Bitcoin's maximum block size

[ABCbits]

As you might know, Bitcoin sometimes got criticized due to relative high TX fee and small block size. Despite SegWit upgrade which allow a bit bigger block size (up to 1 vMB or 4 kWu/million weight), some people feel it's not enough and there's need for bigger block size. While other option such as LN and sidechain exist, there aren't many service or wallet which support either those. Now here are my question,

1. Do you support increasing Bitcoin maximum block size?
2. If yes, what factor should be considered when choosing new maximum size?

[Zed0X]

This has been a hot topic years ago but it subsided a bit after the Segwit upgrade. I am not against any improvement to TPS (not sacrificing security and decentralization) but I think further attempts to increase block size will cause more drama. The next thing you know, a new coin is created as a result of a bitcoin fork.

[NotATether]

No and no.

It is already hard enough for my libraries to parse block transactions with bloated witness data. There's no need to strain me with extra transactions per block.

[ABCbits]

No and no.

It is already hard enough for my libraries to parse block transactions with bloated witness data. There's no need to strain me with extra transactions per block.

Yeah, it's true various upgrade (in forms of soft fork) add complexity for those who interact with Bitcoin's data directly. But as reminder Bech32/bech32m already prepared for witness version up to 15 (version 0 for SegWit and version 1 for Taproot) .

[Ambatman]

No, once it's increased it would give more leeway for more future increments. One of the selling point of Bitcoin is that it has never really been successfully hacked which can be attributed to its decentralization. If this changes, I don't want to imagine the devastation. I would pick security(decentralization) over scalabilty but would be Happy if we can have both without the other been opportunity cost.

A counter would be Bitcoin was created to serve as a means of exchange and it having scalabilty issues is not helping. But as a lover of economics I prefer long run gains to short run. Innovations are coming. Scalabilty issues would be rectified without increasing block size. There are projects ongoing to improve on the scalabilty and some would be ready for test running before 2025 ends. 

[bitmover]

1. Do you support increasing Bitcoin maximum block size?
2. If yes, what factor should be considered when choosing new maximum size?

I don't support.. (nobody cares about my opinion anyway  )

I think that increasing block size will make transaction fees lower for some time, when people are still adding JPEGs to the blockchain. But then, people will upload videos. Will the community increase again?

[hugeblack]

High fees will make those who mine blocks happy because it means additional profits. Currently, the fees are reasonable and many can afford fees of up to +40 satoshi/vbyte, but if the fees continue to rise such that it becomes difficult or impossible to use Bitcoin normally, then I think that both miners and society will agree to increase block size within a certain limits.

[ABCbits]

A counter would be Bitcoin was created to serve as a means of exchange and it having scalabilty issues is not helping. But as a lover of economics I prefer long run gains to short run. Innovations are coming. Scalabilty issues would be rectified without increasing block size. There are projects ongoing to improve on the scalabilty and some would be ready for test running before 2025 ends.

Which project you're talking about? I'm already aware of LN and sidechain (such as Liquid network) which can be used to day.

I don't support.. (nobody cares about my opinion anyway  )

Our opinion doesn't matter outside this forum anyway.

I think that increasing block size will make transaction fees lower for some time, when people are still adding JPEGs to the blockchain. But then, people will upload videos. Will the community increase again?

That's good point. Maybe there should be update which make ordinal TX become standard before someone seriously porpose block size increase.

[bitmover]

That's good point. Maybe there should be update which make ordinal TX become standard before someone seriously porpose block size increase.

I see scalability as a major problem for ethereum ecosystem. A simple UNISWAP swap can cost 80 USD.

Bitcoin transactions are way cheaper... We are talking about 10satv/B, which is less than 1 USD.

[ABCbits]

That's good point. Maybe there should be update which make ordinal TX become standard before someone seriously porpose block size increase.

I see scalability as a major problem for ethereum ecosystem. A simple UNISWAP swap can cost 80 USD.

I wouldn't say it's simple due to smart contract execution, but i get your point.

Bitcoin transactions are way cheaper... We are talking about 10satv/B, which is less than 1 USD.

That's true, although on certain time it's more expensive. On such time, either paying more for TX fee or wait for TX fee going down are annoying.

[Lucius]

As far as can be seen, the fee prices go sky high only when something happens that shouldn't happen otherwise, whether it's the spam attack that happened in 2017, or the ordinal "attack" that we witnessed in recent months. Accordingly, I see no need to increase the block size, unless a general consensus is reached and if it can be done in the least complicated way.

At the moment, Bitcoin does not serve as a currency for most anyway, but if the current fees are too high for someone, we have LN, which can be used in a very simple way with the help of some wallets (Phoenix Wallet).

[Ambatman]

A counter would be Bitcoin was created to serve as a means of exchange and it having scalabilty issues is not helping. But as a lover of economics I prefer long run gains to short run. Innovations are coming. Scalabilty issues would be rectified without increasing block size. There are projects ongoing to improve on the scalabilty and some would be ready for test running before 2025 ends.

Which project you're talking about? I'm already aware of LN and sidechain (such as Liquid network) which can be used to day.

There are some ongoing projects nothing that major like The Ark protocol which gained audience around june last year.
Drivechain, a project that's still ongoing backed by co founder of Layertwo labs Austin Alexander.
And also https://cxotoday.com/sponsored/layer-3-solutions-the-next-frontier-in-bitcoins-scalability/ about layer 3 projects

[ABCbits]

At the moment, Bitcoin does not serve as a currency for most anyway, but if the current fees are too high for someone, we have LN, which can be used in a very simple way with the help of some wallets (Phoenix Wallet).

That's true, although personally i find LN not attractive when you don't frequently make or receive payment.

Which project you're talking about? I'm already aware of LN and sidechain (such as Liquid network) which can be used to day.

There are some ongoing projects nothing that major like The Ark protocol which gained audience around june last year.
Drivechain, a project that's still ongoing backed by co founder of Layertwo labs Austin Alexander.
And also https://cxotoday.com/sponsored/layer-3-solutions-the-next-frontier-in-bitcoins-scalability/ about layer 3 projects

Thanks for the reminder. Although AFAIK L3 on Bitcoin still limited to theory or idea, while Ark will not become reality as long as BIP 118 or 119 not activated on Bitcoin network.

[Yamane_Keto]

I think that if a way was found to make the block size dynamic as in Monero without the need to change the code and impose a penalty on the block reward when the block is larger, the scalability of Bitcoin would be better. The SegWit soft fork gave a better result than any hard fork. Instead of giving in to increasing the block size, it was increased. Up to 4M weight units with the size on the block size fixed. I don't know if there will be a soft fork in the future that will lead to better results.

I think that at the present time, if the Bitcoin price prediction algorithms are improved, especially since the average fees may differ completely after the transaction is broadcast, we will reduce actual fees further.

[bitmover]

At the moment, Bitcoin does not serve as a currency for most anyway, but if the current fees are too high for someone, we have LN, which can be used in a very simple way with the help of some wallets (Phoenix Wallet).

That's true, although personally i find LN not attractive when you don't frequently make or receive payment.

I use a lot of bitcoin as a currency

In forums, and also as a web developer ( a hobby which is allowing me to make some money). I think btc works very well for that, and usdt as well