Increasing the block size is a good idea; 50%/year is probably too aggressive

[NewLiberty]

I understand you believe that Bitcoin is doomed to fail ...

I never said I believe Bitcoin is doomed to fail, although my questioning it's viability may strengthen with developments. That should be everyone's position, because Bitcoin is an experiment. Those who think Bitcoin is guaranteed to succeed in serving the world are misunderstanding the situation. This doesn't mean it can't succeed at that, only that it's not guaranteed (how could it be?).

... because of insufficient central authority

My position isn't Bitcoin needs central authority. My position is Bitcoin needs a viable solution. If you read the post I made above you'll see I asked whether the majority community could be convinced to accept Gavin's proposal or one more like what you're crafting. My position was one of adopting a viable solution.

In any case, even if you were right and such a thing were needed, that should not stop people from offering better ideas to those who are claiming to have authority.

Who has claimed any authority? Where? All I see is people putting forth their suggestions.

So you are about as wrong as anyone can possibly be, to suggest that just because someone claims authority, that they should make decisions and everyone blindly follow when they see clearly better solutions available.  
Why?
Just for the sake of establishing authorities?

Like I said above, it seems you're arguing from a position of ideology. You seem to see resolving the block size issue as divided between those who tend toward centralization and those who demand absolute decentralization, even to the point of seeing people establishing positions they haven't. That is the reason I question Bitcoin's viability. It's because people have their own thoughts about how things should work, or how things can work, and even if there is a solution which can work (I'm not saying which) it may not be possible to get everyone to agree, because it's not possible to do a Vulcan mind meld and have everyone understand everyone else's thoughts, conclusions, and informing information. People think differently (and with differing abilities). In the absence of some deciding force (usually a leader or authority as you call it) the result may be no clear decision whatsoever.

I'm simply seeking something which can work, something a majority can agree upon, nothing more.

The ideology is:  To the extent that arbitrariness can be squeezed out of the most elemental variables of the protocol, that ought be the fundamental design goal.  The corollaries to this include what you have identified here,
a) that the more arbitrariness there is, the more the risk of needing future changes
b) the more changes needed, the greater the need for an leader/authority/deciding force.  
c) the more authority driven changes, the more degradation there is on the value of Bitcoin's decentralization

Thus my purpose here supports your goal of reducing that risk of stagnation for the future.

Thank you for re-characterizing your position.

Gavin's proposal is fit for immediate purposes, but it just kicks the can down the road for future readjustment.  This is problematic in that it will then re-require this leader/authority/deciding force.  Rather than accepting an extrapolation which is guaranteed to be wrong, we should look for one that self corrects so that we can look to solve this for future as well as today and dispense with the ongoing readjustments.
We ignore that at the peril of creating the very dystopian future you have imagined.

FWIW, I am still favoring the block size adjustment basis over the fee based adjustment, but there may be a way to combine the two and still maintain simplicity.

[1715020387]

1715020387

[1715020387]

1715020387

[acoindr]

Gavin's proposal is fit for immediate purposes, but it just kicks the can down the road for future readjustment.  This is problematic in that it will then re-require this leader/authority/deciding force.

This is one of those instances I'm talking about regarding people thinking differently.

You and I seem to fundamentally think differently here, and who is to say who is right? I believe whatever hard fork change we make, if we make one, it will be locked in quite probably forever more. It won't be subject to adjustment. Whatever it is future users will have to work with, sort of like we simply have to work with 1MB if we can't adequately change it. This is due to an ossifying of the protocol, again, as I mentioned above.

Rather than accepting an extrapolation which is guaranteed to be wrong, ...

Define "wrong".

[Cubic Earth]

The answer cannot be in the blockchain, because the problem being addressed (resource usage rising too quickly so only people willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars can participate as fully validating nodes) is outside the blockchain.

IMHO, this is the most salient point on this whole thread.  Sometimes you just have to think deeply and clearly to see the truth.  

The core dev team are more than just experts in computers, they are also experts in human relations.  It's why Gavin and others have so much respect in the community, and certainly why they have my respect.  Bitcoin is all about free will and voluntary participation.  Every aspect of bitcoin must be in philosophical alignment with those concepts.  I'm not worried, I believe the consensus around the principles that bitcoin embodies will continue to grow.  This thread has been a great discussion.  Some of alternatives to Gavin's plan just don't work on the philosophical level.  Therefore, they cannot function on a technical level.

[NewLiberty]

Gavin's proposal is fit for immediate purposes, but it just kicks the can down the road for future readjustment.  This is problematic in that it will then re-require this leader/authority/deciding force.

