Shia speaks up regarding the block size debate ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVDB9yhdoNM
Topic: Increase block size or increase fees? - page 3. (Read 3631 times)
You don't need to increase blocksize if you spread transactions across some altcoins as well.
The market should be more competitive, all the money goes through bitcoin now: you could avoid centralizing it by spreading across smaller currencies.
The market should be more competitive, all the money goes through bitcoin now: you could avoid centralizing it by spreading across smaller currencies.
which is the point of sidechains, but they was saying(other 4 devs) that in the future, it should be raised anyway, because even with sidechain, if real mainstream status is achieved, they could not be enough to sustain a very large TX movements
and you can't keep on build sidechains forever on top of the bitcoin blockchain
You don't need to increase blocksize if you spread transactions across some altcoins as well.
The market should be more competitive, all the money goes through bitcoin now: you could avoid centralizing it by spreading across smaller currencies.
The market should be more competitive, all the money goes through bitcoin now: you could avoid centralizing it by spreading across smaller currencies.
You will not get people to spread over altcoin auto-magically, and I cannot see how you could force them to spread.
I guess that is the main hurdle with sidechains as well: why use a sidechain when you could be using the main chain? Outside of higher fees, I do not see anything that would encourage people to do it, and higher fees would probably discourage from using BTC in the first place.
Also it would only take one sidechain/altcoin fork or disaster to discourage people from using them.
You don't need to increase blocksize if you spread transactions across some altcoins as well.
The market should be more competitive, all the money goes through bitcoin now: you could avoid centralizing it by spreading across smaller currencies.
The market should be more competitive, all the money goes through bitcoin now: you could avoid centralizing it by spreading across smaller currencies.
if the only option is choosing between the two, i would say increase the block size without a doubt.
right now is not a good time to increase the fees. if the fees are increased now, new users will not even consider bitcoin as a means for payment.
right now is not a good time to increase the fees. if the fees are increased now, new users will not even consider bitcoin as a means for payment.
Yes, new users will reject paying the cost of a postage stamp for high Bitcoin priority, and instead return to slow, expensive, invasive Western Union/Paypal transfers.
Oh wait, that doesn't make any sense.
if the only option is choosing between the two, i would say increase the block size without a doubt.
right now is not a good time to increase the fees. if the fees are increased now, new users will not even consider bitcoin as a means for payment.
right now is not a good time to increase the fees. if the fees are increased now, new users will not even consider bitcoin as a means for payment.
Quote
The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout
-davout
It's easy to support 'more free transactions' when others are bearing the externalized costs.
I would have to agree that increasing the block size is the best solution; even though id rather just sit by and watch the "gavin this gavin that fork this fork that" drama unfold, i still have to agree the block size should e increased at some point in the future to facilitate the growth of bitcoin.
Bigger block size is the obvious solution. Higher fees might reduce congestion, but the fees would likely turn many off to bitcoin. Problem solved? Sort of but the goal should be more people using bitcoins not less. And higher fees only means one thing: less people using it and less people jumping on the bandwagon.
Yes. Anyone against the bigger blocks needs an ego adjustment. Gavin is our chosen leader, now let him do what leaders do -- Lead!
Increase block size. This is what I voted for and I think it is the best solution. If anyone can think of an idea that is better and/or easier I urge you to start a thread so we can discuss it. This is a great and talented community and I would not be surprised if someone came up with a good alternative.
Increase fees?
Well then, 99% of prospective newcomers will find another solution that isn't Bitcoin while we're left to play amongst ourselves.
Well then, 99% of prospective newcomers will find another solution that isn't Bitcoin while we're left to play amongst ourselves.
Bigger block size is the obvious solution. Higher fees might reduce congestion, but the fees would likely turn many off to bitcoin. Problem solved? Sort of but the goal should be more people using bitcoins not less. And higher fees only means one thing: less people using it and less people jumping on the bandwagon.
Gavin says he wants bigger blocks so Bitcoin can handle as many transactions a year as Visa. Increased fees will make that impossible and stop Bitcoin competing with credit/debit cards.
Bigger block size is the obvious solution. Higher fees might reduce congestion, but the fees would likely turn many off to bitcoin. Problem solved? Sort of but the goal should be more people using bitcoins not less. And higher fees only means one thing: less people using it and less people jumping on the bandwagon.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
Increase block size. I recntly got these two links and it summed up well.
Gavin's blog posts - http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks.
If you prefer a visual explanation, here's a plot of block sizes over time:
Gavin's blog posts - http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks.
If you prefer a visual explanation, here's a plot of block sizes over time:
you can't be serious on increase the fees, when bitcoin is one of the only methods of transfering money with a very low amount of fees
just undo the limit of 1MB and restore the previous 30mb or something, it was around that at the beginning
just undo the limit of 1MB and restore the previous 30mb or something, it was around that at the beginning
I think the original limit was increased in purpose because at he beginning 30mb was delivering a lot of problems, or that's what I got from reading some of the satoshi posts.
I am also for block size increase, clarified that in the OP.
Not increasing block size means increasing the fees and reduced bitcoin usage.
Just laying it out outside of the pro/anti Gavin troll wars. The blockchain size increase is inevitable if you want increased usage.
> The key is can we never do this again?
Planned growth like Gavin suggested is a reasonable option, but TBH I am not convinced having a blocksize limit is necessary anymore:
There only needs to be a mechanism in a full node to "forget" orphaned blocks at some point, say after 100 or 1000 blocks, so that even if a huge spammy block got through, it won't take disk space long after having been orphaned.
Not increasing block size means increasing the fees and reduced bitcoin usage.
Just laying it out outside of the pro/anti Gavin troll wars. The blockchain size increase is inevitable if you want increased usage.
> The key is can we never do this again?
Planned growth like Gavin suggested is a reasonable option, but TBH I am not convinced having a blocksize limit is necessary anymore:
- the difficulty means its hard to get a block, including getting a very huge very spammy block
- propagating a very huge very spammy block would be slow, so it would likely be orphaned quite quickly
There only needs to be a mechanism in a full node to "forget" orphaned blocks at some point, say after 100 or 1000 blocks, so that even if a huge spammy block got through, it won't take disk space long after having been orphaned.
I think increasing fees now would have a negative effect on bitcoin. there are a lot of micro transactions and arebeing done with bitcoin, in case of fee increase those would not be logical to do.
but it is going to happen in the future if the price don't start rising again or miners would stop mining.
but it is going to happen in the future if the price don't start rising again or miners would stop mining.
I would rather go with block size increase. The more daily txs , the faster adoption.And I think online full nodes should be rewarded for a small fee. I dont know how it can be achieved w/o fork. But the cost of fully working bitcoin node is increasing due to system requirements.( blockchain storage +min. memory +electricity etc)
On the other hand, I believe increasing fees has no positive effect on bitcoin ecosystem. Actually it harms to it.
On the other hand, I believe increasing fees has no positive effect on bitcoin ecosystem. Actually it harms to it.
With the troubles you already have to go through to obtain bitcoins, if the fees increased it would be absolutely pointless to convince any consumer to waste time & money purchasing them, whilst they could easily use PayPal
you can't be serious on increase the fees, when bitcoin is one of the only methods of transfering money with a very low amount of fees
just undo the limit of 1MB and restore the previous 30mb or something, it was around that at the beginning
just undo the limit of 1MB and restore the previous 30mb or something, it was around that at the beginning
Jump to: