Topic: Adjustable Blocksize Cap: Why not? - page 4. (Read 1392 times)

I don't know why it comes out that way to you, all I mean is that if you want to compare two cryptocurrencies you must compare them under the same circumstances not take the capped usage of bitcoin and compare it with the theoretical possibility in another coin.

Ethereum block size is about 1.6-1.8 MB per 10 minute which is pretty close to what bitcoin has per 10 minute. Meanwhile bitcoin transaction sizes are usually 200-250 bytes for 1 input 2 outputs but ethereum transaction sizes are around 110 bytes. both have bigger txs so lets use the averages:

	ETH	BTC
Average # of tx/hour:	47,447	14,160
Average # blocks/hour	276	7
Average # tx/block	172	2,022
Average block size in kBytes	41	1430
Average tx size in kBytes	0.23	0.707
Ratio		3.07
tx/24hour	1,138,717	339,844
Ratio	3.35

Now its a much better perspective rather than just comparing counts. With 3x smaller transactions, ETH is doing about 3x more tx/day compared to bitcoin.
The amount of data being processed is roughly the same. The level of decentralization is not even comparable.

Guys, I didn't know how hard it was to understand that what's protecting the network is the honest hashrate not the block size limit. Would you all repeat after me: The network is safe as long as 51% of the hashrate is honest. The network is safe as long as 51% of the hashrate is honest. The network is safe as long as 51% of the hashrate is honest. Satoshi Nakamoto probably took 5sec to choose a 1MB block cap and it was to prevent a congestion attack on the network, at that time it was more than enough to answer the need of the users and the internet speed was slower but things have changed since then. And guys BIP 103 are you kidding me!? We can't even predict the price of btc tommorow morning with a margin of error of less than 20% and you think we are able to plan the next 42 years?? I don't know if we all live on the same planet but on mine btc is still at a very early stage and is still pretty useless so we shouldn't even worry about experimenting new things...

That said, here is my new proposal
The block size limit increases/decreases in proportion to the change in the average transaction fee from the previous block with a 0.1MB min and a 10MB max. The 10MB is to celebrate the 1st decade of bitcoin. Open for debate!

P.s.

Please no more spam/orphan block kumbaya bs theories on this thread. Ty.

Why do we keep having these redundant discussions? There already are Alts with every possible change you can think of.

Why should Bitcoin do something that it hasn't set out to do? We should discuss block size increase when LN and initiatives to reduce transactions size have provably failed.

A block-size increase is the last step in a lasting solution. The other steps of a "lasting solution" INCLUDE the development and usage of the ecosystem in ways that lead to a justifiable fee market for the very long term. Your view may depend on what "lasting" means to you.

Why should you do this buddy? Be nicer to yourself in the first place and to prominent figures like the one who are used to attack, now for a while. I'm personally against many ideas and the whole vision of him, but we desperately need the mountain of knowledge and expertise he got for the future improvements, and should appreciate his contributions in the past, after all.

That said, you have every right to challenge any idea or philosophy you find inappropriate, expressing your thoughts as long as it is not about spreading baseless claims or scam projects which I'm sure is not the case with you.

You're moving the goalposts a bit there.  I didn't say I was convinced it can't be increased.  Just that increases should be moderate, not excessive.  



In the end, I think it was ultimately more of an economic question than it was a technical one for me.  Whether or not the Bitcoin network could theoretically cope with larger blocks without sacrificing nodecount is completely immaterial if the nodes in question have no interest in allowing you to get past the first hurdle.  It pretty much boils down to this.  We can argue over technical details for the rest of time, but the fact is, the arguments mean nothing if the people who secure the chain simply don't want to offer more of their own resources in order to permit a further increase beyond what SegWit is already achieving.

Again you lie, again you create another strange statement. I do not know anyone on the forum who would like to increase the block despite the technical costs. Why do you invent it?
There is a concept of estimating technical costs. According to my calculations, if the owner of a full node makes an average of one transaction per month, then it is more profitable to keep a full node with a 10mb block and pay cents in the form of a transaction fee than to keep a full node with a 1MB block and pay 5-10$ fee per transaction. Therefore, the statement that when the block is increased, the user's costs will necessarily increase is already incorrect.

If we look at your statement above for pseudo-valid statements:
"on network latency" - unsubstantiated. If you just take the calculator and take the block size of 10mb, you will see that there is no problem with this. But you didn't make any calculations, you don't need to know the truth. You need to refute the possibility of increasing the block by any effort.
"network security" - unsubstantiated.
"costs in the network transfers from the miners to the nodes" - unsubstantiated.

And you say:None of it is “pseudo-statements”.
I've been waiting for this. Pseudo-arguments such as "disk size, processor power, RAM, internet speed, etc." come to an end.
Then there is the main argument of "the increasing centralization (reduction of decentralization)".

