Here you go:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009793.html
"A summary of block size hardfork proposals"
Topic: When the first 1000001 byte block hits (Read 1116 times)
I guess that depends if it is "k' (1000) or "K" (1024). I'm not well versed in the protocol so don't know the answer to that.
Anyhow, why is everyone talking about 1MB or 20MB? Why can't we go with the dynamic block size and resolve this once and for all?
Also, with SmartChain (a form of sidechain if I understand correctly) we wouldn't even have the issue, as micro and macro transactions could be bundled and submitted to the blockchain, keeping the highway low on traffic.
I'm not speaking from a position of authority and happy to be educated. The above is just my woolly understanding.
Anyhow, why is everyone talking about 1MB or 20MB? Why can't we go with the dynamic block size and resolve this once and for all?
Also, with SmartChain (a form of sidechain if I understand correctly) we wouldn't even have the issue, as micro and macro transactions could be bundled and submitted to the blockchain, keeping the highway low on traffic.
I'm not speaking from a position of authority and happy to be educated. The above is just my woolly understanding.
It actually is 1000000 bytes.
As for "why can't we go with dynamic block size", the issue there is how to make it adjustable without making it gameable. The actual proposed solution (https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/22) is 8 MB and then a doubling every 2 years. This should provide decent capacity without overrunning Moore's Law.
Thanks for the info, much appreciated. Looks like I've got a bit of reading to do.
So is the 20MB block an official proposal (I had assumed it was), or is that Gavin giving the protocol a 'stress test'?
So the folks behind bitcoinxt are pushing 8MB with a 2 year doubling. Sipa is proposing gradual (~ every 100 days starting in 2017) ~17% yoy growth (https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6). There is no "official proposal" since there is no "official bitcoin source" or "official developers". Bitcoin is a network and community with many differing opinions. The bitcoinxt proposal is the only one I know of that has code ready to merge, and is also the only one with a merged BIP (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki)
you mean after the block limit will be bigger? any eta when they will do it or thats still just in plans? i cant wait till the reforms of bitcoin and whole blockchain
I think some people worry that we can not increase blocksize, therefore bitcoin will be at the fringe forever. Not the defined size, but when we actually have a large block, successful in that others build on it. I think the first bigblock will be just slightly above the current max, then we will have sub 1 MB blocks for a day or two.
I thought we had a plan for transactions to withstand higher blocksize tx since we cant increase. Like the whole 20 mb to end clogged tx.
Also based on this technical factor isnt going to increase just due to the just based on the first big block.. unless people panic.
We can increase the blocksize, the problem is some people don't want to. If we reached a solid consensus we would have 8mb of blocksize already instead of endlessly arguing about it on Reddit. But I guess is better to do things right than fast, but lets not forget this is a ticking clock.
I guess that depends if it is "k' (1000) or "K" (1024). I'm not well versed in the protocol so don't know the answer to that.
Anyhow, why is everyone talking about 1MB or 20MB? Why can't we go with the dynamic block size and resolve this once and for all?
Also, with SmartChain (a form of sidechain if I understand correctly) we wouldn't even have the issue, as micro and macro transactions could be bundled and submitted to the blockchain, keeping the highway low on traffic.
I'm not speaking from a position of authority and happy to be educated. The above is just my woolly understanding.
Anyhow, why is everyone talking about 1MB or 20MB? Why can't we go with the dynamic block size and resolve this once and for all?
Also, with SmartChain (a form of sidechain if I understand correctly) we wouldn't even have the issue, as micro and macro transactions could be bundled and submitted to the blockchain, keeping the highway low on traffic.
I'm not speaking from a position of authority and happy to be educated. The above is just my woolly understanding.
It actually is 1000000 bytes.
As for "why can't we go with dynamic block size", the issue there is how to make it adjustable without making it gameable. The actual proposed solution (https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/22) is 8 MB and then a doubling every 2 years. This should provide decent capacity without overrunning Moore's Law.
Thanks for the info, much appreciated. Looks like I've got a bit of reading to do.
So is the 20MB block an official proposal (I had assumed it was), or is that Gavin giving the protocol a 'stress test'?
I guess that depends if it is "k' (1000) or "K" (1024). I'm not well versed in the protocol so don't know the answer to that.
Anyhow, why is everyone talking about 1MB or 20MB? Why can't we go with the dynamic block size and resolve this once and for all?
Also, with SmartChain (a form of sidechain if I understand correctly) we wouldn't even have the issue, as micro and macro transactions could be bundled and submitted to the blockchain, keeping the highway low on traffic.
I'm not speaking from a position of authority and happy to be educated. The above is just my woolly understanding.
Anyhow, why is everyone talking about 1MB or 20MB? Why can't we go with the dynamic block size and resolve this once and for all?
Also, with SmartChain (a form of sidechain if I understand correctly) we wouldn't even have the issue, as micro and macro transactions could be bundled and submitted to the blockchain, keeping the highway low on traffic.
I'm not speaking from a position of authority and happy to be educated. The above is just my woolly understanding.
It actually is 1000000 bytes.
As for "why can't we go with dynamic block size", the issue there is how to make it adjustable without making it gameable. The actual proposed solution (https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/22) is 8 MB and then a doubling every 2 years. This should provide decent capacity without overrunning Moore's Law.
I guess that depends if it is "k' (1000) or "K" (1024). I'm not well versed in the protocol so don't know the answer to that.
Anyhow, why is everyone talking about 1MB or 20MB? Why can't we go with the dynamic block size and resolve this once and for all?
Also, with SmartChain (a form of sidechain if I understand correctly) we wouldn't even have the issue, as micro and macro transactions could be bundled and submitted to the blockchain, keeping the highway low on traffic.
I'm not speaking from a position of authority and happy to be educated. The above is just my woolly understanding.
Anyhow, why is everyone talking about 1MB or 20MB? Why can't we go with the dynamic block size and resolve this once and for all?
Also, with SmartChain (a form of sidechain if I understand correctly) we wouldn't even have the issue, as micro and macro transactions could be bundled and submitted to the blockchain, keeping the highway low on traffic.
I'm not speaking from a position of authority and happy to be educated. The above is just my woolly understanding.
you mean after the block limit will be bigger? any eta when they will do it or thats still just in plans? i cant wait till the reforms of bitcoin and whole blockchain
I think some people worry that we can not increase blocksize, therefore bitcoin will be at the fringe forever. Not the defined size, but when we actually have a large block, successful in that others build on it. I think the first bigblock will be just slightly above the current max, then we will have sub 1 MB blocks for a day or two.
I thought we had a plan for transactions to withstand higher blocksize tx since we cant increase. Like the whole 20 mb to end clogged tx.
Also based on this technical factor isnt going to increase just due to the just based on the first big block.. unless people panic.
I'm just sensing the insecurity from the blocksize debate. It will be good when it is resolved.
you mean after the block limit will be bigger? any eta when they will do it or thats still just in plans? i cant wait till the reforms of bitcoin and whole blockchain
I think some people worry that we can not increase blocksize, therefore bitcoin will be at the fringe forever. Not the defined size, but when we actually have a large block, successful in that others build on it. I think the first bigblock will be just slightly above the current max, then we will have sub 1 MB blocks for a day or two.
I thought we had a plan for transactions to withstand higher blocksize tx since we cant increase. Like the whole 20 mb to end clogged tx.
Also based on this technical factor isnt going to increase just due to the just based on the first big block.. unless people panic.
you mean after the block limit will be bigger? any eta when they will do it or thats still just in plans? i cant wait till the reforms of bitcoin and whole blockchain
I think some people worry that we can not increase blocksize, therefore bitcoin will be at the fringe forever. Not the defined size, but when we actually have a large block, successful in that others build on it. I think the first bigblock will be just slightly above the current max, then we will have sub 1 MB blocks for a day or two.
you mean after the block limit will be bigger? any eta when they will do it or thats still just in plans? i cant wait till the reforms of bitcoin and whole blockchain
...the price will shoot up fifty dollars.
That's less than 0.96MB... Make it happen!
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
Just add another two 0's on the end and keep the blockstream guys looking the other way while you hit commit!
...the price will shoot up fifty dollars.
That's less than 0.96MB... Make it happen!
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
...the price will shoot up fifty dollars.
That's less than 0.96MB... Make it happen!
...the price will shoot up fifty dollars.
Jump to: