What Is Bitcoin Block Size and Why Does It Matter

"To those arguing that Bitcoin Core fees are no longer "through the roof". It only reached this point because you destroyed your user base with an artificial 1MB block size limit. The data speaks for itself - transactions/block down to 2 year lows with dominance at all time lows."

submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

"To those arguing that Bitcoin (BTC) fees are "through the roof". The 1MB block size limit has not destroyed the user base. The data speaks for itself - transactions/block recently hit ATH and dominance hasn't been higher since December, 2017.

The last year has been good for BTC.
Average number of transactions per block set a new ATH a little over a month ago.
BTC dominance by market cap has reached a level not seen since December of 2017.
Estimated hash rate just hit an all time high, surging above 70 EH/s. Difficulty just underwent one of the largest % increases in the modern era.
Fees remain a bit high but haven't yet reached the same rates as the 2014 bull run.
submitted by NotGonnaGetBanned to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin's 1MB Block Size Limit ‘Starting to Fade Away’, Data Shows

Bitcoin's 1MB Block Size Limit ‘Starting to Fade Away’, Data Shows submitted by Suberg to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin block size analysis using real data + future projection

Bitcoin block size analysis using real data + future projection submitted by ITwitchToo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

LongHash Releases New Shock Value Worthy Report on BTC vs Bitcoin Cash Block Size and Data

" The average block size of Bitcoin Cash has been 171 KB "

https://www.longhash.com/news/bitcoin-blocks-are-over-30x-larger-than-bitcoin-cash-blocks
submitted by suchwowe to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

LongHash Releases New Shock Value Worthy Report on BTC vs Bitcoin Cash Block Size and Data /r/Bitcoin

LongHash Releases New Shock Value Worthy Report on BTC vs Bitcoin Cash Block Size and Data /Bitcoin submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Data on Block Size Debate in /r/Bitcoin

UPDATE 5
SinnyCal has posted his own analysis...no data, just results and code. Self-proclaims he has "confirmed" sockpuppets but nearly everyone who was claimed to be one proves they aren't. Also he's weeks too late.
END
UPDATE 4
Bitcoin_Error_Log has paid the bounty! If everyone could give him a huge thank you, it'd be appreciated.
END
UPDATE 3
A new data set and analysis has arrived!
TL;DR: Same conclusion as me. No clear sockpuppeteering going on.
END
UPDATE 2
Since the Python pickle files were useless to everyone, I've uploaded a CSV of the 2nd run, and got rid of the first, since many people weren't happy with the amount of results.
There is also a CSV with 768 threads about block size from /Bitcoin.
You can find these in the Materials section.
Enjoy!
END
UPDATE
A second run was done. There are now 2467 suspects. Go to the bottom for code and data.
Difference from the first is we're no longer filtering by accounts from the last 6 months. We now track all accounts age pertaining to the submissions with certain keywords.
END
So because I'm not a statistician and I actually want this done properly for the greater good, I'm releasing the information I've scraped from this sub-reddit. Since each reddit comment take AT LEAST 1 second to fetch, it took like 12 hours to fetch the comment and submission data. More on that later.
Below is my methodology, links to code and data.
At first I wanted the whole she-bang of the bounty but I realized fuck it. Greed is going to fuck up results and we don't want that. I would be grateful to split the reward 50/50 with anyone or 3 ways or get ANYTHING for spending a day doing this.
I REPEAT THIS IS NOT AN ANALYSIS. I WANT YOU THE USERS OF /BITCOIN TO ANALYZE THE DATA FOR YOURSELVES.
I believe that's the only way we'll get a fair analysis.
Here we go!
Abstract:
As of writing there is a debate about increasing the size of blockchain blocks from 1MB to 20MB. /Bitcoin is a community on Reddit that acts as one of the many fronts of Bitcoin. There is suspicion that "astroturfing" or "sockpuppets" are being used to manipulate the readers of this sub-reddit. The goal of this analysis is to discover hints of manipulation occurring. A hybrid of automatic and manual data scrapping is used.
Method:
So the idea here is that if someone is using multiple accounts to upvote and comment, we'll see accounts with a high score but low presence. If the manipulator is trying to instill manipulation via commenting too, we should see many accounts with low presence and low score. Accounts are only tracked if their creation date is less than half a year ago today. There are no posts analyzed past June 10th 2015, the start date of the bounty.
Phase 1:
PRAW is used to fetch data from Reddit.
Every user is tracked for presence, score (both comments and posts), 1mb score and 20mb score.
Only submissions with "block size", "blocksize", "confirmation time", and "full block" are scraped.
Our sample size is approximately 1700 submissions, along with all their comments.
If the words "1" or "20" are mentioned in a post or comment, the counters for that user will increase by 1.
Phase 2:
After data has been scraped and sorted, we need users to check the users in the suspects list. Since a lot of data is still lost due to natural language, I think this is the next step to get more interesting data.
Limitations:
Reddit doesn't allow you to fetch data in a certain time frame. The only way to fetch data date-wise is to sort by "new", and then keep fetching data until you reach the date you want.
Our access to comments also significantly slows down the analyzing process, whereas to fetch 4000 or more submissions takes a fraction of time.
Issues:
I ran into a few issues while doing this. First was how the heck would I get the votes for a post? Well a user can publically expose what they up and down vote, but it is by default private, so that was a no go.
PRAW would also shit out on me because I was making too many requests to reddit or it would return something I totally didn't expect. After a few tries I got everything working though.
Lastly I didn't realize how much fucking time it would take. God it takes so long to scrape data from reddit. I was using one of my servers situated in New York so that definitely wasn't the problem - it was just reddit in general.
Material:
I've "signed" all the pastebin material with my BTC address. If you encounter a pastebin with the BTC address that DOESNT MATCH THE ONE IN THIS POST, IT HAS BEEN MODIFIED.
The data file material can't really be signed, but if it ever mysteriously goes down, comment and I can re-upload and update the link in this post. I've generated a SHA1 so you may verify.
Source code!
1st run: http://pastebin.com/KtkiTX8L
2nd run: http://pastebin.com/NqYKx5tH
Pretty printed data:
1st run: http://pastebin.com/w5G5v7U4
2nd run: http://pastebin.com/RsrQCqXX
CSV files for analysis:
1st run:
  • will generate upon request -
2nd run:
http://www.filedropper.com/suspects2
Block size threads:
http://www.filedropper.com/blocksizethreads_1
Early Conclusion
A quick glance at the data shows there appears to be no sockpuppet master or accounts. I trust the persistent users here in /Bitcoin will NOT TAKE MY WORD for it, and verify that.
A huge thanks to bitcoin_error_log for initiating a good bounty. This is how shit gets done.
BTC Address: 16KEqAbG3BonNM47A9hbQJWEgNpKqbTLPn
Peace out! BTC for life.
  • a bitcoin lover
submitted by _just_a_programmer_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Is Bitcoin's block size "empirically different" or "technically the same" as Bitcoin's block reward? [animated GIF visualizing real blockchain data]

Is Bitcoin's block size submitted by Peter__R to btc [link] [comments]

ELI5 or 6: Why is the Bitcoin full block issue being addressed by increasing the block size rather than increasing the block frequency, which would increase transaction data throughput while simultaneously reducing confirmation time?

ELI5 or 6: Why is the Bitcoin full block issue being addressed by increasing the block size rather than increasing the block frequency, which would increase transaction data throughput while simultaneously reducing confirmation time? submitted by Barkey_McButtstain to btc [link] [comments]

ELI5 or Six: Why is the Bitcoin full block issue being addressed by increasing the block size rather than increasing the block frequency, which would increase transaction data throughput while simultaneously reducing confirmation time?

ELI5 or Six: Why is the Bitcoin full block issue being addressed by increasing the block size rather than increasing the block frequency, which would increase transaction data throughput while simultaneously reducing confirmation time? submitted by Barkey_McButtstain to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin's 1MB Block Size Limit Starting to Fade Away, Data Shows

Bitcoin's 1MB Block Size Limit Starting to Fade Away, Data Shows submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

"To those arguing that Bitcoin Core fees are no longer "through the roof". It only reached this point because you destroyed your user base with an artificial 1MB block size limit. The data speaks for itself - transactions/block down to 2 year lows with dominance at all time lows."

submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

The reason that increasing the block size isn't a magic "fix it" button is Tragedy of the Commons: infinite throughput means that people will start using the network for data messages and other such unintended uses and clog the blockchain for everyone else /r/Bitcoin

The reason that increasing the block size isn't a magic submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

ELI5 or Six: Why is the Bitcoin full block issue being addressed by increasing the block size rather than increasing the block frequency, which would increase transaction data throughput while simultaneously reducing confirmation time? /r/Bitcoin

ELI5 or Six: Why is the Bitcoin full block issue being addressed by increasing the block size rather than increasing the block frequency, which would increase transaction data throughput while simultaneously reducing confirmation time? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

poll: what's the best block-size/security tradeoff? too small reduces reachable users vs huge security slips towards data-centre only validation: too centralised already, 2-4MB (segwit+lightning), 4-8MB (HF/ext-blocks), 8-32MB (big onchain now) /r/Bitcoin

poll: what's the best block-size/security tradeoff? too small reduces reachable users vs huge security slips towards data-centre only validation: too centralised already, 2-4MB (segwit+lightning), 4-8MB (HF/ext-blocks), 8-32MB (big onchain now) /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

ELI5 or 6: Why is the Bitcoin full block issue being addressed by increasing the block size rather than increasing the block frequency, which would increase transaction data throughput while simultaneously reducing confirmation time? /r/btc

ELI5 or 6: Why is the Bitcoin full block issue being addressed by increasing the block size rather than increasing the block frequency, which would increase transaction data throughput while simultaneously reducing confirmation time? /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Is Bitcoin's block size "empirically different" or "technically the same" as Bitcoin's block reward? [animated GIF visualizing real blockchain data]

Is Bitcoin's block size submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin block size analysis using real data + future projection

Bitcoin block size analysis using real data + future projection submitted by coincrazyy to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

"Blockstream and CoreDevs ruined Bitcoin BTC. The blockchain doesn't scale. Liquid is bugged (or has backdoors as you prefer). LN is bugged. Segwit made everything more complex and already found buggy. This is why BCH exists: BCH is Bitcoin without bloating and corruption".

submitted by ojjordan78 to btc [link] [comments]

Oh yeahhh =D

Oh yeahhh =D submitted by Luckynumba2 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Roger Ver is Not Ready to Exit BCH (but wants to use his voice to improve it)

Roger Ver is Not Ready to Exit BCH (but wants to use his voice to improve it) submitted by Sadbitcoiner to btc [link] [comments]

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Big Blocks Can Scale  But Will It Centralize Bitcoin? Let's Talk Bitcoin! #217 The Bitcoin Block Size Discussion Bitcoin Q&A Block capacity and embedded data Bitcoin Q&A: Block capacity and embedded data 10 Simple Techniques For How to Invest in Bitcoin - NerdWallet

The Bitcoin block size limit is a parameter in the Bitcoin protocol that limits the size of Bitcoin blocks, and, therefore, the number of transactions that can be confirmed on the network approximately every 10 minutes. The size of the Bitcoin blockchain has experienced consistently high levels of growth since its creation, reaching approximately 269.82 gigabytes in size as of the end of March 2020. Originally, Bitcoin's block size was limited by the number of database locks required to process it (at most 10000). This limit was effectively around 500-750k in serialized bytes, and was forgotten until 2013 March. In 2010, an explicit block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin Reward Data via Bitcoin Block Reward. Network. The Bitcoin network is surprisingly simplistic in its design. Satoshi took this section to layout the exact flow of the network. In this way, BTC could operate similarly to the stock market in that people could see the transaction size and direction but would be unable to determine the Each block bundles transactions together, ready for miners to mine. Once the Bitcoin block is mined, the transactions complete and the waiting payments finish processing. In the very early days, Bitcoin blocks were limited to 36MB transaction data. However, in 2010, the Bitcoin block size decreased to 1MB per block.

[index] [64] [25528] [22897] [21671] [5989] [16023] [7555] [19881] [13255] [25729]

Big Blocks Can Scale But Will It Centralize Bitcoin?

Bitcoin Q&A: Scaling and the block size debate - Duration: 4:46. aantonop 13,705 views. 4:46. How to Repair a DEAD Computer - Duration: 37:05. CareyHolzman Recommended for you. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) notably forked off from BTC in 2017, debating larger block sizes as the answer, while other camps looked toward second-layer solutions, such as the Lightning Network , as a ... Stephanie, Andreas and Adam speak first with Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist Gavin Andresen about the Bitcoin Block Size debate, where it came from, why it matters and what he thinks we should ... When the halving occurs in May 2020, the block reward will halve, or reduce by half, which will give miners 6.25 BTC of newly minted bitcoin per validated block. The debate which caused the creation of BCH had to do with the problem of scalability; the Bitcoin network has a stringent limit on the size of blocks: one megabyte (MB). BCH increases the block...

Flag Counter