So, for newbies. (since there is a tradition to address newbies.). When the arguments "increasing centralization (decreasing decentralization)" appear, then the constructive discussion ends. Because these statements "increasing centralization (decreasing decentralization)" are usually presented as self-sufficient. For some reason, it is considered that it is not necessary to provide any evidence.

If my opponent wanted to confirm his words with evidence, then he should have provided:
1) How it measures the level of centralization (decentralization).
2) What is the level of centralization (decentralization) now, at 1mb block.
3) What is the level of centralization (decentralization) will be if we increase the block, for example, to 10MB.

Unfortunately some people either only consider on-chain or off-chain scaling solution.


I agree, 5-10 years seems more reasonable than 40+ years. But what do you think about the growth percentage? Is 17.7% is just right or feels too big considering Bitcoin community is conservative?


"Miracle" doesn't apply when we talk about technical problem.

You've gone full 101% cultist mode.
I was pointing a fact, I was never telling you that long-term larger blocks are the solution, but you went into a full defensive mode going to extremes.
What if there is an EMP that will target only doge wallets? What if the reptilians will unleash a new version of the alien parasite that will target only Doge owners?
Then it will surely prove Bitcoin is better!

The whole thing is pretty simple, can the Bitcoin network confirm 1  million transactions a day? No, it can't in the current state. Can doge do it? Yes, it can.
Can the LN outperform Doge, yes, it can!
You're telling me that an F50 Ferrari isn't faster than a Moskvitch because they are both out of gas.


Bitcoin is currently doing  314,531 tx in the last 24 with an average $17.09 USD fee, Ethereum which is also quite slow compared to others is doing 1,121,409 a day with $5.8 USD in fees.

Leave the cultism aside, it's pretty simple and obvious to everybody.
ON CHAIN bitcoin will never be able to confirm the same amount of transactions as Doge, never! It doesn't matter how many cars are on the highway, what color they have, and where they are heading!

Decentralization is hard to gain and easy to lose, I'm afraid..
And achieving Byzantine fault tolerance quality is much easier than actual decentralization.

In the case of Bitcoin, to achieve just Byzantine security, three nodes responsible for block production and validation would be enough, I suppose.

But would it really have anything to do with decentralization?
Of course not....

Do not forget that mining pools are not a threat to Bitoin's decentralization just because miners can unsubscribe at any time and start running full nodes on their own.
If the owner of a large mining pool does anything harmful to Bitcoin, it will instantly lose miners and market position and its potential to harm ends.

Bitcoin's mining industry is still far from the theoretical limits of its development.

Now there are tens of thousands of full nodes dealing only with validation, in the future such a number of full nodes may turn out to be necessary for the free operation of fully developed mining.

Your idea to “scale” Bitcoin is to increase transaction-throughput despite the technical costs on the network? OK. Block size increases, simply centralizes validators. That’s not “scaling”.  None of it is “pseudo-statements”. You are on a disinformation campaign, sir.

BUT, newbies. Listen to him, and learn the HARD WAY. That’s how I learned.

It doesn't make any sense. When the demand for block space exceeds the supply you'd rather mine high paying real transactions than your own no paying fake transactions.


Does that mean there is no miracle solution to spams?

All copies of bitcoin suffer the same flaws and shortcomings as bitcoin. Under the same exact circumstances, they all act the same.
If doge was spammed attacked for 18 months where 80k transactions were injected into its mempool within seconds and size of its mempool went up 600% over its block cap, the fees would be exactly the same as bitcoin.
We have seen similar fee spikes in all copies of bitcoin that inherit its issues, from ethereum to litecoin and even useless bcash even when its mempool was empty

A miner does not get paid to confirm his own transactions, but he also does not pay anything to confirm his own transaction. If the maximum block size is based on the last x number of blocks, including additional transactions will increase the maximum block size in the future. There is some opportunity cost, in the form of the greater chance that a block will be orphaned when it includes an additional transaction.

The additional storage cost of including a transaction is close to zero.

That BIP might be reasonable. There does need to be a vibrant fee market, or else the miners will bid down transaction fees to zero, which creates other problems.

If something like this BIP were to be implemented, I would suggest the automatic growth be limited to 10 years, and after 5 years, a new hard fork can be implemented (if there is consensus) to extend the growth indefinitely.

The only reason I see is the reluctance of most Bitcoin developers (not all) increase the block. I do not know the real reasons for this decision. Because all the arguments that the developers gave in favor of such a decision were unconvincing. For me. The majority of society believed them. (I'm not going to rewrite history )
I'm sensing you feel somewhat resentful that your arguments weren't received as particularly compelling at the time.  If you want to re-write history from your own perspective, feel free.  I'm not looking to re-tread old ground. But I remember reading enough well-substantiated viewpoints on the matter to change my stance.  Also, you can't argue about the outcome.  Consensus has spoken pretty conclusively.