Another topic for block size and transaction rate

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: Lauda on May 11, 2015, 02:29:40 AM

Quote from: Amph on May 11, 2015, 01:56:05 AM

besides the new memory problem(desktop ram i mean) mentioned by Gavin, there should not be any problem in upgrading the block size to 20mb

still it's not clear how big is the memory problem, would 32mb be sufficient?

I missed out on this. Could you post a link?

here you go https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/that-is-a-very-good-reason-to-oppose-increasing-the-max-block-size-gandresen-1054669

some users there are reporting, that it isn't a issue that big after all

RoadStress

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1007

Thread title changed!

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: RoadStress on May 10, 2015, 05:15:40 PM

I felt like there was no central place to discuss this. The 20MB Fork thread is closed and your quoted thread has a misleading title.

Quote from: ?? on ??

What makes this thread the "official" one instead of any of the others?

Nothing. I feel that this would be easier to find. If people like the others the this one will just die.

Quote from: manselr on May 10, 2015, 04:38:05 PM

Apparently the main problem is the blockchain will become even bigger so people running nodes will be more prone to run out of hard disk space.

But the price of $/TB is shrinking.

Well it is a bit misleading to the average man I guess. Although this one is misleading too.
You can't make it an official topic.
That's not really a problem. Upgrading to get more memory is actually quite cheap these days. That argument is very weak.

Quote from: Amph on May 11, 2015, 01:56:05 AM

besides the new memory problem(desktop ram i mean) mentioned by Gavin, there should not be any problem in upgrading the block size to 20mb

still it's not clear how big is the memory problem, would 32mb be sufficient?

I missed out on this. Could you post a link?

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

besides the new memory problem(desktop ram i mean) mentioned by Gavin, there should not be any problem in upgrading the block size to 20mb

still it's not clear how big is the memory problem, would 32mb be sufficient?

goosoodude

hero member

Activity: 584

Merit: 500

I think it is pretty clear that either the target block time needs to decline or the max block size needs to increase. The target block time was a well thought out target that was meant to prevent users of bitcoin from having to wait too long for one confirmation, while also having a large amount of certainty that a transaction confirmed in one block is going to be confirmed in the "final" blockchain; the max block size was set as an arbitrary maximum value to prevent spam and to prevent it from being too expensive to mine and/or run a full node in Bitcoin's early days......this should say enough as to if increasing the max block size is appropiate or not

Shindo1988

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Bitcoin Samurai

Quote from: ?? on ??

What makes this thread the "official" one instead of any of the others?

Because he said so Tongue

Seriously as if we don't have enough block size threads.
And what's the big deal anyway?
I am sure it was going to happen at some point anyway.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: RoadStress on May 10, 2015, 05:15:40 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

What makes this thread the "official" one instead of any of the others?

Nothing. I feel that this would be easier to find. If people like the others the this one will just die.

Ah, ok.

So when you used "Official topic" in the title, what you really meant was: "Yet another topic for block size and transacction rate".

Adding more topics don't make them any easier to find, it just makes all of them (including the new ones) harder to find. Conversation becomes fragmented and nearly impossible to follow, searches turn up to many threads to skim through, and nobody is sure where to find the most recent or reliable information any longer.

Using the word "official" doesn't make something official.

Every time the discussion leans towards a larger blocksize, the thread gets locked and a new one pops up later. Keep trying until you get the desired outcome, heh. On the one hand it seems a little pointless having yet another one. But on the other, it could be as little as a month to go before we all get to decide, so I guess it is important for everyone to make an informed choice.

~~I'm on a phone at the moment so it's effort to dig up links to all my~~

//EDIT:

Gave up on the smartphone since trying to use a forum on those is horrific. Here's a sample of my previous views on the issue:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11325326

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10979798

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10803592

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

This is a very serious issue that has been around for a very long time. The simple reality is that if the Bitcoin community does not address this issue soon the very bright potential of Bitcoin will be drastically crippled.

RoadStress

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Lauda on May 10, 2015, 03:40:13 PM

Why should this be discussed again?
There's actually more than enough information here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236
I do not think that Bitcoin should be limited by a little amount of transactions (currently less than 4 tps).

I felt like there was no central place to discuss this. The 20MB Fork thread is closed and your quoted thread has a misleading title.

Quote from: ?? on ??

What makes this thread the "official" one instead of any of the others?

Nothing. I feel that this would be easier to find. If people like the others the this one will just die.

Quote from: manselr on May 10, 2015, 04:38:05 PM

Apparently the main problem is the blockchain will become even bigger so people running nodes will be more prone to run out of hard disk space.

But the price of $/TB is shrinking.

manselr

legendary

Activity: 868

Merit: 1006

Apparently the main problem is the blockchain will become even bigger so people running nodes will be more prone to run out of hard disk space.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Why should this be discussed again?
There's actually more than enough information here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236
I do not think that Bitcoin should be limited by a little amount of transactions (currently less than 4 tps).

RoadStress

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1007

Discuss.

Topic: Another topic for block size and transaction rate (Read 792 times)