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

[jmw74]

miners also have an incentive for smaller blocks as they reduces their risk that it get orphaned.

miners also know that if they allow small fee transactions people will only pay a small fee. its still a prisoners dilemma with downward pressure tough.

Yeah, I'm kind of assuming the IBLT feature gets implemented so that nodes will already have all the tx's in the block, and the relaying after the block is found should be roughly the same speed no matter how many txs are in it.

[1715653083]

1715653083

[1715653083]

1715653083

[sangaman]

I like Justus' pay-to-relay idea, but I'm having second thoughts about whether it would actually work.

Consider this thought experiment, there are three otherwise identical cryptocurrency networks. The total cost to do a trustless transaction is the tx fee plus whatever it costs to rent full-node capable hardware long enough to validate the transaction you receive.

A: 1mb block limit, $50 tx fee, validation cost: $0.05
B: 100mb block limit, $0.50 tx fee, validation cost: $0.50
C: 10,000mb block limit, $0.005 tx fee, validation cost $50

Which network do you want to receive payment on, assuming you don't trust the sender or any third party?  B. The reason B is so cheap, is that fees are inversely proportional to block size limit, but bandwidth costs are not linear. They're pretty flat until you get up to exotic speeds.

As Gavin pointed out, the optimal block size limit will scale with commodity bandwidth.

So, in the unlimited "pay to relay" model, what forces cause the price to converge at this optimal level? I'd suggest there aren't any. If nothing else, the block reward ruins it. The cost to relay will be insignificant until the block size is so huge, that it takes one of the world's fastest connections to transmit it. By then bitcoin is sunk, or at least depending solely on its head start rather than competing on features and price.

Miners have no reason not to accept all nonzero fees, no matter how large the resulting block is. They do not care if the large blocks knock commodity full nodes off the network. Users care! They'll just go to the hypothetical competing network that's the same, except much cheaper.

Now you could argue that miners are rational and wouldn't do anything to make bitcoin un-competitive.  I think that ignores the prisoner's dilemma that would come up.

Let's say all miners know that accepting tiny fees creates huge blocks, causing users to flee to cheaper networks. They don't want to harm their own operation, right?

Some miner will defect, and sweep all the tiny fees from the mempool, even though it creates a huge block. One huge block won't kill bitcoin.  Except the miners can't stop at just one. It will happen repeatedly, with no individual miner able to stop it from going down in flames. So they might as well defect themselves and collect every last satoshi while they can.

I think Gavin's got a solid plan. It's got ugly arbitrary constants, but it's simple and there's little doubt it will work.

Would we be able to filll enormous 10GB blocks with transactions if it costs $50 to relay and validate them? I think we wouldn't be seeing many bitcoin transactions if they cost $50 a pop, regardless of how many people use it.

If I'm not mistaken, there's also incentive for miners not to include no-fee transactions because they'd have to pay more to have their blocks propagated quickly.

It sounds like those are at least two of the market forces that would prevent 10GB blocks under justus' proposal.

[RoadStress]

Is Bitcoin 'hemorrhaging market share'?  I hadn't heard.  Whatever the case, losing a lot of the users is a fairly desirable thing to me.  Users who want to use a very powerful technology such as Bitcoin to buy their morning coffee are a distinct liability to the system and are in the process of killing it right now (hence this thread.)

Really? So that's why you are anti raising the block limit. Because you want to use Bitcoin for yourself and you piss on people who want to buy coffee using your powerful technology. It seems like this powerful technology is your new God and peasants aren't even allowed to say its name.

Who are you to decide who should use Bitcoin and who shouldn't? (I know you will not answer to this)

I said it in the other thread and I will say it again here: Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders.

[justusranvier]

Really? So that's why you are anti raising the block limit. Because you want to use Bitcoin for yourself and you piss on people who want to buy coffee using your powerful technology. It seems like this powerful technology is your new God and peasants aren't even allowed to say its name.

