Topic: Automated blocksize increases - page 3. (Read 699 times)
If you need bigger blocks just use Craig Wright/Roger Ver's altcoins that use the name "bitcoin" and don't bother.A bigger Blocksize is not the ultimate solution to all problems.Is there any problem with the current bitcoin core transaction speed or confirmation time?I don't see a problem.So STFU....
This issue has been debated ad nauseum, and those who support bigger block sizes already have their forks. So why bring this issue to a coin with a community that has decided to keep the block size limited? Actually, with Segwit the capacity has been made greater. Again, the issue in the community has been resolved, and those who want bigger blocks have their alternative coins. Bitcoin will focus on layer 2 solutions.
Comeee onnnn! We shouldn't talk about any news forks. We are watching old ones which they are completely useless. Let go this fork shits also.
There is one big problem we should solve ASAP. It is energy consumption. It is not sustainable now. And I guess we need more developed mining device would be fine.
I do agree with you here. I have honestly had enough of these forks which are basically splitting our crypto communities instead of uniting them thanks to different perspectives. There is one big problem we should solve ASAP. It is energy consumption. It is not sustainable now. And I guess we need more developed mining device would be fine.
Also, Bitman just released new miners which is good progress and they focused on improving energy efficiency which is epic indeed.
I think any reasonable person understands that bitcoin needs blocksize increases, otherwise bitcoin's growth will become increasingly and extremely stifled, even if the LN becomes a big part of bitcoin. The question is how to reasonably increase the blocksize.
I can understand if you're thinking Bitcoin won't be future's money. Let's increase blocksize today X2. What about then? What will happen 2 years later? 10 years? We are trying to handle electricity already. If we will increase the block size in every few years, we need big size computer disks also. It can be complicated you have thought.
I think the two main things are to do it gradually, but ideally only make one hard fork to bitcoin to do it. That's where my idea of automated blocksize increases comes in. I don't know if this has been talked about, but I've never seen mention of it.
Comeee onnnn! We shouldn't talk about any news forks. We are watching old ones which they are completely useless. Let go this fork shits also.
There is one big problem we should solve ASAP. It is energy consumption. It is not sustainable now. And I guess we need more developed mining device would be fine.
This would put the blocksize issue to bed by setting up an algorithmic way to keep bitcoin capacity growing into the future so there aren't constant debates about one-off increases and whether or not they should happen and what size they should be.
there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem. there is also no way to automatically account for actual technological progress---we can't time when latency and bandwidth barriers will be crossed. screwing up the timing will necessitate emergency hard forks to fix this bad engineering. is that worth it?
anyway, maybe there should be constant debate.
I think any reasonable person understands that bitcoin needs blocksize increases, otherwise bitcoin's growth will become increasingly and extremely stifled, even if the LN becomes a big part of bitcoin. The question is how to reasonably increase the blocksize.
I think the two main things are to do it gradually, but ideally only make one hard fork to bitcoin to do it. That's where my idea of automated blocksize increases comes in. I don't know if this has been talked about, but I've never seen mention of it.
My idea is that a hard fork is made to bitcoin so that at every halving event not only does the mining reward change but also blocksize changes. Some initial blocksize (blockweight) size increase would be decided for the first halving after the hard fork, and from then on every following halving event would also halve the blocksize increase, percentage-wise. So the halving events could have the following blocksize increases: 800%, 400%, 200%, 100%, 50%, 25%, etc. Or 400%, 200%, 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5%, etc. Or whatever is deemed the most likely to be optimal in the near and far future.
This would put the blocksize issue to bed by setting up an algorithmic way to keep bitcoin capacity growing into the future so there aren't constant debates about one-off increases and whether or not they should happen and what size they should be. It would also allow capacity to grow gradually, keeping bitcoin decentralized by allowing it to increase slowly as network speeds continue to get faster throughout the world, and easy to store on hard disk in the future. It would keep it to only one hard fork so that bitcoin remains a stable technology. It should also be enough near-term throughput to handle this next bitcoin boom, which I figure a 4x or 8x increase would be good for the 2020 halving event, as there is an immediate need to not stifle bitcoin's growth these next couple of years as the market goes through what could/should be another exponential growth period. Plus it would keep the blocksize capped by halving the increase, just how the supply is capped by halving the supply increase.
Bitcoin transaction capacity needs to grow significantly, but carefully, in order to facilitate growth of bitcoin worldwide, as well as growth of the LN in the years to come.
What do you think of this idea of rolling a blocksize increase halving into the current reward halving event?
I think the two main things are to do it gradually, but ideally only make one hard fork to bitcoin to do it. That's where my idea of automated blocksize increases comes in. I don't know if this has been talked about, but I've never seen mention of it.
My idea is that a hard fork is made to bitcoin so that at every halving event not only does the mining reward change but also blocksize changes. Some initial blocksize (blockweight) size increase would be decided for the first halving after the hard fork, and from then on every following halving event would also halve the blocksize increase, percentage-wise. So the halving events could have the following blocksize increases: 800%, 400%, 200%, 100%, 50%, 25%, etc. Or 400%, 200%, 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5%, etc. Or whatever is deemed the most likely to be optimal in the near and far future.
This would put the blocksize issue to bed by setting up an algorithmic way to keep bitcoin capacity growing into the future so there aren't constant debates about one-off increases and whether or not they should happen and what size they should be. It would also allow capacity to grow gradually, keeping bitcoin decentralized by allowing it to increase slowly as network speeds continue to get faster throughout the world, and easy to store on hard disk in the future. It would keep it to only one hard fork so that bitcoin remains a stable technology. It should also be enough near-term throughput to handle this next bitcoin boom, which I figure a 4x or 8x increase would be good for the 2020 halving event, as there is an immediate need to not stifle bitcoin's growth these next couple of years as the market goes through what could/should be another exponential growth period. Plus it would keep the blocksize capped by halving the increase, just how the supply is capped by halving the supply increase.
Bitcoin transaction capacity needs to grow significantly, but carefully, in order to facilitate growth of bitcoin worldwide, as well as growth of the LN in the years to come.
What do you think of this idea of rolling a blocksize increase halving into the current reward halving event?
Jump to: