Follow

When should have been reducing block sizes to 300k, instead the community opted to increase them to 2-4 MB.

In the years following, when it became clear that was a mistake, the community still failed to act to fix it.

This may very well prove fatal to Bitcoin.

@lukedashjr meaning, if cryptocurrency is a good idea, which is an open question, it should let bad implementations die now.

@lukedashjr why 300k, why 1Mb, why 10minutes.
I'd love to know the theory behind these constants

@gchaincl Technology tends to improve about 18% each year.

300k blocks is the equivalent of 18%/year blockchain growth.

@lukedashjr could you share the maths behind finding that number?

@gchaincl 10 minutes is a good interval to reduce the variance within the ~1 hour confirmation window needed for security

@lukedashjr Perhaps your argument would be more persuasive if you had some testing data to back it up. Naturally that would require some time to achieve some kind of parallel simulation or even a fraction of magnitude to do so. Otherwise its just a statement uttered without any citations to back it up.
Reminds me of no-coiner medium articles, honestly.

@lukedashjr Then why does your argument fail to persuade?

A good technical breakdown that is approachable by general users might be in order to build consensus.

@TallTim @lukedashjr because, 1mb is tolerable by nodes.. maybe at 10mb levels half of nodes would disappear

@lukedashjr Block reducing was never a realistic goal. I thought you had already made peace with that 2 years ago. I would like to know why this subject came back into your mind recently?

@AvatarX Of course it's realistic.

It came up in a Twitter convo

@lukedashjr I didn't meant it was not realistic in the sense that it cannot be done. It is not realistic in the sense such change actually happening and being a done thing. At least from my perspective. I don't see enough support for that to ever happen. Do you also disagree with that?

@AvatarX If there was enough support, it'd already be done. The issue is getting the support.

@lukedashjr Indeed. That's the part I don't think is possible.

@lukedashjr a parallel consideration is efficiency of blockspace use. Less space encourages higher efficiency (more economic flow / byte), and vice versa.

It would be interesting wrt this discussion, to have estimates of how much blockspace could be saved, if the current network load (measured in economic flow) be made highly blockspace-efficient.

(upholding the same security assumptions, of course. Trusting all activity to a central off-chain server would be 'efficient', but uninteresting).

@lukedashjr
With this in mind, there is a consideration to be made: what chance of having an affect on future blockchain-size would the following have:

- advocating for a decrease in block size
- advocating for utilization of best-practices to reduce block size

I don't mean to criticize your position on this, I think its an interesting an important consideration to explore, even if just in theory.

@htimsxela Miners have shown they don't care about Bitcoin, and will just pad blocks full of spam no matter how little legit usage drops.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Bitcoin Mastodon

Bitcoin Maston Instance