Right now block size is increasing, many solution be offered by developer and comunity that care about it,
unfortunately it is become long debates,
it had becomed debates ego than looking for solution for block size problem, maybe block size increasing is can not be fixed
and being should.
Topic: When will we have a Block size increase? (Read 1020 times)
I hope that even if there is no increment in block size, another solution is found and soon implemented. Unfortunately miners have a great deal of power over Bitcoin. The network being congested and the increasing rates only benefit themselves.
only when they activate the SegWit will we witness the increase of the block size. however, it is hnlikelyto happen in this decade since there are too many pool do not want to involve in the SegWit. i dont know why. if the litecoin can activate the Segwit, maybe bitcoin will follow its path
You need to have a cross check, bitcoin doesn't have anything to follow litecoin to resolve its complications. Litecoin mining is possible even with a desktop which has a increased spec's. The same is not possible with bitcoin, because the blocks to be resolved and the miners involved were large, also specially developed asics are there to mine bitcoin. Same is with the segwit implementation on litecoin, it is found successful in litecoin. Same cannot be expected with bitcoin as the variation in all factors are large. 
only when they activate the SegWit will we witness the increase of the block size. however, it is hnlikelyto happen in this decade since there are too many pool do not want to involve in the SegWit. i dont know why. if the litecoin can activate the Segwit, maybe bitcoin will follow its path
You mean when will they hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? I hope never now that I realize how greedy the miners really are. They want everything, the whole piece of the pie. The Chinese Mining Industry already has so much power on the network yet they want more. To have leverage on them, Segwit needs to be implemented and then the Lightning Network created.
please research.
I would really love to believe me. I am a voracious reader. The problem is I would not know where to start. Can you give me a link or 2 on where to start, I will do the rest. I want to learn about what you are saying about Blockstream and try to see the situation from the big blocker's point of view.
Since this issue with the Network capacity is increasing, and even though Satoshi himself proposed a block size increase, and it seems this creates new attack vectors,
may i know what these new attack vectors are that can be caused by increasing block size?
so far i have been seeing attackers spam the hell out of the network, increasing the mempool size to unbelievable size! what would be different if say block size were bigger (eg 2 MB)?
So, everybody knows the Bitcoin network has a serious issue to solve. Meanwhile the fees cost is going higher and higher and that could sign the death of Bitcoin. We all know that the best solution to that is a block size increase, but when is that going to be implemented???
If we want to increase the prize so that the bitcoin network would not die because of too many bitcoin transactions than its users population, then we are going to implement Bitcoin Unlimited because of their vision and mission about bitcoins community. Since they are almost the same when its come to popularity, I'm still going to choose Bitcoin Unlimited than SegWit, if you are going to ask me what am I going to choose.
You mean when will they hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? I hope never now that I realize how greedy the miners really are. They want everything, the whole piece of the pie. The Chinese Mining Industry already has so much power on the network yet they want more. To have leverage on them, Segwit needs to be implemented and then the Lightning Network created.
please research.
1. blockstream are holding back NODE consensus
2. blockstream node consensus avoidance is holding back onchain growth and also miner confidence.
3. blockstream tinkered with the fee war to remove 'reactive pricing' and implemented 'averaged pricing, which biasedly increases even with 'empty blocks'.
4. pools have not changed any major rules or enforced anything. it is the code blockstream devs handed out.
5. by blockstream avoiding node consensus even with segwig. it actually shot themselves in the foot. pools wont make a massive change to the way blocks are formed and relayed unless they see high majority node acceptance.. (to avoid orphans)
the reality is that pools are not greedy. they are smart. its blockstream that bent the rules (publicly admitting it by going soft) so that they can blame pools if nothing happens, but blockstream devs can take the glory if all goes right, (typical bait and switch)
the devs should have gone for a hard CONSENSUS not soft CONSENSUS (dont confuse consensus with splits, i know your probably itching to rebuttle as such)
all the difference between hard and soft is.. is who gets to vote..
hard=nodes then pools
soft=pools then nodes
which can cause just as many issues either way if not done right
So, everybody knows the Bitcoin network has a serious issue to solve. Meanwhile the fees cost is going higher and higher and that could sign the death of Bitcoin. We all know that the best solution to that is a block size increase, but when is that going to be implemented???
You mean when will they hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? I hope never now that I realize how greedy the miners really are. They want everything, the whole piece of the pie. The Chinese Mining Industry already has so much power on the network yet they want more. To have leverage on them, Segwit needs to be implemented and then the Lightning Network created.
Hopefully never! These people all think they are smarter than Satoshi, go start your own Coin then. It seems like more of an effort to Centralize and control Bitcoin than "fix" it. Why wouldn't you start a brand new coin with the "magical solution" and mine block 1, 2, 3 like Satoshi? Why would they sacrifice the "magical solution" on Bitcoin with Satoshi having 1 million BTC?
The fact is the "magical solution" is Bitcoin and they want it for themselves.
Litecoin is great for quick small transactions and Ethereum also. Both are accepted many places even Dogecoin.
So it's not like dust transactions aren't possible with Cryptos.
