Stupid question (especially to miners) but will/should the block size ever increase?
Seems like it should be on a set schedule like the halving, considering Moore’s Law but way less frequent.
Discussion
Very reasonable question that even Satoshi thought would work
However we already know blockchains don't scale, doesn't matter if it's 4mb or 32mb or a GB
Increasing block size is basically just kicking the can down the road, eventually we need layer 2 scaling solutions
So keep the blocks small to make node running as cheap and simple as possible and focus all scaling ideation on L2
My two sats
Before I became a maxi, I really liked the idea of MINA protocol. You've got a Merkel tree of account balances, and the top-level zero-knowledge proof gets updated across the network. The knowledgeable proof for each account is then held by the wallets individually.
There may be a way to build this into Bitcoin non-custodially, such as publishing the top-level zk-proof on-chain and a manner to move in, out, and across L2 instances via an LN-like protocol.
Keep blocks small and activate OP_CTV.
If you 10x the blocksize, it's still awfully small. You need to economize another way.
I think something like segwit is acceptable though, because it incentivized a behavior that aided scaling. (ignore ordinals)
You want us to ignore that it also incentivized bad behavior LIKE ordinals? lol
They really should have just simply raised blocksize to 2-4Mb instead of dancing around the what was the end result anyway
10x is small versus the entire world being users. But we dont have to support the world *right now* (if ever). That is not reality. There are far fewer user using the network (not a hypothetical) 10x is huge improvement for actual users.
Well, yes, but if we run into blockspace limitations, increasing blockspace won't fix much.
Ordinals came and went, I don't think it was segwit's fault. Spammers gonna spam, as long as they pay for it it's fine.
And I'm not running no 10 terabyte node btw. But the point was that the base layer going from 5-7 to 50-70 tps is not overly relevant in the context of scaling new financial solutions.
It was definitely aided by Segwit. You can argue it was worth whatever advantage Segwit brought, but "spammers" were given a massive discount (tbh not even sure if we should call them spammers since they paid the fee which *is* the spam deterrent mechanism). Without Segwit it would've made it not possible, reduced it, and/or made it significantly shorter.
Anyone could easily say "I'm not running no 700+ gigabyte node". Why not 100kb blocks then? 10kb? It would make nodes cheaper to run and more decentralize.
5-7 to 50-70 tps, 10x, is huge for current users for the forseeable future wdym?
Keeping blocksize small is essential to maintaining adequate fees to support miners. Eventually, very few will transact on the baselayer, mostly nation states and large corporations. A "war" was fought over blocksize. Check out https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-controls-Bitcoins-protocol/dp/B08YQMC2WM