Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ...

[R2D221]

In absence of a block size limit,

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

[1715025215]

1715025215

[1715025215]

1715025215

[1715025215]

1715025215

[1715025215]

1715025215

[Lauda]

We still have people thinking that increasing the block size limit by a factor of 20 will increase the blockchain size by the same factor.
This is FALSE.
The blockchain will grow slowly over time. It could take us years before we reach this limit. Besides the cost per GB of storage is pretty low these days.
What would be very beneficial is including more options into the fork. If the fork happens, this could be our last one. Once we reach a few million users doing so will be almost impossible (it is hard already).

Thank you for going out of your way to not be deterred when they keep falsely stating it will grow to 20mb over night and centralize and to keep on posting the info. I know it has to have been posted at least 50 times now but I guess if each post teaches a person it's worth it.

Free (literally) space will be filled, no worries. Very fast.  

What makes you think that? Miners won't include spam transactions without fee's or dusting.

I'm just doing my part. Also I'm realizing just how limited and stubborn people here can be.
Do not answer to that guy, he is a trolling shill.

The problem isn't a limit in general but that 1MB is so low that under any meaningful adoption scenario it will push all individual users off the blockchain to rely on trusted third parties.

This statement is just *wrong* (and is itself a straw-man argument).

With other blockchains that also work trustlessly why on earth is anyone being pushed to rely on trusted 3rd parties?

Of course they are not (OP should fix that IMO).

You're not just limiting the amount of transactions per block, you're limiting the development of potential services of tomorrow.

[CIYAM]

The problem isn't a limit in general but that 1MB is so low that under any meaningful adoption scenario it will push all individual users off the blockchain to rely on trusted third parties.

This statement is just *wrong* (and is itself a straw-man argument).

With other blockchains that also work trustlessly why on earth is anyone being pushed to rely on trusted 3rd parties?

Of course they are not (OP should fix that IMO).

You're not just limiting the amount of transactions per block, you're limiting the development of potential services of tomorrow.

Sorry - but that makes *zero* sense (especially as I stated that I am not against raising the 1 MB limit in the first place).

[grau]

We have instead a *feedback* process. LOWER fees (not ZERO fees) means LESS mining (not NO mining) which in turn means LONGER confirmation times (not COMPLETE COLLAPSE) which leads to MORE FEES which leads to mining power switching back on.

This is not how Bitcoin works.
Instead: Less mining power leads to difficulty adjustment that restores confirmation time.

Lower mining income simply leads to less security that will lead to less use and less fees -> less mining power.
A positive feedback loop wrecking the ecosystem.

[Lauda]

Sorry - but that makes *zero* sense (especially as I stated that I am not against raising the 1 MB limit in the first place).

I misunderstood your post, sorry.
My post does however make sense, also I was referring to the like of the Lighthouse project.

[grau]

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

[CIYAM]

Sorry - but that makes *zero* sense (especially as I stated that I am not against raising the 1 MB limit in the first place).

I misunderstood your post, sorry.
My post does however make sense, also I was referring to the like of the Lighthouse project.

No problem but perhaps it would make more sense if you could expand on what you posted a bit.

[homo homini lupus]

can someone put on a TL;DR of original post for a lazy and non-technical reader like me  

the tl,dr - version is here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10364386#msg10364386

[R2D221]

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

What maths are required to prove that 20MB limit = no limit?

[Nancarrow]

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

This is a valid point. As far as incentivising fees goes, a block limit that is always just a bit bigger than it needs to be, is functionally equivalent to no block limit at all.

And actually, I think I see your point that IF this were the only mechanism in play regarding how much people pay in fees, it could pose a problem. My counter is that it is NOT the only mechanism in play.

ETA: R2D221, hope this clarifies it for you too.

[amincd]

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

It's not a binary option. Raising the limit at a moderate pace, so that fees don't have to increase a substantial amount with increasing adoption, is a middle ground solution, that will lead to average fees remaining affordable but not-zero.

[Lauda]

No problem but perhaps it would make more sense if you could expand on what you posted a bit.