Who are you to decide who should use Bitcoin and who shouldn't? (I know you will not answer to this)

This is why they have to resort to misdirection and false arguments - if they actually told the truth openly it would be very obvious that they are a small minority and the supermajority consensus is against them.

The amount of hysteria being generated by the anti-scaling crowd is in direct proportion to the degree to which the consensus is against them.

[bambou]

Really? So that's why you are anti raising the block limit. Because you want to use Bitcoin for yourself and you piss on people who want to buy coffee using your powerful technology. It seems like this powerful technology is your new God and peasants aren't even allowed to say its name.

Who are you to decide who should use Bitcoin and who shouldn't? (I know you will not answer to this)

This is why they have to resort to misdirection and false arguments - if they actually told the truth openly it would be very obvious that they are a small minority and the supermajority consensus is against them.

The amount of hysteria being generated by the anti-scaling crowd is in direct proportion to the degree to which the consensus is against them.

I only see hysteria amongst the pro side..
Its you and his royal clueless roadstress that spreads fud and do nothing but fagocitating the debate with 'future' fear of bitcoin not scaling..

It is you that are actually scared and does not support bitcoin the way it is.

Please go ahead and fork that shit up.

Global consensus?! You wish..

[R2D221]

I only see hysteria amongst the pro side..
Its you and his royal clueless roadstress that spreads fud and do nothing but fagocitating the debate with 'future' fear of bitcoin not scaling..

It's interesting that you use this word. A phagocyte is a cell from our immune system that eats bacteria and other harmful creatures. So, you're saying that the pro side is actually defending against those who want to harm Bitcoin.

[RoadStress]

I only see hysteria amongst the pro side..
Its you and his royal clueless roadstress that spreads fud and do nothing but fagocitating the debate with 'future' fear of bitcoin not scaling..

Proof of fud spread? I'm only advocating for a neutral bitcoin network without any constrains for anyone to use. Nothing else.

It is you that are actually scared and does not support bitcoin the way it is.

Please tell me how do you support bitcoin.

Please go ahead and fork that shit up.

Global consensus?! You wish..

Ok.

[Buffer Overflow]

It is you that are actually scared and does not support bitcoin the way it is.

The pro-progress crowd are actually supporting bitcoin because the block size cap is and always was temporary.

You haven't thought your comment through properly.

[solex]

Ok, so say we go ahead with a hard fork to a > 1MB max block size ... are we also going to see a couple of other hard forking issues put through all at the same time or will this one be done alone?

Could it become like those congressional bills where all the crap legislation gets stuck inside the fine print of the guns 'n drugs 'n terrroists 'n kids cover page?

While in theory that is the most sensible idea, in practice, adding other changes will only slow down the implementation of what already has proved to be very contentious (yet shouldn't have been).

[justusranvier]

The hysteria is reached even into the bitcoin-development mailing list.

It's amazing how many high-profile names are extremely interested in forcing as many Bitcoin users as possible into trackable relationships with trusted third parties.

Might be worth a "Meet the Developers Who Want to Destroy Your Privacy" exposé.

[hdbuck]

The hysteria is reached even into the bitcoin-development mailing list.

could you share some of it here please?

[justusranvier]

The hysteria is reached even into the bitcoin-development mailing list.

could you share some of it here please?

http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06992.html

Note the degree to which nobody is even willing to mention solutions to the presented problem other than trusted third parties (micropayment channels, etc)

That unwillingness to discuss alternate solutions is strong evidence that the proposals and supporting comments are agenda-driven, by an agenda that is not being openly stated.

[DeathAndTaxes]

According to my data the average transaction size is higher than expected, and slowly growing.

Indeed and this fits with expectation for a couple of reasons.  The first is that P2PkH ("normal") transactions are the most compact.  For a given number of inputs and outputs any other script is going to be larger.  Even a relatively simple 2-of-3 multisig script is about 50% larger than a Pay2PubKeyHash script and there is a lot more potential than just straight multikey transactions.  The good news is that the complex scripts is where all the interesting innovation is going to come from.  Without the scripting Bitcoin wouldn't be programmable money it would just be digital cash.  Now a digital cash system is interesting but scripting is what allows doing interesting things in a trustless manner.  

Adding to that the average number of inputs and outputs per transaction has risen over time.  As the number of users increases the total number of outputs will also increase.  While individual transactions will vary for the overall blockchain the number of inputs and outputs will be roughly the same.  We can think of inputs and outputs as a single roundtrip script.  The other elements of the transaction are relatively small and fixed in size so:

Average txn size = (Script Complexity) * (Number of IO)

The bottom line is both elements of transaction size are increasing slowly over time.  Unless adoption dies off (in which case all this is academic) there is no reason to believe that trend will change anytime soon.  The good news is that average transaction size will probably not go above 800 or so bytes so I think a very conservative estimate of throughput is at least 2.0 tps per MB.

The full data table is available here, though as image and only until block 327500, but it should provide a ballpark: somewhere around 500-600 byte per transaction.

Nice to see other data points which line up with the OP.  500 bytes per txn would equate to 3.3 tps max per MB and 600 bytes would be 2.7 tps per MB.  In the OP I expanded that to cover the likely transaction size growth and to all provide a lower bound for an unrealistic but at least possible txn size.  Rounding it all out that is why most of the arguments revolved around a sustainable 2 to 4 tps (per MB).  If you read anything on the topic about scalability which uses values outside that range I would question the knowledge of the author.  I see lots of good intended articles which cling to the gospel of 7tps.

* As a side note in an optimal world there would have been no scripts in the output portion of the txn.  Output would just contain a 20 byte field to contain the ScriptHash.  All transactions would involve paying to a scriptHash and all addresses would be encoded ScriptHashes.  Even today the most common script would probably be P2PkH but it would "work" the same way as any other arbitrary script.  We probably are never going to change this but it could be done as a hardfork.  In addition to simplicity and consistency it would make the UTXO smaller with compact fixed length records  without any loss of functionality.  Related to that store outputs as a merkle tree and you could have intra-transaction pruning as well.

[Cryddit]

Could it become like those congressional bills where all the crap legislation gets stuck inside the fine print of the guns 'n drugs 'n terrroists 'n kids cover page?

While in theory that is the most sensible idea, in practice, adding other changes will only slow down the implementation of what already has proved to be very contentious (yet shouldn't have been).

Heh.  It would be a good idea, for example, to add code that sweeps "dust" more than 8 years old (ie, starting with the very oldest dust, at the beginning of next year) into the miners' pockets.  If something has been sitting there for 8 years and it's too small to pay for the fees that would be needed to spend it, then it's useless to its present owner, burdensome to the whole network to keep track of, and ought to be aggregated and paid to miners for network security. 

But if you think the blocksize discussion is contentious?  Sweeping dust would make the ultraconservatives and ultralibertarians here absolutely foam at the mouth.  I'll not even suggest such a thing because the discussion would go absolutely off the rails.

I'd cheerfully go even further and "sweep" *any* output that's been sitting there for >20 years (ie, lost keys) into a "mining fund," then have the coinbase of each block take 0.001% of the current mining fund balance in addition to the block subsidy.  Anybody whose keys aren't actually lost can avoid the haircut by moving her funds from one pocket to another in a self-to-self transaction.

[lunarboy]

Ok, so say we go ahead with a hard fork to a > 1MB max block size ... are we also going to see a couple of other hard forking issues put through all at the same time or will this one be done alone?

Could it become like those congressional bills where all the crap legislation gets stuck inside the fine print of the guns 'n drugs 'n terrroists 'n kids cover page?

While in theory that is the most sensible idea, in practice, adding other changes will only slow down the implementation of what already has proved to be very contentious (yet shouldn't have been).

Hard forks are a thing for the protocol youth stage. HForks will become virtually impossible in the future as too many opinionated developers bash each other. My only hope is that the important scalability changes are made before there are too many dependencies. Ossification is rapidly approaching. 

