Block size limit controversy - Bitcoin Wiki

XUEZ

https://xuezcoin.com/ XUEZ is a community-based project, aiming to address the inherent problems plaguing Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Understanding the importance of anonymity as well as usability, XUEZ provides a 8MB block size that results in close to instantaneous transaction times.
[link]

A possible solution of the Bitcoin block size problem and the spam problem

In my opinion, now the biggest problem in Bitcoin is the unclear policy with commissions for the transactions. Because of this problem, we have other serious problems including the spam problem, block size problem and the micropayments problem. Satoshi was not originally defined a solid foundation for the calculation of the transaction fees. This question has always been only a temporary solution.
Initially it was assumed that the transactions can be free. This led to a spam attack on blockchain because of what he has grown. To solve the problem of limitless growth it was introduced the limit of one megabyte per block size but the spam problem is not solved yet and we again witness such attempts.
Now Bitcoin has a very intricate algorithm for determining the priority of the transaction with reference to the amount of the transaction and some miners analyze the history of coins. Though actually a good algorithm is very simple. To determine which transactions to include in the block, miner has to calculate for each transaction simple ratio of transaction commission (in bytes) to transaction size (in Satoshi). Each transaction will be characterized by the number of Satoshi that the sender of the transaction is willing to pay for each byte in the blockchain. For example, a simple transaction in MutliBit has a size of 226 bytes, default commission is 0.00010000 BTC, ie 10,000 Satoshi. Therefore the value of the byte in this transaction will be equal to about 44 Satoshi. Based on this parameter, we can determine the transactions order for including in the block. Transactions with greater cost-per-byte will have a higher priority. Using this algorithm, a miner will always maximize the commission reward. Each byte is fairly paid. As a result, the larger the size of the transaction, the greater should be the commission to be included in the block. This creates motivation for economize space in the blocks.
With such a transparent algorithm, sufficient commission will be determined by the market, depending on the number of transactions and the availability of space in the block. This approach does not require changing of Bitcoin protocol. Changes should be made only in the miners transaction priority algorithm and in the algorithm of calculation of optimal transaction fee of the wallet. Before sending the transaction wallet needs to know what price to use to ensure that the transaction will be included in the first mined block.
As a result of such an approach, the price of byte in Satoshi depends on the price of Bitcoin in US dollars. Therefore, the optimal current price should be calculated by services like blockchain.info. To do this, the service need to analyze the transaction queue and the last mined blocks and see what the price of byte will be minimally sufficient for the transaction with the maximum probability was included in the first mined block. Since the amount of the transaction is dependent on the time of day and day of week, price of byte in the blockchain will also depend on these parameters. It is possible to calculate the optimal price for each hour a day every day of the week. Wallets can simply use such information from a service like blockchain.info like they are already using the current Bitcoin exchange rate.
This approach will create a real-time auction for space of the mined block, it makes spam attacks just meaningless. If there is a long queue of transactions, new transactions will be sent with higher pay-per-byte than all the transactions in the queue. As a result, spam transactions will hang in queue for long time and will not create a delay in the processing of actual transactions. Spammers have to spend a very large amount of money to win other Bitcoin users from all the world in real time auction to redeem all of the space in the blocks. This makes this attack very costly and can only insignificantly increase the price of byte when most users will not notice anything. In order not to allow spammers to occupy the empty space in the blocks at zero cost, miners will have to set a minimum price for the byte (in any currency). Even very small prices for general users make a blank space in the blocks very expensive for spammers.
This approach not only solves the problem of spam, but also solve the problem of block size. With an increase in the number of transactions, the price of byte will also increase. If the price is too high for micropayments, doubling the size of the block will significantly reduce the byte price.
This scheme also has a positive effect on the motivation for users to save space in the blockchain. Recording images or other information unrelated to the payment will cost for author at a fair market price.
Another important factor is the possibility of a sharp increase of Bitcoins price. Fixed fee in Bitcoins creates big problems during large volatility. The market way of fee definition is well to cope with such problem.
This approach also solves the problem of unreasonably high fee of transaction in wallet like MultiBit. Wallets with fixed commission unfairly rob money from unsuspecting users and discredit opportunities of Bitcoin in the micropayments when most transactions can be posted at a much lower fee.
Sooner or later, we will have to increase the size of the block. The optimal block size determines the market itself. If the micro payments will be so expensive that it would be noticeable downward trend in the number of micropayments, it's time to negotiate an increase the size of the block. I think that the optimal block size depends on Internet bandwidth and cost of hard disk drives for personal computers. If possible, individual user should be able to maintain full Bitcoin node.
Also competition of blockchains is very important. If for any reason miners will not be interested in increasing the size of the block, they will risk losing the micropayments market. In this regard, the role of Litecoin is very important as an analogue of silver.
P.S. Sorry for my English. I used a Google translator.
submitted by alexn2 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin — LocalMonero

How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin — LocalMonero submitted by Alex_LocalMonero to Monero [link] [comments]

How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin — LocalMonero

How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin — LocalMonero submitted by Alex_LocalMonero to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin — LocalMonero

How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin — LocalMonero submitted by Alex_LocalMonero to xmrtrader [link] [comments]

Noob question: What would be the problems by doubling the bitcoin block size and consequently making the average transaction fees halve?

Miners I think would still get the same reward, there will be more transaction capacity and less fees. So what are the problems that are stopping that from happening?
submitted by qlpxumni to btc [link] [comments]

How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin — LocalMonero

How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin — LocalMonero submitted by Alex_LocalMonero to LocalMonero [link] [comments]

How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin — LocalMonero (x-post from /r/cryptocurrency)

How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin — LocalMonero (x-post from /cryptocurrency) submitted by ASICmachine to CryptoCurrencyClassic [link] [comments]

How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin — LocalMonero

How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin — LocalMonero submitted by theoryNeutral to u/theoryNeutral [link] [comments]

Even if Lightning Network 100% worked, and even if BCH had 100TB sized blocks, it still wouldn't matter. No one has created a broadly appealing use case for Bitcoin in payments. No one is going to *use* Bitcoin until this problem is solved.

submitted by guyfawkesfp to btc [link] [comments]

[Serious] How will you cope with the collapse of the world economy if the Bitcoin block-size impasse is not resolved?

The bitcoin block-size problem can no longer be ignored.
Yesterday I was at the grocery store. All of the cash registers were backed up and customers were unable to check out. The reason? Bitcoin transactions were backlogged. Eventually, some shopper (consistent with their rational-self interest) started a mini-riot. I was able to loot some lactose-free milk and Almond Joy candy bars.
After leaving the grocery store, I returned home. Pulling into my driveway, I was startled to see that my grass had grown knee high! Why wasn't it getting mowed by, Felipe, my Brazilian landscaper? Turns out he was unable to remit money to his family in Brazil and had to return home! The reason - bitcoin remittance is huge in South America. Felipe couldn't afford the outrageous fees charged by fiat-based remittance services.
Now I see that CEOs across the globe are demanding that the Chinese bitcoin mills switch to Bitcoin-Classic. The businesses, employees and customers of major corporations depend so heavily on bitcoin that its technical problems are jeopardizing worldwide commerce. Something has to be done!
In case the bitcoin network grinds to a halt and we enter a second dark-age, what will you do?
submitted by x99x to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

07-15 11:03 - 'The problem lightning is trying to solve was solved much more effectively and elegantly by increasing block sizes.' by /u/Bitsurfer777 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 389-399min

'''
The problem lightning is trying to solve was solved much more effectively and elegantly by increasing block sizes.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Bitsurfer777
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Vinny Lingham: The solution to the block size debate is simple. Low Bitcoin price means low fees. Problem solved.

Vinny Lingham: The solution to the block size debate is simple. Low Bitcoin price means low fees. Problem solved. submitted by slacker-77 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Sidestepping the block size debate for a second, would you support a hard fork that fixes Bitcoin's fungibility problem?

While this was once a contentious subject, we nowadays seem to to be an agreement that Bitcoins aren't exactly fungible (as can for example be attested by the fact that the likes of coinbase track where your coins come from and what you use them for).
My question is: if a Monero-style fork was proposed to fix Bitcoin's fungibility problem, would you consider supporting it?
If so, and if - unlike the current blocksize debacle - there would appear to be mainstream consensus around that new hardfork, do you believe the current consensus mechanism (voting with bits in block headers) would actually be any kind of useful?
More specifically, given the potentially complex change that would be needed to implement that fork by the entire ecosystem around Bitcoin, does what the miners think matter in any way?
EDIT: https://www.reddit.com/usetheymos pointed out that Monero has huge scalability issues, which makes the question less than useful. I guess that means I need to rephrase to: "assuming there comes about a technically sound solution to Bitcoin's fungibility problem, then would you support a hard fork?"
submitted by bitbetat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Skipping the Block Size Problem with Next Generation Bitcoin

submitted by MasternodeNinja to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

How will bitcoin overcome the problem of growing block size, as eventually it's own success will make it to large and unwieldy to work?

https://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all
It looks like the blockchain is growing exponentially...
This is classic bubble type behaviour, will this reach a tipping point and burst or will technology keep up?
submitted by Arowx to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

James D'Angelo: Bitcoin Nodes & Noses - A New Crypto Axiom For Bitcoin's Scaling & Centralization Problem -- ("The block-size debate is a proxy war between centralization and anonymity. This needs to be solved before we end up with something worse than MasterCard.")

