500KB block size limit ? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

500KB block size limit ?

567 sats \ 18 comments \ @Zazon 10 Feb 2023 bitcoin freebie

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

negatives:

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

view all related items

10 sats \ 9 replies \ @cryptocoin 10 Feb 2023

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?

25 sats \ 8 replies \ @Zazon OP 10 Feb 2023

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.

35 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 11 Feb 2023

I gotchu: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/89418/5406

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @Zazon OP 10 Feb 2023

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

25 sats \ 5 replies \ @Eximpius 10 Feb 2023

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.

25 sats \ 1 reply \ @Eximpius 10 Feb 2023

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

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @Zazon OP 10 Feb 2023

Sounds good !

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 11 Feb 2023

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.

25 sats \ 1 reply \ @Zazon OP 10 Feb 2023

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

35 sats \ 0 replies \ @Eximpius 10 Feb 2023

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

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @cryptocoin 10 Feb 2023

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

Reasons to shrink the block size from Luke Dashjr #39803

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @Zazon OP 10 Feb 2023

I'll look at that thx

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 11 Feb 2023

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? ;)

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @HardMoney 11 Feb 2023

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.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @AJ1992 11 Feb 2023

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

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @gandlaf21 11 Feb 2023

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.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @l0k18 11 Feb 2023

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.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Zazon OP 11 Feb 2023

No we just take care of our home server and money