1MB block size forever is just silly - page 5.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mezzomix on February 03, 2017, 04:45:32 AM

At the point where nearly all non-miners want to enable a feature but a few miners are blocking this change, it makes sense for the users to not relay new blocks that prevent the change.

Chinese Miners already agreed to a blocksize increase up to 8 Megabyte.
BTC core is the one refusing to update the blocksize and
are instead trying to force everyone to accept segwit & LN, an OFFCHAIN version (which is no better than using a bank.)

Cool

mezzomix

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1263

At the point where nearly all non-miners want to enable a feature but a few miners are blocking this change, it makes sense for the users to not relay new blocks that prevent the change. It makes no sense to allow a few miners to keep the Bitcoin system as a hostage.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Amph on February 03, 2017, 02:39:55 AM

Quote from: Warg on February 03, 2017, 01:42:17 AM

Quote from: spazzdla on February 02, 2017, 10:45:11 PM

I don't really know where else to go from that.. 1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough. What do..

What are you talking about? With segwit we get 2-4 mb Wink

if I'm not wrong.

4mb? no way, at best it's 2MB, actually a bit less, but miners do not agree in the activation, it will never happen

Quote from: kiklo on February 02, 2017, 11:34:35 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 02, 2017, 11:23:36 PM

It is clear that the investment community will be obliged to diversify. Bitcoin can go a long way on 1MB blocks and big (relatively) transaction fees; it appears SegWit is not gaining the support it needs to go through but who knows it may still make it; without SegWit can Lightning be made to work? Which other altcoin is going to become the darling of scalability? Or perhaps there will be many. Or is there indeed some fatal flaw that always draws any of them into centralization?

All PoW coins will Centralize , the laws of economics guarantee it.

Fewer Miners, higher prices (due to manipulation), and higher fees (eventually to become unsustainable)

Cool

well pos coin is even more centralized, with the bad distribution and the scheme of rich become even richer, you can't have fully decentralization

the only way was to change the algo every so years to prevent asic and keep the gpu mining, maybe it will be done in the future, if 51% become a reality

PoS will only Centralized if it has extremely high interest rates, where the holder never has to sell anything but their interest to Profit.

A POS coin with extremely low interest rates will not centralized, as whenever the holder sells any , he is selling from his principle amount and not just interest gained.

Chinese already have ~68% combined, they are not letting anyone change the algo , BTC core can't even activate segwit because the Chinese don't want it.

Cool

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: ralle14 on February 03, 2017, 03:42:17 AM

Quote from: Amph on February 03, 2017, 02:39:55 AM

Quote from: Warg on February 03, 2017, 01:42:17 AM

What are you talking about? With segwit we get 2-4 mb Wink

if I'm not wrong.

4mb? no way, at best it's 2MB, actually a bit less, but miners do not agree in the activation, it will never happen

May we know the reason why increasing the blocksize will never happen? Does increasing the blocksize will cause more problem than to solve our problems?

It probably will happen, as Segwit probably will activate. Yes, blocksize increases do carry risks, so doing the fork the right way is very important. Not everyone agrees on how the fork should be done, lol

ralle14

legendary

Activity: 3374

Merit: 1922

Shuffle.com

Quote from: Amph on February 03, 2017, 02:39:55 AM

Quote from: Warg on February 03, 2017, 01:42:17 AM

Quote from: spazzdla on February 02, 2017, 10:45:11 PM

I don't really know where else to go from that.. 1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough. What do..

What are you talking about? With segwit we get 2-4 mb Wink

if I'm not wrong.

4mb? no way, at best it's 2MB, actually a bit less, but miners do not agree in the activation, it will never happen

May we know the reason why increasing the blocksize will never happen? Does increasing the blocksize will cause more problem than to solve our problems?

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 02, 2017, 11:23:36 PM

It is clear that the investment community will be obliged to diversify.

Then why are you here talking about it, giving the rest of the "investment community" an informational heads-up about where the crypto market is going? Smart investors do not reveal their strategies, David

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 02, 2017, 11:23:36 PM

it appears SegWit is not gaining the support it needs to go through but who knows it may still make it;

I'm not holding out much hope for those wishing to invest wisely using your advice.

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 02, 2017, 11:23:36 PM

without SegWit can Lightning be made to work?

Still not hopeful, lol

David. You need information to be an investor. The information has to be well researched and veracious. You need facts. If you would like any more investing basics, be sure to let us know.

sportis

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 252

Veni, Vidi, Vici

Quote from: Warg on February 03, 2017, 01:42:17 AM

Quote from: spazzdla on February 02, 2017, 10:45:11 PM

I don't really know where else to go from that.. 1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough. What do..

What are you talking about? With segwit we get 2-4 mb Wink

if I'm not wrong.

Yes with segwit you can raise the size up to 4mb but the effective cost limit so the blocks will remain balanced is about 1.6-2 mb https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/. Besides that, I am not sure if the last days is only a spam attack in the network and not increased real transactions too but 160s/byte for fast confirmation is unacceptable. Thus, the only people in bitcoin world who have sure and big profit are only the miners. Aren't they?

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: BigBoom3599 on February 03, 2017, 02:52:27 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on February 03, 2017, 02:41:01 AM

Quote from: BigBoom3599 on February 03, 2017, 02:29:43 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on February 03, 2017, 01:27:24 AM

Quote from: lokomotive on February 03, 2017, 01:23:32 AM

Should have been at least 2-4MB some time ago.

i disagree.
we need to increase the block size but things are not that bad if we only see legit transactions in the pool. right now we have a massive scale spam attack which is increasing the number of unconfirmed transactions.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mother-of-all-spam-attacks-on-bitcoin-network-proof-1776143

the thing about blockchain and bitcoin is that you can spam but you can't hide.

Eh... spam attack or not, blocks are full... and fees are (too) high. Wasn't "cheap and fast" transactions one of the major advantages of bitcoin? Bitcoin is neither at the moment... The only thing it currently still has is decentralization, well sort of atleast... Increasing the block size isn't a permanent scaling solution IMO but it is the temporary one we NEED right now until LN arrives. People are running away from bitcoin and going into altcoins atm because they're cheaper and faster right now...

blocks are full because of spam attack. before the spam attack blocks were bare full and number of unconfirmed transactions were about 2K (normal).
fast yes, and it is still fast to send but slow to confirm
cheap, i don't remember ever reading cheap transactions in the bitcoin paper

- i am not arguing that we don't need block size to go up, i am saying we need it but lets not be fooled by why blocks are full and mempool is this big

people running away? don't make me laugh. who in his right mind is giving up bitcoin to go to a manipulated altcoin with 80% pre-mine and developer holding all the coins in existance?

Cheap wasn't in the bitcoin paper, I'm not denying that but it is what the community said, just google: "bitcoin advantages" and look at how basically all of them include "low transaction cost".
Blocks aren't full because of spam attacks, without spam attacks the blocks would be full aswell, the spam attack just makes the waiting queue even longer.
Can you name an altcoin with a market cap higher than $50 million that's manipulated, 80% pre-mined and where the developer is holding all the coins? LOL

google "bitcoin advantages" and you see things like "get rich quick" and "to da moon" and also you will see lots of "bitcoin is dead" "going to zero" etc. it doesn't mean they are correct. random people say random things.
before spam attack they were barely full.
yes: ethereum. the dev dumped 1 million dollar worth of it last year when its price was at its peak, the foundation also holds a very large portion of the supply and they do pump and dumps regularly.

BigBoom3599

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: pooya87 on February 03, 2017, 02:41:01 AM

Quote from: BigBoom3599 on February 03, 2017, 02:29:43 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on February 03, 2017, 01:27:24 AM

Quote from: lokomotive on February 03, 2017, 01:23:32 AM

Should have been at least 2-4MB some time ago.

i disagree.
we need to increase the block size but things are not that bad if we only see legit transactions in the pool. right now we have a massive scale spam attack which is increasing the number of unconfirmed transactions.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mother-of-all-spam-attacks-on-bitcoin-network-proof-1776143

the thing about blockchain and bitcoin is that you can spam but you can't hide.

Eh... spam attack or not, blocks are full... and fees are (too) high. Wasn't "cheap and fast" transactions one of the major advantages of bitcoin? Bitcoin is neither at the moment... The only thing it currently still has is decentralization, well sort of atleast... Increasing the block size isn't a permanent scaling solution IMO but it is the temporary one we NEED right now until LN arrives. People are running away from bitcoin and going into altcoins atm because they're cheaper and faster right now...

blocks are full because of spam attack. before the spam attack blocks were bare full and number of unconfirmed transactions were about 2K (normal).
fast yes, and it is still fast to send but slow to confirm
cheap, i don't remember ever reading cheap transactions in the bitcoin paper

- i am not arguing that we don't need block size to go up, i am saying we need it but lets not be fooled by why blocks are full and mempool is this big

people running away? don't make me laugh. who in his right mind is giving up bitcoin to go to a manipulated altcoin with 80% pre-mine and developer holding all the coins in existance?

Cheap wasn't in the bitcoin paper, I'm not denying that but it is what the community said, just google: "bitcoin advantages" and look at how basically all of them include "low transaction cost".
Blocks aren't full because of spam attacks, without spam attacks the blocks would be full aswell, the spam attack just makes the waiting queue even longer.
Can you name an altcoin with a market cap higher than $50 million that's manipulated, 80% pre-mined and where the developer is holding all the coins? LOL

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: BigBoom3599 on February 03, 2017, 02:29:43 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on February 03, 2017, 01:27:24 AM

Quote from: lokomotive on February 03, 2017, 01:23:32 AM

Should have been at least 2-4MB some time ago.

i disagree.
we need to increase the block size but things are not that bad if we only see legit transactions in the pool. right now we have a massive scale spam attack which is increasing the number of unconfirmed transactions.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mother-of-all-spam-attacks-on-bitcoin-network-proof-1776143

the thing about blockchain and bitcoin is that you can spam but you can't hide.

Eh... spam attack or not, blocks are full... and fees are (too) high. Wasn't "cheap and fast" transactions one of the major advantages of bitcoin? Bitcoin is neither at the moment... The only thing it currently still has is decentralization, well sort of atleast... Increasing the block size isn't a permanent scaling solution IMO but it is the temporary one we NEED right now until LN arrives. People are running away from bitcoin and going into altcoins atm because they're cheaper and faster right now...

blocks are full because of spam attack. before the spam attack blocks were bare full and number of unconfirmed transactions were about 2K (normal).
fast yes, and it is still fast to send but slow to confirm
cheap, i don't remember ever reading cheap transactions in the bitcoin paper

- i am not arguing that we don't need block size to go up, i am saying we need it but lets not be fooled by why blocks are full and mempool is this big

people running away? don't make me laugh. who in his right mind is giving up bitcoin to go to a manipulated altcoin with 80% pre-mine and developer holding all the coins in existance?

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: Warg on February 03, 2017, 01:42:17 AM

Quote from: spazzdla on February 02, 2017, 10:45:11 PM

I don't really know where else to go from that.. 1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough. What do..

What are you talking about? With segwit we get 2-4 mb Wink

if I'm not wrong.

4mb? no way, at best it's 2MB, actually a bit less, but miners do not agree in the activation, it will never happen

Quote from: kiklo on February 02, 2017, 11:34:35 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 02, 2017, 11:23:36 PM

It is clear that the investment community will be obliged to diversify. Bitcoin can go a long way on 1MB blocks and big (relatively) transaction fees; it appears SegWit is not gaining the support it needs to go through but who knows it may still make it; without SegWit can Lightning be made to work? Which other altcoin is going to become the darling of scalability? Or perhaps there will be many. Or is there indeed some fatal flaw that always draws any of them into centralization?

All PoW coins will Centralize , the laws of economics guarantee it.

Fewer Miners, higher prices (due to manipulation), and higher fees (eventually to become unsustainable)

Cool

well pos coin is even more centralized, with the bad distribution and the scheme of rich become even richer, you can't have fully decentralization

the only way was to change the algo every so years to prevent asic and keep the gpu mining, maybe it will be done in the future, if 51% become a reality

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: pooya87 on February 03, 2017, 01:27:24 AM

Quote from: lokomotive on February 03, 2017, 01:23:32 AM

Should have been at least 2-4MB some time ago.

i disagree.
we need to increase the block size but things are not that bad if we only see legit transactions in the pool. right now we have a massive scale spam attack which is increasing the number of unconfirmed transactions.

Who decides whether or not a transaction is "spam"? And even if it is spam, they do pay fees. The problem is: even with fees that would have been called very high just a few months ago, I'm now waiting almost 24 hours for my transaction. As a Bitcoin user I don't really care if "spam" is the cause, it should just work.
Sites like https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx or https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ nicely show you how much to pay for a fast transaction, but the end-result is we're all paying more, without processing a single transaction more.
The last 4 blocks all have more than 1 Bitcoin in fees, up to 1.7 Bitcoin. That's huge!

Remember when "cheap transactions" was an argument to use Bitcoin? To grow, it needs more users. To get more users, it needs to be able to handle them. Meanwhile, the miners have a 1.7 Bitcoin per block incentive not to increase block size.

Warg

newbie

Activity: 32

Merit: 0

Quote from: BigBoom3599 on February 03, 2017, 02:29:43 AM

People are running away from bitcoin and going into altcoins atm because they're cheaper and faster right now...

Let them... I want to buy bitcoin cheaper Grin

BigBoom3599

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: pooya87 on February 03, 2017, 01:27:24 AM

Quote from: lokomotive on February 03, 2017, 01:23:32 AM

Should have been at least 2-4MB some time ago.

i disagree.
we need to increase the block size but things are not that bad if we only see legit transactions in the pool. right now we have a massive scale spam attack which is increasing the number of unconfirmed transactions.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mother-of-all-spam-attacks-on-bitcoin-network-proof-1776143

the thing about blockchain and bitcoin is that you can spam but you can't hide.

Eh... spam attack or not, blocks are full... and fees are (too) high. Wasn't "cheap and fast" transactions one of the major advantages of bitcoin? Bitcoin is neither at the moment... The only thing it currently still has is decentralization, well sort of atleast... Increasing the block size isn't a permanent scaling solution IMO but it is the temporary one we NEED right now until LN arrives. People are running away from bitcoin and going into altcoins atm because they're cheaper and faster right now...

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Warg on February 03, 2017, 02:16:30 AM

Quote from: johny08 on February 03, 2017, 02:04:31 AM

Lets wait for lightcoin to integrate segwit, so devs can test ln on largescale. If everything works it can be adopted to btc.

Yeah, I believe they wait to test segwit with lightcoin first, they don't want to risk bitcoin without confidence

i read on reddit that apparently F2Pool (which is a big mining pool with a huge hashrate share) said they will activate SegWit on Litecoin.

but the miners support is 0% for some reason http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php either i am missing something or they haven't yet started signaling!

Warg

newbie

Activity: 32

Merit: 0

Quote from: johny08 on February 03, 2017, 02:04:31 AM

Lets wait for lightcoin to integrate segwit, so devs can test ln on largescale. If everything works it can be adopted to btc.

Yeah, I believe they wait to test segwit with lightcoin first, they don't want to risk bitcoin without confidence

johny08

legendary

Activity: 1045

Merit: 1000

Quote from: pooya87 on February 03, 2017, 01:27:24 AM

Quote from: lokomotive on February 03, 2017, 01:23:32 AM

Should have been at least 2-4MB some time ago.

i disagree.
we need to increase the block size but things are not that bad if we only see legit transactions in the pool. right now we have a massive scale spam attack which is increasing the number of unconfirmed transactions.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mother-of-all-spam-attacks-on-bitcoin-network-proof-1776143

the thing about blockchain and bitcoin is that you can spam but you can't hide.

The first time i read intelligence here. There is hope! For the community

johny08

legendary

Activity: 1045

Merit: 1000

Quote from: marcoman22 on February 03, 2017, 01:09:18 AM

Quote from: Slark on February 02, 2017, 11:11:41 PM

Quote from: spazzdla on February 02, 2017, 10:45:11 PM

I don't really know where else to go from that.. 1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough. What do..

1 MB was perfectly fine for Bitcoin at the beginning. But like all technology, after some time it becomes obsolete and will require an update.
The problem of bitcoin is not that it cannot be better, is is the community that can't seem to find a way how to achieve that progress, arguing and forcing different scaling solutions.

If that will continue then Bitcoin might be stuck forever with 1MB and it won't be long before users frustrated with the bitcoin network will ditch it in favor of other cryptos.

Yes, there is already a big queue of transactions waiting to be confirmed.Only seven transactions per seconds is very less for such a growing bitcoin network.If it is not solved, many bitcoin users would think about switching to other altcoin probably Monero in which transaction is fast enough and also anonymous.

Because monero has what 3 transactions max in a block? Public blockchain is the most important thing ever. It can avoid corruption if ised by government. We want be there and not on a hidden transaction layer missused by criminals and corruption, boy.

johny08

legendary

Activity: 1045

Merit: 1000

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 02, 2017, 11:23:36 PM

It is clear that the investment community will be obliged to diversify. Bitcoin can go a long way on 1MB blocks and big (relatively) transaction fees; it appears SegWit is not gaining the support it needs to go through but who knows it may still make it; without SegWit can Lightning be made to work? Which other altcoin is going to become the darling of scalability? Or perhaps there will be many. Or is there indeed some fatal flaw that always draws any of them into centralization?

Lets wait for lightcoin to integrate segwit, so devs can test ln on largescale. If everything works it can be adopted to btc.

johny08

legendary

Activity: 1045

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Kakmakr on February 03, 2017, 12:49:18 AM

It makes sense to the Blockstream group, because with a bigger block size the LN would not be necessary for a much longer time. If I was a cartoonist, I would have drawn a picture where the Blockstream guys were stepping on the Bitcoin guys throat and only allowed enough room for him to breath, without him dying from suffocation.

In the Blockstream guys hand is a oxygen cylinder called, "SegWit$$$Lightning Network" and in the little chat box, it will say.... " Pay or Die "

There has to be a way of stopping soam attacks without bloating the blockchain.

Increasing the blockchain makes just sense if you enlarge it 3 times but getting the capability of making 30x or 300x more transcactions, like with LN.

Ignorelist stupid.

Topic: 1MB block size forever is just silly - page 5. (Read 4292 times)