This is one of those instances I'm talking about regarding people thinking differently.

You and I seem to fundamentally think differently here, and who is to say who is right? I believe whatever hard fork change we make, if we make one, it will be locked in quite probably forever more. It won't be subject to adjustment. Whatever it is future users will have to work with, sort of like we simply have to work with 1MB if we can't adequately change it. This is due to an ossifying of the protocol, again, as I mentioned above.

Rather than accepting an extrapolation which is guaranteed to be wrong, ...

Define "wrong".

Necessitating future adjustment.  A change that does not resolve the fundamental problem, and addresses only the immediate perceptions of today.

In the same way that a fixed 1MB is "wrong".  

The answer cannot be in the blockchain, because the problem being addressed (resource usage rising too quickly so only people willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars can participate as fully validating nodes) is outside the blockchain.

IMHO, this is the most salient point on this whole thread.  Sometimes you just have to think deeply and clearly to see the truth.  

The core dev team are more than just experts in computers, they are also experts in human relations.  It's why Gavin and others have so much respect in the community, and certainly why they have my respect.  Bitcoin is all about free will and voluntary participation.  Every aspect of bitcoin must be in philosophical alignment with those concepts.  I'm not worried, I believe the consensus around the principles that bitcoin embodies will continue to grow.  This thread has been a great discussion.  Some of alternatives to Gavin's plan just don't work on the philosophical level.  Therefore, they cannot function on a technical level.

IMHO Gavin's point there is in the category of "just don't work on the philosophical level".   It speaks of dollars.   It misses the mark on the value of the block chain as a resource.  It is short sighted.  

Further in practical terms, if you are suggesting that even my first proposal (that essentially replicates Gavin's first proposal in its effect) "cannot function on a technical level" then you would be suggesting that neither could Gavin's.

[acoindr]

Necessitating future adjustment.  A change that does not resolve the fundamental problem, and addresses only the immediate perceptions of today.  

Now define "right". Is it simply a block size which grows/shrinks dynamically with real world bandwidth over time? What if usage demand is far higher? What if the BTC exchange rate experiences unending volatility due to uncertainty about usage capacity (ie its user base)?

In other words does not needing future bandwidth adjustment automatically mean "right"?

In the same way that a fixed 1MB is "wrong".  

Not according to these people. They think 1MB is the right answer for "many more years" and until we know it's "safe" to change. Can't you see any answer given is subjective? With that being the case doesn't it make sense to adopt a solution which can fit the most common perception of Bitcoin's promise, which certainly includes global usage, and can win popular support?

[NewLiberty]

Necessitating future adjustment.  A change that does not resolve the fundamental problem, and addresses only the immediate perceptions of today.  

Now define "right". Is it simply a block size which grows/shrinks dynamically with real world bandwidth over time? What if usage demand is far higher? What if the BTC exchange rate experiences unending volatility due to uncertainty about usage capacity (ie its user base)?

In other words does not needing future bandwidth adjustment automatically mean "right"?

Correct.  If you fix something and it never needs fixing again, and just keeps working from them on, you have fixed in a right way.
Automatic adjustment based on the environment of the future at least has a possibility of being right. 
We have this potential with the block chain.

We can play "what if" about all sorts of things, but at least the ones you mention here are not going to take additional hard forks to accommodate if we use any either of the methods described in this thread.  Each of them is responsive to usage demand to adjust capacity.

In the same way that a fixed 1MB is "wrong".  

Not according to these people. They think 1MB is the right answer for "many more years" and until we know it's "safe" to change. Can't you see any answer given is subjective? With that being the case doesn't it make sense to adopt a solution which can fit the most common perception of Bitcoin's promise, which certainly includes global usage, and can win popular support?

At best they are saying "not now". 

Previously you suggested that you thought Satoshi left because you think he didn't have anything more to offer.  Another plausible hypothesis would be understanding that he would have undue influence continuing to contribute using that name, and that the resulting groupthink might cause the project to suffer.

[acoindr]

Correct.  If you fix something and it never needs fixing again, and just keeps working from them on, you have fixed in a right way.

What about this from you?

I do agree that any feedback mechanism such as we are seeking with this line of discussion holds the potential for creating a perverse incentive.

How can you know if your solution is right and still admit this?

Automatic adjustment based on the environment of the future at least has a possibility of being right.  

So does increases inline with 30 years of historical data.

We can play "what if" about all sorts of things, but at least the ones you mention here are not going to take additional hard forks to accommodate if we use any either of the methods described in this thread.  

We need to clear something up. As I've said I don't expect future hard forks to be possible due the protocol ossifying. You keep talking about changes which might occur later and how you're against that. I'm saying I don't believe there can be any changes after a certain point, one which we may be nearing, because it's harder to gain consensus the more people that need be consulted.

Whatever change we make that will probably be it. How well it works in the future depends on how technology plays out and the community's ability to adapt around the protocol's shortcomings if there are any.

Please tell me if you agree an ossifying of the protocol - the fact it will become increasingly hard, probably impossible to make changes as adoption grows - is what we'll likely see.

At best they are saying "not now".  

If they're saying not now it may become impossible to change from 1MB. I don't believe their position is realistic, but who is more right? Everything is subjectively based on the priorities of the advocate.

My goal, as you said earlier isn't to be right, it's to arrive at some solution which can gain consensus while meeting Bitcoin's promises. If that's Gavin's proposal, fine. If that's your solution, fine. Let's just get something that meets that criteria so we're not stuck.

Why I think Gavin's proposal would play out better:

• it has good chance at gaining consensus given Gavin's position
• it provides predictability which shouldn't be under appreciated; most people/businesses are not nerds enjoying complex ideas, they want simple understandable guidelines to make decisions upon and can chart numbers with Gavin's model
• similar to now the max size is a cap, not what is actually used; the cap stays commensurate with Moore's Law and Nielsen's Law
• it accommodates the largest number of users (inline with exponential adoption) while still offering a protective cap
• in the worst case if centralization occurs there is still the community to deal with (remember GHash.io) which has alternative coins

What I dislike about an input based solution:

• possibly does not serve the greatest number of people
• less certain about gaining consensus as people that need to be swayed may include business types like BitPay, Circle, Bitcoin Foundation, etc.
• it doesn't provide clear predictability; whatever happens is dynamic based on the network which is influenced by various factors
• possible perverse incentives created
• a more complex solution means greater chance something doesn't work as expected

I see your version as fitting more like a glove. I'd agree it's probably more conservative and protective than Gavin's proposal, but at what expense? Nothing will be ideal because the technology and likely usage demand don't match, and won't for some time. Perhaps you can produce a bullet point list too and we can begin debating specifics.

[David Rabahy]

A maximum block size which is too small will naturally lead to more off-chain activity; folks/entities will not be denied the ability to transact.

A maximum block size which is too big thwarts participation by bandwidth-starved nodes.  So?

I propose we set MAX_BLOCK_SIZE to the maximum functional value possible today and walk away trusting the future to the caretakers then.  If any idiot/malicious bad actors try to take advantage of it and attack then Bitcoin was vulnerable to that already anyways.  No one is even filling up the current 1MB blocks with self-dealing transactions as it is.  Remind me again why it was lowered?

[David Rabahy]

Anyone that wants to transact off-chain is able to do so independent of MAX_BLOCK_SIZE.

[acoindr]

No one is even filling up the current 1MB blocks with self-dealing transactions as it is.  Remind me again why it was lowered?

This is a perfect example of why I'm skeptical about good consensus at any point, especially after large adoption numbers. Everyone has theoretically equal vote/opinion/input in Bitcoin, but not everyone is working with the same information (or expertise, abilities, integrity etc. etc.), no offense to David Rabahy.

We need something which can pass the community and in my opinion fairly soon.

[Syke]

A maximum block size which is too small will naturally lead to more off-chain activity; folks/entities will not be denied the ability to transact.

A maximum block size which is too big thwarts participation by bandwidth-starved nodes.  So?

I propose we set MAX_BLOCK_SIZE to the maximum functional value possible today and walk away trusting the future to the caretakers then.  If any idiot/malicious bad actors try to take advantage of it and attack then Bitcoin was vulnerable to that already anyways. 

+1

No one is even filling up the current 1MB blocks with self-dealing transactions as it is.  Remind me again why it was lowered?

Now it would be very expensive to flood the network. When there was no specified limit (the effective limit was 32 MB), someone could have flooded the network with junk transactions for virtually no cost.

[acoindr]

I have an idea. Why not ask everyone in Bitcoin what they think we should do, then just do all of them! Or, we can just debate each idea until it no longer matters since the year will be 2150.

[David Rabahy]

Perhaps the largest block http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000000898b6d7e23fd5e42cc4374ab4d054a3213691ffb5d98c38 to date just happens to pop out of the system during this discussion.

