This post is in a somewhat polemical bsv sub so I didn't want to redirect, the link is here: https://np.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/9z60tv/to_scale_how_about_that_128mb_blocksize_limit/
His explanation of why just changing the blocksize parameter is silly is below:
submitted 4 days ago by ThomasZander
On the first of August 2017 the Bitcoin Cash ruleset was introduced and the chain has been mined every since. In this chain the maximum block size was set initially to 8MB minium.
Wait, a max block size minimum? How does that compute?
To understand there are 2 things you need to know;
- In Bitcoin Cash it is currently safe for all players to receive up to 32MiB block, the software is able to handle that. Notice this is receiving blocks, not creation of blocks.
- The block size limit can be changed upwards by the miners as a group at any time, without any software developers being involved. It is just a setting in the client. All clients support this setting.
If in the future the miners think that the block size is too small, for instance because it is almost full a lot, then they can decide to enlarge it without consulting developers. The miners again have the power to decide how much they will produce. And this is a good thing. Notice that a single miner doesn't have that option, the miners have to do this increase together (at least most of them).
So, back to the max-minimum that the Bitcoin Cash protocol currently specifies.
As we saw above, the miners can decide on the maximum size of the blocks they accept from other miners. They can set it to almost anything, including 1GB blocks right now. It would not be very useful as the system will get into trouble with the current set of applications, but they could, again, without asking any devs for permission.
The one thing that the miners can't do in the current protocol rules is to lower the maximum block size they accept. They can't set the maximum block size to anything below 32MB in the software that is shipped and is compatible with Bitcoin Cash.
As such the 32MB is a minimum. Miners can't lower it.
Why not set this to a higher value, like 128MB?
What I tried to make clear is that miners can and will set the block size limit to a higher value as soon as this makes sense for the market. And naturally, only, when the tech is good enough to actually not orphan a lot of blocks.
What does not make sense is to set the maximum to a value that we have a pretty good idea will cause blocks to be too slow to propagate. The p2p protocol was capped by Satoshi at 32MiB, and he did that because the p2p network doesn't really manage to handle more without lots of little things breaking.
The answer of why not go higher than 32MB is that there is no need for me or CSW to decide this for the miners by altering software, they can do that already today with a simple config option. There is even a harm to increase the minimum max-blocksize because it opens the miners nodes to attacks.
Harm if too big?
We saw last week that a 64MB block took almost 20 minutes to reach all of the network. Think about this for a minute. A miner that is 20 minutes behind another chain is mining (at least a large part of that time) on a different chain than other miners.
This is almost guaranteed to cause chain-splits as miners find blocks every 10 minutes, and if they don't have the 64MB block yet, then they can't extend that one and thus cause a split. The only reason SV didn't split the chain there is because there really is only one party doing the mining.
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/a0bv2u/good_post_by_thomas_zander_about_block_limits/
No comments:
Post a Comment