![Eric Martindale [₿]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/928156761957154816/D3na7DzF_normal.jpg)
Bitcoin block size debate cf. Liebig's law of the minimum: growth is limited by the scarcest resource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum …
A much more reasonable block size proposal, following historical growth rates in a "limiting nutrient" resource:https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6 …
-
-
-
Per law of minimum, the most relevant resources in Bitcoin block size debate are bandwidth bottlenecks & DRAM costs, not average bandwidth.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@rbtkhn There are many ways folks can store all the money they want on a digital sidewalk. Don't turn Bitcoin into another one.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@NickSzabo4 I agree, but isn't it still way too conservative? I would think this is great if we did a one time jump to 4MB first. -
@juscamarena A rapid block size increase is a huge security risk: a reckless act to be performing on a $4 billion system. -
@NickSzabo4 An obstructive bottleneck that significantly delays or prevents sending transactions will be fatal to Bitcoin. -
@drwasho Attacks that create or take advantage of Internet bottlenecks are indeed Bitcoin's Achilles' heel. -
@drwasho Larger blocks relative to Internet bottlenecks => easier to attack Bitcoin (& hide attack in natural variation of bandwidth). -
1/
@NickSzabo4 Larger blocks means fewer nodes capable of robust bandwidth for block propagation -> less decentralized, easier to attack.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@NickSzabo4 Really? 2mb in 2 decades? under what justification? Everyone accepts bandwidth growth 30%, 1mb x 6 years x 30% is around 6.5mb -
@Aquentys No: per Liebig's principle relevant costs are for bandwidth bottlenecks & DRAM costs, not avg. bandwidth. -
@NickSzabo4 There has been a huge debate so far, you can't just tweet blocksize should be 2mb in 2 decades. Maybe expand in full blog post?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@NickSzabo4 Thanks for giving some good feedback and direction here Nick.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
.
@NickSzabo4 And, besides, it is the size LIMIT, not the block size. The limit has been 1 MB since 2010, but blocks are still ~450 kB. -
@JorgeStolfi Blocks fill up all the time check@TradeBlock for a little and see for yourself. Is that 450KB number a running avg? -
.
@docbtc@TradeBlock The capacity is less than 1 MB/bloc because of empty blocks (consequence of shortcuts that many miners use). -
@JorgeStolfi I've noticed most miners are trying to fill blocks. Most big pools and miners have come off 750kb default soft limit -
.
@docbtc Yes, but there are still many empty blocks. Miners start mining before they get the full parent block, so they must mine empty.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.
@NickSzabo4 2017? The goal of that proposal wasn't to increase the size limit, but to prevent it.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@NickSzabo4 "It implements a series of block size steps, one every ~97 days" LOL. Dynamic blocksize limits FTWhttps://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4 …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.