In order for bitcoin to reach its potential as a technology, scaling the current blocksize needs to occur within the near future. Hardly anyone is in disagreement that the bitcoin blocksize needs to be increased. Yet, what we are currently seeing in the bitcoin community today, as the blocksize debate rages on, is a dispute about what users envision the bitcoin payment system to become in the months and years ahead. In this article, we will examine the recently proposed BitcoinXT fork (BIP101), and how exactly developers should proceed in scaling the bitcoin technology with adherence to its inventor’s original vision – an apolitical, distributed consensus system.

BitcoinXT: Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 101

A hard fork of the bitcoin protocol would carry dramatic implications. One of which would be an incompatible division of blockchain records. Because we are dealing with a protocol technology for the transfer of value, in this scenario it is winner takes all. If a split in the blockchain would occur, one would absorb the entirety of the network purchasing power while the other would be sapped of all relevance. This is a scenario which should be avoided at all costs simply because the alternatives that exist for accomplishing the same end (achieving scalability of the bitcoin payment system) are numerous and less of a security risk.

Putting into effect BIP101 would result in an increase to 8MB after January 11, 2016. In order to gain consensus, the number of nodes running the bitcoinxt client would need to reach a supermajority of 75%. After that point, there would be a 2 week window to transition to the new fork as the old blockchain becomes incompatible with bitcoinxt. From there, the blocksize limit is set to increase linearly to a maximum of 8GB in 2036. Once started, the block limit doubling schedule cannot be stopped until 8Gb is reached.

Visa currently has a transaction processing capability of 50,000 per second. If this 8GB blocksize were to be instantiated, then bitcoin would potentially be able to compete with the likes of traditional payment systems, but is that what it has been originally designed for?

If Bitcoin comes to depend on bureaucrats rather than protocol, you might as well use Visa. They know how to do that far better.

Nick Szabo, August 21, 2015

The current blocksize limit stands at 1MB – a limit which carries with it the risk of transaction backlogging and reducing the overall effectiveness of the payment system as previous patterns of growth are expected to continue. As we have seen in years past, the largest periods of user growth tend to be seasonal and happen in the winter months. Currently, the bitcoin network is operating at 30% of this capacity. If we remain at the current blocksize, we can expect problems to arise in 2 – 8 months due to the constraints on transaction throughput. In a situation where the transaction queue becomes backlogged, you can expect payment confirmations to become less reliable, as each node would require more memory to process this growing list of delayed transactions.

In the event of the blocksize limit being hit consistently, with confirmations times becoming an issue, emergency limit increases are something which can be implemented quite seamlessly. This type of software adjust has already been demonstrated reasonably well. If the transaction backlog becomes large enough, the network will suffer over-saturation and larger fees will be needed to confirm new transactions in a reasonable time frame. Therefore, with a few caveats, the tradeoff between urgently switching to bitcoinxt and waiting for more time to come to a consensus on a more robust and ideologically-aligned consensus is between absorbing the risks of a hard fork and temporarily tolerating higher fees and transaction bloating. Eventually, the blocksize needs to be increased, but rushing to implement a new proposal may prove to be the most callous decision over the long term.

BitcoinXT Nodes

BitcoinXT Nodes to Other Nodes as of August 22st, 2015

Bitcoin Is Not a Purely Public Good

Higher transaction fees due to transaction bloating are technically possible today. Yet, wallet providers have not developed the infrastructure necessary to operate a market mechanism where the software is capable of predicting how much a user would need to spend in order to have their payment confirmed in a particular span of time. Although most everyone would like to use a completely free payment system, the economic realities of doing so do not align with decentralization.

When block space is readily available, miners suffer from a “tragedy of the commons” problem in which the only rational behaviour is to accept all transactions, no matter how small the fee. With scarcity, however, there’s suddenly a competitive market for block space. Those paying fees may not appreciate the extra costs, but a transition to a system that allows mining fees to become a larger fraction of mining income is actually a good thing for the long term security of the network.

– David Hudson, Bitcoin Traffic Bulletin

If users are to favor permissionless, decentralized payment networks, they must be willing to pay for such a service. In the case of bitcoin, there seems to be an underlying misconception that it represents a pure public good, much like the internet protocols of TCP/IP. In the case of bitcoin, this is not so similar. Because the bitcoin network is largely non-excludable, yet a rivalrous mining environment exists, we can see that this utility represents a publicly provided private good – one where pay-for-performance is implemented into the system by default. Bitcoin is not a purely public good because it incorporates the rivalrous relationships of miners and user competing for transaction confirmations (based on less or more of a transaction fee). Aiming to mold bitcoin into a pure public good with the attributes of instant transactions and negligible fees is a disservice to its inventor(s) because they aimed first and foremost for an trustless, consensus system. Increasing the blocksize reduces the economic incentives for decentralization.

The tradeoff is clear: convenience comes with the cost of centralization while decentralization comes with the cost of a rivalrous, pay-for-performance system. Pick your poison.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms.

– Satoshi Nakamoto, July 2010

A Disagreement of Ideologies

What the debate around bitcoin is currently focused on is not what is sustainable or how urgent the need to increase the blocksize is. The debate is around what the precise use case of bitcoin is – an ideological crisis, not an engineering crisis. A vision crisis, not a management crisis. Herein lies the rub – it is the users who must decide which direction they want the development of bitcoin to proceed. Do they want near-instant transaction confirmations and lower fees? Or do they want an incorruptible digital ledger to which they can entrust their wealth?

Is bitcoin destined to become a competitor to VISA and MasterCard? Something with which we can use to pay for everything from small retail purchases to large one-time payments?

Introduction of Tor Blacklisting

One of the less talked about implications of bitcoinxt is that the implementation would add the ability to block Tor exit nodes – something which is highly controversial among a userbase who place a high priority on privacy. This is contrary to previous implementation of not revealing any IP information. Certainly, nodes could opt to use a VPN. However, the stated reason for implementing blacklists (mitigation of DDoS attacks) is a thinly veiled front for making the system less private overall).

Final Word

If bitcoin were hard forked with BIP101, there would be no option to revert from an eventual 8,192MB blocksize by the year 2036 except through another fork in the protocol.

Bitcoin technology enthusiasts and core developers need more time to come to a consensus on the best course of action for scaling the payment network in a responsible and ideological manner. In doing so, they can retain the robustness of the technology while allowing the blocksize to scale with adherence to the core principles of decentralization and privacy.

Combined with the slippery slope of blacklisting certain nodes which grant improved privacy, consenting on BIP101 is a step in the direction of bitcoin becoming a more controlled and centralized form of money. Bitcoin needs to be scaled up via increasing the blocksize. However, there is no immediate urgency. Bloating the network is far better than forking the technology with a risky implementation. BIP101 is not the long-term solution.


Travis Patron

Travis Patron is the author of The Bitcoin Revolution: An Internet of Money, a seminal publication in the digital money space which outlines the basics of the bitcoin payment system. As a public speaking authority, he regularly speaks to audiences on the economics & industry trends of bitcoin.

Read More

  • Reply

    Django Blockchained

    24 08 2015

    You start with this “its inventor’s original vision – an apolitical, distributed consensus system.” but I never read this from Satoshi (unless you think the 2015 satoshi is real). Bitcoin is a distributed consensus system but first of all Bitcoin is “A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”. For me it’s clear that bitcoin very first goal was to replace cash. Even if BIP 101 is not sufficient and even if we have to find more solutions to scale it, a cash system is supposed to buy you a coffee. We need bigger blocks. Now.

    • Reply

      Travis Patron

      24 08 2015

      I agree that the blocksize needs to be scaled up soon. I do not think the person(s) currently posing as Satoshi Nakamoto are legitimate.

      The whole debate boils down to an ideological argument, and I believe bitcoin is about alleviating the individual from economy tyranny rather than a convenient, fee-less method with which to make transactions.

      People, around the world, deserve an incorruptible financial record. That’s what the base layer of the blockchain should, and currently does, represent.

      If we hold fast and focus on sustainable development which does not pose a massive security risk (such as a BIP101 fork), we will have applications built on top of the main blockchain which will support payments made at the speed of thought. The economies of scale of larger block sizes incentive centralization whilst increasing the hurdles for new nodes. This is a function you do not want the protocol layer to serve because the only way to organize the miners would be in a far more centralized manner than today.

      BitcoinXT is less about advancing the technology of bitcoin, and more about claiming authoritative decision making ability through contentious fork. We do not need dictators vulnerable to infiltration. We need leaders with the ability to rally the core developers.

  • Reply


    24 08 2015

    > After that point, there would be a 2 week window

    I know Gavin once described it as “2 weeks after supermajority first reached” but that’s not what the Bitcoin-XT code does. It simply checks if 750 of the last 1,000 blocks was Bitcoin-XT, but no earlier than January 11, 2016.

  • Reply

    Scott R

    25 08 2015

    This article is very misleading, but more importantly, it is actually a very misinformed article. Full response from a fellow Redditor here:

    • Reply

      David Dire

      26 08 2015

      The article isn’t misinformed, yours however, is based on fluffing and not really having understood the article you’re supposedly rebuffing, or dealing with its points.

      ‘The author seems almost hostile to the idea of Bitcoin scaling to the level of a worldwide payment network. He makes it sound like a silly notion.’

      I’m not sure where you get that from. The author suggests it’s an ideological choice based on whether you are for a decentralized network that values privacy, or a worldwide network payment system that can match Visa and Co. Yet is less private and less decentralized,

      The majority of your XT fluff (and I’m still going neutral on XT/Core debate at present) talks about miners and profits, as this is your focus and the majority of pro XT users’ focus, and in doing so you fail to realize you have proved the authors point of ideology Vs other (read: money.)

      Whereas it is undoubtedly true miners have (some) autonomy, you fail to appreciate that many users of the network are using it for, in part, the decentralization & privacy aspect. No users, no network. It’s quite simple. Users can vote with their feet, which if they stay with core, means there is economic incentive for miners to continue running core.

      We’re still at a stage where even the basic user has enough know how to stay on the core chain if they so wish.

      It’s entirely possible for two chains to exist, and this still might happen. Miners can run core and XT clients, which with this split between commercialism Vs Ideology, there may very well be.

      One other major point that neither article mentions that I’d like to add, is that any coins mined pre 75% consensus (if it reaches consensus) will effectively be able to be spent on both chains as long as the user retains their own private keys. And there are a fair few of us who are going to do this.

      In view of retaining value in this case, the polarizing argument/choice leads to binary win/lose results, whereas neutrality leads to 100% no loss, unless of course both chains die, which is the least likely scenario of the three possibilities.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *