Published on: 2015-08-24T02:27:02+00:00
In a Bitcoin-dev forum, members discuss the potential risks and impacts of changing the maximum block size consensus rule on mining centralization. One member, Tom Harding, conducts an experiment to test the effects of large blocks on small miners and concludes that they are not disadvantaged. However, Peter Todd criticizes the experiment for not considering the actual scenario of concern.Throughout the conversation, analogies to car brakes are used to explain the risks of minority hash power partitioning in the Bitcoin network. Pieter Wuille's work on brake cylinder fatigue is referenced to highlight the potential dangers of this phenomenon.The need for a standardized metric to measure decentralization in software projects like Bitcoin is also discussed. The group suggests linking centralization pressure and the pressure to merge with big miners to an overall decentralization metric. While acknowledging the complexity of measuring decentralization, existing metrics used in political systems are suggested as a starting point.Overall, the discussion delves into the technical details and implications of the maximum block size consensus rule in Bitcoin mining. Topics covered include hash power partitioning, revenue differences between small and large miners, resistance against attacks on miners, and the need for systematic analysis of metrics to address mining centralization.In another discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, the topic of maximum block size in Bitcoin is debated. The purpose of the maximum block size is argued to be preventing spam or forcing higher fees, but this approach is criticized as counterproductive.A proposal is made to address miners sabotaging block size increases by mining empty blocks. This involves adjusting the maximum block size algorithmically based on the percentage of block size found in the first 2000 of the last difficulty period. If certain thresholds are exceeded, the maximum block size is doubled or halved. This allows both miners and end-users to have their say.Another proposal suggests using the mean block size during the last 60-120 minutes as a scalability metric. If the blocks start to get full past a certain threshold, the maximum block size should be doubled for the next block. Conversely, if the mean block size goes below a certain threshold, the maximum block size allowed should be halved. This aims to accommodate unexpected organic usage peaks and maintain network efficiency.Concerns about miners sabotaging block size increases by mining empty blocks are addressed with various technical solutions. It is argued that this would not be economical as miners would lose transaction fees and switch pools. Adjusting the maximum block size based on recent block sizes with input from both miners and end-users is proposed as a solution.The overall debate focuses on finding a solution to the maximum block size controversy in Bitcoin, aiming to balance transaction volume, prevent sabotage by miners, and ensure a rational derivation of the maximum block size. The author invites comments on their proposed solutions and provides contact information for further discussion.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T15:26:54.147439+00:00