Published on: 2019-11-11T19:56:15+00:00
In a recent discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, Hampus Sjöberg and Luke-Jr debated the current block size of Bitcoin. Hampus suggested that the average block size would decrease when exchanges start using Lightning or Liquid, while Luke disagreed due to spam padding blocks. They also discussed the possibility of increasing the block size, with Hampus advocating for a hard fork and Luke pointing out past malicious attempts. The use of extension blocks was also debated, with Hampus finding them convoluted and Luke arguing they are still a softfork. Both agreed on the importance of consensus in making changes to maintain Bitcoin's stability and security.Another email thread on the bitcoin-dev mailing list focused on the proposal for Dynamic MaxBlockSize (DMBS). This solution suggests adding a 3-byte variable factor to the white space in the current block to adjust the block size based on market demand. The ruleset evaluates factors such as transaction fees and the current block size to determine whether to increase or decrease the block size. Participants expressed differing opinions on the proposal, with some advocating for keeping the block size low and others raising concerns about reorganization and the feasibility of the DMBS solution. The aim is to find a middle ground that allows for dynamic scaling without compromising security or changing existing rules.The fees paid to miners in Bitcoin are economically incentivized and serve as an anonymity technique. To address issues related to block size and scaling, the proposal for Dynamic MaxBlockSize (DMBS) suggests adding a 3-byte variable factor to evaluate market demand. This approach aims to strike a balance between scalability and resource consumption while maintaining existing security measures. The software would evaluate the MaxBlockSize Variable and ActivateONBlock Variable from distributed blocks to provide synchronization. By adjusting the block size according to market demand, the DMBS proposal seeks to address concerns dynamically without compromising security or changing existing rulesets.The proposal for Dynamic MaxBlockSize (DMBS) on the bitcoin-dev mailing list involves adding a 3-byte variable factor to the white space in the current block. The aim is to address block size and scaling concerns without compromising security or changing existing rules. However, some members of the community expressed skepticism, stating that the proposal misunderstands the concept of scaling and may compromise network security. There are also concerns about decentralization if blocks become too large. While Segwit has improved space efficiency, it remains uncertain whether advanced offchain constructions can fully resolve block size issues. Overall, opinions on the viability of the proposed solution are divided.The email thread discussing the proposal for Dynamic MaxBlockSize (DMBS) suggests adding a 3-byte variable factor to evaluate market demand and adjust the block size dynamically. Some members of the community expressed doubts about the necessity of addressing block size concerns due to Lightning and SegWit, while others emphasized the need to test and prove the effectiveness of off-chain constructions like channel factories. The DMBS proposal aims to strike a middle ground by allowing for adjustments based on market demand while maintaining existing security measures. The author seeks feedback on the viability of the solution and its potential to solve scaling issues.A proposal called Dynamic MaxBlockSize (DMBS) has been put forward on the bitcoin-dev mailing list. It involves adding a 3-byte variable factor to the white space in the current block to adjust the maximum block size based on market demand. The ruleset evaluates transaction fees and block sizes to determine whether to increase or decrease the block size. Safety measures are included to prevent bloat and limit changes. Feedback from the community is sought regarding the feasibility of accommodating the 3-byte variable and the value of using extra space to address the scaling issue.The proposal for Dynamic MaxBlockSize (DMBS) suggests adding a 3-byte variable factor to the white space in the current block to evaluate market demand and adjust the block size accordingly. The ruleset considers factors such as transaction fees and current block size to determine whether to increase or decrease the block size. Safety measures are implemented to prevent excessive changes. While some members expressed skepticism towards the proposal, others believe it provides a suitable middle ground solution for scaling without compromising security. The community is asked to provide feedback on the viability of accommodating the 3-byte variable and the effectiveness of solving the scaling issue.The Dynamic MaxBlockSize (DMBS) proposal aims to address the block size issue by adding a 3-byte variable factor to the white space in the current block. The ruleset evaluates market-driven demand and adjusts the block size accordingly. Some members of the community have raised concerns about the feasibility and potential negative impacts of the proposal, while others see it as a middle ground solution that maintains security and existing rulesets. Feedback from the community is solicited to assess the viability of the proposal and its ability to effectively solve scaling issues.
Updated on: 2023-08-02T01:29:49.372749+00:00