Topic: #Blocksize Survey (Read 16117 times)

Yep, that's exactly what hdsuck thinks and, ultimately, wants.  An exclusive, privileged chain for early adopters and millionaires and everyone else can GTFO.  This would be an appalling outcome for Bitcoin and we can't allow it to happen.

I'm not sure I understand? are you saying we want people to stop using the blockchain?

What do you think people are going to do when Block space is full, they are going to use off blockchan solutions. (I.E. not Bitcoin) I would like to avoid a Mt'Gox situation and let people interact directly with Bitcoin, not make it just an exclusive club for centralized corporations and banks.   

The Core argument is no, we need to limit Block Space to increase fees to subsidize miners. This logic assumes Bitcoin will grow despite being a very expensive network while other cheeper solutions exist.

The solution is economies of scale, we need more users paying moderate fees, The security subsidy (25BTC) that we all pay via inflation is subsidizing fees while we grow the network. restricting block space is jeopardizing this growth and undermining the defalt incentive design in Bitcoin. 

here is another very underhanded play by Core developers manipulating the situation:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/428aae/influential_bitcoin_core_developer_proposes/

Absolutely.  I've argued before that the smallblock militants suck at math and logic and I'm still yet to hear a counter argument from them that makes a shred of sense.  Either we get more users paying fees to the miners, or the fees have to rise.  Diverting fees to third parties makes it even worse. 

ah there we go again:





lel

tl;dr NO!

We know blocks are mostly full. (there are some empty blocks that get mined immediately after a full block that bring down the average these blocks are empty because there is not enough time to include transactions.)

an average webpage is 2MB, In a distributed network like Bitcoin hosting a node that can accommodating 1 webpage every 20minits is not a viable justification to protect against spam. (in the almost 6 years since the limit was introduced technology has improved immensely so even if it was we should adjust it for technological gains)

Limiting the block size when it's full will limit the utility. The people who can interact directly with the blockchain will be limited to a number of users similar to today.

Future growth will happen on layer 2 services in exchanges and third party services who will charge fees. these service fees will bypass miners and as the Bitcoin security subsidy halves every 4 years we know miners will get less and less revenue.

While I am pro layer 2 services using bitcoin I am not pro limiting block size to make them viable. Limiting block size to artificiality create a demand for them is not what a responsible leader would do. Especially if the leader is actually developing layer 2 services.   

We can be sure that 2 MB is a small insignificant increase that will limit bitcoin growth if the price doubled. We also have no conclusive evidence that the 1MB limit prevented spamming the network, now that the infrastructure around bitcoin has grown, bitcoin is not as susceptible to that type of attack. In fact that vector of attack vanished when miners started favoring transactions with fees. Today we have tools to refine what transactions are relayed and what transactions should be accepted, and miners can manage this with just a small fee to mitigate spam. 



In 2010 Bitcoin had an inflation rate of 250% investors in bitcoin know that the inflation rate (the 50BTC) given to miners was a security subsidy in exchange miners processed transactions for free.  back then the threat was someone would try and send infinite transactions for free and destroy the network. It never happened and the threat is now gone. 

Today the inflation rate is just under 10% miners are still subsidize to process transactions (some miners cheat the system and mine empty blocks) but in general most transactions now pay a small fee to be included in a block despite all users subsidizing miners.  It would be impossible to spam the network today because of the small fee. so we don't need to protect against it. 

is that you talking brg444

I agree. It is a good website. It definitely needs much more participation, especially from miners and devs, to be really meaningful.

Litecoinguy, thanks for putting that together. Hopefully you or others can keep it updated and maybe get more responses and formalize the ones already obtained. I do think the miners are key to this whole discussion.

It's interesting the system of checks and balances, the influence of Adam Smith's invisible hand as it were, how it keeps bitcoin in a healthy state over the long run. The miners are incentivized to choose a transaction system that maximizes fees, but that in turn depresses usage of bitcoin in the long run. Lower usage means crashing prices, means lost profits for the miners. So they are better off choosing volume/growth over short-term profits at this point, and that means a block size increase to encourage general adoption.

Staying at 1 MB railroads bitcoin usage into centralized institutions that will do off-blockchain bookkeeping (like faucetbox for bitcoin faucets), making users dependent on those 3rd party institutions. Some level of off-blockchain transaction activity is inevitable, but I can't think of a good reason to want to encourage it unless we are out of other options for transaction volume growth.

I'm in favor of a block increase. I just think that we only need to change this and not any thing more to the code. Its innevitable an increase on the blocksize because the cheer number of eveyday transaction is growing at an enormous speed.

– Gavin Andresen
https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3zvvua/stephen_pair_a_simple_adaptive_block_size_limit/


I quite like the idea of a dynamic #maxblocksize and so I find this proposal very interesting.

I would however love to hear objections and arguments against it...

What could go wrong with this?

Nice is the best word that you can use in this case. It seems to be lacking in the amount of members and seems to be somewhat manipulative (support of BU by unverified individuals). Always look for opinions of miners and developers here (and verified people). However it does not currently tell us much aside from confirming what I knew so far (e.g. opinions of Luke Dashjr). Regardless, it is a good website.

Here's a nice platform for debating different proposals:

Bitcoin Consensus Census
https://bitcoin.consider.it/

The biggest problem is choosing optimal multiplier of the past median block size, or are there any papers on this problem?


BTW it would be interesting to run similar Blocksize survey again, funny how the 1 MB vocal minority succesfully making illusion their minority view have much higher support than is the reality. Their lattest perk is :
Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/analysis-and-list-of-top-big-blocks-shills-xt-rekt-ignorers-1318519

big blocks shills whose goal it is to destroy Bitcoin , by checking Blocksize survey result they will have a lot of work to identify all who are open minded to question their holly number, 1 MB

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3zvs8f/a_simple_adaptive_block_size_limit/
https://medium.com/@spair/a-simple-adaptive-block-size-limit-748f7cbcfb75#.lx595vbgo

meh, so? seems nothing is stopping you altcoin wannabes.

almost like all the redditards from doge et al. flocked back into bitcoin, with their corporate masters and USG champions.

A miner consensus seems to be forming around Adam Back's 2-4-8:

https://imgur.com/3fceWVb

81% of hashrate is in favour of increasing to 2MB now.

I think that the blocksize limit of Bitcoin should stay the same. 1MB is good enough and it was put in to prevent spam and system failures. How can you be sure that if you raise the limit that these 2 things won't come back to bite you in the arse?

hmnope.