3 ms·

> The problem is that Blockstream and those acting on it's behalf oppose any increase in blocksize. .... because Bitcoin Core developers find that most block s

by kanzure 11y ago

> The problem is that Blockstream and those acting on it's behalf oppose any increase in blocksize. .... because Bitcoin Core developers find that most block size increase proposals seem to be incompatible with Bitcoin resource requirement minimization. Absent the existence of Blockstream I suspect the currently-non-Blockstream developers would still prefer to focus on their own understanding of Bitcoin, rather than popular sentiment on Bitcoin block size limits. Anyway, Bitcoin Core developers have done just that and have organized a FAQ regarding some fascinating proposals and implementations they are working on for how to increase capacity: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq > and would relegate Bitcoin to a settlement layer Ehhh settlement layer is sorta unfair. Existing "settlement layers" are things like Target2 RTGS, which turns out to be a typical centralized payment processor under the hood. oops. > where high value transactions between major financial players take place and nothing else. Transaction fees offer prioritization for inclusion, true. I don't think it's reasonable to blame Blockstream for an absence of a solution to this problem :-). > Raising the block size doesn't preclude Blockstream from implementing sidechains but keeping the block size small as Bitcoin grows very large will make Blockstream's sidechain scheme absolutely necessary. Nah any form of sidechain would work, not just Blockstream's implementations. Also, from an experimentation standpoint, sidechains are necessary regardless the value of the block size limit. > If the block size were allowed to grow it isn't clear if the value proposition of sidechains would be as strong. It would be just as strong, read the sidechains whitepaper: https://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf https://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf (basically they are valuable as an experimentation tool, even if they are not being used by businesses; indeed, Blockstream could experiment using sidechains prior to gathering consensus for deployment of features on the Bitcoin blockchain, which is itself quite valuable to Blockstream).

pmorici 11y ago
"most block size increase proposals seem to be incompatible with Bitcoin resource requirement minimization." What are you talking about, there are no such requirements and current requirements are nowhere close to being beyond the reach of a typical user. "Transaction fees offer prioritization for inclusion, true. I don't think it's reasonable to blame Blockstream for an absence of a solution to this problem" The alternative to a hard limit on block size is to have no limit and let miners set their own soft limits for fees and block size so they compete on efficiency. Artificially restricting the supply of transaction space is not something that was in the original vision for Bitcoin. Satoshi himself said a number of times that the 1MB block limit was a _temporary_ measure that should be lifted in the future.
- kanzure 11y ago
  > What are you talking about, there are no such requirements "Bitcoin resource requirement minimization" does not mean "this is an existing requirement in the protocol". Resource minimization, indeed even resource maximization, is not expressible in the Bitcoin consensus protocol as a rule. Instead I was talking about the idea that Bitcoin resource requirements can be minimized. By minimizing the resource requirements, you make Bitcoin more cheap and easily accessible, and you can accrue benefits of tech development to process and handle the existing Bitcoin system on ever-cheapening computer hardware. > and current requirements are nowhere close to being beyond the reach of a typical user I guess that depends on what you consider a typical user. A lot of those "typical users" are complaining about the mere possibility of $20 Bitcoin transaction fees in the future, so it sounds like a $20/year node cost might not be compatible with the "typical Bitcoin user". In general to encourage adoption we should not cut off users from their nodes participating in the Bitcoin network. > The alternative to a hard limit on block size is to have no limit You mean the "transaction fee market without a block size as long as selfish mining doesn't exist" paper? That particular paper's assumptions have been dispute for a while now, a bunch of his points were refuted... indeed he even agreed to update his paper, although he hasn't done this yet, and instead backtracked, and meanwhile hasn't provided new arguments against the refutations. See http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3 http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3 > Satoshi himself said a number of times that the 1MB block limit was a _temporary_ measure that should be lifted in the future. Argument from authority. Also, I think the Bitcoin developers have learned more about Bitcoin since Satoshi's disappearance, which can be used to inform ourselves and evaluate whether we think Satoshi was wrong about the effects of lifting the block size limit upwards.

by kanzure 11y ago

pmorici 11y ago

"most block size increase proposals seem to be incompatible with Bitcoin resource requirement minimization." What are you talking about, there are no such requirements and current requirements are nowhere close to being beyond the reach of a typical user. "Transaction fees offer prioritization for inclusion, true. I don't think it's reasonable to blame Blockstream for an absence of a solution to this problem" The alternative to a hard limit on block size is to have no limit and let miners set their own soft limits for fees and block size so they compete on efficiency. Artificially restricting the supply of transaction space is not something that was in the original vision for Bitcoin. Satoshi himself said a number of times that the 1MB block limit was a _temporary_ measure that should be lifted in the future.

kanzure 11y ago
> What are you talking about, there are no such requirements "Bitcoin resource requirement minimization" does not mean "this is an existing requirement in the protocol". Resource minimization, indeed even resource maximization, is not expressible in the Bitcoin consensus protocol as a rule. Instead I was talking about the idea that Bitcoin resource requirements can be minimized. By minimizing the resource requirements, you make Bitcoin more cheap and easily accessible, and you can accrue benefits of tech development to process and handle the existing Bitcoin system on ever-cheapening computer hardware. > and current requirements are nowhere close to being beyond the reach of a typical user I guess that depends on what you consider a typical user. A lot of those "typical users" are complaining about the mere possibility of $20 Bitcoin transaction fees in the future, so it sounds like a $20/year node cost might not be compatible with the "typical Bitcoin user". In general to encourage adoption we should not cut off users from their nodes participating in the Bitcoin network. > The alternative to a hard limit on block size is to have no limit You mean the "transaction fee market without a block size as long as selfish mining doesn't exist" paper? That particular paper's assumptions have been dispute for a while now, a bunch of his points were refuted... indeed he even agreed to update his paper, although he hasn't done this yet, and instead backtracked, and meanwhile hasn't provided new arguments against the refutations. See http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3 http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3 > Satoshi himself said a number of times that the 1MB block limit was a _temporary_ measure that should be lifted in the future. Argument from authority. Also, I think the Bitcoin developers have learned more about Bitcoin since Satoshi's disappearance, which can be used to inform ourselves and evaluate whether we think Satoshi was wrong about the effects of lifting the block size limit upwards.