Topic: Will Bitcoin EVER have a bigger blocksize? Is there hope? (Read 1507 times)

Do you know GitHub have fork feature and there are many full node client aside from Bitcoin Core?


Only Bitcoin Enthusiasm & Bitcoin Developer who would use full node client these day.


There's big difference from only downloading whole blockchain and downloading whole blockchain, then run your computer 24/7. Don't forget high CPU/RAM/Storage usage when sync as well.

It got real crazy when bsv became the real bitcoin cash lol

It is pitiful to see the state of our ecosystem. Too many scammers , just trying to make quick money from people who are not very informed about the subject.

This whole fork drama is bad for bitcoin. But now both "real bitcoin" and "real bitcoin cash" look dead so we can move on.

Plus to have their cake and eat it too, they declare THEIR altcoin as the "real Bitcoin" because "Satoshi's Vision"/whitepaper.

That simply, doesn't how it works.

Bch and bsv have nothing to do with bitcoin. Those are altcoins  which were forked from the bitcoin chain and those consensus rules were rejected by the community.

This is what decentralization means. Nobody is forced to follow a fork which changed the rules.

Roger Ver's chain and Faketoshi's chain are not decentralized because they are owned by people who can control their network.  They have a central planner. Community rejected their ideas and they decided to implement them anyway. That is what centralization is about.

Exactly. Basically, there's no need to increase Bitcoin's block size since there are other cryptocurrencies out there which are already scalable for the world. If you want faster transactions and cheaper fees, just go for other alternatives like the ones mentioned earlier. The fastest and cheapest Blockchains today are XRP and Stellar. They're quite ideal for day-to-day payments within the mainstream world. Since Bitcoin has been designed as a store of value from the start, it cannot be used effectively for quick transfers unlike other cryptocurrencies on the market today. Of course, we already have a second layer in the works (Lightning Network) with the aim of making Bitcoin suitable for micropayments worldwide.

This, coupled up with a block weight of 4 MB (thanks to the adoption of SegWit), should make Bitcoin scalable enough for most people within a couple of years from now. As long as decentralization is put first above all else, there should be nothing to worry about. I believe that Bitcoin forks such as Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV will fail in the long run as they'll become too centralized over time with their immense block sizes. As it's always said, "slow and steady wins the race". Bitcoin is already doing this by slowly implementing scalability solutions without sacrificing decentralization. Its counterparts (BCH and BSV) will be largely dominated by big players in the industry as the average person won't be able to support the blockchain as node costs rise over time.

Nonetheless, Bitcoin still has hope of becoming a widespread cryptocurrency for mainstream use because of its Layer-Two solutions. Even in its current state, it has been quite successful (unlike its competitors). With different scalability solutions being tested on various blockchain networks (BTC, BCH, BSV) we could determine which is the best (and safest) path to take (Block size increase, off-chain transactions, etc) for Bitcoin to be used by anyone in the world. Just my thoughts

I have a feeling that any Bitcoin hard fork will result in two distinct networks. I don't think we'll see "clean" hard forks where the original network dies unless it's some sort of existential emergency bug fix.

Upgrading to allow quantum resistant signatures -- or lots of other features and optimizations -- can be done with a soft fork. Backward compatibility (no network split) is a good thing.

I'm curious what more technical folks think about Mark Friedenbach’s "forward blocks" idea, where a future block size increase could be achieved with a soft fork.

The problem is the bandwidth (and CPU power). Not storage. Bitcoin is the result of sheer software engineering. If you read any book about any kind of engineering, it usually starts like this:

"Engineers always should design their product/project to withstand the worst possible condition there is."

The sentence wasn't always exactly like this probably but you get the idea.

Murphy's law say something similar to this too:


Always assume the worst so you'll never fail... and you can still fail regardless. These are the times you realize that you just can't beat your luck. That's when we say "Shit happens."

How often does one sync from zero anyway? You're talking about new installs or maybe new users. They know this, there is just no way around this.

People regularly download terabyte collections of 4k movies these days (or stream them), so current blockchain is not really a problem after it has already sync'd.

The second question is interesting though = Is there hope? Maybe the actual block size or weight could increase in the future, but right now plenty of 1 sat transactions are confirming so there's not much need yet.

That's not true.

You can hard fork bitcoin right now.

You just cannot make people follow your fork with force.

If there needs to be another upgrade which needs to be implemented by doing a hf, then you might have a point but it is still not impossible.

Simple problem is Bitcoin would need a hardfork.
And thats what I simply learned. Bitcoin will NEVER hardfork. Because they guys control the github will not allow to upload such a code.

And now you can think about decentralisation 

cost to fully validate and store (for archiving) chain is constant growth. if chain become too big too quick, it will not be as decentralized as it should be, because cost to fully validate and store will be too expensive for average home user. look at what happens to ethereum, they must rely primarily to third parties for node. this is not a decentralized system in my view. bitcoin network thrive due to decentral aspect, capable by many who fully validate and run node

But technically, one branch, that holds the "BTC" ticker, is the backwards compatible and continues from the original, the other branch, that holds the "BCH" ticker, is not backwards compatible, and split away from the original.

Always how u view it, from what perspective and what u are willing to pre define.

But we can finally agree that Bitcoin didn't start with a ticker symbol and has kinda separated into different approaches under different tickers and the rest of the world is way bigger than any of the each supporting 'communities'.

So the rest of the world will go eventually and decide what they want for the different use case and this will nothing have to do with tickers or speculation, rather with usability and capacity ( bigger block sizes)  bordlessness, costs / efficiency and compliance.


2020 will be very interesting, happy new year!

Or go fork Bitcoin, call it the real "Bitcoin", and be satisfied in what you achieve from it. But they did it, and day by day, the forked-community are becoming more exposed that their forks are mere troll-jobs.

Really, I don't get this why do you want such ridiculous changes in Bitcoin's protocol? Go get an alt that can simply do the job for you if you are ^not so satisfied^ with what Satoshi has done (and the rest of the developers are doing) to keep the project alive and running. If you want bigger block size in BTC, instead go for XRP, LTC or DOGE to get your transactions confirmed quicker. Why do you need a change in something when the whole consensus is against you? Stop being the "Albert Einstein" of Bitcoin.

Trust me, you shouldn't fight for the block size, but about settling more transactions in the blocks that either go empty or are left with some space.

And if that's what people want, they should definitely use that coin.  But it's not what I signed up for, so I won't be doing that.  



It's always "someone" with you.  Why can't you be grateful for what you have, instead of constantly asking other people to do more for you?  If you want it to happen, how about you do it?  But again, don't just expect people to join in.  They'll either join of their own volition, or they won't.

Here's what you don't seem to grasp.  People discovered Bitcoin, they liked the idea, so they started using it.  Then you come along thinking you can change the idea to something many of those users would deem absolutely abysmal AND you want someone else to make these terrible changes for you!  What planet are you even from if you think that's gonna fly?

The troll is holding on to the narrative that Bitcoin will replace Visa. I believe that it was a mistake done by old Bitcoin evangelists by promoting Bitcoin as a "fast, anonymous, digital cash that you can send peer to peer for free".

Plus it would protect the longevity of the network by letting it scale out with more full-archival nodes than less. More full-archival nodes, more decentralization. More decentralization, more security.

Fast block time is usually achieved at the cost of security due to high orphaning risk, so that's no solution either. I wouldn't say that cryptocurrencies are terrible for micropayments, but instead that on-chain transactions are terrible for micropayments.


Sure, but reducing block size would still improve initial sync time vs. doing nothing at all. It will mitigate the damage we're currently doing.

Give them some space for what their network/protocol should be, or shouldn't be. I believe the Bitcoin community should have no problem with it. BUT they should also stop trolling everyone by calling their coin "the real/original Bitcoin".