[David Rabahy]

.. more about this:
there's actually the opposite kind of manipulation (or rather attack) possible:
empty blocks. Right now they exist but don't hurt anyone; here they would push
the max block size down, hurting the network.

Would it be reasonable to reject blocks with too few transactions in them if the pool of transactions waiting is above some threshold?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165.msg1595#msg1595 gets at my point.

[David Rabahy]

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Spamming_transactions talks about spamming transactions but does not connect that with a miner.

[David Rabahy]

I have an idea. Why not ask everyone in Bitcoin what they think we should do, then just do all of them! Or, we can just debate each idea until it no longer matters since the year will be 2150.

Essentially a lot of ideas are being tried out via altcoins.

Rushing to do anything just to get something done does not seem prudent.  Hesitating forever will lead naturally to real consequences.

Waiting for the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE to become an emergency is waiting too long.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=419185.msg4552409#msg4552409 was an attempt to find the biggest queue to date.

[btchris]

We all agree that the current max block size is too restricted.

What seems obvious to me is that different people have different opinions on the underlying purpose of any blocksize limit.

At the risk of putting words into his mouth (for which I apologize if I'm wrong), Gavin sees it as a technical anti-DOS measure: to prevent miners from DOSing voting enthusiasts out of the network. If this is true, the best solution would be for an automatically adjusting limit that tracked the speed of residential connections and of residential hard drive capacities (enthusiast residences). Since that seems impossible, gavin's limited-exponential growth seems like the best educated guess that can be made today.

Others see it as a as an economic issue, and would like to tie the limit to some economic aspect of Bitcoin to solve this perceived economic threat. I'm no economist, and I certainly don't know if they're right. But guess what: I personally don't care if they're right.

Any restriction on blocksize is an artificial one, a regulation determined by some authority who believes (perhaps correctly) they know better than I. I'm OK with technical restrictions, and those that improve the ability to vote, but I am completely against any restrictions whose purpose is to alter an otherwise free-market system.

To but it bluntly, I would rather see a restriction-free Bitcoin crash and burn in the hands of a free-market system, than I would participate in a regulated Bitcoin. To me, Bitcoin should be a free market experiment (as much as is technically feasible), even if this leads to its eventual failure. Of course, that's just my personal opinion, but it's the basis for my dislike of more-limited blocksizes.

I mean no disrespect to some of the clever alternatives presented in this thread-- but I personally wouldn't want any of these "regulations" in Bitcoin.

Let me ask a question: is there anyone here who both (a) favors additional blocksize restrictions (more strict than Gavin's), and also (b) believes such restrictions are not additional "regulations" that subtract from a otherwise more-free-market system?

[btchris]

Please tell me if you agree an ossifying of the protocol - the fact it will become increasingly hard, probably impossible to make changes as adoption grows - is what we'll likely see.

Not that I was asked, but I'll offer an opinion anyways.

At worst harder, but not impossible.

Today we have a sort of self-enforced (by the core devs) consensus system, plus of course the ultimate ability to vote with your node and with your mining capacity. I wouldn't expect the latter to ever change (indeed some blocksize limit is required to maintain this goal). For the former, however, I doubt that having this little governance around important changes to Bitcoin will last forever -- 20 years hence I would expect a much more regimented procedure, somewhat more akin to a standards organization than what we have today (perhaps with a combination of academic, miner, and corporate interests represented, but that'd be an argument for a different thread).

More governance is both bad and good-- in particular on the good side, bright lines can be drawn when it comes to voting in a way that doesn't happen so much today. If the ISO can finally manage to crank out C++11, despite the contentious issues and compromises that were ultimately required (and C++14 just two months ago too!), pretty much anything is possible IMO.

If you're that worried about a ossification, perhaps you'd prefer a dead man's switch: in 20 years, the blocksize reverts to its current 1 MB.

[Syke]

At the risk of putting words into his mouth (for which I apologize if I'm wrong), gavin sees it as a technical anti-DOS measure: to prevent miners from DOSing voting enthusiasts out of the network.

But that's a very costly attack, yet it doesn't accomplish anything.

[btchris]

At the risk of putting words into his mouth (for which I apologize if I'm wrong), gavin sees it as a technical anti-DOS measure: to prevent miners from DOSing voting enthusiasts out of the network.

But that's a very costly attack, yet it doesn't accomplish anything.

It's a free attack for a miner, and can arbitrarily kick anyone off the network (even if temporarily) who doesn't have sufficient bandwidth or ultimately enough disk space.