Topic: Thoughts on raising the Hard 1Mb block size limit (Read 2803 times)

The amount of unconfirmed transactions is not larger than average, over a 24 hour period.

A snapshot of the mempool -- like the blockchain.info link above -- does not fit the thesis for two reasons:

• Never-will-confirm transactions and low priority transactions bloat the mempool
• Some miners sweep far more than 250k worth of transactions, so some miners already sweep large swaths into blocks

This situation has been ongoing for months now.

By default Bitcoin will not created blocks larger than 250kb even though it could do so without a hard fork. We have now reached this limit. Transactions are stacking up in the memory pool and not getting cleared fast enough.

You haven't been paying attention. Use the search feature.

k folks, well judging by the sentiment a hard fork will probably be happening at some point... should be interesting times.

What an apt post to mark Gavin's 2000th

+1

does it matter?
My point is that a sensible version of Bitcoin will have a limit on how much data is put into the blockchain, i.e. that scarce resources (disk space and network bandwidth) are allocated in an optimal way. The optimal way will be determined by what transactions miners voluntarily include and which blocks the market considers valid bitcoin transactions.

Think about this scenario.

A hard fork is created with a self-adjusting block size limit. All users have a balance of original, authentic 1Mb-limit bitcoins, and also, a balance of 1+XMb limit, bigblockchaincoins (BBCcoins). Exchanges will be created that allow people to exchange these two types of coins between forks.

As the two forks compete, the BBCcoins will see their blockchain keep getting larger at an exponential rate, while the bitcoin blockchain is pinned to linear growth at 1MB/10mins. People will start realizing that the vast size of the BBCblockchain is leading to lots of centralization (only few nodes verifying everything, only large mining ops able to compete). Now they are wondering whether the original bitcoin blockchain is preferable to mine/verify due to its smaller data size, and the presence of less spam, and higher fees/MB mined.

Inevitably, the original bitcoin miners are less centralized, due to the smaller, spam-free blockchain. The added security makes bitcoins more valuable than the BBCcoins, and people start selling their BBCcoins. The lower fees/Mb in mining BBCcoins also makes people want to mine bitcoins for the higher fees, and over time, BBCcoins become worth a lot less, having a 4TB blockchain, while bitcoins are worth a lot more, having a 500GB blockchain. The smart investors win, the free market wins, BBCcoin holders lose, SD bots lose.

Let's be generous and assume an average 90% probability that each step in the predicted chain of events occurs as described...

Event  Probability
1      100%
2      90%
3      81%
4      73%
5      66%
6      59%
7      53%
8      48%
9      43%
10    39%
11    35%
12    31%
13    28%
14    25%

End result:

25%  Smooth transition.  All: "Hail misterbigg"
75%  Train wreck, emergency block size increase. misterbigg: "Sorry, my next prediction will be better!"

That is completely feasible to do TODAY. Would it ultimately be as distributed as you or I want it to be? Nope.

Is there a big difference between 7tps and 2000tps? Yup.

Would it require investments in bandwidth and storage to be a participant as a full node? Yup.

Is storage and bandwidth going to get cheaper over time? Ab-so-fucking-lutely

Should we forever cripple Bitcoin because of a failure to allow for reasonable scaling capacity? Sure if you hate Bitcoin and want it to fail.

Do you have any idea how valuable a single bitcoin would be if we were able to get the network to 2000tps while maintaining transaction fees in the 10ths of cents to single cents range? They would be worth thousands.

I don't need to run a full node on my watch. What I do need to do is use disruptive technology to unseat Paypal, Western Union, ACH, SWIFT, Visa, and the FED. We don't have to get there overnight. We do have to get there.

So far I haven't heard about any problem

does it matter?

what if they are increased 10x every year for 3 years? For 20 years?

what if they are increased 10x every year for 3 years? For 20 years?

Chicken little, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE NEW LIMITS ARE GOING TO BE.

It could be increased 10x, today, then maxed out, with no new optimizations AT ALL, and I can still run a full node for $20 a year in storage costs (and decreasing).

Mine/verify what you like, but I think the number of nodes on a BBCcoin, or should we say FoundationCoin network is going to keep decreasing because the blockchain size is literally too damn high.

This is still just a really crappy time to go ballistic about this, because network upgrades have been stalled for about a year and the end of the stalling is not yet really in firm sight.

For good or bad, upgrading hashing hardware to ASIC technology came first, and that disrupted all upgrades for about a year because upgrading to obsolete technology is pointless and the fact that the obsoleting would not take place for a year or more was concealed.

Basically the whole network has been conned into putting off upgrades for a year or so.

There are now, at last, signs that it might not be a whole 'nother year before this ASIC upgrade phase is over, whereupon we can start on a bandwidth upgrade phase.

But until we can order ready to be shipped ASIC units to upgrade our hashing capabilities it is just too soon to start ordering more bandwidth. For all we know only a few people who ordered ASIC units during development will ever get any, all the manufacturers could yet decide they now have their development costs paid and can keep all further ASICs to themselves.

We just do not yet know whether the ASIC upgrade is even going to really happen. Until we do budgeting any other upgrades is simply premature.

-MarkM-

That is completely feasible to do TODAY. Would it ultimately be as distributed as you or I want it to be? Nope.

Is there a big difference between 7tps and 2000tps? Yup.

Would it require investments in bandwidth and storage to be a participant as a full node? Yup.

Is storage and bandwidth going to get cheaper over time? Ab-so-fucking-lutely

Should we forever cripple Bitcoin because of a failure to allow for reasonable scaling capacity? Sure if you hate Bitcoin and want it to fail.

Do you have any idea how valuable a single bitcoin would be if we were able to get the network to 2000tps while maintaining transaction fees in the 10ths of cents to single cents range? They would be worth thousands.

I don't need to run a full node on my watch. What I do need to do is use disruptive technology to unseat Paypal, Western Union, ACH, SWIFT, Visa, and the FED. We don't have to get there overnight. We do have to get there.

People are not going to stick with a protocol if it involves lugging huge amounts of data around for no reason.