I believe the block size issue will be addressed first, by the Core team.
Until July, it is highly probable we will be testing second, or even third version of segregated witness.
Topic: What Comes First: Block Size or Halving? (Read 2302 times)
segwit is not an ultimate solution, so you need to increase in the end the block size, so why we are not doing it now instead of wasting time with subterfuge like segwit?
SegWit creates a whole range of new options, it also gives a temp. relief to the blocksize problem. Why do you need to increase blocksize without considering the optimum long term block structure? There are other options - side chains, incresing transaction density, and reducing the block creation interval are just 3 that occur to me with my limited knowledge. I am sure that there are other that more knowledgeable members can suggest.
According to the latest round table meeting between Core developers and miners, SegWit will come out before halving.
Visa can value their TX in bitcoin. There is no "need" here you have identified yet.
what do you mean their value in bitcoin? i'm talking about tx volume...the need is not for now is for the future in case bitcoin will embrace greater adoption
to the contrary of popular belief, a big adoption can actually happen in a short time, so if it will happen there will be no time to implement the ideal solution
Visa is not a currency, they are a company. They are a payment provider enabling payments IN ANY CURRENCY which could be bitcoin, gold, or even obscure private scamcoins like funbux or yuros.
If you are a merchant, call them up and say you price your goods in bitcoin, and you need to receive payments from them in bitcoin.
After all, I have a visa card, and I want to buy something from your shop that costs .005 btc.
yeah but this what have to do with the limitation of bitcoin? do you're really think that if visa were to use bitcoin instead of fiat, the issue about the block limit would vanish?
Not really, the issue about the block limit won't ever vanish. Unless of course the issue is that "visa can do XX TX per second and we can't do that with bitcoin" in which case, there is no issue.
I guess that halving will take place first, as people ain't gonna let this block size thing happen because they want their transactions to get confirmed faster in accordance with time rather than in regards to size and number of transactions...
The Core team are dragging their feet. Although the road map says higher block size will come out in April, I doubt that.
I guess that halving will take place first, as people ain't gonna let this block size thing happen because they want their transactions to get confirmed faster in accordance with time rather than in regards to size and number of transactions...
Visa can value their TX in bitcoin. There is no "need" here you have identified yet.
what do you mean their value in bitcoin? i'm talking about tx volume...the need is not for now is for the future in case bitcoin will embrace greater adoption
to the contrary of popular belief, a big adoption can actually happen in a short time, so if it will happen there will be no time to implement the ideal solution
Visa is not a currency, they are a company. They are a payment provider enabling payments IN ANY CURRENCY which could be bitcoin, gold, or even obscure private scamcoins like funbux or yuros.
If you are a merchant, call them up and say you price your goods in bitcoin, and you need to receive payments from them in bitcoin.
After all, I have a visa card, and I want to buy something from your shop that costs .005 btc.
yeah but this what have to do with the limitation of bitcoin? do you're really think that if visa were to use bitcoin instead of fiat, the issue about the block limit would vanish?
I'm going to guess halving will come first based on how it's going right now, and past events.
The halving already happened... 4 years ago. 
Visa can value their TX in bitcoin. There is no "need" here you have identified yet.
what do you mean their value in bitcoin? i'm talking about tx volume...the need is not for now is for the future in case bitcoin will embrace greater adoption
to the contrary of popular belief, a big adoption can actually happen in a short time, so if it will happen there will be no time to implement the ideal solution
Visa is not a currency, they are a company. They are a payment provider enabling payments IN ANY CURRENCY which could be bitcoin, gold, or even obscure private scamcoins like funbux or yuros.
If you are a merchant, call them up and say you price your goods in bitcoin, and you need to receive payments from them in bitcoin.
After all, I have a visa card, and I want to buy something from your shop that costs .005 btc.
It's a dumb decision to raise the block size now since we have Segregated Witness which effectively is the same as raising the blocksize without all the tradeoffs like the risk of hard forking itself beside node centralization problems.
We will go through the halving with 1MB block size I think.
We will go through the halving with 1MB block size I think.
segwit is not an ultimate solution, so you need to increase in the end the block size, so why we ar enot doing it now instead of wasting time with subterfuge like segwit?
unless someone here think that bitcoin just need 2mb to embrace adoption...not so sure aboutlightning network...i guess it may help, but i doubt it can cover the possible 1giga needed to match visa tx per second
Visa can value their TX in bitcoin. There is no "need" here you have identified yet.
what do you mean their value in bitcoin? i'm talking about tx volume...the need is not for now is for the future in case bitcoin will embrace greater adoption
to the contrary of popular belief, a big adoption can actually happen in a short time, so if it will happen there will be no time to implement the ideal solution
It's a dumb decision to raise the block size now since we have Segregated Witness which effectively is the same as raising the blocksize without all the tradeoffs like the risk of hard forking itself beside node centralization problems.
