehow expect money to be stable despite the knowledge that it is not?

The utility of a certain consumable commodity be it cattle or sheep skin when that commodity played the role of money was an understandable reason for that money to retain value. In the case of gold or paper money rarity, social convention or respect for the government which issued the money can be the reason behind the fact that such things can start playing the role of money but not yet the reason why that money will retain its value.
The actual reason for money to remain valuable is the fact that people want more of it and once they get it, they choose to hold it and not give it away easily.

this explanation alone is wrong
but your post is in the wrong topic

[philipma1957]

Neither in favor, nor against.

Bigger blocks pros:
- Less congestion.

Bigger blocks cons:
- More time required for verification (right as well as storage requirement).
- Mining becomes less competitive.

I agree, though, that even lightning is getting expensive to work with 4 MB block size limit (and there isn't a lot of demand for lightning yet).

Good post.

now sha-256  btc 10 blocks in 1 hour  plus LN

and scrypt doge/LTC 120 blocks in 1 hour plus LN

this is a constant. 

Sha-256 miners earn about 32,400,000 in rewards daily plus whatever the fees are.
scrypt miners earn about 1,200,000 in rewards daily plus what ever the fees are.

btw this conflict will always make LTC/Doge look to jack BTC fees to attract customers.

This dynamic is a driving force for btc fees to get jacked.

I can see six or seven angles here not sure where we go to down the road.

[OgNasty]

I have said many times that I feel satoshi’s biggest mistake with Bitcoin was not putting in a block size adjustment feature similar to the way difficulty is adjusted. I believe the blocksize limit was put in place as a knee jerk reaction to the chain being spammed and if satoshi had more time on this earth a method to adjust the blocksize limit would have been put in place.

[alani123]

Every attempt to increase the block size limit via hard forks (BCH, BSV etc.) has produced blockchains with less security (aka shitcoins):

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-sv-rocked-by-three-51-attacks-in-as-many-months
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2019/05/24/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack/

I wish there was an easy solution, but there isn't in the IT space. I mean, if you could invent an algorithm to compress 4GB of data into a 4MB block, then sure, everyone will applaud it.

People still don't understand why the inferior IPv4 (32-bit) is the dominant protocol compared to the superior IPv6 (128-bit).

Either you understand that backwards compatibility rules the IT sector, or you don't. IT-savvy folks get it.

What makes BCH and BSV shitcoins is a plethora of reasons other than just having bigger blocks. Mind you, bitcoin was very close to having double the block capacity it has now when SegWit got activated. It was called SegWit2x. And in the end even without the 2x part, bitcoin went from 1MB blocks to 4MB. So it BTC a shitcoin as well?
No! Because bitcoin has a community, some fragments of democracy (unlike the two aforementioned coins that are self centered projects), the best developers, the biggest and most active community.

I have said many times that I feel satoshi’s biggest mistake with Bitcoin was not putting in a block size adjustment feature similar to the way difficulty is adjusted. I believe the blocksize limit was put in place as a knee jerk reaction to the chain being spammed and if satoshi had more time on this earth a method to adjust the blocksize limit would have been put in place.

Satoshi could have only done so much himself.
And it's funny how these days many people bring up sidechains and lightning as potential solutions to bitcoin's scalability issue, based on the argument that bitcoin should change as little as possible, when satoshi himself admitted that the infrastructure as it stood when he was around in the community was insufficient for scaling, and would eventually need to be changed.

Not changing bitcoin at least slightly to accommodate for biger volumes of transactions, especially when there's demand for that, is actually against satoshi's very vision.

[hatshepsut93]

It's not a taboo, it has never been a taboo, you could always post topics about it on this forum, it's just that most users are against it, because they understand the danger of having high requirements for running a full node, which would make the network much smaller as only large entities would be able to afford to run a full node, so nodes would be more like datacenters rather than the regular users.

[cryptosize]

What makes BCH and BSV shitcoins is a plethora of reasons other than just having bigger blocks. Mind you, bitcoin was very close to having double the block capacity it has now when SegWit got activated. It was called SegWit2x. And in the end even without the 2x part, bitcoin went from 1MB blocks to 4MB. So it BTC a shitcoin as well?
No! Because bitcoin has a community, some fragments of democracy (unlike the two aforementioned coins that are self centered projects), the best developers, the biggest and most active community.

Sure, but this topic is strictly about the block size. No?

Should I also mention the sad fact about BSV implementing censorship/coin confiscation features?

There you go:

https://twitter.com/BobSummerwill/status/1577714409618931713
https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/releases/tag/v1.0.13