Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[davout]

i'd love to see a proposal which would do the following (just an example; numbers just fallen out of my head):
 - if a miner makes a block bigger than 1mb he cant collect the whole reward/fees
 - the part of the reward which the miner could not claim should be distributed to nodes (a way i can imagine to do this is that the first node relaying a transaction encodes his address in it and gets a part of the reward)

Not sure that this would be of any use, it'd just incentivize miners to keep higher connectivity in order to bypass relaying nodes and receive transactions directly, not make smaller blocks.

[1713996972]

1713996972

[1713996972]

1713996972

[onemorexmr]

i'd love to see a proposal which would do the following (just an example; numbers just fallen out of my head):
 - if a miner makes a block bigger than 1mb he cant collect the whole reward/fees
 - the part of the reward which the miner could not claim should be distributed to nodes (a way i can imagine to do this is that the first node relaying a transaction encodes his address in it and gets a part of the reward)

Not sure that this would be of any use, it'd just incentivize miners to keep higher connectivity in order to bypass relaying nodes and receive transactions directly, not make smaller blocks.

well higher connectivity alone is a good thing.

to still keep an incentive for smaller blocks we could implement that not all of the rewarddiff is distributed to nodes; just half of it (and the rest is lost)

[RoadStress]

Also I think that you missed the part that hitting the hardware limits would be spotted very soon and we can make the necessary changes to not be a real problem anymore. If the network can't handle big blocks then we can create smaller blocks. It is not mandatory that we create huge blocks all the time.

Lol, wtf is this brain damaged logic where "it's ok to deliberately make things weak and broken, because as soon as it becomes a problem, we can repair it" ?

No reading comprehension skill on your side. I said that it is ok to deliberately try new things which will not become a problem since we can spot it long before it's an actual problem and since we can always lower the block size.

but my problem with the current proposal is that i think we need an incentive for miners to make smaller blocks.
...
i want that because i think we need a fee based market...

So you are trying to enforce your views on the miners instead of letting them decide.

[davout]

well higher connectivity alone is a good thing.

Sure, but that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

to still keep an incentive for smaller blocks we could implement that not all of the rewarddiff is distributed to nodes; just half of it (and the rest is lost)

That goes waaay further than changing a constant in the code. Don't get me wrong, if it didn't completely fuck up the incentives the max block size constraint would already be long gone, because it would be a no-brainer. The problem is that Bitcoin has a cost, and that people expect it to be paid forever by inflation, like it is today, except this doesn't work.

[onemorexmr]

So you are trying to enforce your views on the miners instead of letting them decide.

lol i am not enforcing anything.
i just write my ideas and thoughts in a public forum - just as you do atm btw.

[Arghhh]

Reddit comment that shits on Mircea Popescrackapipescu gets the most upvotes:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yjqce/gavin_andresen_optimistic_about_scaling_bitcoin/

"... cue Mircea Popescu and his Scooby Gang: "Gavincoin's gunna be worthless! Respect mah arbitrary block size limit cause: incoherent ideological economix reasonz." Current value of the limit is arbitrary, that's not even a question. There being some limit makes sense (to prevent flooding), but demanding to treat the current value as immutable is an insult to your own intelligence.

Satoshi pointed out years ago already, at some point, as the network grows, we probably want to do something like
if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit

Makes sense, unless of course you have a very different plan for the network in mind...
The only good (EDIT) logically valid, but still pretty bad reason I can see to be categorically against adjusting max block size as the network grows (adjust the limit, not remove it entirely) is if you would like Bitcoin to turn into "semi fungible high limit poker chips for the elite" in the long run. (I like that description, took it from here.)" - Oda_Krell

[iCEBREAKER]

If and when we reach the point where 95% of the blocks published in the last 1000 have the new block version number

That is, if someone with commit access doesn't change the requirement to, say, 60%. Because good reasons and won't you think of the children.

Today's good reason is "because network effect."

Metcalfe's Law is the reason why we all use wire transfers to pay for our flat whites, and tip our barista via ACH.

Because if we don't have one size to fit all, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE AND BITCOIN IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!!1!!!1231231!!ONEELEVENTYONE!~~`~!

Just remember, bigger is *ALWAYS* better, because more is *NEVER* different.   

[Cryddit]

If and when we reach the point where 95% of the blocks published in the last 1000 have the new block version number, then clients will start rejecting any blocks with the old block version number, and the fork will be enforced from that point onward whether the blocks formed are >1Mbyte or not.

This is interesting. Is this really true? If we fork we will need to have mandatory >1MB blocks? Everything else will be orphaned?

"Whether or not we do" means "We must do" in your language? 

Interesting.  That ain't the way English works, unless you learned your language from Faux News.

[NewLiberty]

I don't like the current proposal, it is a decent guess, but it doesn't solve the problem.  It is a patch only.  It takes tremendous hubris to imagine that anyone knows what will happen with Bitcoin transaction volumes in 20 years.

It doesn't try to project bitcoin transaction volumes for 20 years.  What it's trying to project is what's the size of the biggest block that *won't* constitute a dangerous attack on the block chain for 20 years.  IOW, if we wind up filling this size block at some point because of transaction volume, that's an interesting and sort of unexpected development.  If we *don't* wind up needing this space for transaction volume, and some miner for inscrutable purposes chooses to publish blocks this size anyway, then these limits are expected to prevent such a miner from being a threat to the bitcoin system.

What it's trying to project is what's the *capacity* for bandwidth for the next 20 years, not because this bandwidth will definitely all be needed for tx but because with this bandwidth will enable nodes to handle blocks this size if necessary without breaking under the strain.  

Thank you for refining the statement further.  Yes, this is part of what I do not like about the proposal.  Having worked in concert with global telecom and datacom capacity managers for the last 20 years myself, it is just not something that makes sense to predict this far out.  As much as we might find it convenient, the past is not a prediction of the future.

Fundamentally, I also still would like to see the real problems addressed, 1) of why we need to set an arbitrary limit, and then 2) why to have a limit at all.  Taking a shot in the dark and calling it good enough for 20 years, yes that is hubris.

[iCEBREAKER]

It's been a pleasure watching DP and Davout slap you forkers around all over this thread.

Which thread have you been watching?

This is the the crux of the matter, and where the pro-bloat side lose the debate:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

No, that's where you lose the debate.  Bitcoin's value is that everyone gets to write into the ledger and the fork will ensure that ideal is maintained.  Why would anyone want to use a system that doesn't allow them to write into the ledger?  A system that guarantees security for the few but forces risk and uncertainty onto the many?  A system that won't process transactions quickly unless you're paying a huge fee?  No one is going to settle for a second-tier service because a bunch of elitists think they're better than everyone else.

I've read every page of this thread, and the previous locked one.  Those in favor of the 20mb fork have not met their burden of proof, and have resorted to dancing around the solid logic of those against it.

Like you, for example, trying to convince us you have psychic powers and can see into the future.  Or are you a time traveler, who has returned to the past to warn us that WE MUST FORK BECAUSE OTHERWISE BITCOIN IS DOOMED?

20MB isn't anywhere near enough to achieve your hippy-dippy Kumbaya goal of allowing everyone to write into the Holy Ledger.  Even Gavin and D&T admit that, so you are waaay off base.

Direct Holy Ledger access for every useless eater on the planet isn't going to happen, not with 1MB or with 20MB.  For transactions that matter, there is Bitcoin and Monero.  For everything else, we can create unlimited off-chain and alt-chain capacity.

The beneficial network effect describes the sum total of all that interoperable capacity, *NOT* the supposed infinitely positive marginal returns from heaping all tx into a single dataset.  Justus and you need remedial economics lessons, because you fail to understand the law of diminishing marginal returns and the substitution effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism#The_.E2.80.9Claw.E2.80.9D_of_diminishing_marginal_utility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_rate_of_substitution

[RoadStress]

"Whether or not we do" means "We must do" in your language?  
Interesting.  That ain't the way English works, unless you learned your language from Faux News.

I have read it on the run I admit. Thanks for the correction.

