Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[CoinCidental]

Why don't we just double the block size limit when we approach it? We could do it every time the limit is approached.

That seems more sensible than just making it x20 in one go.

nobody wants to have to hard fork every year and the longer you wait the harder it will be to reach consensus
just because its possible for the blocks to scale up to 20MB
doesnt mean they will ...........until there are thousands of transactions per minute
which might be a long way off yet

the only other solution i can see would be to implement  a sliding scale to match amount of transactions
which would eventually reach and even exceed 20MB anyway given enough time .......

[1714889771]

1714889771

[davout]

I would err on the side of caution and say 2tps myself.

Maybe you should err on the side of doing the actual fucking math instead.
With 1mb blocks you can do roughly 7.76 tps when a transaction spends one output to two adresses: the payee, and the change address.

nobody wants to have to hard fork every year

That's stupid, because that's not what the guy was suggesting. His idea can be implemented in a single hard-fork implementing a *rule* not yet another hardcoded magic number.

[donschoe]

Is there any aggregated TL;DR list of pros and cons regarding this without reading dozens of pages spread over several threads? thanks.

[Rampion]

nobody wants to have to hard fork every year

That's stupid, because that's not what the guy was suggesting. His idea can be implemented in a single hard-fork implementing a *rule* not yet another hardcoded magic number.

Exactly.

I just think that rule should be very well thought. If it is not done right just doubling the block size limit once the current limit is approached is just like not having a block size limit at all. Some spam-prevention mechanism should be in place to avoid blocks growing non-stop because of some sort of spam attack.

Maybe it would be enough to have a rule that says that the block size limit should be approached for long enough to make such an attack economically unfeasible.

[davout]

I just think that rule should be very well thought.

It's not a rule that's needed, like tvbcof said, a line needs to be drawn.

[iCEBREAKER]

I just think that rule should be very well thought.

It's not a rule that's needed, like tvbcof said, a line needs to be drawn.

Or a competitive new market needs to be created, so Bitcoin benefits from proper price discovery and avoids oligopoly:

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Building price discovery into the Bitcoin P2P network will allow the Bitcoin relay network to thrive under the successful economic policy of free markets. It’s the answer to the question, “How can network parameters, such as the largest acceptable block size, be set in a decentralized way without resorting to hard-coded mandates?” Pricing of network services would allow participants in the Bitcoin P2P network to efficiently manage the scarce resources that the network needs to function.
....

Put another way, with the current design of the Bitcoin P2P network, relay node operators bear the burden of bandwidth costs produced by other users. This is because there exists neither a method of paying for network services, nor a method for discovering the correct price of network services. The lack of a pricing mechanism for these services effectively pegs their price to zero. This incentivizes other participants in the Bitcoin economy to treat the services like they’re unlimited instead of scarce and over-consume. As in the case with other top-down networks, the only available response is to introduce new mandates to control consumption.
....

Attackers with sufficient resources who do not care about profitability can break Bitcoin via a wide variety of vectors. The only possible defense against such attackers is for Bitcoin to grow larger than them, as rapidly as possible.

This proposal gets it right.  Blocks should be optimized, not subsidized.

[HarmonLi]

Well an artificially low maximum block-size really just cripples Bitcoin's flexibility if you ask me. Concerning the other ideas: I think the actual/relative value should have nothing to do with the Bitcoin core-protocol whatsoever. It needs to be completely de-coupled. Except for maybe transaction fees, but they should be recommended based on prior fees or similar procedures!

[Buffer Overflow]

I would err on the side of caution and say 2tps myself.

Maybe you should err on the side of doing the actual fucking math instead.
With 1mb blocks you can do roughly 7.76 tps when a transaction spends one output to two adresses: the payee, and the change address.

Well I don't think there's any need for that. ~7 is great on paper but in the real world it is nowhere near it, not even close. Many transactions have more than 1 input.

Isn't it interesting when D&T claims 2-4tps for 1MB your quiet as a church mouse, yet when I mention it you explode into an angry rage.
Still never mind, your going over to his thread now to tell him how wrong he is aren't you? Off you go...

[tvbcof]

I just think that rule should be very well thought.

It's not a rule that's needed, like tvbcof said, a line needs to be drawn.

It seems pretty reasonable to assume that 50% of people will not be off-grid.  That is, will have cell phones and are wealthy enough that they can afford a pot to piss in.  That is seems a reasonable threshold to not be to 'elitist' so lets assume some sort of pandemic or something makes 3x10^9 a good number for inclusion into the Bitcoin system.

Notwithstanding the promise of such a 'frictionless' exchange economy makes it so that I could throw a few 1/10ths of a cent at someone because I like their avatar, let's assume that each human of the new Bitcoin Elite makes 1 economic transaction per day.  I live a life of isolation and celibacy at the moment (quite by choice) but between paying my bills on-line and buying beef jerky and breves when I do go to town, I'm probably not far off that number.  Given how most normal humans live (which often includes a trip to the market to get supplies for the day's meals) 1 trx/day is probably quite conservative.

