Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it

From: Bryan Cheng <bryan@blockcypher•com>
To: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail•com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:59:23 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANeMN=-m=2iRA_G8QSN1cmY7PuhoPjULZAFRNmBWtW63sxrKPw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALgxB7sPcRT5wgsEb2BkfvPjN98uiea6fe+JehCAW1BJUpUPEA@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3913 bytes --]

One thing that seems to have been forgotten is that the 1MB block size does
not represent any particular rigorous design choice; it is purely arbitrary.

It does not represent any type of technical sweet-spot; it neither falls
under any reasonable MTU to prevent TCP fragmentation, nor does it
guarantee in any unique way ease of transmission or lower latency. Chinese
mining pool operators, noted as one of the more constrained stakeholders in
this decision, have indicated that 8MB is a reasonable compromise in their
situation. Unless individuals with specific, concrete use cases come
forward with exactly how they will be marginalized by blocks in the 1-8MB
range, we should consider 8MB the minimum applicable size for technical
objections to raising the block size from a network propagation point of
view.

It also does not represent any kind of economic sweet spot. If we accept
the arguments on the mailing list that economic incentives for the creation
of the fee market depend entirely on a single variable, the scarcity of
space for transactions in a block, we should be talking about _decreasing_
the block size. In reality, this is clearly laughable. The real economic
analysis would consist of a balance between the space for transactions in a
block, the number of transactions being attempted at any given time, and
the block subsidy, among many other factors. Viewing it in this light, the
chance that 1MB by some divine miracle is the perfect balance of those
economic considerations becomes exceedingly small.

(Personally, I believe that increasing the block size has a greater chance
of creating a fee market after coinbase subsidies decline, as having
competition for space in a block depends not only on the number of
transactions that fit in the block, but also the number of people
attempting to spend; if success rates fall dramatically, significantly
fewer people will attempt to transact bitcoin. However, this is a
discussion for another post).

If we stop considering 1MB to be some magic number, perhaps we can enter
into a real discussion about finding what the right sweet spot is. We very
well may decide that 1MB is _too big_; what should not be acceptable is
conflating pressures to decrease the block size with reasons for inaction
altogether. The end game of this debate should be to decide the new block
size that balances, within reason, the various pressures in every direction.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail•com> wrote:

> Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x more network
> participants of course.
>
> Re: No clear way to scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more
> capable aren't they? We'll increase capacity along with hardware.
>
> It's a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it. How can
> you argue with that?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan wrote:
>> > > Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done to
>> > > agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB.
>> >
>> > And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize
>> > excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks
>> > will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the
>> > quality of diversity and decentralization.
>> >
>> > How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB?
>>
>> Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all you
>> can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.
>> Why bother?
>>
>> --
>> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>> 00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5164 bytes --]