[Arghhh]

Mircea Popescu... Josh Garza... what's the difference???

[Lauda]

Because it is my considered opinion that Bitcoin is perfect as it is and that it doesn't need to be "fixed" to provide tremendous value to humanity at large.

But what is it that makes you think that you're right?
Judging from the way that you're replying, I don't see a situation in which you'd give in, no matter what the reason.

[davout]

I don't see a situation in which you'd give in, no matter what the reason.

That's because you don't pay enough attention.

But what about 4G? Why was it created if everything was working perfectly before that?

You're right on this one, shitty analogy.

[hdbuck]

to make things clear, davout, you wouldnt oppose a fork *if* issues where actually measured, balanced and somehow critical?

[NxtChg]

Fundamentally, I also still would like to see the real problems addressed, 1) of why we need to set an arbitrary limit, and then 2) why to have a limit at all.  Taking a shot in the dark and calling it good enough for 20 years, yes that is hubris.

I am starting to suspect that the reason is not technical, but political.

Gavin probably realized that the limit is not needed at all (and he might be right, who knows?), but decided that it will be much easier to convince people to fork if there is a placebo limit in place. Hence the Wild Guess Curve.

If that's true, I'd still prefer he made a strong case about why the limit is not needed instead of  doing it this way...

[davout]

to make things clear, davout, you wouldnt oppose a fork *if* issues where actually measured, balanced and somehow critical?

There's so much wrong with Gavin's current proposal that I don't even know where to start.

But yes, I'm not against a block size increase, if done properly, by competent people, when it becomes really valuable for Bitcoin to do so, and when the threats to decentralization are clearly mitigated by the hardware capacity at the time it is being discussed.

I am not saying that the block size has to remain 1mb forever mind you, I'm saying that Gavin's approach and assumptions are completely braindamaged, and I'll do whatever it takes to kill it.

Please do...  common understanding on Bitcoin security is very important.

There's really not much point in writing more if the guy isn't willing to discuss the basic assumptions he makes, and goals he targets and bases his constructions upon.
He bases his whole reasoning on "every single transaction absolutely has to be in the blockchain no matter what it is about", no wonder the conclusions he reaches are pretty useless.

[davout]

There's really not much point in writing more if the guy isn't willing to discuss the basic assumptions he makes, and goals he targets and bases his constructions upon.
He bases his whole reasoning on "every single transaction absolutely has to be in the blockchain no matter what it is about", no wonder the conclusions he reaches are pretty useless.

To me...  if it makes a difference security-wise to wait for the prohibited entirely scenario to become the norm before increasing the limit...  it is incremental for both sides to have a common understanding on security.  

In other words...  such arguments might be put on hold by the proponents themselves once they're viewed from the same perspective...  and vice versa.

Not quite sure I follow what you're saying.
If what you're saying is that it makes no sense to propose solutions before actually witnessing a real problem, then I agree, if that's not what you're saying could you please clarify?

[davout]

Considering my current level of understanding on Bitcoin security...  I would say we're in agreement.

My approach entails the flip side too though...  why not solve an obvious potential problem if there are NO security concerns?

I see. There are critical security properties at stake here because playing with the block size is playing with core mining incentives.

It has all sorts of perverse effects that miners do not have an incentive to make small blocks, which will be the case as soon as IBLT (Invertible Bloom Lookup Tables) are implemented.
It used to be argued that miners would have an incentive to make small blocks because making large blocks that propagate slowly would be dangerous for them (they could lose it all in favor of smaller, faster propagating blocks). But with IBLT this incentive disappears.

If this were to happen, miners would find themselves in a position where it would make economical sense to include whatever is thrown at them (because including a transaction would not increase their risk to end up with a big, orphaned block), and carries a non-zero fee, thereby making a very small private gain, but socializing the bulk of the cost, since everyone would have to process, and store (at least for a while), this transaction.

[davout]

Edit:  Thus...  my question here.

If your question is "do full blocks, and a transaction backlog increase the security of Bitcoin?" the answer is clearly yes, as this would induce bigger transaction fees, thereby inducing a bigger incentive for miners to secure the network.