Topic: Core developers: we want bigger blocks - page 5. (Read 4241 times)
Wouldn't it be easier to hardcode a minimum fee of 0.0001 to avoid spamming, rather than dividing the Bitcoin community with a fork?
It's going to have to fork to allow bigger blocks, eventually. That's pretty much inevitable. What is the value in delaying it? Wouldn't the fork be more damaging in the future, when there are more nodes and investors on the line?
they think they can find a better solution in a few months time-frame, i believe that if this is the case they should've worked for those solution long way before, now it's too late we need to build immedaitely a solution
or maybe some of them want that those changes are implemented directly in bitcoin core and not in an "alternative client"
It's going to have to fork to allow bigger blocks, eventually. That's pretty much inevitable. What is the value in delaying it? Wouldn't the fork be more damaging in the future, when there are more nodes and investors on the line?
no, man.
unless you could prove that "XT is still qualifying the bitcoin core protocol", otherwise, bitcoin would not be able to stay for a long time due to the blockchain matter.
i could only support for up to 128mb or 256mb per block, you know, sustainable developments.
unless you could prove that "XT is still qualifying the bitcoin core protocol", otherwise, bitcoin would not be able to stay for a long time due to the blockchain matter.
i could only support for up to 128mb or 256mb per block, you know, sustainable developments.
Average is less than 0.4 mb per block, it's ridiculous so many people want a hard fork right now. It's pure ignorance, they haven't done any research.
The same quality research that you had to conclude Gavin was behind the spam attack?
No thanks i dont feel like pulling shit out of my ass.
Op if you think ppl should stick with bitcoin core if the core team agree to give us bigger block , you really ditch the people that gave you that option in the first place.
Who think of bitcoin future and scalabilty? Not the core team that you're begging. They only do it so they can still be in authority and thats an insult to our intelligence.
Think of this as price matching, i support the business that gave us the best price thus i refuse to pricematch and go to the original business who give us the best price. Vote with my wallet.
Who think of bitcoin future and scalabilty? Not the core team that you're begging. They only do it so they can still be in authority and thats an insult to our intelligence.
Think of this as price matching, i support the business that gave us the best price thus i refuse to pricematch and go to the original business who give us the best price. Vote with my wallet.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
That's 100 years away. If bitcoin is still a thing in 100 years, transaction fees for a block would probably worth more than a block reward today.
1. This is not an issue until many decades.
No, it isn't so far away. Have you looked at how the subsidy will look like in 2025? It will probably be a little higher than 3 BTC, and that's a strong incentive to include some transactions in your blocks (unless the price skyrockets a bit, but that's speculation). The subsidy will become insignificant a lot of years before it goes to zero.
I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
That's 100 years away. If bitcoin is still a thing in 100 years, transaction fees for a block would probably worth more than a block reward today.
That was my understanding and I assumed everyone's understanding.
In theory, if everything goes according to original concept,
when fees need to take over, btc value should easily cover all mining costs.
Or not.. The idea now is to have very cheap transactions. If bitcoin value increases, that means transactions will be cheaper in satoshis than currently somewhere in the future. The ONLY way to get more bitcoin as miner reward is to have more transactions at a low transaction cost to keep transactions cheap.. For that, we need bigger blocks.
I made various payments for 0.0001 fee and they went through without a problem. Until now I don't need bigger blocks.
This is a very simplistic view of whats going on right now
. 
I made various payments for 0.0001 fee and they went through without a problem. Until now I don't need bigger blocks.
Do you seriously not see the potential issue at hand?Of course, nobody needs bigger blocks now. But
This is all about being more future-proof. Why not take action now, while it will have no practical influence (most if not all blocks will still be smaller than 1MB for quite a while) and we can robustly, consistently roll out this patch through the network.
Doing so in a hurry, when it's actually necessary right then and there, it will create chaos, tumult, confusion, panic, with exchanges who have updated and miner's who haven't (or reverse), blockchain forks, and other misery.
Let's not wait until it's too late! And waiting until this gets really urgent, is too late.
I made various payments for 0.0001 fee and they went through without a problem. Until now I don't need bigger blocks.
The consensus does not want bigger blocks.
Like jl2012 says: currently there IS no concensus. This ongoing debate is an attempt to get it. It would be great if all Bitcoiners (or at least a vast majority) can find some common ground.Quote
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
1. This is not an issue until many decades.2. If you want Bitcoin to survive that long, we will need way more than 7 tps.
3. How the hell would increasing the block size limit (note: the limit is increased, not the block size itself per se) jeopardize miner's income? It will only allow them to mine more txs per block (thus more profit from fees), at the same cost, thus the incentive for miners to continue securing the network will persist.
We're going to hit the max capacity of 7 transactions per second long before the block reward dries up...
I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.
C'mon most of them do. Even Luke-jr (who wanted smaller blocks now) said ok to bigger blocks in 2017 in bip103.The question is only 'when'.
Quote
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
No argument there, but again the time is important. Worrying about that now seems premature. When we have some adoption maybe...Right i'm guessing some people fear that the transactions fee will drops since there will be so much room left, but to be honest its not much of a big deal right now. But if bitcoin is to go bigger, bigger block size is simply needed. Maybe it could be just a little more gradually, retargeted as need arise..
I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.
C'mon most of them do. Even Luke-jr (who wanted smaller blocks now) said ok to bigger blocks in 2017 in bip103.The question is only 'when'.
Quote
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
No argument there, but again the time is important. Worrying about that now seems premature. When we have some adoption maybe... 
I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
That's 100 years away. If bitcoin is still a thing in 100 years, transaction fees for a block would probably worth more than a block reward today.
That was my understanding and I assumed everyone's understanding.
In theory, if everything goes according to original concept,
when fees need to take over, btc value should easily cover all mining costs.
Only 20 years ago we did not even dream of computers we have today. Same goes with cryptocurrency and its tech.
So you are saying that Bitcoin has failed based on the whitepaper so soon,
and we need to manipulate a fixed market (fee market) to give higher fees to the miners immediately,
and the miners aren't requesting a fixed market or a raise in fees yet?
I understand this conversation in the future, say 10-20 years maybe, but now?
I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
That's 100 years away. If bitcoin is still a thing in 100 years, transaction fees for a block would probably worth more than a block reward today.
That was my understanding and I assumed everyone's understanding.
In theory, if everything goes according to original concept,
when fees need to take over, btc value should easily cover all mining costs.
Only 20 years ago we did not even dream of computers we have today. Same goes with cryptocurrency and its tech.
I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
That's 100 years away. If bitcoin is still a thing in 100 years, transaction fees for a block would probably worth more than a block reward today.
That was my understanding and I assumed everyone's understanding.
In theory, if everything goes according to original concept,
when fees need to take over, btc value should easily cover all mining costs.
I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
That's 100 years away. If bitcoin is still a thing in 100 years, transaction fees for a block would probably worth more than a block reward today.
I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.
You are one of a very select few group of people that do not believe larger block size increases are needed.
Jump to: