カテゴリーアーカイブ: Technical

Is It Time to Take an Initiative to Decrease Bitcoin’s Block Size Seriously?


Whilst debate raged throughout the Bitcoin community over whether the block size limit should be increased and how, Luke-jr for years stood out for arguing the exact opposite position. One megabyte blocks weren’t too small, he maintained even as SegWit’s block size increase gained broad support, they were too big. No increase, but a decrease was needed.

Now, the Bitcoin Knots and Bitcoin Core developer is spearheading an attempt to make such a decrease happen, as a temporary measure. And if social media is any indication, the initiative is attracting more interest than many might have expected it would.

“I don’t know if the proposal will be adopted or not, but support has been growing due to the block size becoming more and more apparently a problem,” Luke-jr told Bitcoin Magazine.

Block Size Decrease

Of course, the arguments for decreasing the block size limit are similar to the by now oft-repeated arguments against increasing the block size limit. In short, bigger blocks add to the cost of running a node (making it more expensive for users to enforce the protocol rules), could increase mining centralization (risking censorship resistance), and reduces fee pressure (translating into less hash power security).

The most pressing problem of these, for Luke-jr, is the cost of running a full node. This is perhaps best exemplified by the time it takes to initially sync such a node. Getting up to speed with the rest of the network can take days even on modern laptops with a good internet connection.

“Users acting on that cost by simply choosing not to run a full node is a problem,” Luke-jr said. “When someone does finally attack Bitcoin, it will split the network — full node users on one chain, and light wallet users on the other.”

In case of such a broad scale attack on light wallet users, “a New York Agreement-in-secret,” Luke-jr envisions a worst-case scenario where these users would rather continue to use the invalid chain they’d been defaulting to since the attack, instead of switching back to the original chain.

“Which side prevails inevitably depends on the economic pressure of users of each chain. If most people are using light wallets, then full node users will lose out, and the invalid chain effectively becomes simply a hard fork to Bitcoin,” he argued, leaving little room for nuance. “That means all protocol rules are open to change, including the ones that forbid inflation, theft, etcetera.”

Following Luke-jr’s reasoning, Bitcoin is well into the danger zone already, as relatively few users rely on full nodes to accept payments. And it may be getting worse. Bitcoin’s blockchain grows each day, and while Moore’s Law and similar trends of computational improvements negate the associated problems with this growth to an extent, the Bitcoin Knots lead maintainer thinks technological progress is not yet keeping up. (It’s no exact science, but the drop in reachable node count over the past year could suggest that the blockchain size is indeed becoming a problem for more users — then again this node count is up over the past two years.)

On the flip side, the main argument against smaller blocks is that it would limit the number of transactions the Bitcoin network would be able process, which increases fee pressure, and could out-price certain use cases. (Instead of running full nodes, users may opt to rely on custodial services to save on fees, arguably making matters worse — not better.)

But with the development of the Lightning Network making noticeable progress, proponents of a block size limit decrease believe this downside is largely mitigated. Users would be incentivized to migrate to the overlay network for fast and cheap transactions, furthering its growth and taking the load off Bitcoin’s blockchain at the same time.

The Plan

As the initiative is still in its early stages, it’s not yet set in stone what the potential block size decrease would look like, exactly. Even the desired limit isn’t settled on, though it would most likely be brought down from the current theoretical maximum of almost four megabytes to a theoretical maximum of two or less. (This would, in reality, result in even smaller blocks; closer to one megabyte.) However, if this were to be achieved, the measure would be designed not to be permanent, so that an increase back to the current limit wouldn’t be too difficult later on.

There are at least three rough ideas of how a block size decrease could be achieved.

The most notable proposal is a user-activated soft fork (UASF), similar to BIP148, the initiative to trigger SegWit activation in 2017. On the same date as two years ago, August 1, users would enforce the stricter rules for five months, incentivizing miners to comply. If a majority of miners (by hash power) go along, even non-upgraded users would remain compatible with the new rules; they’d just see smaller blocks than previously allowed. A UASF is a risky strategy, however. If less than half of all miners go along, the blockchain could “split” between upgraded and non-upgraded users.

Alternatively, miners could impose a smaller block size limit themselves as a soft cap. Soft caps are non-binding limits that miners put on the blocks they mine and were used particularly throughout the first years of Bitcoin’s existence. (Past soft caps were consecutively 250, 500 and 750 kilobytes, as recommended by Bitcoin developers.) This would be a much safer solution but would require that miners reject transactions and, thus, leave transaction fees on the table for each block they mine.

As a third option, proposed by Luke-jr, Bitcoin users could limit the size of blocks by making their transactions artificially “heavy.” Under Bitcoin’s protocol rules, these transactions would be counted as if they were larger than they actually are, which means blocks would fill up faster with less actual transaction data. This change wouldn’t require any protocol changes; wallets could offer it today. These transactions do, however, require individual users to choose to “overpay” on fees relative to regular transactions. (That’s assuming miners act economically rationally and charge extra to include these transactions.)

Block Size Debate Fatigue

Some notable proponents of Luke-jr’s initiative include Bitrefill CCO John Carvalho, Block Digest cohost Shinobi and JoinMarket developer Chris Belcher. Yet all of them would only want to go through with the effort if it gains broad backing. That also goes for Luke-jr himself: “Soft forks like this need a lot of community support,” he said.

But so far, support within the Bitcoin community appears to range from lukewarm (no pun intended) to skeptical to outright dismissive. Other than Luke-jr, no regular Bitcoin Core contributors have thrown their weight behind the proposal and no Bitcoin company of note has stated support; and while the proposal is generating a bit of buzz on social media and in chat rooms, a majority of commenters still seems to reject the idea.

Even many of those who agree that a decrease would be a technical improvement in and of itself don’t believe it would make too much of a difference. If blocks are smaller for several months or even several years, Bitcoin’s blockchain size will still be large. Whether tomorrow’s new users need to sync two days or three days may not be the deciding factor in whether to use a full node or not. Besides, there are other solutions that could make running a full node more attractive, some of which may well have much more effect. (Though, as Luke-jr points out, none of these solutions exclude also decreasing the block size limit.)

What’s more, years of in-fighting has made the Bitcoin community wary of commencing another block size battle and dealing with all the controversy that comes with it. After a long-fought “civil war,” there appears to be little appetite to invest more time and energy in reviving the struggle on the same parameter — thereby, quite possibly, draining any momentum from the initiative even before it gets well underway.

Indeed, even Luke-jr himself doubts he’ll be the one carrying the initiative to the finish line this time.

“Although I may be the only one popularly pushing it — I don’t have time to champion another BIP148, I fear,” he said, noting how exhausting the previous UASF attempt was. “I think the only way it will happen is if the community takes the lead on it.”

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Neutrino: A Privacy-Preserving Light Wallet Protocol

Neutrino: A Privacy Preserving Light Wallet Protocol

Lightning is all the rage these days and, while it’s an exciting development, users currently have to have a full node running in order to transact in it. In this article, I’m going to introduce Neutrino, a new protocol for light clients to get the data that they need while preserving privacy and without trusting a central server.

A Little History

In the original white paper written in 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto described something called Simplified Payment Verification (SPV). SPV is how a light node can verify payments without downloading, verifying or storing the entire blockchain. This was supposed to be the basis of light wallets. Unfortunately, the original Bitcoin Core software did not implement Simplified Payment Verification, so light clients did not have access to the data necessary to do SPV in a privacy-preserving way.

In 2013, BIP0037 was added to Bitcoin Core to make SPV viable. BIP0037 created network commands to make the Simplified Payment Verification possible for light nodes to do. Light nodes could now ask for proof that a particular transaction happened in a particular block. That way, light nodes wouldn’t have to trust servers but could actually verify the data being given to them.

To achieve this, the light client gives the server a filter. The server then runs the filter over all the transactions of a new block and reports back those transactions, along with proof that they’re in the block, to the client. The client then verifies the proof and looks at the transactions to see if any of them belong to the wallet.

Unfortunately, BIP0037 has a few drawbacks. Among others, it was seen as being difficult to implement and most light wallets have opted to use something else. The Electrum wallet, for example, uses its own proprietary protocol which isn’t privacy-preserving. The Mycelium wallet calls servers that the Mycelium company runs. In addition, there are denial-of-service vectors (by having to run lots of filters) to exploit servers that respond to BIP0037 requests.

Furthermore, the privacy aspects of BIP0037 turned out to not be as strong as was thought. It turns out the server can know a lot about the light wallet (like what balance it might have, whom its transacting with, possibly even what it’s buying) by looking for certain kinds of patterns.

As a result, BIP0037 has largely fallen into disuse, despite being in the Core software since 2013.

What Is Neutrino?

Neutrino is a protocol to verify payments, except this time, the bulk of the work is done on the client side. Instead of the server filtering transactions for the client, now all the transactions belonging to a block (technically ScriptPubKeys corresponding to each input and output except the OP_RETURN outputs) are compressed and sent to the client. It’s now the client’s job to figure out if any of the transactions are ones it has transacted in. If any of the transactions are relevant to the wallet, the client then requests the full block to verify the transactions.

It turns out that the compression can be pretty impressive. A normal block is around 1.4MB, but by compressing it (technically, hashing each ScriptPubKey to 64 bits), each block produces about 20KB of super-compressed data per block. Since this super-compressed block is the same for every light client, this removes the denial-of-service vulnerability for the server. This also means that the server gets no special information about the light client other than what blocks it wants to look at, meaning that there are much fewer privacy leaks.


Of course, by adding privacy, we do have some trade-offs to consider. First, there’s more data being sent back and forth. While 1.4MB to 20KB is a pretty large reduction in bandwidth, BIP0037 allowed an even bigger reduction as servers only transmitted about 3KB of data for blocks where there were transactions the wallet participated in and only 80 bytes for blocks without such transactions. Assuming about one transaction per day, that’s about 100 bytes per block overall for BIP0037, which means Neutrino is more expensive from a bandwidth standpoint.

Further, there is more validation to do on the client side as the client now has to do additional verification to prove that the data sent by the server is true.

Privacy is preserved while looking for transactions that the wallet has participated in. Usually, these are transactions where the wallet is receiving money. For sending money, however, Neutrino doesn’t really help and there are a lot of privacy concerns there still (though Tor and Dandelion can help).

Lastly, there is likely going to have to be a new commitment to the coinbase transaction of each block to facilitate Neutrino, which would require a soft fork.

What This Means for You

It turns out that Neutrino is not just useful for Bitcoin wallets, it’s also useful for Lightning. Setting up a Lightning node is currently difficult, in part because you have to run a full node which takes a long time to sync. Neutrino is available in btcd, but not in Bitcoin Core yet, so until it’s available in Bitcoin Core, light wallets are going to have a tough time finding nodes to get data from. It is for this reason that Wasabi has had to make their own servers with similar super-compressed block data.

Once Neutrino arrives to Bitcoin Core, Lightning Wallets will be able to run as a light client much more easily. And that means that your bitcoin wallet will be far more effective in preserving privacy. This does not mean that you’ll have complete anonymity, especially from chain analysis, but you will be able to achieve a large portion of the privacy that full nodes currently enjoy without storing, transmitting or verifying the entire blockchain.

Privacy leaks are ultimately security leaks as information about you can be used against you.

Transacting with wallets which use the Neutrino protocol means that your bitcoin transactions, whether on-chain or on the Lightning Network, will be a little less susceptible to leaking information.

