Topic: [POLL FINISHED] The block size limit controversy: a proper poll (30 days) - page 3. (Read 4817 times)

The hard limit on block size is what gives Bitcoin its most important attribute: The blockchain with the largest amount of hashing power. Increasing the block size reduces total hashing power (because it drives fees down).

Wrong on all counts. Its in the miners' best interests to NOT raise the limit since the limit is what drives fees. The only miners who benefit from an increase in the block size are the ones with the most bandwidth, since a limit increase will kill off the smallest competitors.

No it cannot.

Without the limit, Bitcoin network can't function.

In time, the block size may need to change. But there's absolutely no rush.

Let the block size stay at the current size until the limit is hit; then let us run with that for a while. Let us see how easy or hard people find it to work within the limit; let us see what effect it has on transaction fees and confirmation times.

Eventually, a strong consensus might form around an appropriate change. Then, only then, is it worth working out how to implement the change. Equally, we may find that some other solution arises which negates the need for any hard change.

Can "No limit" be added?  Thanks.

Where is the option: /24 ban the two mofos (or one and his socky buddies) that keep posting these stupid useless threads about a non issue.

If the block size can adapt variably and in a self-regulating way, similar to how difficulty works, then it will just be part of how the business of bitcoin is done. It will also have a certain elegance and symmetry, which is very appealing.

Because "stakeholder-voted" is not technically or politically feasible. After all, what is included in a block is up to miners. Also, I think in the long term what's good for miners is good for the network, and good for anyone with Bitcoins.

When the hard limit starts to constrain Bitcoin's usefulness, this will tend to cause a decrease in Bitcoin's value, and thus, a decrease in miners' real profit. So, eventually, miners are going to want to increase the limit.

Difficulty adjustment is to make hashing competitive. If you allow for bandwidth adjustment you make that competitive as well. All adjustment methods are exploitable. Do you want people to compete on bandwidth?

Wrong on all counts. Its in the miners' best interests to NOT raise the limit since the limit is what drives fees.

The hard limit on block size is what gives Bitcoin its most important attribute: The blockchain with the largest amount of hashing power. Increasing the block size reduces total hashing power (because it drives fees down).


Wrong on all counts. Its in the miners' best interests to NOT raise the limit since the limit is what drives fees. The only miners who benefit from an increase in the block size are the ones with the most bandwidth, since a limit increase will kill off the smallest competitors.

When the hard limit starts to constrain Bitcoin's usefulness

this will tend to cause a decrease in Bitcoin's value, and thus, a decrease in miners' real profit. So, eventually, miners are going to want to increase the limit.

Why miner-voted as opposed to stakeholder-voted?

Why miner-voted as opposed to stakeholder-voted?

If we want to cap the time of downloading overhead the latest block to say 1%, we need to be able to download the MAX_BLOCKSIZE within 6 seconds on average so that we can spend 99% time hashing.

At 1MB, you would need a ~1.7Mbps  connection to keep downloading time to 6s.
At 10MB, 17Mbps
At 100MB, 170Mbps

and you start to see why even 100MB block size would render 90% of the world population unable to participate in mining.
Even at 10MB, it requires investing in a relatively high speed connection.

Any change in maximum block size should
1) React to scarcity, to preserve fees
2) Not force out small miners

In this order:

1. Most blocks are at or near the 250 kilobyte soft limit.
2. The memory pool of transactions grows due to insufficient space in blocks.
3. Users notice trend of transactions taking longer to confirm, or not confirming at all.
4. Fees increase as users pay more to improve confirmation times.
5. Miners (or mining pools) modify code to select transactions with the highest fees per kilobyte to fit into blocks. They remote the 250 kilobyte soft limit. Some miners disallow free transactions entirely.
6. Transactions clear much more quickly now, but fees decrease.
7. Blocks increase in size until they are at or near the one megabyte hard limit.
8. Fees start increasing. Free transactions rarely confirm at all now.
9. Small transactions are eliminated since they are not economically feasible. SatoshiDice increases betting minimums along with fees. The volume of SatoshiDice transactions decrease.
10. Users at the margins of transaction profitability with respect to fees are pushed off the network.
11. Many people, most non-technical, clamor for the block size limit to be lifted.
12. Fees reach an equilibrium where they remain stable.
13. Spurred by the profitability of Bitcoin transactions, alternate chains appear to capture the users that Bitcoin lost.
14. Pleased with their profitability, miners refuse to accept any hard fork to block size.

I support misterbigg's idea of miner-voted limit changes [...]

transaction fees paid and difficulty based is exploitable by large mining cartels. You don't want cartels right?