1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
|
Return-Path: <nbvfour@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E409899
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 6 Aug 2016 14:15:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f172.google.com (mail-qk0-f172.google.com
[209.85.220.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AE64112
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 6 Aug 2016 14:15:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f172.google.com with SMTP id t7so11154633qkh.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 06 Aug 2016 07:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=bfzvb0ioKkvjIqH2HGQEL3jjxjPkoEfg5VdtvIogPGg=;
b=IHzDiU+oyeDnza5xyCIcdI5EZMONaXrK2P4zcbDoeU7/h5eo4dzRqjI62S9bK5F7lY
lAkiBFGsLum0hBIr3VdYp89lERSVNuSy8u/8eac25OUptIdPF2HO/w3+fTgKVtGgDGjE
Ae5cuOI0VmVstlzPQyj1t6qoNUw2tmj4XFubJl3BkRoi3Ju20l/5zIZsvESIpL/4nwQE
woXYhcC3UAJRTtpZdSfeuO0fLv/wpR8DGDyza8dtcmGhTFU3W0mfygxY02OubiCRKph5
tuW80dZ3OsWyHvmDLa1tvRzZze8/uQ0Pj5dJtYvhcbCKiHlf802l6QrpRMDob78OuN3W
oEcQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject
:to; bh=bfzvb0ioKkvjIqH2HGQEL3jjxjPkoEfg5VdtvIogPGg=;
b=YxeWVkXmP2g4HiC2neXkg+1+KOx4iex7bzYJmWPBkPOAMd1WAab8Fb7IFDJAqsQaVg
d1ELdbG0AQBcJdTv4mBltly+1ZHBSUh8L9Bi5zVM/CEiVA9t79e/Lz9Y9rBZqrwUGt/R
IE0qonk5jjNp+WvzQu4K2Vy/QfrgZc46M0d/srMpjuqQ1YOCgJHgksl9Zgb/oMSQDnkd
yyV46edy1NedGm2fzNfps6xwk/rX0VXUAWcmFItFhBzTQFBl4r1DH2m80PqogmQgJiJP
aD7mfYz0UaVT30biSco68x3t739SlypbDWEBj75b89FArdQF8wpU4FoJdS66avmefuSt
K+7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutTky2nBgNxuTcaScvmcZQWr6eLvQ0imhpo0cIeJzap3DrfUZ7cMPUf3JGWWXo2DffawNpXOYnszInIfQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.116.70 with SMTP id p67mr17736441qkc.52.1470492923358;
Sat, 06 Aug 2016 07:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: nbvfour@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.55.199 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Aug 2016 07:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Priest <cp368202@ohiou.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2016 07:15:22 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: wLZsrYgqCCKi6WwGl-F1LaUgUyo
Message-ID: <CAAcC9ysZdnzb9HwN_pUcdws8Dvtd5xpzoPbyHP1nNew=LeTDHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] *Changing* the blocksize limit
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2016 14:15:25 -0000
Because the blocksize limit is denominated in bytes, miners choose
transactions to add to a block based on fee/byte ratio. This mean that
if you make a transaction with a lot of inputs, your transaction will
be very big, an you'll have a to pay a lot in fees to get that
transaction included in a block.
For a long time I have been of the belief that it is a flaw in bitcoin
that you have to pay more to move coins that are sent to you via small
value UTXOs, compared to coins sent to you through a single high
values UTXO. There are many legitimate uses of bitcoin where you get
the money is very small increments (such as microtransactions). This
is the basis for my "Wildcard inputs" proposal now known as BIP131.
This BIP was rejected because it requires a database index, which
people thought would make bitcoin not scale, which I think is complete
malarkey, but it is what it is. It has recently occurred to me a way
to achieve the same effect without needing the database index.
If the blocksize limit was denominated in outputs, miners would choose
transactions based on maximum fee per output. This would essentially
make it free to include an input to a transaction.
If the blocksize limit were removed and replaced with a "block output
limit", it would have multiple positive effects. First off, like I
said earlier, it would incentivize microtransactions. Secondly it
would serve to decrease the UTXO set. As I described in the text of
BIP131, as blocks fill up and fees rise, there is a "minimum
profitability to include an input to a transaction" which increases.
At the time I wrote BIP131, it was something like 2 cents: Any UTXO
worth less than 2 cents was not economical to add to a transaction,
and therefore likely to never be spent (unless blocks get bigger and
fee's drop). This contributes to the "UTXO bloat problem" which a lot
of people talk about being a big problem.
If the blocksize limit is to be changed to a block output limit, the
number the limit is set to should be roughly the amount of outputs
that are found in 1MB blocks today. This way, the change should be
considered non-controversial. I think its silly that some people think
its a good thing to keep usage restricted, but again, it is what it
is.
Blocks can be bigger than 1MB, but the extra data in the block will
not result in more people using bitcoin, but rather existing users
spending inputs to decrease the UTXO set.
It would also bring about data that can be used to determine how to
scale bitcoin in the future. For instance, we have *no idea* how the
network will handle blocks bigger than 1MB, simply because the network
has never seen blocks bigger than 1MB. People have set up private
networks for testing bigger blocks, but thats not quite the same as
1MB+ blocks on the actual live network. This change will allow us to
see what actually happens when bigger blocks gets published.
Why is this change a bad idea?
|
