Published on: 2016-12-19T01:42:38+00:00
In a discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, participants were discussing the Block75 proposal, which allows miners to determine the maximum block size. One participant expressed concern about the linear growth proposed by Block75 and the potential for miners to manipulate their block content. James argued that allowing miners to choose the block size would incentivize them to include legitimate transactions while keeping the block small enough to propagate effectively.Another user disagreed with Andrew Johnson's assertion that an attack on the proposal would be easily detectable. They explained that intentionally orphaning a block would only make sense if 51% of the hash rate was intentionally orphaning it. The conversation also touched on the possibility of miners creating transactions to themselves and not broadcasting them to the network. However, this tactic is easily detectable by other miners who may intentionally orphan blocks that contain unknown transactions.The discussion also delved into the impact of Block75 on transaction fees. James Hilliard explained that there will always be transactions available to mine, and users can stop miners from continuously increasing block size by not sending transactions. James expressed concern that miners will increase block sizes to maximize fees, but it was clarified that Block75 is not exponential scaling and the maximum increase in the first year would be 7x.On December 11, 2016, an email thread discussed the proposed Block75 solution for scaling Bitcoin. The author argued that Block75 is not exponential scaling and would only increase by a maximum of 7x in the first year, followed by slower increases in subsequent years. Critics raised concerns about system instability and block propagation time due to dynamically increasing the maximum block size based on transaction volume.Bram Cohen compared the Block75 approach to Bitcoin Unlimited, highlighting concerns about transaction fees. However, Block75 aims to maintain transaction fees and a fee market, albeit at lower levels than current fees. The proposal offers a way to manage block size automatically without human intervention.In another discussion, t. khan introduced the concept of Block75, which focuses on keeping blocks 75% full instead of enforcing a maximum block size. Some members argued that this effectively removes the block size limit and fails to differentiate between genuine transactions and low-value spam attacks. Concerns were raised about miners imposing their own cap on block size and potential forks.Daniele Pinna asked about objective measures to estimate the probability of orphaned blocks based on network bandwidth and block size. Pieter Wuille responded by stating that models can predict orphan rates based on certain factors but noted that topology cannot be controlled.The Block75 proposal suggests adjusting the maximum block size every two weeks based on transaction volume, aiming to keep blocks at 75% total capacity over each two-week period. Concerns were raised about block propagation time, potential miner manipulation, and the need for a consensus rule on the maximum block size. Despite these concerns, Block75 provides an automated and scalable solution to manage block size.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T19:20:22.399312+00:00