[DeathAndTaxes]

OP, Weren't you vehemently against raising the limit few years ago? I think I remember a lot of intellectual technical discussion around here involving you, gmaxwell and others regarding this matter. Around v0.0.9?

I don't recall that being the case but I could be wrong (on other issues my opinion has changed over time ).  I do recall around that time (I assume you mean v0.9.0 not v0.0.9) the backlog of unconfirmed transactions was growing.  The reason is that while the soft limit had been raised the default value hard coded in the bitcoind was 250KB and most miners never changed that.  The only miners which were targeting a different size were targeting smaller not larger blocks.  Even as the backlog grew they felt no urgency in changing it.  Some uninformed people advocated raising the 1MB cap as a way to "fix" the problem.  I tried (and mostly) failed explaining that miners could already make blocks at least 4x larger and were opting not to.  Changing the max only allows larger blocks if miners decide to make them.  The developers ended up forcing the issue by first raising the default block size so that it didn't remain fixed at 250KB and them removing the default size all together.  Today bitcoind require you to set an explicit block size.  If you don't set one you can't mine.

I am personally very much against hard forks of such. However I am all in for new crypto with new parameter that considers how a previous crypto has lagged behind. From my point of view a hard fork with a lot of publicity to adhere to and "update" to keep up with is simply an act of how a few control the mass. Whether it is for a good reason or bad or whatever, It really breaks the original principles of decentralization and fairness.

I have to disagree.  Bitcoin is a protocol and protocols change overtime.  Constantly reinventing the wheel means a lot of wasted effort.  You end up with dozens of half used systems instead of one powerful one.  Look at TCP/IP or even HTML.  Yeah they have a lot of flaws, they also have a lot of early assumptions backed in which produce inefficiency.  Evolution is also hard. Look at the mess of browser standards or how long the migration to IPv6 has taken.  Despite the problems the world is better for having widely deployed protocols in favor on constantly starting over.  

In the crypto space however 'starting over' means a chance at catching lightning in a bottle and becoming insanely rich.  That has lead to a lot of attempts but not much has come from it so far.  Alternates are an option but they shouldn't be the first option.  The first option should be evolution but if a proposal fails and a developer strongly believes that in the long run the network can't be successful without it then it should be explored in an alternate system.  There are some things about Bitcoin which may be impossible to change and for those an alternate might be the only choice.  The block size isn't one of them.

Jumping specifically to the block size.  The original client had no* block size limit. The fork occurred when it was capped down to 1MB.  The 1MB has in some circles become a holy text but there isn't anything which indicates it had any significance at that time.  It was a crude way to limit the damage caused by spam or a malicious attacker.  It is important to understand that the cap doesn't even stop spam (either malicious or just wasteful).  The cost of mining, the dust limit and the min fee to relay low priority txns are what reduced spam by making it less economical.

The cap still allowed the potential for abuse but the scope of that abuse is limited.  If 10% of the early blocks were maxed out it would still have added 5GB per year to the blockchain size.  That would have been bad but it would have been survivable and would have required the consent of 10% of the hashrate.  Without the cap a single malicious entity could have increased the cost of joining the network by a lot more.  Imagine if before you even knew about Bitcoin and the only client was the full node that to join the network would have required downloading 100GB or 500GB.  Would Bitcoin even be here today if that had happened?  

Satoshi stated in the white paper that consensus rules can be changed if needed.  He also directly stated that the block limit was temporary and could be increased in the future and phased in at a higher block.  Now I am not saying everything Satoshi said is right but I have to disagree that the 'original principles of decentralization and fairness' preclude changes to the protocol.  Some people may today believe that any change invalidations the original principles but that was never stated as an original principle. The protocol has always been changeable by an 'economic majority' and the likewise that majority can't prevent the minority from continuing to operate the unmodified protocol.  It is impossible to design an open protocol which can't be changed however as a practical matter a fork (any fork) will only be successful if a supermajority of users, miners, developers, companies, service providers, etc support the change.

There are four universal truths about open source peer to peer networks:
a) It is not possible to prevent a change to the protocol.
b) A change in the protocol will lead to two mutually incompatible networks.
c) These parallel networks will continue to exist until one network is abandoned completely.
d) There is no mechanism to force users to switch networks so integration is only possible through voluntary action.

There is a concept called the tyranny of the minority.  It isn't possible for a protocol to prevent changes without explicit approval of every single user but even if it was that would not be an anti-fragile system.  A bank could purchase a single satoshi, hang on to it, and use that as a way to prevent any improvements to the protocol ensuring it will eventually fail.  The earliest fork fixed a bug which allowed to the creation of billions of coins.  There is no evidence it has universal support.  The person who used it to create additional coins saw the new version erased coins that the prior network declared valid.  Still a fork is best if either a negligible number of people support it or a negligible number of people oppose it.  The worst case scenario would be a roughly 50-50 split and both forks continuing to co-exist.  

The original client did have a 33.5MB constraint on a message length.   It could be viewed as an implicit limit on block sizes as the current protocol transmits complete blocks as a single message.  There is nothing to indicate that Satoshi either intended this to be permanent or that it was a foundational part of the protocol.  It is a simplistic constraint that prevents an attack were a malicious or bugged client sends nodes an incredibly long message which needs to be received before it can be processed and invalidated.  Imagine your client having to download an 80TB message before it could determine that the message was invalid and then doing that a dozen times before banning that node.  Sanity checks are always a good idea to remove edge cases.

[jmw74]

Satoshi stated in the white paper that consensus rules can be changed if needed.  

He didn't even need to state that, anyone can start an alternative network that forks from the existing one. Whether the majority follows the changed fork or the unchanged fork is immaterial.

There are four universal truths about open source peer to peer networks:
a) It is not possible to prevent a change to the protocol.
b) A change in the protocol will lead to two mutually incompatible networks.
c) These parallel networks will continue to exist until one network is abandoned completely.
d) There is no mechanism to force users to switch networks so integration is only possible through voluntary action.

There is a concept called the tyranny of the minority.  It isn't possible for a protocol to prevent changes without explicit approval of every single user but even if it was that would not be an anti-fragile system.  A bank could purchase a single satoshi, hang on to it, and use that as a way to prevent any improvements to the protocol ensuring it will eventually fail.  The earliest fork fixed a bug which allowed to the creation of billions of coins.  There is no evidence it has universal support.  The person who used it to create additional coins saw the new version erased coins that the prior network declared valid.  Still a fork is best if either a negligible number of people support it or a negligible number of people oppose it.  The worst case scenario would be a roughly 50-50 split and both forks continuing to co-exist.  

What you mean is, you can't prevent other people from using a different protocol.

They can't change YOUR protocol, but they can leave you all alone with few other people (or none) to talk to.

Still you have a choice. You can accept a smaller consensus. Let's say someone forked bitcoin to change the rules so that instead of 21 million coins, an infinite number would be produced (25 coins per block forever, for example). And let's say 90% of bitcoin users accepted that fork.

If you don't want to accept this change, all it means is, your consensus size shrunk, probably back to 2011 levels. Personally I would accept this before infinite coins.

Just because you lose 90% of the consensus doesn't mean you'll eventually lose 100% of it.

[solex]

HForks will become virtually impossible in the future as too many opinionated developers bash each other. My only hope is that the important scalability changes are made before there are too many dependencies. Ossification is rapidly approaching.  

That is why the 1MB limit is the single most important threat to Bitcoin, because ossification is rapidly approaching. The limit can irreparably damage Bitcoin's future growth, its winner-take-all honey-badger image. Its default status as an "electronic gold" store-of value is badly tarnished if it can be allowed to run into a brick wall when there was years of warnings, threads and discussions beforehand. For non-technical supporters and investors the fear will remain that other major problems are latent and ignored.

