Topic: Adjustable Blocksize Cap: Why not? - page 2. (Read 1392 times)

Sharp's the word.
What do you think about various ideas of sharding? Could they address this problem? What properties should have a sharding solution in order to be acceptable?

No. You can look at historical data regarding increases in processing power, and network capacity, both at specific price points. You can also look at near term projections of both of the above.

It is not possible to prohibit transaction fees under any threshold at the protocol level. A business could for example privately send a transaction that pays a transaction fee of 0.01 btc to a mining pool, and privately receive a refund of 0.005 btc separately when this transaction confirms. Miners will not do this unless there are insufficient transactions to fill blocks that pay the minimum protocol-required transaction fees.

My suggestion was to introduce a minimum fee in the Bitcoin system. And it is better to introduce such changes at the protocol level. You claim that the disadvantage is that "Need to change Bitcoin protocol to explicitly disallow transaction low fees".

Although this is not entirely true. The minimum fee can be entered at the level of miners, without changing the protocol. If, for example, 95% of miners vote for this and activate this mode, then blocks with transactions with a fee less than the established one will be considered invalid by the rest of the miners. But I emphasize that it is better to introduce such changes at the protocol level.

1. Miners can still fill blocks with their own transactions (spam from miners). But so far, there is no evidence that this happened in reality.

2. Such "spam from miners" is very easy to detect. And the entire Bitcoin community very quickly learns that some miner is engaged in malicious activity.

3. The community has the ability to react to such an event. Most miners should block the "malicious" miner.
If the majority of miners cannot overcome this phenomenon, then the bitcoin community can replace the miners.

4.The mining system is a billion-dollar business, and there is no reason for miners to engage in any malicious activity, because it will cause much more damage than the likely profit.

5.The probability of any malicious activity from miners is very low, practically zero. Therefore, I suggest that we stop discussing any arguments that start with the words "bad, malicious  miners". It's just a waste of time. The same as spending time discussing of the "Perpetuum mobile".

The main idea is really not bad but I think we'd have a hard time to get everyone to agree on those terms... As you suggested, there would be a strong correlation between the min fee and the amount of transactions that is being processed by the network. We could consider the variation in the amount of transactions from one block to another one to calculate the min fee on the next one. The min fees would then determine the size of the blockchain on the long term so we could rise the block size limit 10x (or even more) and it shouldn't cause any problem. For now we would just need to all agree on the same formula to calculate those min fees...

Bitcoin is not a sect or a cult! Please don't put yourself in such a stupid position, lecturing others about how "special" is your cult, it is just disgusting and has pretty reached and surpassed its expiration date, update yourself.

@topcoin360 is not a BCH shill or a POS enthusiast, all this user wants, rightfully, is remembering the cause, the original philosophy behind bitcoin innovation, and he has every right to ask for more active and ambitious research and discussion, don't make this sub-forum a scene for showing your royalty to the myths and gods of your cult.

As far as I understand your principle, you propose to regulate the transaction fee through changing the block size.
I suggest another option: adjust the block size by changing the transaction fee.

Let's say we have a sample computer of the lower segment, and we focus on it when setting constraints.

We can count the parameter:
1. The maximum block size that our sample computer can process in the time we need.

Additionally, we can evaluate one more parameter:
2. We estimate the maximum level of growth of bitcoin, based on the level of technology development that we can afford.
    Based on it, we calculate the parameter: average block size.

I don't know why, but everyone decided that the 2nd parameter must be adjusted through the 1st.
Suppose we have a parameter 1: 10 MB.
And parameter 2 : 100gb per year. - >the average block size should be ~2mb.
These parameters can be very different.

Algorithm diagram:
1. When switching to a new scheme, the values of parameters 1-2 are set, and the minimum transaction fee is assigned.
2. After 2016 blocks (this value may be different), the recalculation takes place.
If the average size of the resulting blocks is higher than the parameter 2, the minimum fee increases.
If the average size of the resulting blocks is lower than the parameter 2, the minimum fee is reduced.

The calculation of the average block can be done for the last period, you can calculate for the last few periods.

3. The fee can be changed with a certain step, for example, 10-20%. That is, if the average block has not changed much, then it is better not to change the fee .
4 You can always calculate the maximum fee amount for the next period. Towards the end of the period, it becomes more accurate.
And if you make a transaction at the very end of the period, you can make a fee =maximum (the current fee , the maximum possible for the next period). This should save you from possible problems at the junction of periods.

Advantages:
1. Excellent system response to peak loads. Since there is a margin due to the large size of the maximum block.
2. The percentage of non-occurrence of transactions in the nearest block is sharply reduced and is close to zero.
3. There is no need for dynamic fee calculation. It is enough to get the set amount of fee from the system.
4. the overall growth of the blockchain should not be very different from what we wanted.
5. You will not have spam.

Disadvantages:
?

Thanks for proving what you really are. Can't expect more commitment or brainstorming from a BCH shiller except the typical "I am right, BTC should change because TV changed" argument.

When will you boneheads realize that there is a huge difference between all the kind of consumer technologies you guys quote and Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the secure, permissionless and foundational network layer for a new kind of money. People are ascribing value to all the other decentralized digital assets because Bitcoin enables that confidence. It is not a software plaything with low barrier of understanding so that it can be a hobbyist dev's plaything. That is the case with stuff like ETH, DeFi, ICOs, Solidity and all the others that people like you get inspired by and then turn to ask "Why can't Bitcoin do this?"

That does not mean that Bitcoin isn't moving fast enough in terms of innovation. It is. Its just not as glamorous as declaring 10000 TPS like a PoS shitcoin.

Hi folks,

I just wanna tell you a little tale.. Once upon a time, the square tv was invented. It was a miraculous invention allowing people to watch movies, series, news, porn, anything you can imagine but in black and white. And then came the plasma tv, the lcd I don't know if you can remember that time... Now I can't find any square tv in any nearby store and even if I could I wouldn't buy it. For those who believed that the 16:9 format wouldn't replace the 4:3 format you turned out to be wrong.

All I'm trying to say is btc could go from one of the greatest success to one of the biggest failure if NOTHING is done to make it serve its purpose, which is to be a medium of exchange. So speculators please shut up and let the smart people talk.

Ty everyone, have a good one!

You can prevent it by creating a backlog of high-fee paying transaction, which Bitcoin has achieved by constraining the block size.

The bitcoin system does not have enough information.
1)It doesn't know the value of bitcoin in the real world.
2) It does not know about the level of technology development.

Therefore, theoretically, it is impossible to come up with an algorithm only within the system that would successfully regulate fees and block size.

You just haven't tried it yet. Everything is known by comparison.

Managing the fee through the block size:
If there are few transactions, the fee is sharply reduced, to cents. If there are a lot of transactions, the fee increases dramatically, up to $10. That is, it can change 100 times. And in a very short time - in a day, 2.
As I wrote above, this is a bad way, because it constantly causes inconvenience to bona fide users.

Minimum fee management:
The fee is set in satoshi and, let's say, changes every 2 weeks. What is a change algorithm is a topic for discussion. Now the price does not change dramatically by 10 times. The recent sharp increase is just a 2-fold increase in 2 weeks.(even in December 2017, the growth was 2-fold in 2 weeks.) It's not that bad. Instead of 10 cents - 20 cents, instead of $ 1 - $ 2 before changing the fee. - not terrible, against the background of the current $10.  
As for hard forks. Since this is adding restrictions, you can theoretically do with a soft fork. Possible, You may need one hard fork.

Maybe we can use Mining difficulty as a predicting tool for the price?
When bitcoin prices rise, mining profitability will rise, resulting in more people mining, and therefore increasing difficulty. we need to factor in mining hardware improvement though (Updated Moore's Law?)

---

is the validating process really significantly increase with that blocksize? i think if there will be any blocksize increase, it should be increased to the point where mini-computer like Raspberry Pi still can handle it.
and BTW, isn't that utreexo is just like a pruned node but with "compressed" UTXO?

---

I think, for now, there's no need for blocksize increase yet. the recent increase in bitcoin transaction fee are most likely because the significant price increase, and it maybe won't last forever, once the price fall significantly, the transaction fee will go down too(2017, mid-2019).  there needs some long-term transaction fee increase to make it worth it to increase the blocksize. Maybe when we start using bitcoin as a method of payment, not as speculative asset.

In continuation of this, it just occurred to me that any attempt at dynamically calculating the "miner fees" based on mempool transactions will automatically open up the network to all sort of nuisance attacks.

Not sure if I am thinking this correctly but a malicious actor could simply spam the chain with hundreds and thousands of transactions with bare minimum fee. The transactions just stay there, never being picked due to the very low fees and screwing up your calculations. You end up making an elegantly sybil-resistance system welcoming to the most basic of sybil attacks and manipulation.

Click on the quote in my comment and read the full comment first. The user is talking about preventing miners from filling the blocks with cheap fee transactions. You cannot prevent that by anything that is not consensus rules such as a simple configuration that already exists called minrelaytxfee.

Your computer is not other people’s computers. Plus the real problem is also bandwidth, and latency remember? The Initial Blockchain Download has become more and more difficult.

You want real scaling, a solution like this, if successful, is real scaling, https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative/utreexo-demonstration-release-a0d87506fd70


You are more careful with your desires. If the Bitcoin Cache develops to the point that users will make 2.5 million transactions a day, and bitcoin will remain at its 350 thousand, then I do not think that this is a a good outcome for Bitcoin..