Why is increasing block size in the Bitcoin network considered to decrease security?











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I have been doing some research on the Bitcoin Cash hard fork and the main contention of increasing the block size appears to be the possibility of less security on the network. How does an increased block size result in a less secure network?






security block







share|improve this question







New contributor




CipherLee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    up vote
    4
    down vote

    favorite












    I have been doing some research on the Bitcoin Cash hard fork and the main contention of increasing the block size appears to be the possibility of less security on the network. How does an increased block size result in a less secure network?






    security block







    share|improve this question







    New contributor




    CipherLee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite











      I have been doing some research on the Bitcoin Cash hard fork and the main contention of increasing the block size appears to be the possibility of less security on the network. How does an increased block size result in a less secure network?






      security block







      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      CipherLee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      I have been doing some research on the Bitcoin Cash hard fork and the main contention of increasing the block size appears to be the possibility of less security on the network. How does an increased block size result in a less secure network?






      security block




      security block






      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      CipherLee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      CipherLee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question






      New contributor




      CipherLee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked yesterday









      CipherLee

      262




      262




      New contributor




      CipherLee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      CipherLee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      CipherLee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          10
          down vote













          Generally speaking, a larger block leads to more computational resources (tx validation, bandwidth, storage, memory) required for each person who wishes to validate newly confirmed transactions.




          • Higher validation cost lead end-users to rely on/trust
            centralised services to "validate" their transactions.


          • Larger blocks require more time to propagate in the network,
            increasing pooling pressures for more centralized mining-pools.



          The lower the validation cost, the more we can push validation to the edge (end-user) of the network, the more decentralisation we can achieve. Decentralisation is ultimately the source of security, as it is harder for an external force to attack.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          James C. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.


















          • Also, off-chain transactions can be made for much cheaper without sacrificing security. No need to store the history of daily coffee purchases of everybody on all Bitcoin nodes in the network.
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday






          • 2




            Well - there is a security sacrifice to be 100% fair. There is no insurance against failing to respond to a cheating counter-party in payment channels. The required vigilance is an additional risk that a confirmed transaction does not have.
            – James C.
            yesterday










          • Can you explain in more detail? Also, even a confirmed transaction still has the small risk of a reorg. There are even users who choose to accept transactions before they have one confirmation (cringe).
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday






          • 3




            That is true. A user can choose how much security he requires from a confirmed transaction before accepting it. Yet a commitment tx, even though it is valid, has not even been confirmed, which is why I mean it has less security. So a lightning payment (a new commitment tx) cannot have the same security as a confirmed tx with a confirmation depth. The entire payment channel capacity amount is in fact still “pending” confirmation.
            – James C.
            yesterday








          • 1




            Right, thanks. It's important that it remain easy to broadcast the state of the channel at any time.
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "308"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          CipherLee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f81698%2fwhy-is-increasing-block-size-in-the-bitcoin-network-considered-to-decrease-secur%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          10
          down vote













          Generally speaking, a larger block leads to more computational resources (tx validation, bandwidth, storage, memory) required for each person who wishes to validate newly confirmed transactions.




          • Higher validation cost lead end-users to rely on/trust
            centralised services to "validate" their transactions.


          • Larger blocks require more time to propagate in the network,
            increasing pooling pressures for more centralized mining-pools.



          The lower the validation cost, the more we can push validation to the edge (end-user) of the network, the more decentralisation we can achieve. Decentralisation is ultimately the source of security, as it is harder for an external force to attack.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          James C. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.


















          • Also, off-chain transactions can be made for much cheaper without sacrificing security. No need to store the history of daily coffee purchases of everybody on all Bitcoin nodes in the network.
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday






          • 2




            Well - there is a security sacrifice to be 100% fair. There is no insurance against failing to respond to a cheating counter-party in payment channels. The required vigilance is an additional risk that a confirmed transaction does not have.
            – James C.
            yesterday










          • Can you explain in more detail? Also, even a confirmed transaction still has the small risk of a reorg. There are even users who choose to accept transactions before they have one confirmation (cringe).
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday






          • 3




            That is true. A user can choose how much security he requires from a confirmed transaction before accepting it. Yet a commitment tx, even though it is valid, has not even been confirmed, which is why I mean it has less security. So a lightning payment (a new commitment tx) cannot have the same security as a confirmed tx with a confirmation depth. The entire payment channel capacity amount is in fact still “pending” confirmation.
            – James C.
            yesterday








          • 1




            Right, thanks. It's important that it remain easy to broadcast the state of the channel at any time.
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday















          up vote
          10
          down vote













          Generally speaking, a larger block leads to more computational resources (tx validation, bandwidth, storage, memory) required for each person who wishes to validate newly confirmed transactions.




          • Higher validation cost lead end-users to rely on/trust
            centralised services to "validate" their transactions.


          • Larger blocks require more time to propagate in the network,
            increasing pooling pressures for more centralized mining-pools.



          The lower the validation cost, the more we can push validation to the edge (end-user) of the network, the more decentralisation we can achieve. Decentralisation is ultimately the source of security, as it is harder for an external force to attack.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          James C. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.


















          • Also, off-chain transactions can be made for much cheaper without sacrificing security. No need to store the history of daily coffee purchases of everybody on all Bitcoin nodes in the network.
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday






          • 2




            Well - there is a security sacrifice to be 100% fair. There is no insurance against failing to respond to a cheating counter-party in payment channels. The required vigilance is an additional risk that a confirmed transaction does not have.
            – James C.
            yesterday










          • Can you explain in more detail? Also, even a confirmed transaction still has the small risk of a reorg. There are even users who choose to accept transactions before they have one confirmation (cringe).
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday






          • 3




            That is true. A user can choose how much security he requires from a confirmed transaction before accepting it. Yet a commitment tx, even though it is valid, has not even been confirmed, which is why I mean it has less security. So a lightning payment (a new commitment tx) cannot have the same security as a confirmed tx with a confirmation depth. The entire payment channel capacity amount is in fact still “pending” confirmation.
            – James C.
            yesterday








          • 1




            Right, thanks. It's important that it remain easy to broadcast the state of the channel at any time.
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday













          up vote
          10
          down vote










          up vote
          10
          down vote









          Generally speaking, a larger block leads to more computational resources (tx validation, bandwidth, storage, memory) required for each person who wishes to validate newly confirmed transactions.




          • Higher validation cost lead end-users to rely on/trust
            centralised services to "validate" their transactions.


          • Larger blocks require more time to propagate in the network,
            increasing pooling pressures for more centralized mining-pools.



          The lower the validation cost, the more we can push validation to the edge (end-user) of the network, the more decentralisation we can achieve. Decentralisation is ultimately the source of security, as it is harder for an external force to attack.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          James C. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          Generally speaking, a larger block leads to more computational resources (tx validation, bandwidth, storage, memory) required for each person who wishes to validate newly confirmed transactions.




          • Higher validation cost lead end-users to rely on/trust
            centralised services to "validate" their transactions.


          • Larger blocks require more time to propagate in the network,
            increasing pooling pressures for more centralized mining-pools.



          The lower the validation cost, the more we can push validation to the edge (end-user) of the network, the more decentralisation we can achieve. Decentralisation is ultimately the source of security, as it is harder for an external force to attack.







          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          James C. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited yesterday





















          New contributor




          James C. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered yesterday









          James C.

          52110




          52110




          New contributor




          James C. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          James C. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          James C. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.












          • Also, off-chain transactions can be made for much cheaper without sacrificing security. No need to store the history of daily coffee purchases of everybody on all Bitcoin nodes in the network.
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday






          • 2




            Well - there is a security sacrifice to be 100% fair. There is no insurance against failing to respond to a cheating counter-party in payment channels. The required vigilance is an additional risk that a confirmed transaction does not have.
            – James C.
            yesterday










          • Can you explain in more detail? Also, even a confirmed transaction still has the small risk of a reorg. There are even users who choose to accept transactions before they have one confirmation (cringe).
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday






          • 3




            That is true. A user can choose how much security he requires from a confirmed transaction before accepting it. Yet a commitment tx, even though it is valid, has not even been confirmed, which is why I mean it has less security. So a lightning payment (a new commitment tx) cannot have the same security as a confirmed tx with a confirmation depth. The entire payment channel capacity amount is in fact still “pending” confirmation.
            – James C.
            yesterday








          • 1




            Right, thanks. It's important that it remain easy to broadcast the state of the channel at any time.
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday


















          • Also, off-chain transactions can be made for much cheaper without sacrificing security. No need to store the history of daily coffee purchases of everybody on all Bitcoin nodes in the network.
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday






          • 2




            Well - there is a security sacrifice to be 100% fair. There is no insurance against failing to respond to a cheating counter-party in payment channels. The required vigilance is an additional risk that a confirmed transaction does not have.
            – James C.
            yesterday










          • Can you explain in more detail? Also, even a confirmed transaction still has the small risk of a reorg. There are even users who choose to accept transactions before they have one confirmation (cringe).
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday






          • 3




            That is true. A user can choose how much security he requires from a confirmed transaction before accepting it. Yet a commitment tx, even though it is valid, has not even been confirmed, which is why I mean it has less security. So a lightning payment (a new commitment tx) cannot have the same security as a confirmed tx with a confirmation depth. The entire payment channel capacity amount is in fact still “pending” confirmation.
            – James C.
            yesterday








          • 1




            Right, thanks. It's important that it remain easy to broadcast the state of the channel at any time.
            – JBaczuk
            yesterday
















          Also, off-chain transactions can be made for much cheaper without sacrificing security. No need to store the history of daily coffee purchases of everybody on all Bitcoin nodes in the network.
          – JBaczuk
          yesterday




          Also, off-chain transactions can be made for much cheaper without sacrificing security. No need to store the history of daily coffee purchases of everybody on all Bitcoin nodes in the network.
          – JBaczuk
          yesterday




          2




          2




          Well - there is a security sacrifice to be 100% fair. There is no insurance against failing to respond to a cheating counter-party in payment channels. The required vigilance is an additional risk that a confirmed transaction does not have.
          – James C.
          yesterday




          Well - there is a security sacrifice to be 100% fair. There is no insurance against failing to respond to a cheating counter-party in payment channels. The required vigilance is an additional risk that a confirmed transaction does not have.
          – James C.
          yesterday












          Can you explain in more detail? Also, even a confirmed transaction still has the small risk of a reorg. There are even users who choose to accept transactions before they have one confirmation (cringe).
          – JBaczuk
          yesterday




          Can you explain in more detail? Also, even a confirmed transaction still has the small risk of a reorg. There are even users who choose to accept transactions before they have one confirmation (cringe).
          – JBaczuk
          yesterday




          3




          3




          That is true. A user can choose how much security he requires from a confirmed transaction before accepting it. Yet a commitment tx, even though it is valid, has not even been confirmed, which is why I mean it has less security. So a lightning payment (a new commitment tx) cannot have the same security as a confirmed tx with a confirmation depth. The entire payment channel capacity amount is in fact still “pending” confirmation.
          – James C.
          yesterday






          That is true. A user can choose how much security he requires from a confirmed transaction before accepting it. Yet a commitment tx, even though it is valid, has not even been confirmed, which is why I mean it has less security. So a lightning payment (a new commitment tx) cannot have the same security as a confirmed tx with a confirmation depth. The entire payment channel capacity amount is in fact still “pending” confirmation.
          – James C.
          yesterday






          1




          1




          Right, thanks. It's important that it remain easy to broadcast the state of the channel at any time.
          – JBaczuk
          yesterday




          Right, thanks. It's important that it remain easy to broadcast the state of the channel at any time.
          – JBaczuk
          yesterday










          CipherLee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          CipherLee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













          CipherLee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          CipherLee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















          Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f81698%2fwhy-is-increasing-block-size-in-the-bitcoin-network-considered-to-decrease-secur%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Quarter-circle Tiles

          Image
          up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2
          Read more

          build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

          Image
          0 I think it's similiar to NFAs. I replace the finite states of the given automaton for start-states for my new automaton. I do it with $epsilon$ -transition from the start state to the actual finite states of the given automaton. The start state of the given automaton will be my accepting(finite) state of my new one. All transitions will be reversed of course to recognize the reversed word. But how do I have to change the stack of the pushdown automaton? That's tricky. formal-languages automata context-free-grammar share | cite | improve this question edited Nov 29 '18 at 14:20 joee
          Read more

          Mont Emei

          Image
          Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog
          Read more