The fact is the "magical solution" is Bitcoin and they want it for themselves.
Litecoin is great for quick small transactions and Ethereum also. Both are accepted many places even Dogecoin.
So it's not like dust transactions aren't possible with Cryptos.
Well increasing the block sizes will lead to less decentralization, because a lot of people will have to stop running a node. The costs involved with
running a node, both in hard disk space and bandwidth will force people to shut down their nodes. The network will become more vulnerable to
spam attacks too...
running a node, both in hard disk space and bandwidth will force people to shut down their nodes. The network will become more vulnerable to
spam attacks too...
costs wont go up.
again dont be pulled into the fake rhetoric of "gigabytes by midnight"
the funny thing is.
if people end up running litenotes wrote in Go for LN instead of full nodes.
if people end up running pruned - no witness mode instead of full history (archival mode).
meaning that cores features can dilute the real fullnode count far more easily in months.
compared to any NODE agreed blocksize consensus. which increases NATURALLY over time. by which time people upgrade their computer ever 3rd/half decade
Well increasing the block sizes will lead to less decentralization, because a lot of people will have to stop running a node. The costs involved with
running a node, both in hard disk space and bandwidth will force people to shut down their nodes. The network will become more vulnerable to
spam attacks too...
running a node, both in hard disk space and bandwidth will force people to shut down their nodes. The network will become more vulnerable to
spam attacks too...
the only people shouting ridiculous size factors are people like CB and his blockstream defender buddies. to scare people into thinking that blocksize increases lead to "gigabytes by midnight"
natural consensus blocksize growth, is done WHEN NODES CAN HANDLE IT. meaning it wont outscale nodes ability to handle it. because it will be the nodes themselves that would be saying yes please or no thankyou.
not the pools
not the devs
not the fudsters that prefer lite wallets
natural consensus blocksize growth, is done WHEN NODES CAN HANDLE IT. meaning it wont outscale nodes ability to handle it. because it will be the nodes themselves that would be saying yes please or no thankyou.
not the pools
not the devs
not the fudsters that prefer lite wallets
Since this issue with the Network capacity is increasing, and even though Satoshi himself proposed a block size increase, and it seems this creates new attack vectors, shouldn't we be using these alternatives?
I mean, the fees are increasing which can affect the adoption so, shouldn´t we be going for these alternatives?
I mean, the fees are increasing which can affect the adoption so, shouldn´t we be going for these alternatives?
Been saying this for almost 2 years now
What's needed is MORE TRANSACTIONS not more blockspace. If the blocksize is a sensitive variable for the network, why ever talk about the blocksize at all, if there are other options? Probably the best I've heard of is to hard fork NOT to 2MB, but to a new encoding scheme that makes more efficient use of 1MB.
And yet (presumably) total morons are loudly and relentlessly arguing for multiplying the blocksize by ridiculous factors, WITHOUT solving the problem where verifying blocks doesn't scale linearly BEFOREHAND. It's crazy.
Thanks for the answers guys. But now I have another one.
I know that there are other alternatives to the block size increase namely, the Lightning Network and the Falcon Net, or Side Chains... Since this issue with the Network capacity is increasing, and even though Satoshi himself proposed a block size increase, and it seems this creates new attack vectors, shouldn't we be using these alternatives?
I mean, the fees are increasing which can affect the adoption so, shouldn´t we be going for these alternatives?
I know that there are other alternatives to the block size increase namely, the Lightning Network and the Falcon Net, or Side Chains... Since this issue with the Network capacity is increasing, and even though Satoshi himself proposed a block size increase, and it seems this creates new attack vectors, shouldn't we be using these alternatives?
I mean, the fees are increasing which can affect the adoption so, shouldn´t we be going for these alternatives?
Its still soft fork (SegWit) vs hard fork(BU). Still no consensus if I'm not mistaken. Of course, increasing block size I believe will resolve the problem with backlog transaction but I the experts are still debating on how they are going to implement (soft or hard fork)
I'm not sure If anything changed since then but the last thing I've read in this subject was a few months back (planned roadmap)
I also cannot tell for sure what's the definition of community support is in this case and as I said on an earlier thread , SegWit adoption doesn't look so promising.
- SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
- The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
- If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017.
I also cannot tell for sure what's the definition of community support is in this case and as I said on an earlier thread , SegWit adoption doesn't look so promising.
So, everybody knows the Bitcoin network has a serious issue to solve. Meanwhile the fees cost is going higher and higher and that could sign the death of Bitcoin. We all know that the best solution to that is a block size increase, but when is that going to be implemented???
Everyone in Core except a single member wants to raise the blocksize, but every expert including Andreas Antonopulos, has advised against raising the blocksize without activating segwit first, because doing so would lead to a ton of different attack vectors:
https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168
Therefore, you can thank the miners that don't signal for segwit for not getting a blocksize increase.
So, everybody knows the Bitcoin network has a serious issue to solve. Meanwhile the fees cost is going higher and higher and that could sign the death of Bitcoin. We all know that the best solution to that is a block size increase, but when is that going to be implemented???
Jump to: