Hardfork 2016 Value Size Limit
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:31 am
Currently the limit of the value size for name_update is 520 bytes. This is a bit tight for even a bunch of hashes and links. It can be worked around by spanning multiple names using "import" or similar. For simple use cases this might become a bit of a hassle, though. With the workaround it can bloat the blockchain as it needs an additional 400-500 bytes for the additional transaction data. This has already happened with e.g. the u/ namespace.
Originally the system was planned to have a value size limit of 1023 bytes as can still be seen in a lot of places, e.g. here. Due to an oversight it became 520 bytes (for name_update, name_firstupdate is possible with 1023 bytes though it is not allowed by the user interface currently). Note that this happened already five years ago and storage and bandwith prices have dropped significantly in the meantime.
There have been endless discussions about raising the value size here in 2012 (consensus was 9000bytes), here in 2013 (consensus was 5000 bytes) and a poll in 2014 (resulting in a compromise of 2500 bytes).
These earlier discussions were under the premise that it should not get cheaper to flood the blockchain. Turns out that the way fees are currently calculated (for Bitcoin, Namecoin Core uses the same formula) with a value size of up to 1100 bytes it is always at least 30% more expensive to flood the blockchain.
With a hardfork upcoming soon it is clear to me that we should take the opportunity and raise the value size limit a bit. It is little effort and safe. As an additional benefit we get a positive marketing/psychological effect (1000 just sounds better) and free attention to our project.
Originally the system was planned to have a value size limit of 1023 bytes as can still be seen in a lot of places, e.g. here. Due to an oversight it became 520 bytes (for name_update, name_firstupdate is possible with 1023 bytes though it is not allowed by the user interface currently). Note that this happened already five years ago and storage and bandwith prices have dropped significantly in the meantime.
There have been endless discussions about raising the value size here in 2012 (consensus was 9000bytes), here in 2013 (consensus was 5000 bytes) and a poll in 2014 (resulting in a compromise of 2500 bytes).
These earlier discussions were under the premise that it should not get cheaper to flood the blockchain. Turns out that the way fees are currently calculated (for Bitcoin, Namecoin Core uses the same formula) with a value size of up to 1100 bytes it is always at least 30% more expensive to flood the blockchain.
With a hardfork upcoming soon it is clear to me that we should take the opportunity and raise the value size limit a bit. It is little effort and safe. As an additional benefit we get a positive marketing/psychological effect (1000 just sounds better) and free attention to our project.