Antminer X9
Monero ASIC Miner
1000KH
HASHRATE
2.47W/KH
EFFICIENCY
2470W
POWER
£861.54
EST. MONTHLY
205
DAYS
EST. ROI
This guide explains BIP 103 Block size following technological growth in plain English. It covers the problem behind the BIP, why it matters and whether the proposal is part of Bitcoin today.
TL;DR
- What it is: BIP 103 proposed a gradual hard-fork block-size formula intended to follow technological growth rather than make large discrete jumps. The limit used the median time of the previous eleven blocks, grew by about 17.7 per cent per year and scaled the signature-operation ceiling proportionally.
- Why it matters: BIP 103 proposed a restrained technology-linked growth curve, but the rate and formula were still governance choices enforced through a hard fork. Its closed specification should be studied, not configured on Bitcoin mainnet nodes.
- Current position: The proposal is Closed and was not adopted as Bitcoin mainnet consensus.
BIP 103 Block size following technological growth in simple English
BIP 103 Block size following technological growth: The block-size function used median time past from the preceding eleven blocks rather than the candidate block’s own timestamp.
Simple example
A node operator is checking BIP 103 Block size following technological growth. The first excess byte creates the same compatibility boundary even if the increase was predictable years earlier.
Key terms in plain English
- BIP:
- Bitcoin Improvement Proposal: a document describing a proposed rule, standard or process. Its status must be checked separately.
- Consensus:
- The shared rules full nodes use to decide whether blocks and transactions are valid.
- Soft fork:
- A proposed tightening of Bitcoin rules that old nodes may not enforce themselves.
- UTXO:
- An unspent transaction output: a piece of bitcoin that can be used as an input to a later transaction.
- Node:
- A computer running Bitcoin software that checks data and communicates with other peers.
Gradual formula instead of jumps
The proposal used a deterministic exponential-style formula to increase capacity in small steps. A slower curve aimed to keep validation requirements near projected consumer bandwidth growth. Determinism reduced ad hoc votes but made the selected growth assumption and arithmetic a long-lived consensus commitment.
Median time input
The block-size function used median time past from the preceding eleven blocks rather than the candidate block’s own timestamp. Median time is harder for one miner to manipulate and changes predictably with the chain. Every node still needed identical integer calculation at each second and activation boundary.
Seventeen-point-seven per cent rate
The annual rate reflected observed bandwidth growth, considered the likely bottleneck. Real infrastructure does not improve uniformly, and latency, storage, CPU and memory can follow different curves. A global consensus ceiling based on one metric may exclude operators whose access improves more slowly.
Sigop scaling
Signature-operation limits would rise proportionally with block capacity. This tried to preserve a relationship between bytes and signature verification work, but adversarial transactions can stress caching, UTXO lookups and validation paths differently. Safe benchmarking must cover multiple resource dimensions and implementation versions.
Hard-fork boundary
Any block above the old limit is invalid to unupgraded nodes, so the formula required widespread agreement and coordinated software deployment. Gradual growth does not turn a hard fork into a soft fork. The first excess byte creates the same compatibility boundary even if the increase was predictable years earlier.
Tightening later
The rationale suggested a soft fork could impose a smaller ceiling if technology failed to match the forecast. That fallback itself would require deployment and could strand miners producing blocks within the larger historical rule. Governance cannot be removed simply by embedding a projection in code.
How specialists test it
Developers test the proposal with made-up data on an isolated test network. They check normal cases and deliberately invalid cases. Different implementations should reach the same result before anyone relies on the proposal.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main point of BIP 103 Block size following technological growth?
BIP 103 Block size following technological growth: The block-size function used median time past from the preceding eleven blocks rather than the candidate block’s own timestamp.
For BIP 103 Block size following technological growth, what should a beginner know about gradual formula instead of jumps?
The proposal used a deterministic exponential-style formula to increase capacity in small steps.
For BIP 103 Block size following technological growth, what should a beginner know about median time input?
The block-size function used median time past from the preceding eleven blocks rather than the candidate block’s own timestamp.
For BIP 103 Block size following technological growth, what should a beginner know about seventeen-point-seven per cent rate?
The annual rate reflected observed bandwidth growth, considered the likely bottleneck. Real infrastructure does not improve uniformly, and latency, storage, CPU and memory can follow different curves.
Conclusion
BIP 103 proposed a restrained technology-linked growth curve, but the rate and formula were still governance choices enforced through a hard fork. Its closed specification should be studied, not configured on Bitcoin mainnet nodes.
Primary sources
Check the current specification status and the documentation for the exact implementation you operate before moving production funds or changing a mining node.
Join the ASIC Mining Discussion
Members can read and join the discussion
Log in to read comments from other miners. Create a free account if you would like to ask a question or share your experience.
Membership helps us protect the discussion from spam and keep answers useful.