Re: Increasing the block size is a good idea; 50%/year is probably too aggressive
trout:
empty blocks are possible now, and not a big deal. They become very expensive longer term as fees take over the block reward; an empty block could have no or negligible reward. If the median is used, this attack will have minimal effect on the network, while costing the attacker 1 BTC per empty block. I dont think we need to worry about an attack which is very expensive to for the attacker, and has no appreciable effect on the network.
I agree that it may be easier to form a majority cartel if the only thing at stake is block size. But a majority cartel of miners can pretty much do this anyway; they just tell everyone Hey guys, the new max block size is 1GB. Were all moving our mining power there, youd best update your clients.
Basically I think worrying about a majority of miners doing something you dont want them to is beyond the scope of the problem. And if they all want to have huge blocks and put all my transactions in there for free, I for one welcome our new benevolent mining overlords
David Rabahy:
The idea of only allowing known transactions into a block has been discussed before, but has been found unworkable. The purpose of the block is to achieve consensus on which transactions have happened. Presupposing consensus on the set of transactions removes the need for the block. In other words, if all the miners already agree on whats going to be in the next block, why bother broadcasting it to each other?
There are different ways to try to make that work, and Ive discussed it with several people, but I think its fundamentally incompatible with Bitcoins current consensus system.
empty blocks are possible now, and not a big deal. They become very expensive longer term as fees take over the block reward; an empty block could have no or negligible reward. If the median is used, this attack will have minimal effect on the network, while costing the attacker 1 BTC per empty block. I dont think we need to worry about an attack which is very expensive to for the attacker, and has no appreciable effect on the network.
I agree that it may be easier to form a majority cartel if the only thing at stake is block size. But a majority cartel of miners can pretty much do this anyway; they just tell everyone Hey guys, the new max block size is 1GB. Were all moving our mining power there, youd best update your clients.
Basically I think worrying about a majority of miners doing something you dont want them to is beyond the scope of the problem. And if they all want to have huge blocks and put all my transactions in there for free, I for one welcome our new benevolent mining overlords
David Rabahy:
The idea of only allowing known transactions into a block has been discussed before, but has been found unworkable. The purpose of the block is to achieve consensus on which transactions have happened. Presupposing consensus on the set of transactions removes the need for the block. In other words, if all the miners already agree on whats going to be in the next block, why bother broadcasting it to each other?
There are different ways to try to make that work, and Ive discussed it with several people, but I think its fundamentally incompatible with Bitcoins current consensus system.