A Bevy of Block Size Proposals
Dec. 2015

High Level Concerns• Actively addressing technical scaling issues — good
• Deferring economics and game theory issues — not good
• FOMC Problem: Humans pick block size (= choose economics)• vs Free Market problems: block size poorly chosen• Centralization on low end and high end• Defeats security and privacy of system• Where is a healthy fee market?
• Is the algorithm easy to manipulate (game)?
• Little field data on hard forks — just theories & predictions• Signaling bitcoin growth to external parties, current bitcoin users• Predictability of block size and fee market, from user PoV• Miners mining without validating (SPV mining)• Miners can soft-fork into block size reduction

Average Block Size - Past 2 years

Average Block Size - Past 180 days

Fee Market• User Experience• Fees are very difficult to reason and predict, by design• Fees disconnected from transaction value - size-based• High fee might result in long wait; no guarantee of next block• 4 choices: ASAP, average, below average, long wait
• Fee market status, changes, economics, market reaction• Fee market exists in narrow band based on dumb wallet software
fee behavior + miner latency• Scenario: Full blocks + block size change• Scenario: Not-full blocks + block size change• Large block size step reboots fee market

BIP 100 - Summary• Theme: “Shift block size from devs to free market”• Limit floats between 1M and 32M• Training wheels - more hard forks required to move beyond• Default growth: 1.09% per diff period (100% every 2.5 years)• “Slow motion miner vote”• Continuous 3-window voting window• At each 2wk diff period, new size from last 3 months’ coinbases• Blocksize: Examine 90th percentile of votes, take average• Limit may not increase or decrease more than 1.2x in one period• Activation: Flag day X, after which miner voting is examined

BIP 100 - Analysis & Feedback• Analysis• Shifts block size selection to free market• Avoids anointing devs as new FOMC
• Miners have input on fee income• Community Feedback• Gives miners have too much control• Miners can sell votes costlessly• Limit increase too large (addressed)

BIP 101 - Summary• Theme: “Predictable growth”• Immediate jump to 8M• Double every 2 years• Activation: 750 of 1,000 blocks indicate support, + 2 week grace

BIP 101 - Analysis & Feedback• Analysis• Predictable• No free market sensitivity• Fee market significantly postponed• Feedback• Big size bump
• Appears larger than current consensus• Community reaction to Bitcoin-XT (not BIP 101)
• Community reaction: Open letters tossed back & forth

BIP 103 - Summary• Theme: Block size following technological growth• Increase size by 4.4% every 97 days (17.7% growth/year)• Activation: Jan 1, 2017 (1.5 years away)

BIP 103 - Analysis & Feedback• Analysis• Predictable• No free market sensitivity• Fee market sooner• Feedback• Sparse community feedback• Way too small an increase• Another hard fork likely required to adapt system• Activation in 2017 too far away

BIP 105 - Summary• Theme: Consensus based block size retargeting• Start at 1M• Miners vote to +/- block size by maximum of 10% per diff period• Miners vote by providing proportionally larger block hash target• Activation: Not specified

BIP 105 - Analysis & Feedback• Analysis• Shifts block size selection to free market• Avoids anointing devs as new FOMC
• Miners have input on fee income• Community Feedback• Very little feedback• Pay-with-difficulty skews incentives, difficult for miners to reason
Honorable mention: Pay-to-future-miner (Meni R.)

BIP 106 - Summary• Theme: Dynamically controlled block size max cap• Variant #1:• Per diff period; first 2000 blocks of diff period examined.
• If 90% of blocks higher than 90% full, block size 2x• If 90% of blocks less than 50% full, block size 1/2• Otherwise, no change• Variant #2:• Examine last 2 diff periods• Formula to complex to fit on slide :)• If TX fee pressure increases, increase block size
• Activation: not specified

BIP 106 - Analysis & Feedback• Analysis• Shifts block size selection to free market• Avoids anointing devs as new FOMC
• Community Feedback• Sparse community feedback• Variant #1• Huge steps• Easily gamed• Variant #2:• More interesting• Encoded economics of “too much fee pressure”

BIP 102 - Summary• Theme: “The Backup Plan”• One-time bump to 2M• Activation: Flag day X, with non-binding miner voting

BIP 102 - Analysis & Feedback• Analysis• Intended as backup option, vs. other BIPs
• Conservative, vis block size limit• Conservative, vis block size algorithm• Conservative method of obtaining hard fork field data
• Highly predictable (“always 2M”)
• No free market sensitivity• Feedback• 2M seems generally acceptable• Does not avoid “FOMC problem” (humans picking numbers)• Requires another hard fork to move beyond

BIP 248* - Summary• Theme: “2-4-8”• 2M now• 4M in 2 yrs• 8M in 4yrs

• Activation: Flag day X + non-binding miner voting (presumed)*Not an official BIP number; as proposed by Adam Back

BIP 248* - Analysis & Feedback• Analysis• Conservative, vis block size limit• Conservative, vis block size algorithm• Conservative method of obtaining hard fork field data
• Highly predictable• No free market sensitivity• Feedback• Seems generally acceptable• Does not avoid “FOMC problem” (humans picking numbers)• Requires another hard fork to move beyond

BIP 000 - Summary• Theme: Keep current block size - 1M - until change is“obviously necessary”• Keep current block size limit• Keep node count decline rate at current levels

BIP 000 - Analysis & Feedback• Analysis• Maximally conservative - for the moment; no hard fork.
• Current working system keeps working (until blocks are full)• Feedback• Goes against economic majority of bitcoin businesses & miners• Once blocks are full,• Radical change to more-adversarial, zero-sum system• Radical change to fee market - users priced out of system• Wallet software poorly prepared - poor UX• No apparent growth plan to outsiders -> avoid bitcoin altogether• Crisis based change gives users more unpredictable system• No data gathered on hard fork until crisis• Centralization at low end

Recommendations

Personal thoughts and recommendations:• Speaking only for myself — vendor hats off.
• “Small bump now” — Gather crucial field data, for future changes• “The Internet is the best test lab in the world”• Plan now, code now, activate in T+6 months• Economic consensus wants to push beyond 1M• Technical consensus: Beyond 2M is risky today• BIP 000 do-nothing approach worst of all options• Very poor future signaling to users, future users, market• Seems likely to fracture bitcoin• Unresolved: How much fee is too much?
• Unresolved: Who decides how much fee is too much?

Thank You!
Jeff@Bloq.com