We will go through the halving with 1MB block size I think.
We will go through the halving with 1MB block size I think.
segwit is not an ultimate solution, so you need to increase in the end the block size, so why we ar enot doing it now instead of wasting time with subterfuge like segwit?
unless someone here think that bitcoin just need 2mb to embrace adoption...not so sure aboutlightning network...i guess it may help, but i doubt it can cover the possible 1giga needed to match visa tx per second
Visa can value their TX in bitcoin. There is no "need" here you have identified yet.
It's a dumb decision to raise the block size now since we have Segregated Witness which effectively is the same as raising the blocksize without all the tradeoffs like the risk of hard forking itself beside node centralization problems.
We will go through the halving with 1MB block size I think.
We will go through the halving with 1MB block size I think.
segwit is not an ultimate solution, so you need to increase in the end the block size, so why we are not doing it now instead of wasting time with subterfuge like segwit?
unless someone here think that bitcoin just need 2mb to embrace adoption...not so sure about lightning network...i guess it may help, but i doubt it can cover the possible 1giga needed to match visa tx per second
It's a dumb decision to raise the block size now since we have Segregated Witness which effectively is the same as raising the blocksize without all the tradeoffs like the risk of hard forking itself beside node centralization problems.
We will go through the halving with 1MB block size I think.
Exactly. Another beneficial factor of segwit is that the block size will not jump to 2 MB but will rather grow over time with the adoption. I think that this is better than a sudden jump although this is debatable. Segwit fixes some other very important things as well. We will go through the halving with 1MB block size I think.
It's a dumb decision to raise the block size now since we have Segregated Witness which effectively is the same as raising the blocksize without all the tradeoffs like the risk of hard forking itself beside node centralization problems.
We will go through the halving with 1MB block size I think.
We will go through the halving with 1MB block size I think.
before there is an agreement about the ongong block size debate, we might be seeing the block halving is being completed first as an agreement regarding the block size can take another year or so. i have no confidence in a quick outcome.
Block size increase first, via 1st stage of SegWit in April.
I'm not even sure, the whole block size debate has been going on for far too long. I want to predict SegWit will be introduced but I'm not sure when they planned that so I think the halving will be first.
What are your opinions on this? Will the block size problem be resolved or will the halving happen first?
I din't think that the problem of block size will be resolved so easy. The main core developer (Gavin Andresen) it is supporter of "another" bitcoin. With him even another charismatic developer as Jeff Garzik. The others remaining at bitcoincore are unknown people and with less contributes in the actual bitcoin (as it is actually). I don't see any point in which these two groups can be together. Every each of those has already its bitcoin and is working for it. So, according to me, not only before halving but even to much time after halving there it will not be a solution of this problem. Being not a technician (devs or programmer) cannot be able to tell if this division (if can be successful both variants of bitcoin) could affect the halving but normally not. It would be the the halving of the bitcoin of today and not of the bitcoin classic. Anyhow if both are bitcoin and have the same code and development (except the block size) can (or must) be even the halving of the other one. Anyhow this is not something that is much important for this thread so have no meaning to be analyzed more.
What is this other bitcoin? That private/corporate one?
I strongly believe halving will come first, since the block size discussion doesn't seem to have a solution in the near future. I would say at least one year so it's possible to begin to grasp a consensus.
After Gavin's latest Bip proposal for a 2MB block size upgrade, I would bet a lot of people will jump in that direction because it is the popular choice and we will see a block size increase before the halving. This little patch can have dire consequences in the future for the political shift it might develop.
You cannot put Band-aid on a gunshot wound and tell people the patient will survive. The doctor will get paid, but the patient might just die. I guess it is all about the power.
The majority is most often wrong and thus this would not surprise me one bit. Once we let a single political fork change the rules of the system, where does it end? Who's to say that there won't be other fundamental changes via other forks? Once you let this succeed, there is no coming back. You cannot put Band-aid on a gunshot wound and tell people the patient will survive. The doctor will get paid, but the patient might just die. I guess it is all about the power.
Halving all the way, and at this rat you might be asking this same question in a few years
Every year or two if we scale by increasing the block size.Jump to: