Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic MaxBlockSize - 3 Byte Solution

[ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>]

Several days late, I would like to add my NACK here.

* The actual fees paid to miners are not in fact known.
  Miners may accept side fees that are not explicitly visible on the block, and miners may pad their blocks with faked self-paying transactions.
  Further, such side fees and faked transactions do not modify the economic assumptions of Bitcoin.
  * Mining fees are simply an anonymity technique: what is material economically is that miners are paid for confirming transactions, thus side fees are perfectly fine when considering economic incentives of Bitcoin mining.
  * Without this proposed mechanism, padding blocks with faked self-paying transactions is self-destructive behavior for miners, as the transaction takes up space that cannot be used for actually-paying transactions.
  * However, by computing only using the explicit fees on the block (and not the actual fees that miners actually get), various additional games can be played by miners.
    Such games make considering the overall security of mining much harder and we may end up with worse security due to misaligned incentives, including encouraging miners to pad blocks with faked transactions (which otherwise is discouraged by the current protocol).
* Scaling means getting more impact for less resource consumption.
  ***All*** block size increases are getting more impact for ***more*** resource consumption, thus not scaling.


> Dynamic MaxBlockSize  - 3 Byte Solution
> "DMBS"
>
> If
> (Last TOTAL Block Trans fees)  >  (AVG (Last 100 Blocks Trans Fees))
> AND
> current MaxBlockSize  => 0.99 MB  
> AND
> MaxBlockSize has not changed in 10 Blocks
> ** see error catch below
> Then  
> ON (Current Block #  + 9)  Set MaxBlockSize  = (MaxBlockSize x 1.1)
> ELSE  
> AT (Current Block #  + 9)  Set MaxBlockSize  = (MaxBlockSize  / 1.1)
> ELSEIF
> (current MaxBlockSize  =< 0.99  or current MaxBlockSize > 6553.5 MB)
> Null (no action taken)
> **where 9 above represents the ActivateONBlock (software side) Variable
>  -------------
> We add this 3 Byte Variable Factor to the white space in the Current Block.
>
> eg.  this 3 byte HEX    19000A
> the first bit "1"  can be 1,2 or 0    
> 1  =  increase future block (9 blocks ahead)
> 2  decrease future block  (9 blocks ahead)
> 0    No Action (rules evaluate to null)
> **where 9 above represents the ActivateONBlock (software side) Variable
> --------------
> The Second bit is a Global Variable "9" represents a countdown to the set value action, placed to synchronize network forward  changes in "x" blocks. software lowers value if evaluates to True a second time  and so on. 
> ("Count down" if you will)
> the last 2 bytes represent  the globally accepted "MaxBlockSize" Variable, and is distributed within each block moving forward in this rightmost (2 byte) factor.  In this case above,
> The variable portion  "000A" (32 Bit value) represents decimal value 10 being 1.0 MB block.
> the decimal place is Always Assumed, and must be hard coded
> Because this presents a  theoretical  Max limit of "FFFF"  or 6553.5 MB, We would
> have to add a last rule "only as a error catch"
>  ** AND IF MaxBlockSize < 6553.5
> ---
> Increasing and decreasing
> On Every Block mined or distributed, the software can run the above rule set, Change the Variable and Distribute the next block " In Synchronized fashion". The above rules when combined evaluate to a YES or NO, This translates to a market reflection of increased system pressure or decreased market pressure.   I think we can agree, at peak periods the system chokes itself off with fees and this is always only temporarily.  So we can have the block, analyse system demand dynamically, and adjust on a globally agreed rule dynamically by market driven demand.
> Considering the ruleset above also Decreases  the Block ONLY if its greater than 0.99mb this brings size back to a competitive state /and size once market demand pressures subside, yet achieves the smallest market feasible block size while also maintaining all current rule sets.
>  An attacker would have to affect all block fees over the last 16 hours worth of transactions to affect a 10% max block size increase but then only after waiting 1.5 hours, so long as nothing has changed in the last 1.5 hours and only for a limited amount of time. This approach also limits bloat. This safety block window of 9 blocks provides a look forward and look behind value, in turn provides the network time to synchronize.
> 10 block sync window.  This, by design, also limits changes to one change  every 3 hours (20 blocks), if there is a market pressure "STATE" occurring.
> My Question to the community is. Will our current Block accommodate the 3 Byte
> Variable, Is solving the Scaling issue worth using the 3 Bytes of space?  
> I believe it is.  
> --
> Software,  Will need  to Evaluate MaxBlockSize Variable, and ActivateONBlock Variable from the most recent distributed blocks DMBS  3 byte value.
> Run the rules , get the answer set the now known MaxBlockSize Var and Propegate the "DMBS" value.
>
> As capacity limits are breached, I think the majority agree "we need to agree".  
>
> MaxBlockSize would provide a suitable middle ground and address concerns in a dynamic fashion, without compromising  or changing  existing security.   
>  Examples reflected in the blockchain 19000A   rules has evaluates to  true, increase expected in 9 blocks.1.0mb increases to 1.1mb
> if true for 9 more blocks  MaxBlockSize Var becomes  18000A.. 17000A..,16000A ..and so on if  still true at 10000A var written becomes 
> 00000B when read from left to right,  0-no change, in 0 blocks current " DMBS" value 000B or 1.1MB  and stays that way  00000B until MaxBlockSize  evaluates to "True" under a market pressure/ relief situation. 
> I hope this makes sense, I would appreciate some feedback. 
> TG