I would be grateful if somebody can please forward a present TLDR; summary of the present position on block size and transaction bandwidth. I understand that there is quite some history of this discussion back to 2015 (or further?), I would like to be summarily informed.
---- Good afternoon, good morning, good evening, I hope that I have found the correct place to put forward a proposal for discussion. My name is Damian Williamson, and I have a long history in CIT. I have worked in the software industry but, will not claim to be a dev. I can git pull. In the following discussion, I set out what I suggest as a forward issue for Bitcoin and a proposed response. Clearly, as always, my article could have been better written. **Make block sizes uncapped and have a transaction processing picking weight.** The issue of what I will call transaction bandwidth, it seems, will eventually be a real concern for the Bitcoin network. As popularity grows there are more Bitcoin transactions, there is only room for a certain number of transactions in a given time; only so many transactions can fit into a block, and there are only so many blocks per week. Eventually, there will be more transactions than the network can process. If transactions to process are always selected based on fee (and it does not seem that they currently always are) then, eventually, there will also be an increasing number of fee-paying transactions that will never be processed, in addition to those sent with no fees. I do not mind that it may take some time for transactions to confirm and, I certainly do not mind the idea of paying fees, being a core part of the operation of Bitcoin, however, it must be possible for transactions to actually process and ideally in the priority order of fees paid. >From the position of a merchant, a customer sends you 1 BTC. If the customer >chooses no fees (or sets them too low), then it is entirely possible that the >merchant may never receive the customer's payment. This as I understand it is >the current situation with only a moderate amount of transactions on the >network. Once the total sustained number of transactions exceeds the >transaction bandwidth, there will need to be a solution. This is necessary for >the fundamental operation of Bitcoin. I ask, what would be Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision for dealing with this issue? Clearly, there are several possibilities, not all of them are equal. Increasing the fixed size of blocks is one possible temporary solution. As more transactions are made, block sizes would need to increase further if this approach is chosen. Another possibility is reducing the block time. Once again this is temporary, as there are more transactions the block time would have to be further adjusted. This may also cause further issues. Another solution would be to make block size uncapped. Transactions can be selected to be process based on a function of a curve of the fee paid and an inverse curve of the time that the transaction has waited in the transaction pool, a transaction weight curve. Making them more likely to be picked to be processed next the longer that they have waited or, the higher the fee would seem workable. One month should be the highest priority to be picked and, the market will determine the fee resulting in the highest priority. The time that a transaction is created is not important; just the time that a transaction entered into the transaction pool. All transactions would eventually process and even waiting one month if low fees are paid is still much faster to receive confirmed funds for a merchant than the Credit Card chargeback regime. This solution is scalable to many transactions and rewards those who pay fees. But I ask, is this the solution that Satoshi Nakamoto would have chosen? It is important to consider and especially not to interrupt Bitcoin's future operation. Remember that in a few short years from now, fees will be the only payment that miners receive. Any solution needs to be scalable as it is workable; it is not possible with certainty to say how large the Bitcoin network will grow or, how many transactions per block will be the workload. Transaction bandwidth is valuable. Make block sizes uncapped and give each transaction a weight on a curve that determines how likely it is to be included in the next block. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Damian Williamson
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss
