Topic: Will Bitcoin EVER have a bigger blocksize? Is there hope? - page 2. (Read 1477 times)

Your views on what Bitcoin "is" or "isn't" are totally irrelevant.  We have a consensus mechanism to do that.  It appears to disagree with you.

BCH is not more 'centralized' ( what's the exact definition here, and what measures follows from such?)

Original BitCoin can already do a lot more than ripple , u just need to investigate it in its form/implementation of BSV.

Mere musing by me. For the longevity of the network, I believe the "issue" might be discussed/considered in Bitcoin's near future.

future changes can not change the past. even if block size is reduced to zero you still have to download the entire ~200 GB blockchain history to be considered a "full node".

Or what about "will Bitcoin EVER have a smaller block size to improve the initial blockchain download/network latency, and increase the amount of full-archival nodes in the network?"

I think a 1mb block size is the best we can have now.

Large enough to handle over half a million transactions every day.
Even a million or more with some batching and optimization.

But yet small enough to be able to fully sync the blockchain in 1-3 days.
And fast enough to run over Tor, which might be needed if governments start to crack down on it.

What is a 1000 GigaMeg good for if that means bitcoin will be censored in many places?

faster blocks just means they are easier to revert, and likely there will be competing blocks doing it accidentally given a small window to propagate the new block.

no matter the block time, what counts is accumulated work on top of the block for the cost backing its finality

With 2-of-2 multisig address where both merchant and customer park the same amount fast block time isn't necessary, even 24 hours blocks will work just fine.

i wouldn't be so sure about that. only unlimited block size can keep the fees low. anything that has a cap will end up with a fee market eventually.
besides with BCH there are other problems too. for example what people sometimes forget is that BCH is the exact copy of bitcoin and the clients are the exact copy of bitcoin core and due to the incompetency of BCH developers they haven't been able to really create a client that works for that kind of block size. you would think that empty blocks and having such a huge cap wouldn't lead to fee competitions but you would be wrong. not to mention that miners don't even support the big block size after 2 years! and they will continue mining 1 MB blocks even if there were more transactions in the mempool. it is not noticeable because BCH block sizes currently are about 0.05-0.2 MB.

here is an interesting observation i had a while ago where a short term (1 hour) spam attack of transactions with 1 s/b fee forces users to start paying 2 s/b:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52337255

Well, Bitcoin Cash may have a bigger block size than Bitcoin, but it's heavily centralized today. No one would want to transact using Bitcoin Cash over Bitcoin or even Dogecoin, because of this reason. Dogecoin, although being an old cryptocurrency, has managed to gain acceptance within the mainstream world because it retains decentralization while providing cheaper fees and faster transaction confirmation times. What once started as a "joke", ended as a serious cryptocurrency for traders and investors alike. Bitcoin Cash still has a block time of 10 minutes, which is makes it terrible for micropayments. Of course, with a bigger block size, fees will be able to remain low. But transaction speed is the same as Bitcoin with a 10 minute delay per block. If Bitcoin Cash wants to obtain greater usage than Dogecoin, it needs to lower its block time and become a decentralized cryptocurrency for people to use massively within the mainstream world. Otherwise, I don't see any future for it.

In the case of Bitcoin, a block size increase is not necessary right now. With the adoption of SegWit, Bitcoin changed its block size (now block weight) from 1 MB to 4 MB. This, alongside the Lightning Network, would be everything Bitcoin needs to scale for the mainstream world. In case Bitcoin's Layer-2 solution (LN) becomes bloated, a quick increase from 4 MB to 8 MB will do the trick. It's important to increase the block size (or in this case, block weight) in smaller increments to maintain the decentralization of Bitcoin as much as possible. Extremely huge block sizes like it's the case with Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV, would greatly undermine the purpose Blockchain technology was created for (which is the decentralization of money).

Time will tell us what Bitcoin's developers will do in order to maintain Bitcoin scalable for the world. As long as everything is done with decentralization in mind, Bitcoin will succeed for a long time. Otherwise, you could expect its demise within the mainstream world. Just my opinion

People still don't know bitcoin increased block size?

Size: 2.2 MB https://www.smartbit.com.au/block/540107

Now sitting at record high averages near ~1.2 MB https://bitcoinvisuals.com/chain-block-size

Limiting blocksize/time is a security feature above all else to address bandwidth and validation costs, with additional benefit that space scarcity drives fees that are meant to replace block reward eventually.

Block time change, by the way, would be a soft fork too (depends on definition).

Many exchanges finally batching as well which allows more throughput for others.

The next Schnorr, MAST, Taproot soft fork will reduce tx size as well allowing more throughput.

Various other current proposed BIP that can help deal with higher throughput:


Regardless, on-chain methods increase scaling linearly while off-chain offer orders of magnitude bigger scaling w/o compromising security of base layer. Even trust minimized solutions like rollups could technically be used as well, if not for bitcoin, then for token layers on embedded consensus and take them off chain.

Dogecoin has a much stabler price with a lot lower fee and is accepted in almost every exchange. not to mention that it is decentralized and immutable unlike BCH and BSV that easily roll back and do whatever they want since they fully control these altcoins.

I believe Dogecoin has more real actual transactions from real actual users per month than Bitcoin Cash and the SV version.

Likewise for scammer-version, in spite of all their crowing about hundreds of megabyte blocks, constant spamming with weather data transactions, and bcashers crying about services that had to shut down because the cost of a bsv node was too great, their chain is a about 30% smaller than Bitcoin's.

it could have been a good testing ground if there were some constant actual usage in their blockchain that could generate some traffic for at least a month.
otherwise so far we have seen some short periods where they artificially spammed their network to spike up the tx count that couldn't prove anything.
the funny thing is even though bitcoin has technically "smaller max block size", its blockchain is currently 109 GB bigger than BCH blockchain

See, Doge has more supply, more liquidity, more market pairs, in more exchanges. It also has faster block times. BCash is probably the joke here, not Doge. To be fair, the BCash and BSV are good testing grounds for their large blocks, storing all sorts of junk in them. If someone uploads wikipedia to the blockchain, maybe they will stop asking for donations. And it will be there forever.

It's impressive only if you see Dogecoin as a joke coin and BCash as something so great.

Dogecoin is old. Since it's so cheap it can be used for learning or tests. Very important: it's accepted in most exchanges (most probably in more exchanges as BCash). Some still use Dogecoin move their funds out of small exchanges where they've sold coins you may have never heard of (I've done that too when where trying out mining on certain new coins). Also most probably an exchange will have very low withdrawal fee for Dogecoin. So yes, Dogecoin has its use cases.

The comparison with Bcash doesn't have a chance. BCash is a new altcoin coming into an area many other altcoins do this job wonderfully. When I have transfers to make quick and for some reasons I have troubles with the fees (usually the withdrawal fees from exchanges), the top options are Ripple (!), Doge, Litecoin, ...

This could give a better image on the reasons why transaction activity is not as you'd expect.
And this could be a reason why Bitcoin Devs don't think that bigger block size need attention and that the bigger blocks would bring without coming with other problems all the benefits some are boasting.

Exactly. Bitcoin Cash may have greater scalability than Bitcoin, and most old altcoins like Dogecoin and Litecoin. But, its low transaction activity shows us that people really don't care about the technical aspects of the underlying cryptocurrency's Blockchain network. It's impressive to see a joke cryptocurrency like Dogecoin without any improvements in scalability whatsoever, being superior than Bitcoin Cash in terms of transaction activity. Which means, that people are on the hunt for tried-and-tested coins that actually provide real use cases (and value) to the mainstream world, than just hype. In Bitcoin Cash's early days, everything was full of excitement leading prices per coin at $4k across the market by 2020. But right after many people discovered the centralization risks of huge block sizes with Bitcoin Cash's inception back in 2017, we've seen a decline of interest over the past months.

Bitcoin Cash's hash wars in 2018, greatly diminished the cryptocurrency's reputation within the mainstream world. Given the events of Bitcoin Cash's huge block size, I doubt that Bitcoin will increase its block size anytime soon. While SegWit has increased the "block size" (now called "block weight") to 4MB, the Lightning Network takes care of the rest by providing instant transactions with low fees without the need for enormous block sizes (unlike both Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV) which prove to centralize the entire Blockchain network.

Nonetheless, Bitcoin's SegWit + Lightning Network may be all it needs to scale for the foreseeable future. Increasing the block size is not a priority at the moment, as Layer-Two solutions alleviate the situation for a pretty long time. Until the Lightning Network becomes "clogged up", developers of the main Bitcoin blockchain won't be increasing its block size anytime soon. Just my opinion

I have always disagreed with your signature phill , sorry I have been wanting to confess but never had the chance  

I like the description you use, but not the way you structure it , if I had to use the same thing , i would call Blockchain a highway , and every coin including Bitcoin trucks needed to move transactions/value.

Now it's up to the user to chose how would they want to transfer their funds ,  do you want to use an armored truck guarded by a dozen security guards but apparently slow in it's nature form like Bitcoin , or send your money in an exposed motorcycle ignoring every aspect and focusing only on speed like BSV or any other "let's make huge blocks" coins ?

so you have to chose , do you want fast ? or secured ? you can't have both , but what if someone told you that , there might be a way to actually move that heavy armored truck a lot faster (LN/Segwit and whatever might come in the future).

I am not blindly taking sides here, I just don't understand why would anyone blindly ask for larger blocks when we have not utilized a fraction of other solutions, the other day a BSV supporter was bragging about a 500MB block (was most likely full of unnecessary information that has nothing to do with transacting value) , how many people do you know that have an internet bandwidth that can actually propagate a block that huge? man I pay a fortune for a 2mb connection where I live, and I have limited quota , running a Bitcoin full node costs me a lot with block size on disk =< 1MB , imagine it was 4MB or 64MB , let alone unlimited blocksize , I just can't figure out the amount of weed I need to smoke to get remotely close to accepting these brainless thoughts of going full blast on blocksize.

Do not knock Doge coin it is very good to move value  quickly and cheaply.  

One incentive to make BTC stay the same  way  is

 Alt coins  can thrive as movement of  value containers while BTC acts like a roadway to support  all the alts.



Read my signature.