Blocks have already reached the 1 MB limit. The block size limit is already affecting delay for confirmations. This happened to a real purchase of physical goods I made the other day, with multiple large blocks following a one hour plus block. (This was a high priority transaction.)
The real issue isn't block size, it's whether we want to cripple the transaction processing capability of Bitcoin, thereby guaranteeing that Bitcoin remains a curiosity and never becomes mainstream.
Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 125. (Read 154790 times)
Well I don't see it as a huge dilemma.
Hard drive space/per dollar is increasing rapidly, and eventually 10-20tb hard rives will be bought for the price of a 500gb drive today, so I don't really think size will be an issue.
Also, bitcoin right now is way underused compared to what's possible, and we are already seeing blocks in the 900kb range.
Even if bitcoin in the future begins processing half as many transactions as Visa or Mastercard on a daily basis, there is no question block size will need to be bigger.
We are all in this to see bitcoin grow right? I just hope this happens sooner then later, before it becomes a big hassle to do so!
Hard drive space/per dollar is increasing rapidly, and eventually 10-20tb hard rives will be bought for the price of a 500gb drive today, so I don't really think size will be an issue.
Also, bitcoin right now is way underused compared to what's possible, and we are already seeing blocks in the 900kb range.
Even if bitcoin in the future begins processing half as many transactions as Visa or Mastercard on a daily basis, there is no question block size will need to be bigger.
We are all in this to see bitcoin grow right? I just hope this happens sooner then later, before it becomes a big hassle to do so!
right but im more for the long run, so it shall inevitably impact bitcoin (and me!) if done.
why not let the limit be reached, see how the market actually reacts, and focus in developping good solutions whilst preserving bitcoin's precious integrity?
why not let the limit be reached, see how the market actually reacts, and focus in developping good solutions whilst preserving bitcoin's precious integrity?
The reason is because this process takes at least 6 months to do right and if we wait till the last moment we will cause market anxiety and possibly make mistakes. 2015 looks like a perfect time to roll out this change in anticipation of the 2016 disinflationary bubble which may shoot transactions through the roof.
There are already some days were we see certain blocks dangerously near 100% full .
sorry for the stupid question but if a block today is 1mb, after the hard fork, will it still be 1mb? or will they all be 20?
I mean, if the size automatically adjusts to the need, then it will not create a larger blockchain at all, because the transactions are there and need to be processed sooner or later
I mean, if the size automatically adjusts to the need, then it will not create a larger blockchain at all, because the transactions are there and need to be processed sooner or later
Correct. The miners will ultimately be able to choose what sizes they process as well.
Explain please. It's one thing to make FUD statements, and quite another to present real supporting arguments.
That is a known troll, better to ignore them.
That's not necessarily true. The size limit is just that, a limit. We now have a 1MB limit, but most blocks for all of Bitcoin's history haven't been anywhere near full.
If you don't think the size limit being raised is important I'll ask what do you think would be the case if it was currently 1 kilobyte instead (one thousand times smaller)? Do you think Bitcoin would have its current price, and level of network security from the number of mining participants (hashing difficulty) at that price?
Bitcoin is not currently used by most of its holders for transactions, but for speculation. People speculate that at some point in the future a larger number of people in the world will understand the benefits of adopting/using Bitcoin and do so, driving up the price due to its scarcity. However, what happens if in fact the blockchain can't actually handle loads more users transacting?
It will also lead to rapid centralisation.
Explain please. It's one thing to make FUD statements, and quite another to present real supporting arguments.
sorry for the stupid question but if a block today is 1mb, after the hard fork, will it still be 1mb? or will they all be 20?
I mean, if the size automatically adjusts to the need, then it will not create a larger blockchain at all, because the transactions are there and need to be processed sooner or later
I mean, if the size automatically adjusts to the need, then it will not create a larger blockchain at all, because the transactions are there and need to be processed sooner or later
Bigger size and lower fees lead to more traffic and thus higher blocksize. If you implement it, the space will be used. The chain also becomes vulnerable to attacks by spam. Malicious parties can bloat the chain to the max size and they will.
This is rather a pointless discussion which was led more than once. Why would anyone fight this?
Saying that we still have 'some time' is not a strong argument here. Should we think about doing the fork once we hit the cap?
Believe me, once we hit it, using Bitcoin will be very painful.
Saying that we still have 'some time' is not a strong argument here. Should we think about doing the fork once we hit the cap?
Believe me, once we hit it, using Bitcoin will be very painful.
I dont see the rush here tho, price is crashing, adoption is slowing, regulation is stamping..
How big will the blockchain become with 20mb blocks?
from the locked thread: 20MB * 6 (per hour) * 24 * 365 = 1051 GB per year
Assuming 20MB will be reached every block. Which we are very far off at the moment.
right but im more for the long run, so it shall inevitably impact bitcoin (and me!) if done.
why not let the limit be reached, see how the market actually reacts, and focus in developping good solutions whilst preserving bitcoin's precious integrity?
right, although im glad we still have some time until it reaches its limit: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size (0,3MB)
so we can discuss it
for i was quite intrigued regarding the 'anti' claim that it would 'centralize' the nodes in only higher bandwith 'cartels', and thus leaving the 'common' people out of it.
Doesnt bitcoin's decentralization prime? Everyone should be able to run a full node, no?
The one to watch is https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions; if/when that grows and grows then the trouble begins.so we can discuss it
for i was quite intrigued regarding the 'anti' claim that it would 'centralize' the nodes in only higher bandwith 'cartels', and thus leaving the 'common' people out of it.
Doesnt bitcoin's decentralization prime? Everyone should be able to run a full node, no?
One thing I wonder/worry about is miners deliberately mining small blocks when the pile of unconfirmed transactions is waiting.
sorry for the stupid question but if a block today is 1mb, after the hard fork, will it still be 1mb? or will they all be 20?
the 20 is just a maximum, right? so if we are at 0.3 today, it will not cause any headache if the limit goes from 1.0 to 20.0, but a lot of extra headroom
I mean, if the size automatically adjusts to the need, then it will not create a larger blockchain at all, because the transactions are there and need to be processed sooner or later
the 20 is just a maximum, right? so if we are at 0.3 today, it will not cause any headache if the limit goes from 1.0 to 20.0, but a lot of extra headroom
I mean, if the size automatically adjusts to the need, then it will not create a larger blockchain at all, because the transactions are there and need to be processed sooner or later
blockchain security will be weakend with this a lot
(less fees for miner which is important after rewards decrease, larger chain, more central mining) = blockchain security to your anus
(less fees for miner which is important after rewards decrease, larger chain, more central mining) = blockchain security to your anus
This is rather a pointless discussion which was led more than once. Why would anyone fight this?
Saying that we still have 'some time' is not a strong argument here. Should we think about doing the fork once we hit the cap?
Believe me, once we hit it, using Bitcoin will be very painful.
Saying that we still have 'some time' is not a strong argument here. Should we think about doing the fork once we hit the cap?
Believe me, once we hit it, using Bitcoin will be very painful.
I dont see the rush here tho, price is crashing, adoption is slowing, regulation is stamping..
How big will the blockchain become with 20mb blocks?
from the locked thread: 20MB * 6 (per hour) * 24 * 365 = 1051 GB per year
Assuming 20MB will be reached every block. Which we are very far off at the moment.
This is rather a pointless discussion which was led more than once. Why would anyone fight this?
Saying that we still have 'some time' is not a strong argument here. Should we think about doing the fork once we hit the cap?
Believe me, once we hit it, using Bitcoin will be very painful.
Saying that we still have 'some time' is not a strong argument here. Should we think about doing the fork once we hit the cap?
Believe me, once we hit it, using Bitcoin will be very painful.
I dont see the rush here tho, price is crashing, adoption is slowing, regulation is stamping..
How big will the blockchain become with 20mb blocks?
from the locked thread: 20MB * 6 (per hour) * 24 * 365 = 1051 GB per year
OK so pretty much everyone agrees this needs to happen eventually, so what is the big debate about?
Looks like Gavin and other devs are taking the prudent approach and giving some time for us to come to consensus and point out any flaws in the hard fork and possible solutions. He has been doing some careful tests and I support his efforts and ultimately the hard fork but I also recognize there will be some consequences that will need to be addressed ... I.E... Peter Todd correctly pointed out the concern for running Bitcoin over TOR with 20 MB blocks , and others that have very slow internet connections under 2Mbps wont be able to assist with being a full node.
Doesnt bitcoin's decentralization prime? Everyone should be able to run a full node, no?
It doesn't have to be either/or as we still can roll out merkle tree pruning or other solutions to reduce block-chain bloat.
How big will the blockchain become with 20mb blocks?
1000 GB every year roughly
It will also lead to rapid centralisation. And the network is pretty centralised already. It's actually the proposal of a fool especially when you see: the problem doesn't even occure.
This is rather a pointless discussion which was led more than once. Why would anyone fight this?
Saying that we still have 'some time' is not a strong argument here. Should we think about doing the fork once we hit the cap?
Believe me, once we hit it, using Bitcoin will be very painful.
Saying that we still have 'some time' is not a strong argument here. Should we think about doing the fork once we hit the cap?
Believe me, once we hit it, using Bitcoin will be very painful.
Anti because it is not a problem at all if we reach blocklimit. There's tons of alternatives out there. No need to hardfork it.
A mix between pro and DGAF as I don't care but it will need to happen eventually so why not now?
Not a tech-dude here, but i, on the contrary, feel that this is somehow of a crucial matter.
Personally I like bitcoin the way it is now.
When blocks will reach their limits believe me you won't like bitcoin the way it will be. Bitcoin needs to scale, like it or not.
right, although im glad we still have some time until it reaches its limit: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size (0,3MB)
so we can discuss it
for i was quite intrigued regarding the 'anti' claim that it would 'centralize' the nodes in only higher bandwith 'cartels', and thus leaving the 'common' people out of it.
Doesnt bitcoin's decentralization prime? Everyone should be able to run a full node, no?
I've always believed the current 1MB cap was temporary anyway, so I'm fine with increasing it.
If I had a problem with it increasing, I would of walked away from bitcoin years ago.
If I had a problem with it increasing, I would of walked away from bitcoin years ago.
A mix between pro and DGAF as I don't care but it will need to happen eventually so why not now?
Not a tech-dude here, but i, on the contrary, feel that this is somehow of a crucial matter.
Personally I like bitcoin the way it is now.
When blocks will reach their limits believe me you won't like bitcoin the way it will be. Bitcoin needs to scale, like it or not.
A mix between pro and DGAF as I don't care but it will need to happen eventually so why not now?
Not a tech-dude here, but i, on the contrary, feel that this is somehow of a crucial matter.
Personally I like bitcoin the way it is now.
I dont know if someone actually made a similar poll since search engine is down so here we go..
Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.
Interesting read about it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629 (locked
)
Feel free to discuss it further.
Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.
Interesting read about it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629 (locked
)Feel free to discuss it further.
Jump to: