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

[turvarya]

http://trilema.com/2015/gerald-davis-is-wrong-heres-why/

Since you content farm lot are all busy copy/pasting the same stuff over and over to each other instead of paying attention.

What does he expect, we're going to cancel the hard fork because he slanders some people with eloquent and expressive prose? Because he declares he can single handedly sabotage the process due to his importance and influence?

Whether the hard fork happens is not going to be determined by one man's ego. If he wants to present his arguments for not doing the hard fork in a diplomatic manner, they will be taken into account, and debated, but there is no debate as long as one man looks down on others, and feels no need to restrain himself and speak to them respectfully.

I recently talked to some Bitcoin-Users in real life. None of them doubted, that the hard fork will come, none of them had any fear, that something would go wrong(and some of them understood the technology much better than me)
Being active on this forum often clouds your vision from what is going on in the real BTC-World.
That's why I try to stay away from such thread. I think, I already read all the pro and cons on that matter. The rest is just accusation of who is  an idiot or a shill. It reminds me about elementary school.

[1714972369]

1714972369

[1714972369]

1714972369

[1714972369]

1714972369

[1714972369]

1714972369

[bambou]

Whether the hard fork happens is not going to be determined by one man's ego. If he wants to present his arguments for not doing the hard fork in a diplomatic manner, they will be taken into account, and debated, but there is no debate as long as one man looks down on others, and feels no need to restrain himself and speak to them respectfully.

Absolutely agreed.

please stop acting like over-emotive princesses.

[turvarya]

Whether the hard fork happens is not going to be determined by one man's ego. If he wants to present his arguments for not doing the hard fork in a diplomatic manner, they will be taken into account, and debated, but there is no debate as long as one man looks down on others, and feels no need to restrain himself and speak to them respectfully.

Absolutely agreed.

please stop acting like over-emotive princesses.

lol
those posts are exactly what I meant. It's elementary school all over again

[turvarya]

Whether the hard fork happens is not going to be determined by one man's ego. If he wants to present his arguments for not doing the hard fork in a diplomatic manner, they will be taken into account, and debated, but there is no debate as long as one man looks down on others, and feels no need to restrain himself and speak to them respectfully.

Absolutely agreed.

please stop acting like over-emotive princesses.

lol
those posts are exactly what I meant. It's elementary school all over again

Bitch, fork that chain and I'll get my cousin to beat you up

I have two older brothers, who will beat the shit out your cousins. So, just try.

[grau]

Why couldn't MAX_BLOCK_SIZE be self-adjusting?

That very vague.... based on what?

I am not generally against increasing block size, but against doing it for the wrong reason or too eagerly.

The pace of increase has to be algorithmic, driven by market forces and advances of technology, not cenral planning or cartels.
The algorithm we have now, that fits above, is that of the difficulty adjustment.

It is plausible to me that difficulty stalls or falls if mining is no longer highly profitable, in which case block size limit should not be increased. This is actualy the line of thought that makes me think an increase of block limit at this time point is not warranted.

Linking block size increase with difficulty adjustment would be technically straightforward since difficulty calculation already drives validatation, size limit could be just one more of it its output and implied checks.

[amincd]

The pace of increase has to be algorithmic, driven by market forces and advances of technology, not cenral planning or cartels.
The algorithm we have now, that fits above, is that of the difficulty adjustment.

This was also my first preference. I'd add that if it was up to me, the hard limit would be removed altogether, and it would be up to miners to create a soft limit. As long as over 50 percent of the network hashrate enforces a particular rule on the block size, it will be as binding as a protocol rule.

Perhaps the 40% per year hard limit increase can co-exist with a dynamic soft limit that tracks difficulty. That way the hard limit acts as a failsafe, while the soft limit imposes the real size constraints.

[grau]

The pace of increase has to be algorithmic, driven by market forces and advances of technology, not cenral planning or cartels.
The algorithm we have now, that fits above, is that of the difficulty adjustment.

This was also my first preference. I'd add that if it was up to me, the hard limit would be removed altogether, and it would be up to miners to create a soft limit. As long as over 50 percent of the network hashrate enforces a particular rule on the block size, it will be as binding as a protocol rule.

Perhaps the 40% per year hard limit increase can co-exist with a dynamic soft limit that tracks difficulty. That way the hard limit acts as a failsafe, while the soft limit imposes the real size constraints.

What I meant is not a vote by hash rate, that would be a cartel. Difficulty increase is also not a vote but a consequence of market forces and technology.

It is important to preserve the proposed role of fees, that are to two fold: contain spam and replace inflation on the long run.
Eagerly increasing block size would be contrary to both.

[amincd]

What I meant is not a vote by hash rate, that would be a cartel. Difficulty increase is also not a vote but a consequence of market forces and technology.

Miners cartelizing to create a sensible de facto block size limit doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Anyway, I don't want to take this discussion too far off-topic so I'll save it for a different thread.

[wilth1]

Why couldn't MAX_BLOCK_SIZE be self-adjusting?

That very vague.... based on what?

Max block size could be retargeted periodically alongside difficulty adjustments using average block size and the frequency of full blocks in a period with the hard-coded value as a floor.

Imagining the necessity of 20MB blocks relies on the assumption that a massive increase in transaction volume develops, but what if it slows significantly?  Bloated block broadcast delay might temporarily even be useful as a competitive advantage.  When fees outweigh reward, doesn't the mining market encourage bloat?

Also, with a hard limit on size, won't the conversation on manual adjustment resurface indefinitely with increasing political difficulty?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Why couldn't MAX_BLOCK_SIZE be self-adjusting?

It certainly could be.   The point of the post wasn't to arrogantly state what we must do or even that we must do something now.   I would point out that planning a hard fork is no trivial manner so the discussion needs to start now even if the final switch to new block version won't actually occur for 9-12 months.   The point was just to show that a permanent 1MB cap is simply a non-starter.  It allows roughly 1 million direct users to make less than 1 transaction per month.  That isn't a backbone it is a technological dead end.

For the record I disagree with Gavin on if Bitcoin can (or even should) scale to VISA levels.   It is not optimal that someone in Africa needs transaction data on the daily coffee habit of a guy in San Francisco they will never meet.   I do believe that Bitcoin can be used as a core backbone to link a variety of other more specialized (maybe even localized) systems via the use of sidechains and other technologies.  The point of the post was that whatever the future of Bitcoin ends up being it won't happen with a permanent 1 MB cap.

[CIYAM]

I do believe that Bitcoin can be used as a core backbone to link a variety of other more specialized (maybe even localized) systems via the use of sidechains and other technologies.

And this is a point that I have been trying to make (we don't need to put every single transaction in the world into one blockchain).

[DeathAndTaxes]

Also, with a hard limit on size, won't the conversation on manual adjustment resurface indefinitely with increasing political difficulty?

Probably and it may be infeasible to raise the cap further in the future even if that would be optimal.  However with a 20MB or 33.6 MB* (2^25) block size Bitcoin at least has the potential to exist as a backbone of sorts and it does provide us breathing room.  Once again I am not advocating any particular size limit, timeline, or method to raise the cap just that the idea of permanently keeping a 1MB block size just fails basic math and reasoning.   If the post convinces some people to go from "never raise the limit" to "I have concerns how can be raise the limit in a way which addresses them" then it served its purpose.


* The only "limit" definitively set by Satoshi.

[seriouscoin]

I do believe that Bitcoin can be used as a core backbone to link a variety of other more specialized (maybe even localized) systems via the use of sidechains and other technologies.

And this is a point that I have been trying to make (we don't need to put every single transaction in the world into one blockchain).

I agree and thats why we will have sidechains.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I do believe that Bitcoin can be used as a core backbone to link a variety of other more specialized (maybe even localized) systems via the use of sidechains and other technologies.

And this is a point that I have been trying to make (we don't need to put every single transaction in the world into one blockchain).

I agree.  I didn't have the time to respond in your thread but I don't believe there is "one blockchain to rule them all" however even for those who believe Bitcoin can exists as an interchange between a diverse ecosystem of networks the block size will need to be raised.  1MB blocks prevent even infrequent access by users between the Bitcoin network and side networks without "trusted" intermediaries.  If the backbone is centrally controlled then the supporting ecosystem is built on a foundation of sand.

We may see most of the overall transaction data occurring on side networks or way may see sidechains only used in niche applications where they provide a tangible benefit over Bitcoin "core".  I don't know how it is going to play out there are advantages and disadvantages either way.   How, when, by what method, and to what ultimate end the transaction capacity will be increased are all good questions.

