Topic: Will Bitcoin EVER have a bigger blocksize? Is there hope? - page 3. (Read 1507 times)

So, which one you wanted to say? Off-chain isn't scaling or off-chain is minor scaling?


LN is only suitable for micro-transaction and it's still on development, so it's poor comparison IMO.

i find it very weird that in the context of scaling and TPS, an altcoin like bcash is even mentioned. apart from the obvious centralization of it, there are lots of altcoins that have much higher TPS in comparison. bcash barely has 0.1-0.2 TPS which happens to be twenty times less than TPS of the joke coin called Dogecoin let alone TPS of bitcoin!

Neither will bch, which is Roger Ver's blockchain.
The only truly Decentralized blockchain for now is Bitcoin. Bch is just a quick rich scheme.

Exactly. With the introduction of SegWit, the block size has been changed to something called the "block weight" increasing the limit to 4MB per block. It may not seem like much in this highly-demanding world, but the best way to go nowadays. After all, blocks within the BTC blockchain aren't filled in their entirety. One way or another, Bitcoin will need to increase its block weight to higher limits as people within the mainstream world adopt the cryptocurrency at a large scale. The Lightning Network, although quite a promising technology, it's not an all-in-one solution for scalability. It largely depends on Bitcoin's main blockchain network to succeed. This is true, because the LN performs operations on-chain for opening/closing channels. Too many operations of the LN would bloat the BTC blockchain as we know it.

Nonetheless, we shouldn't worry much about BTC's block size at least for the time being. With many alternatives to the main BTC blockchain with bigger block sizes (like Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV), there's a coin for everyone. Believe it or not, Bitcoin has already scaled to the world with several implementations of its blockchain network. The Bitcoin SV cryptocurrency would deliver an unlimited block size capacity allowing limitless scalability for the foreseeable future. Of course, this greatly increases the risk of centralization, but most people don't seem to care about it. Just my thoughts

Exactly.  We can't stop other chains focusing on their on-chain "scaling" ideas with much larger blocks, so we don't try to.  We leave them to do their own thing, even if we don't agree with it.  Yet, for some reason, they think they can come to us and tell us not to do what we're doing?  Bit of a double standard, isn't it?



It sounds like he's full of hot air and doesn't even understand how the development process works.  New code gets reviewed by everyone.  It's not going to be some shady behind-the-scenes deal between hardwalletattacker1, one single dev and some mining pools.  I'm sure he thinks it's all going to unfold as his vivid imagination paints it, but reality is going to hit hard sooner or later.



FTFY. 

Opine it all you like, doesn't change what I said earlier.  Don't get me wrong, I can sympathise with your perspective.  I spent years campaigning for larger blocks because I thought it was the right course of action at the time.  But I've come to realise that Bitcoin isn't about what I think is best, particularly if I'm expecting other users to bear the costs. 

If those securing the chain choose freely to increase the blocksize and it suddenly helps onboard millions of users around the world, resulting in mass adoption (and I'm not even remotely convinced a blocksize increase alone can do that), then you can call it a fact.  Until then, you're just engaging in wishful thinking.

One of the best features is the privacy it gives.  Unless you are involved in a transaction, you have no way of knowing how much is being transacted.  There are statistics for just about everything in crypto; a veritable feast of numbers to crunch, but there are no stats for the total sum transacted over LN.  Only the total capacity, which isn't the same thing.  You'd already know this if you put as much effort into understanding it as you do trying to write it off.  The genie isn't going back in the bottle, so it would behove you not to fight it.  Unless you have a better solution (and some code to go along with it), your time would be far better spent learning, rather than arguing.



I already did.  

You already answer your own question. Moving where data is stored, choosing which data is stored and moving computational task to another device (e.g. user's device) generally seen as scaling solution.

If it doesn't solve anything, why are there nearly 35000 Bitcoin LN channels at the time of writing?  You think people are doing it for shits and giggles?  It means a far greater volume of transactions can be processed without sacrificing decentralisation.  Some would call that an impressive achievement.

IMO the correct question isn't "Will", but "When".

While i strongly prefer combination of both off-chain and on-chain scaling (not block size increase), there's upper limit of those scaling solutions.
Even lightning network paper mention the need of block size increase on best unrealistic scenario (where everyone use LN and only make 3 transaction/year).

But i'm confident it won't happen anytime soon since there are many off-chain and on-chain which currently development.

Edit : fix words positioning

No you are right it's not, the formula to calculate block limit changed. The old was
The new one (after Segwit activation) is
With 1 legacy byte == 4 weight units and 1 "segwit data" byte == 1 weight unit.
Cf BIP141

Is there evidence to support this?

Transactions I sent using native segwit as a 1 in 1 out still are around 140 bytes, legacy was about 255... Its nice but its not quite 4x? (unless I'm looking at the wrong part of the transaction)?

Increased transaction throughput is possible but it will require some thought and effort that an average Joe is unwilling and unable to offer. For the long tail part of the population the current bitcoin block size plus altcoin block sizes seem to be just enough.

The only sensible answer is "wait and see".  If users begin running code that would permit blocks which are larger than currently allowed, something might change.  If users continue to run code that would reject larger blocks, it won't.  

But what you should always try to remember is this:  All these people out there running code are doing so to enforce their preferences, not yours.  I can't speak for everyone out there, but I have a sneaking suspicion they don't feel any pressure to increase their burden simply in order to reduce yours.  And this is absolutely what you are asking of them when you insist they should store and circulate these larger blocks for you.

No it has not. There's too much legacy data in a transaction to have Weight Unit == Byte. 1.5/2 MB is more accurate as of now.

There are lot of arguments against increasing the block size but I think the most convincing one is distribution of consensus rules enforcement. I, for one, don't think would be able to keep verifying on at least one of my wallets with (full) big blocks :/. With the current block chain size increase, some even milit for smaller blocks.

There has already been a block size increase (segwit).

Why bringing that topic now ? Raising the limit now would have no effect as blocks are not full... It's been long time since I did a transaction with higher fees than 1sat/vbyte.

I think another concern we should have as of next halving is miner reward, and bigger blocks is arguably deserve them.

By what arguments aren't you convinced ? Or, better, what are arguments for increasing the block size ?

Could you explain why ?


Why ?

What was it ? (According to your terms, apparently an exchange ticker...)


More probability (theoritically) to have orphan blocks and reorgs. Block chain size increase (if enough transactions).

Another thing to think about is that even before discussing a consensus change, is to take into account the cost of this change. In other words the arguments for the change should outweight the (high) cost of a hard fork.

EDIT: And there is absolutely no need for this...

Is this a joke I'm not getting? The block size limit was increased to 4MB over two years ago with the SegWit upgrade. Sure, it was controversial at the time, but we finally put the naysayers in their place.

Arguments against block size increase are based on decentralization[1] and alternatives such as Segwit, which will reduce transaction size instead of block size (which will be able to achieve the same result without increasing centralization)

[1] as satoshi said


If you don't care about decentralization, as you think it does not justify a reduced block size, you have two alternatives:
Use BCH  or Visa. I think Vista is much better lol

Visa can do 24.000 tps, while BCH is centralized and do only 60.

Not sure if this is trolling or not because surely you can search for this.

1. Blocks aren't actually being filled. I've just looked at the last 8 and they range from 0.8 to 0.95 mb... Plenty of room for extra transactions.

If you want lower fees and faster confs, I'd recommend litecoin (for exchange to exchange transit and sending funds to yourself).

Decreasing the 10 minutes to 5 would make the chain less secure and may incur more orphaning. People will then probably want 12 confirms instead of 6 anyway it makes it more likely we'll have empty blocks and have the readjust all of the fee structures too. People are going to lose hope if they're not getting the full reward (especially solominers).

What is it you're using bitcoin for?

Now I know its a highly controversial topic, it's been discussed up and down but honestly, best content so far I could find when using the search function are posts dating back to the time of Mike Hearns etc.

I fully disclose that I am on the side of team "increase the block size", at least to 4MB for now but what is it that opponents worry so much?
It is absolute clear that all the arguments against increasing the blocksize are not justified, at least not anymore considering the current miner landscape.
Lightning is not the solution. Not for me!

So what is in the way of going there? most miners would support the change.

Aware that with 4MB, we would reach the limit again, but at least for now, BTC would be back to be what it was

Then talking of which, why not reduce block time to ~5 minutes while we are at it? Whats the exact trade-off between 5 and 10 minutes?