Some people argue against increasing the limit because they "want Bitcoin the way it is now", that "it is working fine". The reality is counter-intuitive. The way it is now is that it has no effective block limit, and that allowing the average block size to approach 1MB is to introduce a massive untested change into every full node, simultaneously. I say untested because the only comparable event was the 250KB soft-limit which rapidly went wrong, and the major mining pools had to come to the rescue and increase their default block limit. With the 1MB the number of nodes which need to quickly upgrade is several thousand times larger. Chaos.

People are worried about government action, yet for every government which tries to ban Bitcoin another will give it free rein, for every government that wants to over-regulate it, another will decide upon regulation-lite. The threat is from within, not without.

Off-chain solutions are developing. An Overstock purchase by a Coinbase account holder does not hit the blockchain. There must be many business flows which are taking volume away from the main-chain. But this is not enough to stabilize the average block size.

Challenges are also opportunities. A successful hard fork, executed as Gavin suggests with a block version supermajority, will take many months and allow a smooth transition to a scaling state. Hard forks on the wish list, and ideas like stale dust reverting to the miners, (if there is majority consensus) will be seen as achievable. Ossification might be delayed a little to allow other hard-fork improvements if this first challenge is successfully handled.

[grau]

That is why the 1MB limit is the single most important threat to Bitcoin, because ossification is rapidly approaching.
The limit can irreparably damage Bitcoin's future growth, its winner-take-all honey-badger image.

The block limit increase may eventually pass as an intentional hard fork for good reasons, but I think it is not relevant for the long term fate of Bitcoin, the digital gold.

It would be naive to assume that the block size limit is the last feature we need to change to ensure eternal prosperity for Bitcoin. We will hit other limits or yet unknown issues and the problem will repeat, but by that time we will have even less, likely zero, chances to orchestrate a hard fork.

The block chain as we know bootstrapped the digitial gold, but is unlikely its final home. We have to restore the ability to innovate and enable individuals to express their opinion by moving their digital gold to a side chain they prefer for whatever reason.

I know it was simpler if one was not forced to compare alternatives but simply HODL, but that is unfortunatelly orthogonal to innovation and diverse needs of a global adoption.

[CoinCidental]

Could it become like those congressional bills where all the crap legislation gets stuck inside the fine print of the guns 'n drugs 'n terrroists 'n kids cover page?

While in theory that is the most sensible idea, in practice, adding other changes will only slow down the implementation of what already has proved to be very contentious (yet shouldn't have been).

Heh.  It would be a good idea, for example, to add code that sweeps "dust" more than 8 years old (ie, starting with the very oldest dust, at the beginning of next year) into the miners' pockets.  If something has been sitting there for 8 years and it's too small to pay for the fees that would be needed to spend it, then it's useless to its present owner, burdensome to the whole network to keep track of, and ought to be aggregated and paid to miners for network security. 

But if you think the blocksize discussion is contentious?  Sweeping dust would make the ultraconservatives and ultralibertarians here absolutely foam at the mouth.  I'll not even suggest such a thing because the discussion would go absolutely off the rails.

I'd cheerfully go even further and "sweep" *any* output that's been sitting there for >20 years (ie, lost keys) into a "mining fund," then have the coinbase of each block take 0.001% of the current mining fund balance in addition to the block subsidy.  Anybody whose keys aren't actually lost can avoid the haircut by moving her funds from one pocket to another in a self-to-self transaction.

sweep the dust thats too small to transact  but anything substancial should NEVER be swept imo
some people , maybe even satoshi has left the early  blocks in a will to the kids or grandchildren etc

we have to remember that dust today might be a enough to buy a lamborghini in 50 years

others maybe young and keeping cold storage for retirement while working on other projects sway from bitcoin

i dont think wallets should be "reposessed under any circumstances " even if they appear to be abandoned for years

if we did that it would be a matter of time before someones wallet got reposessed then owner  later tried to claim it