More Information

For developers interested in this technology, BIP0157 and BIP0158 spell out the protocol in detail and test vectors are available from the developers at Lightning Labs. For consumers, ask if your wallet provider is planning on implementing Neutrino.


Neutrino is a technology that is long overdue. Most people using light node software have to trust external parties to some degree, which is not the cypherpunk ideal. By using Neutrino, wallet developers will now be able to create wallets that are truly self-contained and do not require trusting a server.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Going Meta: Vitalik Buterin Issues Proposal for Capping Ethereum’s Supply

Going Meta

On a day when the cryptocurrency community was on high alert for gags, whimsical announcements and other tomfoolery, the creator of Ethereum, known for pulling his own pranks in the past, stepped forth with a most serious proposal: setting a cap on Ethereum’s monetary supply — which has long had no cap at all — at 120 million.

On April 1, 2018, a day known as April Fools’ Day, Vitalik Buterin published Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) 960 to limit the supply of ether (ETH) to 120,204,432 — twice the amount issued in the project’s presale in 2014. To those paying close attention, the proposal was listed under “meta,” a hint that this was a meta joke, meant to leave people scratching their heads and wondering if he was being serious or not.

For those still wondering whether or not https://t.co/z44anVrOuT was an April Fool’s joke, the answer is: it was an April Fool’s meta-joke. *The point* was seeing people argue about whether or not the proposal is “real”.

— Vitalik “Not giving away ETH” Buterin (@VitalikButerin) April 2, 2018

If the community wants fixed supply and people believe that EIP 960 is a good way to achieve that, then it should adopt the proposal. If the community does not, then it should not. This is true regardless of whether or not the original intent was in jest.

— Vitalik “Not giving away ETH” Buterin (@VitalikButerin) April 2, 2018

All meta joking aside, the proposal recommends implementing the cap as part of a hard fork when the platform switches from its proof-of-work consensus algorithm to Casper, a proof-of stake algorithm still in development, as early as the end of this year.

In order to ensure the economic sustainability of the platform under the widest possible variety of circumstances, and in light of the fact that issuing new coins to proof of work miners is no longer an effective way of promoting an egalitarian coin distribution or any other significant policy goal, I propose that we agree on a hard cap for the total quantity of ETH,” the proposal states.

This is the first time Buterin has suggested setting a limit on Ethereum’s supply of ether.  

Why Set a Cap?

Some argue that a supply limit is important to a cryptocurrency because it creates scarcity, making a “coin” more valuable, sort of like gold. Yet, a hard cap can also mean there is no way to replenish the supply when coins fall out of circulation due to people dying, losing them or even holding on to them.

Unlike Bitcoin, which has a supply limit of 21 million coins programmed into it, Ethereum has never had a monetary cap, which means over time the number of ether in the system could go up indefinitely.

As it stands, 60 million ether were initially created during the Ethereum presale to raise money for building the network. Following the network’s launch in 2015, five new ether have been created for every new block, every 15 seconds. That brings the current supply of ether to around 98.5 million and counting. If EIP 960 goes through, the new cap would likely require reducing the issuance of new coins or finding a way to balance the supply.  

For instance, in an earlier blog post, Buterin talks about introducing “sinks” or fees into the system that would lead to ether actually being destroyed, as a way to create more scarcity.

Making Way for Casper

Buterin’s proposal to change Ethereum’s monetary policy is timely because it sets the stage for Casper, which will introduce changes to how ether are distributed and used.

Buterin’s arguments for a supply cap are based on the idea that in a proof-of-stake system, the coin holders themselves are the ones who get the block rewards, not the miners. Also, because proof of stake consumes far less energy than proof of work, block rewards can be lower. Finally, he thinks the money supply can be better controlled through a system of fees and rewards paid by those using the platform.

It is important to keep in mind that EIP 960 is only a proposal and not certain to be adopted.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.