James D'Angelo: Bitcoin Nodes & Noses - A New Crypto Axiom For Bitcoin's Scaling & Centralization Problem -- ( submitted by eragmus to btc [link] [comments]

#PAXCOIN #blockchain #currency #mining The problem of Bitcoin it takes long formation time. But in the PAXCoin it extended the block size to 2 MB (megabytes) and reduced the transaction time to less than 1 minute.

submitted by hirushaperera to cryptocurrencynewico [link] [comments]

Why can't Litecoin solve the block size problem faster than Bitcoin?

Any crypto who wants successfully compete with Bitcoin shouldn't have the same problem or should be more flexible and able to deal with the problem faster than bitcoin does.
So what is the update on this issue among Litecoiners? Is there a common ground among users about the solution and how far away are we to fix it?
submitted by VirtualMoneyLover to litecoin [link] [comments]

The Daily Decrypt is seeking commentary on problems that may arise at the Bitcoin halvening due to block size cap. PM if interested.

putting text here because my first stab at this post was just removed for having no text here
submitted by The_Daily_Decrypt to btc [link] [comments]

Can Bitcoin block pruning solve the increasing blockchain size problem?

What are pros and cons of Bitcoin block pruning?
I read many Bitcoin pruning articles from 2015 but I still don't fully get it.
submitted by Peaintania to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Stupid Question] Many people say that on-chain can't scale (evidenced by bitcoin's high fees). Is it in theory possible to make variable block sizes, and would that fix scaling problems?

submitted by RadiatingLight to Crypto_General [link] [comments]

Maybe Bitcoin transaction fees should only have been designed to come into play before the final 1M coins were mined. Think of all the political block size problems that would have prevented.

submitted by LeeWallis to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Can Blockchain Solve Its Scalability Problem? The Problem with Blockchain - YouTube Resolve Bitcoin Core Blockchain size problem Fix Block Size Problems with a Frame - uquilt with Emily ... Let's Talk Bitcoin! #217 The Bitcoin Block Size Discussion

Bitcoin Cash is a Bitcoin hard fork that raises the Bitcoin (Cash) block size to 32MB, allowing the BCH network to process around 65 transactions per second. The Bitcoin Cash hard fork took place in August 2017, just before the conclusion of the SegWit and SegWit2x debacle. In many ways, the Bitcoin Cash movement and hard fork was a result of the lack of direction by the latter project. Block size of Bitcoin mining []. No issue in the history of cryptocurrencies has been debated as passionately, as often, or as forcefully as the bitcoin block size. To an outsider, it must be quite comical to witness folks debating a consensus parameter within the bitcoin network — no joke — as if it were a matter of life or death. The Block Size Debate. This debate has been central to Bitcoin for years. At least two Bitcoin forks have been born out of the matter. Bitcoin Cash, which split in August 2017, currently has a maximum block size of 32 MB. Bitcoin SV, which split from Bitcoin Cash in 2018, currently has a maximum block size of 2 GB. Originally, Bitcoin's block size was limited by the number of database locks required to process it (at most 10000). This limit was effectively around 500-750k in serialized bytes, and was forgotten until 2013 March. In 2010, an explicit block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto. He added it hidden in two commits in secret. This limit was effectively a no-op due ... Bitcoin Unlimited proposal is different from Bitcoin Core in that the block size parameter is not hard-coded, and rather the nodes and miners flag support for the size that they want, using an idea they refer to as 'emergent consensus.' BIP148 was a proposal that has been referred to as a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) or a "populist uprising." It was planned to be triggered on 1 August 2017 ...

[index] [5370] [26718] [50682] [32721] [5421] [28482] [49849] [4782] [43344] [33430]

Can Blockchain Solve Its Scalability Problem?

Top Bitcoin Core Dev Greg Maxwell DevCore: Must watch talk on mining, block size, and more - Duration: 55:04. The Bitcoin Foundation 19,937 views The highly-charged debates around both Ethereum's potential hardfork and Bitcoin's block size appear different on the surface, but are caused by the same des... and Freeloaders. If your transaction have been taking too long pay a 5 cent transaction fee. I do several transactions a day & I pay fees based on importance...as the system was designed. Leave ... Bitcoin für Anfänger einfach erklärt! [auf Deutsch] Bitcoin-Börse (erhalte 10€ in BTC) https://finanzfluss.de/go/bitcoin-boerse *📱 Sicheres Bitcoin-Wallet... Stephanie, Andreas and Adam speak first with Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist Gavin Andresen about the Bitcoin Block Size debate, where it came from, why it matters and what he thinks we should ...

#