Well one of the 'anti' arguments is that there is time and that this should be done in the future (if at all according to them). What they do not realize that it's not just the amount of transactions for the users that are limited.

Currently you cannot accept more than 684 pledges for your project. This is due to limitations in the Bitcoin protocol - the final contract that claims the pledges is a single Bitcoin transaction, and thus is limited to 500 kilobytes by the Bitcoin block size and protocol relay rules. Lighthouse therefore enforces a minimum pledge size of whatever the goal amount is, divided by the max number of pledges. The more you try and raise, the larger the minimum buy-in becomes.

A future version of Lighthouse could optimise its usage of transaction space to bump up the maximum number of pledges by another few hundred. But ultimately, the fundamental limit is imposed by the Bitcoin block size.

That's taken right from the FAQ of the project itself. This is just 1 example of potential services that won't be able to get developed completely (if at all).

https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse

[CIYAM]

That's taken right from the FAQ of the project itself. This is just 1 example of potential services that won't be able to get developed completely (if at all).

They just haven't designed it right (so the Bitcoin limits are not really an issue).

Although let's not go off-topic my AT project will be launching "crowdfund" very soon and that could actually work on Bitcoin if Bitcoin were to adopt AT (with no limits for the number of pledges).

[grau]

And actually, I think I see your point that IF this were the only mechanism in play regarding how much people pay in fees, it could pose a problem. My counter is that it is NOT the only mechanism in play.

ETA: R2D221, hope this clarifies it for you too.

What else would make people pay a fee? I do not think alturism would pay for an infrastructure of 300 mio USD and increasing.

It's not a binary option. Raising the limit at a moderate pace, so that fees don't have to increase a substantial amount with increasing adoption, is a middle ground solution, that will lead to average fees remaining affordable but not-zero.

There are quite a few constants in Bitcoin that one could argue with, that is what we do. It is however important to do it for the right reason.
Avoid paying fees is not a right reason.

[grau]

It's not a binary option. Raising the limit at a moderate pace, so that fees don't have to increase a substantial amount with increasing adoption, is a middle ground solution, that will lead to average fees remaining affordable but not-zero.

There are quite a few constants in Bitcoin that one could argue with, that is what we do. It is however important to do it for the right reason.
Avoid paying fees is not a right reason.

Exending on above:

It is rather difficult to substantiate an algorithm that would set course for the future, given the huge amount of unkown parameters a constant we have is preferred by occam's razor.

[Nancarrow]

What else would make people pay a fee? I do not think alturism would pay for an infrastructure of 300 mio USD and increasing.

What else, is that the miners don't mine if it's not profitable. And it's NOT altruism to pay a fee to the miners. You can't use bitcoin without miners, so if you want to use bitcoin, you pay a fee. If you DON'T want to use bitcoin, then surely the question of whether or not you WOULD choose to pay a fee is irrelevant?

There are TWO incentives to pay fees - getting your transaction in a block, and having a bitcoin currency at all. Increasing the blocksize may attenuate the first incentive but doesn't remove the second at all.

[sickpig]

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

Maybe this is an impertinent question, but isn't the main goal of lifting the max block size increasing the # of tx/s? (Avoiding raising fees is a side effect at best, no?)
And more to the point, it seems to me that 1MB limit was introduced as countermeasure against potential network flooding, am I missing something obvious?

[homo homini lupus]

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

What maths are required to prove that 20MB limit = no limit?

before you reach that limit you'll upgrade to 50MB and quantitative ease another 10 million btc into existance to cover miners - that's how it'll end up. (not really because people won't even use the 20MB version)

[homo homini lupus]

Guys, these txs you dream up do not occure right now on the network. A large percentage of txs that do occure currently are microtransactions.
The fork proposal can be seen as a proposal to secure microtransactions with btc hashpower for free.   

[Nancarrow]

before you reach that limit you'll upgrade to 50MB and quantitative ease another 10 million btc into existance to cover miners - that's how it'll end up. (not really because people won't even use the 20MB version)

What plausible reasons can you give for either of those assertions?

Why *wouldn't* people use the 20MB version?

Why *would* the network majority agree to create another 10 million BTC?