When I do the math, this yields around 35,000 tps.  About 15,000 times today's capacity using Gerald's 2.3 current tps figure.  Let's say 10,000 times to be conservative.  Thus, any 'problem' we have now needs to be multiplied by about 10,000 times in order to support what is still a fairly inclusive and conservative system.

Anyone who has not done so should look at the post on the Multibit sticky thread and note the guy who was practically in tears trying to run his full node just long enough to get is stash moved over to an SPV client so someone else's server could do the work.  Multiply his grief by 10,000 times.  Or have a gander at one's load average as a node is in operation checking transactions for legality...and multiply it by 10,000 times.  Look at the size of the blockchain then multiply it by much more than 10,000 times in this case because of how integral calculus works.  (Don't bore me with pruning unless you want to show me the beef after 6 years.)  Look at the UTXO and multiply that by at least 10,000 times and probably much more (which at some point which I'm to lazy and ignorant to calculate likely becomes impossible.)

This little bit of number punching aligns with my intuitive perceptions: either Bitcoin is always going to be a fairly 'elite' system, or it won't have almost any resemblance to the ecosystem as it existed when I first compiled the source code.  Bitcoin will always be a niche solution which is augmented.  The only realistic hope is that it interacts in a good way with the augmentation schemes.  Again, an infinite set of subordinate chains which derive their backing directly from Bitcoin (such as sidechains) seems to me by far the best hope.

I strongly suspect that Gavin doesn't want to produce any real future vision for Bitcoin because he doesn't want to look at what he knows he (and everyone else) will find.

The transaction rate of Bitcoin is a highly critical aspect of it's design.  Changes here will shape the system even more than changes to it's inflation rate as I see it.  The transaction rate is also like a ratchet in that it can move one way with relative ease but cannot be moved the other because it picks up baggage that can never be dropped off.  It's one thing to blow it based on careful system analysis which turns out to be wrong.  It is quite another thing to blow it based on some faith-based Hail Mary, and that's what Gavin's 'plan' looks like to me.  Or it's a deliberate attempt to torpedo Bitcoin.  Both hypotheses are open in my mind.

 - edits: slight fixes

[Black Arrow]

I'm not able to vote because I'm still classified as a Newbie, but FWIW I am pro. Prior to the recent post by Death & Taxes I had conflicting thoughts about it, but his post convinced me.

[davout]

Well I don't think there's any need for that.

Sure, pulling numbers and guesstimates out of your ass, that's much easier.

[Uncle Axetime]

tl;dr: MPEx worked. That is where the money is.
MP et al. saved his investors and some of us eejits from Pirate, Gox, Stamp, Ethereum, GAW, the lot of them...
Then he put his foot down again, and said Gavin, bitcoin core, Vessenes, the phoundation all that crap too is a scam, a United fucking Soviet fucking States fucking Government scam.
And it shall not pass.
Whatever 'we the community' think or want, he can outspend us, and he will if he needs to.
So let's all stop twittering as if our say mattered; get our heads down and study the code that's so royally fucked up by USSG; and keep our axes sharp for the real life and death wars to come.

[davout]

Or it's a deliberate attempt to torpedo Bitcoin.

Had I bought off GA, I'd consider a block size increase as one of the best ways to sterilize bitcoin.

[Grinder]

Hey I'd be fine with a 5 MB block size limit, and some percentage increase every year afterward. I think 20 MB would probably be better, but that's far less important than putting in place some dynamic hard limit, ANY dynamic hard limit, that steadily increases, year by year, so that we never have to do a hard fork again to change the limit.

If this limit increases faster than than the interest in spending money for transactions then it will kill Bitcoin. It has to cost quite a lot to do transactions. If it doesn't there will be too little interest in mining, and a 50% attack will be cheap. Currently the interest is going down, so there is a fairly large chance that any changes will do more harm than good. What's certain is that if there is a fork then all kinds of problems and scams will follow, and the Bitcoin critics will have a field day in the media.

[NewLiberty]

Hey I'd be fine with a 5 MB block size limit, and some percentage increase every year afterward. I think 20 MB would probably be better, but that's far less important than putting in place some dynamic hard limit, ANY dynamic hard limit, that steadily increases, year by year, so that we never have to do a hard fork again to change the limit.

If this limit increases faster than than the interest in spending money for transactions then it will kill Bitcoin. It has to cost quite a lot to do transactions. If it doesn't there will be too little interest in mining, and a 50% attack will be cheap. Currently the interest is going down, so there is a fairly large chance that any changes will do more harm than good. What's certain is that if there is a fork then all kinds of problems and scams will follow, and the Bitcoin critics will have a field day in the media.

I'd disagree that it has to cost a lot to do transactions.

But I would like to NEVER have to do a hard fork again on this issue.  Uncontrolled increases which are insensitive for the need for transactions don't provide such a guarantee.  They will be too large or too small.  We know that we can not accurately guess the future of Bitcoin.

So from this perspective what is needed is a BIP to track the # of transactions (or another metric that corresponds to block size) and use it to set the Max Block Size.  Then it could adjust in a similar way to difficulty.  Hard minimum-maximum may be set (so that there is no pernicious incentive for empty block attacks), and there can also be a hard maximum-maximum set (so that spamming attacks can't spiral out of control before some intervention is taken).

We all agree "don't fix it if it isn't broken".  (though intelligent people may disagree on whether it is broken)
We all should also agree "don't fix it if you don't know how".  (there is currently broad dissent on the how)

This would give us a "how".

[justusranvier]

If this limit increases faster than than the interest in spending money for transactions then it will kill Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has survived for 6 years without the block size limit effectively constraining the block size, why will this established pattern suddenly reverse if the limit is maintained high enough to not constrain the block size (or removed entirely?)

It has to cost quite a lot to do transactions. If it doesn't there will be too little interest in mining, and a 50% attack will be cheap.

That would certainly be the case, if multiplication didn't exist.

Fee revenue is (number of transactions) * (transaction fee)

Because of the magic of multiplication, having high transaction fees isn't the only way to have high fee revenue.

As a matter of fact, the producers of every product and service in the economy (except a few minor corner cases) maximize their revenue by increasing volume, not price.

The reason they do this is because competition works to drive prices lower over time.

Bitcoin is subject to competition, therefore attempts to maximize fee revenue by restricting supply will fail.

[davout]

the magic of multiplication

Are you referring to the magical multiplying fairy that also multiplies hardware and bandwith every year?

[Buffer Overflow]

Well I don't think there's any need for that.

Sure, pulling numbers and guesstimates out of your ass, that's much easier.

Just quoted D&T, don't blame me. If you disagree with him then I suggest you challenge him directly.

tl;dr: MPEx worked. That is where the money is.
MP et al. saved his investors and some of us eejits from Pirate, Gox, Stamp, Ethereum, GAW, the lot of them...
Then he put his foot down again, and said Gavin, bitcoin core, Vessenes, the phoundation all that crap too is a scam, a United fucking Soviet fucking States fucking Government scam.
And it shall not pass.
Whatever 'we the community' think or want, he can outspend us, and he will if he needs to.
So let's all stop twittering as if our say mattered; get our heads down and study the code that's so royally fucked up by USSG; and keep our axes sharp for the real life and death wars to come.

Login under your normal username next time and perhaps we'll give you the time of day. 

[tvbcof]

If this limit increases faster than than the interest in spending money for transactions then it will kill Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has survived for 6 years without the block size limit effectively constraining the block size, why will this established pattern suddenly reverse if the limit is maintained high enough to not constrain the block size (or removed entirely?)

Research IBLTs.  They are necessary to do away with the native blocksize throttling associated with completed block transfers and I'll bet that it is most distracting to the guys who wish to bloat the blockchain as much as possible as soon as possible.  They'll have to go in with or prior to the bloatchain fork unless the bloat is large enough for a coalition of  big miners to augment their operations with proprietary protocol enhancements and take over right then and there.  (I'd be interested to know if they sprung from Hearn's mind.  "tanquam ex ungue leonem")

Many people would love to exploit the blockchain for timestamping, messenging, etc, but how much effort is one going to put into a system when even full exploitation limits one's potential.  Very high value plain old economic transactions will be very competitive with bit-twitter messages due to value differences.  It's completely anticipatable that spam will fill the remainder of a nearly-free-to-use block space if there is a potential that one can build a service on it.

It has to cost quite a lot to do transactions. If it doesn't there will be too little interest in mining, and a 50% attack will be cheap.

That would certainly be the case, if multiplication didn't exist.

Fee revenue is (number of transactions) * (transaction fee)

Because of the magic of multiplication, having high transaction fees isn't the only way to have high fee revenue.

As a matter of fact, the producers of every product and service in the economy (except a few minor corner cases) maximize their revenue by increasing volume, not price.

The reason they do this is because competition works to drive prices lower over time.

Bitcoin is subject to competition, therefore attempts to maximize fee revenue by restricting supply will fail.

Bullshit.  Twice when I was in the Bay Area I lived next to high-end grocery stores.  One could easily spend twice the price for an item that one could obtain it for by going down the street to Safeway.  That was the very idea and it was the reason people shopped there, and they did a thriving business.  The cost of something is highly associated with it's perception of value, and I think I made a very good argument that Bitcoin in anything remotely resembling it's original form will always be a fairly exclusive system.  Your simplistic economics appeal to people largely because they are simplistic and by adopting them one can neglect the difficulty of analyzing the real world.

[bambou]

Bitcoin is subject to competition

Wait wut?!

Roflmao you should sell..