[CIYAM]

I agree.  I didn't have the time to respond in your thread but I don't believe there is "one blockchain to rule them all" however even for those who believe Bitcoin can exists as an interchange between a diverse ecosystem of networks the block size will need to be raised.  1MB blocks prevent even infrequent access by users between the Bitcoin network and side networks without "trusted" intermediaries.  If the backbone is centrally controlled then the supporting ecosystem is built on a foundation of sand.

Thanks (it is nice to have your response rather than all the trolling I've been getting with people thinking I am trying to flog an alt-coin or whatever).

And I do agree 100% that the current Bitcoin TPS is not going to be very useful in a few years at all (if it stays as that then it could only end up being a "store of value" system practically).

[runam0k]

Late to the thread but wanted to lodge my Yes vote for increasing the block size.  Great post D&T.

It seems nonsensical to me to risk adoption itself - and as D&T points out, give up the financial/transactional freedoms Bitcoin provides - simply to test a high scarcity/high fee model.  I can see that the upcoming halving adds some weight to the "miners will leave, threatening the security of Bitcoin, if fees don't compensate" argument, but I think the impact (reduced hashrate, centralisation of same) is being overplayed by some.  I don't buy the doomsday scenario.

Increase the block size and either the numbers work (adoption -> more transactions -> more small fees -> happy miners) or they don't and miners leave/fees rise.

[Cryddit]

Okay, I'm going to start by saying that in the short run (next four or so years) there is no escaping an increase in maximum block size.  So yes, definitely do that.

However, in the longer term, that's still supralinear scaling and still potentially faces scale problems.  So we need another solution.  We don't need altcoins whatsoever.  It's possible for a single cryptocurrency to exist as multiple blockchains.   There can be a central blockchain that does hardly anything else than mediate automatic exchanges between address spaces managed by dozens of side chains.

Transaction times where you have coins on one side chain and need to pay into an address that's on a different side chain would become longer, because now two transactions that mutually depend on one another must appear in two separate blockchains.   So that's annoying if your wallet can't find coins that are in the same chain as the address you are paying to. 

Within chain A, a cross-chain tx might appear as "Han paid Chain B in tx foo-a" and in chain B it appears as "Chain A paid Chewie in tx foo-b"  And if that result would cause chain A to have a negative balance, it triggers "Chain B paid Chain A half of chain B's positive balance in tx foo-central" in the central blockchain.

Anyway, you'd have to at least temporarily track the central chain, any chain into which you're paying, and any from which you're being paid, like a lightweight client.  Beyond that, you'd have the option of actually having the full download and proof all the way back to an origin block of any subset of chains that interest you.

[spooderman]

Excellent post!

[leopard2]

Why couldn't MAX_BLOCK_SIZE be self-adjusting?

It certainly could be.   The point of the post wasn't to arrogantly state what we must do or even that we must do something now.   I would point out that planning a hard fork is no trivial manner so the discussion needs to start now even if the final switch to new block version won't actually occur for 9-12 months.   The point was just to show that a permanent 1MB cap is simply a non-starter.  It allows roughly 1 million direct users to make less than 1 transaction per month.  That isn't a backbone it is a technological dead end.

For the record I disagree with Gavin on if Bitcoin can (or even should) scale to VISA levels.   It is not optimal that someone in Africa needs transaction data on the daily coffee habit of a guy in San Francisco they will never meet.   I do believe that Bitcoin can be used as a core backbone to link a variety of other more specialized (maybe even localized) systems via the use of sidechains and other technologies.  The point of the post was that whatever the future of Bitcoin ends up being it won't happen with a permanent 1 MB cap.

There are always altcoins to pay for the coffees, but still there can be no doubt that 1MB is not enough. I cannot believe people seriously oppose the increase! After all it will not make the blockchain 20x bigger, it will only make the blockchain as large as needed to include all transactions, once the 1MB limit is not sufficient anymore.

So people who oppose the change are basically saying, BTC transactions have to be severely limited (at around 7 TPS) forever, just to stick to the 1MB limit forever. That is nuts.

[homo homini lupus]

I cannot believe people seriously oppose the increase!

"arguing to ignorance"

the rest of the post was distorted trash based on false assumptions too