Topic: ... - page 5. (Read 4569 times)

Stress testing at least proved one thing: Even the blocks are all full, majority of users will not be affected. Blocksize should only be changed when there is a REAL problem, not by fear and imagination

Human are all adaptive, when banks closed during weekends, they don't change bank, but wait for it to open on Monday, and reduce their transaction frequency

Accepting and producing bigger blocks will lead to more centralization than using off chain transactions. The rate at which the chain can grow and be spam bloated with larger blocks is a serious issue and almost nobody will run their own node.

Lets not forget there are only around 6000 full nodes as it is right now.

However, Satoshi did foresee a future where the chain was so large that people would only use 'client only mode' (spv wallets).

https://blockchain.info/en/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

I have no reason to believe bitcoin has achieved its maximum user base, I'm betting on it, otherwise I would be putting my money in something else...

Well, RIGHT NOW it's FREE to send coins around and blocks aren't even half full so i have NO IDEA WTF you're even on about.
The future is the future. How do you know for certain these txs will occure? How can you be so sure about it? Do you have magical abilities to know this? What happens in the future in case your predictions of it are wrong? Please elaborate on that scenario.

I meant with user adoption, in the future, eventually there will be much more transactions on the network, they should occur on chain, at least for people who prefer that way, people should not be forced to use some centralized service because it becomes too expensive to transact on-chain.

YOU don't CREATE transactions. They occure or they don't. Bloating the chain won't make more txs magically appear - well, maybe spam and dust-junk increases. But when you want a bloated chain full of junk, why would you want to tarnish bitcoin for that?  

Increased spam and junk is not genuine growth.

Then we need to increase transactions on-chain to generate more fee revenue, not the other way around, off-chain transactions are the centralized ones, unless you have a real proposal for decentralized off-chain transactions...

If users choose XT, XT it is!

And because of bitcoin network nature changes need to be planed way ahead.

Tradeoff with accessibility issue ... would you rather let everyone pay 5 cent for a tx or would you rather exclude half the planet from using it?

And who is mining for free? Raising max txs ahead of demand will weaken the network in the future aswell as exclude billions of users and push centralisation.

Arguing for a contentious hardfork, hostile takeover of btc by Gavin/Mike and all that is really a lost cause...

"We need transaction fees to go up, and the only thing that will force them up is the blocksize limit."

We don't need fees to go up, cheap transactions is one of the major points of using bitcoin.

This is an argument for increasing the block size.

"Once we hit the 1 mb limit free and nearly no fee transactions will be forced off chain. There is TONS of dust, spam, and gambling that can be done off chain. Over half of all Bitcoin transactions right now are basically dusty junk. This will make plenty of room for legitimate transactions."

Decentralization is one of the major points of using bitcoin, off-chain transactions are centralized, again, this is an argument for increasing block size.

Don't know what a "non legitimate transaction" is, as far as know, if it follows the network rules it's "legitimate".

Great summary OP.

The next thing is:
Increasing blocksize will also make BTC inaccessible to half of the world - especially the unbanked in developing countries (all of africa, most of south america, most of asia, most of pacific region) due to bandwidth.

... and bigger blocks lead to more centralisation... not even talking about the risks of a meltdown in marketcap in case of a controversial hardfork ...

It's really all not even rational... and i tell you right now: it's not about bigger blocks; it's about a hostile takeover

This whole blocksize-increase-debate is irrational at so many levels and in so many points. Why is bloating the chain ad infinitum even an option for longterm growth? The chain is already so large most people don't download it and downloading the chain is a major hurdle for people to enter the btc ecosystem. Why even raise the bar for people for adoption ahead of demand like you point out?
All this is not rational and because it's not rational we know it's not about the tps or blocksize, it's about getting people to accept their alternative xt client to take over bitcoin entirely. Basically the blocksize drama is an attack on bitcoin by Gavin and Mike.

They thought people were stupid and would go along but their populism campaign in social media failed (though they are still trying hard). It's politics, not technics.

The question remained identical.  And you still haven't given me a number.  If you honestly believe a global populace can be contained by two-thirds of a floppy disk for another decade, I'm sorry, but there's no hope for what little credibility you have left.  I can only assume you'll happily sit back and watch while the user experience degrades to a point where the forums are packed with complaints about Bitcoin being so slow and unreliable that it's no longer of any use.  Your precious chart shows what's happening now, not what will happen in future.  You cannot predict how large the userbase will become, or how rapidly it might grow.  If Bitcoin sees a surge in adoption and the network can't support those transactions, your words here will come back to haunt you.

I agree all 6 reasons here. We should get rid of that dust transactions, so we won't need any larger blocksize for a long time. Transaction fees are already low, just double it and we don't see half of the dust.

When miners will need funds to secure the network, they won't include too cheap transactions. Who wants their transaction to be included in a block, will need to increase the fee. Competition between miners will allow to discover what is the right fee. If now fees are low, it's just because the new generated coins cover happily all the costs. Miners are not stupid, let them do their work. If you think you can do better, start your own pool.


https://blockexplorer.com/blocks-date/2015-08-16

It seems that in some periods of the day we are already approachin the limit. When would you wait to increase the block size? Your reasoning is like closing the fence door after all the pigs are already escaped. I remind you that the white paper didn't have a block size limit and it has been introduced only for testing purposes, with the intention to remove it already in mind.


When other off-chain technologies will be able to offer instant payments, you will not pay for your coffee with the blockchain, even if the fee is 0. And at the same time, if the block size is large, legitimate transaction will always have theri place.


I don't see anything useful on the rise of the fees. What makes bitcoin special is the adoption. Small blocks means smaller adoption. Small blocks are the best way to lead bitcoin to failure.


Just remove the limit and let the miner decide.


The hardfork happens when the largest part of the network agrees on the new version. At that point there is no confusion.


If you don't want to centralize bitcoin under a couple of developers, allow for its extension.

Please stop the fud.


People: if you love bitcoin, install XT. I already did.

So what you're telling me is you're going to keep repeating the same thing over and over because you don't have an actual reply to a question I'm starting to think you haven't understood?

Try working under the assumption you're wrong about "decades away" (because I'm pretty sure you are).  If all the transactions you (wrongly) call spam were already forced off-chain and we frequently have enough "legitimate" transactions to fill a 1MB block, how large would the backlog have to be in megabytes before you would support an increase in blocksize?  

If you are incapable of answering this simple question after numerous attempts, I have to assume your brain isn't functioning correctly.  Please give me a number.

After 5 pages in your last thread, which is basically a repeat of the same flawed premise, I can't help but notice you still haven't answered my question, so I'll pose it again here:


We've considered that just fine, thanks.  What you're not considering is the following:

Assume Network 'A' can process a maximum of 2000 transactions per block and the average fee is .0001

Assume Network 'B' can process a maximum of 10000 transactions per block and the average fee is .00005

Which network can potentially generate a higher amount in fees?  That's right, the one that can support more transactions.  Raising fees is not the most efficient way to increase mining revenue.



And also this.  There's a moral argument to go along with the one where small-blockians aren't very good as simple math (more transactions equals more fees, not less, it isn't rocket science).  The more people who are able to use Bitcoin, the stronger it becomes.  What some people think of as a "lesser" transaction could mean a not-insignificant amount of money for those in other parts of the world.




Still waiting for an answer on this one.  Be honest.

Thanks for this.  I appreciated your summary as I have not seen a good one elsewhere.  (If someone can point me to another one I'd appreciate it.)

I don't think increasing fees is a very attractive selling point for bitcoin adoption.  The block rewards becoming very small is very far out in the future.  As even your chart points out, the blocksize is much more of an immediate issue.

I'm afraid you can't really force your #4, moving people off chain, though I agree there is a lot of dust transactions, not sure why though, it is all satoshi dice, faucets?  I fear we are close to having #5 already.

Totally agree on #6.

Thanks again.

I agree. It will become a problem at one point and it obviously needs to be raised, it's just to what and and when that people can't seem to agree on. I don't think it needs raising it 8 though.

Honestly, I think Joe and Jill Average running full nodes is a pipe dream, whatever we do with the block size:

-If you increase the block size indefinitely, the storage and bandwidth requirements will become high enough to deter casual users.

-If you don't increase the block size but increase fees instead, the fees will become high enough to push casual users off the blockchain, to use payment processors etc. instead. This leaves them with no reason to run a full node even if they technically could.

-either way, I don't see many apart from a hard core of enthusiasts wanting to run a node.

i mean, even though it would happen, i still would not let the blockchain to increase the size which is unneeded. that would harm newbies to use the full node wallet. doubling the block size limit would ever encourage the spammers to spam in the blockchain network if the active users did not increase. that's shit-awful with those junk transactions.
we need a sustainable currency to help bitcoin mingle with the world , just like a currency joining to the IMF.

Not every year, no. Next year, though? I don't think you can rely on that not happening.