Hi guys with the recent pump of block size, let's talk decreasing the blocksize to 500KB or less

positives :

  • decreased bandwith requirements (allows broadcasting new blocks with low cost / low key medium like a radio, bluetooth meshnets)

  • decreased storage requirements (if we have constant 4MB blocks it would mean ~200GB per year, it's a cost specialy for noobs in the Global South that hesitate running a node)

  • decreased CPU workload for verifying signatures (easier to run bitcoin on cheap devices, edge computing hardware)

  • increased block space scarcity (drive fees up, increase L2 research, signature aggregation research)

  • easy to implement and to stay in sync with old nodes


  • new nodes still required to download old big blocks (can't spin up a new node with very low bandwith anyway)

  • expensive on-chain payments / coinjoins / utxo management (specialy for less privileged people)

  • potential community split

  • doesn't stop arbitrary data on-chain


You BTC maxis can't claim to want full censorship freedom and then want to put limits on block size and attempt to censor tx's. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You're hypocrites

Softforks = the protocol getting more restrictive

softforks have happened plenty

Are all softforks censorship? or are they a way to become more specific about what the Bitcoin consensus should be like.

Is Bitcoin a storage platform for pictures? In my opinion, it isn't. So i would support a softfork (if properly implemented) that disincentives storing jpgs on chain.

I also believe in "code is law", so for now it looks like being able to store pictures on chain is law. Pay the fees, and store your pics on the chain.

IN THE END, THE NODES WILL DECIDE. Bitcoin is working as intended. We will see how it plays out. It is a question about what Bitcoin is, and everyone's opinion may be different. Run your node, and vote with code. As always.

Meanwhile, how's those OFAC compliant blocks going for you? I suppose CSW might say that "no big blocks is censorship too". Just like everything is racism.

No we just take care of our home server and money

Just to confirm. The current constraints are the 1MB block size limit and the 4MB block weight limit (block weight includes segwit / signatures).

Are you saying to reduce block weight limit to 500K, or just the block size to 500K?

I still need to research segwit damn. But I mean all data people have to download and verify, so I think it's block weight.

They just need to add a limit to stuff like OP_Return and the other OPs that inscriptions are using. It use to be there if I remember right.

Or maybe wait hardware to better and bitcoin to stay the same idk

I think future internet bandwidth and speed is more important, of course that takes new hardware as well.

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 11 Feb

Inscriptions do not make use of OP_RETURN. It’s pretty difficult to prevent people from publishing arbitrary data on the blockchain while also keeping a flexible scripting system around.

I guess that could be considered a block weight data limit.....

Sounds good !

I think there is nothing to verify in something like an inscription just if else statements

Luke-Jr has been saying this for years. It was 256K or something like that.

Reasons to shrink the block size from Luke Dashjr https://stacker.news/items/39803 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJF5Gnro1GU&t=393s

I'll look at that thx

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 11 Feb

just don't mess with current block size if some ppl want bigger and some ppl want lower...

bandwidth of Internet is higher than 10 years ago price of hard disk capacity is lower than 10 years ago

the block size is de facto "decreasing", by technology development (1.24TB in year 2039 will be a big deal? ;)

I think everyone is over reacting to inscriptions. Soft forks introduce risk (to decrease blocksize) and should be avoided. The best way to keep unwanted transactions off chain are to bid more than them.