Yay or Nay to Increasing Block Size to 20mb?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: JeromeL on May 12, 2015, 04:21:01 AM

Nay.

Bitcoin is too important to make quick & dirty changes.

If everyone had such great arguments the world would be a much better place.
If you've carefully read the change is neither quick nor dirty. Although I'm not sure what you mean by dirty. This was already discussed months prior. Besides this won't get implemented before 2016.

JeromeL

member

Activity: 554

Merit: 11

CurioInvest [IEO Live]

Nay.

Bitcoin is too important to make quick & dirty changes.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: e1ghtSpace on May 12, 2015, 03:11:38 AM

I don't know... This is only a temporary solution and anyway, I doubt we will ever be able to overtake credit cards in tps. Maybe we need to look towards off-chain transactions or something.

I read somewhere on this forum that we will only be able to do ~50 tps when credit cards can do 1000 already.

Well yes, they have more capacity right now but their transactions go very slowly. I'm not sure about the exact number but it is not within hours.
Also there is room for error. I've had my balance drained more than once due to a mistake with Visa.
A temporary solution is better than none since I don't see any other suggestions.

e1ghtSpace

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Crypto since 2014

I don't know... This is only a temporary solution and anyway, I doubt we will ever be able to overtake credit cards in tps. Maybe we need to look towards off-chain transactions or something.

I read somewhere on this forum that we will only be able to do ~50 tps when credit cards can do 1000 already.

nachoig

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Yes. I agree we can't grow the block size indefinitely, but for the short term we simply don't have another option. Lightning, Factom, side chains, etc, none of these aren't ready to be implemented and used in everyday transactions. They are options for medium/long term.

Transaction with fees waiting for another block because the actual blocks are already full is bad. Increasing the fee is not good, what should subsidize the network is the volume, not high fees.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: DooMAD on May 11, 2015, 01:01:26 PM

Quote from: Lauda on May 11, 2015, 11:41:58 AM

This isn't even correct at all. What kind of resources are we wasting? Bandwidth, storage? This contradicts your first statement.
We aren't wasting anything, we are just making more room for more transactions. This does not mean that the room will get filled instantly, it doesn't even mean that it will ever get filled.
Why would the transaction fees go up? This should actually make them remain where their are instead of going up once the blocks are filled.

Indeed, completely back to front. If anything, Bitcoin needs more users to keep fees low over time as the block rewards diminish. Without a larger blocksize, the network wouldn't be able to handle those additional users without forcing people off-chain or making them wait for a block that isn't full, which means longer confirmation times. When the block reward halves next year, miners will either need to see an increase in the fiat price of Bitcoin, or an increase in the amount of fees they collect, or they're going to be worse off. More users equals more fees collected, less users equals a need for larger fees. People need to understand the choice they're making before they make it, so let's get this right.

If we keep the current cap without altering anything things are going to go the wrong way. Sending money won't be as it used to, it will be a competition. People will keep pushing for higher fees so that their transactions get included sooner. That's not how Bitcoin was intended to work.
I don't want to send $1 with a $1 fee (if not more).

Alty

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Cloak Creator and Veritise - www.vcode.tech - See

Yes FTW

IMO btc needs to remain competitive as being capable of handling many times the tx it does today.

Increasing block size seems like the logical step.

coinft

full member

Activity: 187

Merit: 100

Nay. Going straight to 20MB is a huge change, and too risky.

I think besides dangers to decentralization this might kill off alternatives like the Lightning Network. And yes I know the LN would be awesome even with 20MB blocks, but the necessity for it will be reduced.

I would agree to a modest, conservative change, maybe over time and/or coupled to indicators like difficulty. Enough to survive, little enough to drive research and implementation of alternatives. But this is too much.

Not like my opinion will count much, but I will reduce my stockpile appropriately if I see reckless behavior.

-coinft

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: Lauda on May 11, 2015, 11:41:58 AM

Quote from: MRKLYE on May 11, 2015, 10:57:45 AM

I would have to vote nay on this matter..

I don't think their is any good reason to increase the block size so large at this point in time.
In the future I could see it being a good thing but as it sits right now I think it would just be a waste of resources.
Not to mention that if the block size goes up the transaction fees may as well.. Not something I can stand behind at the moment.

This isn't even correct at all. What kind of resources are we wasting? Bandwidth, storage? This contradicts your first statement.
We aren't wasting anything, we are just making more room for more transactions. This does not mean that the room will get filled instantly, it doesn't even mean that it will ever get filled.
Why would the transaction fees go up? This should actually make them remain where their are instead of going up once the blocks are filled.

Indeed, completely back to front. If anything, Bitcoin needs more users to keep fees low over time as the block rewards diminish. Without a larger blocksize, the network wouldn't be able to handle those additional users without forcing people off-chain or making them wait for a block that isn't full, which means longer confirmation times. When the block reward halves next year, miners will either need to see an increase in the fiat price of Bitcoin, or an increase in the amount of fees they collect, or they're going to be worse off. More users equals more fees collected, less users equals a need for larger fees. People need to understand the choice they're making before they make it, so let's get this right.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: MRKLYE on May 11, 2015, 10:57:45 AM

I would have to vote nay on this matter..

I don't think their is any good reason to increase the block size so large at this point in time.
In the future I could see it being a good thing but as it sits right now I think it would just be a waste of resources.
Not to mention that if the block size goes up the transaction fees may as well.. Not something I can stand behind at the moment.

This isn't even correct at all. What kind of resources are we wasting? Bandwidth, storage? This contradicts your first statement.
We aren't wasting anything, we are just making more room for more transactions. This does not mean that the room will get filled instantly, it doesn't even mean that it will ever get filled.
Why would the transaction fees go up? This should actually make them remain where their are instead of going up once the blocks are filled.

MRKLYE

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1003

Designer - Developer

I would have to vote nay on this matter..

I don't think their is any good reason to increase the block size so large at this point in time.
In the future I could see it being a good thing but as it sits right now I think it would just be a waste of resources.
Not to mention that if the block size goes up the transaction fees may as well.. Not something I can stand behind at the moment.

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

Quote from: boopy265420 on May 09, 2015, 06:54:29 AM

Nay,I think in current situation it should be let as it is.It is working quite fine so I don't see any use of doing any modification in block size.In future with more broader adoption and usage of bitcoin any positive change according to the need of time will be useful.

It doesn't seem very smart to take a measure like a hard fork when we have tons of people, whats the point?
Stuff like this should be done literally now, while Bitcoin is still quite underground and understood by geeks only, not when its already a thing.

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

do it. dont waste time on debating this "simple things" and move on.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: fox19891989 on May 11, 2015, 08:43:20 AM

LOL, blockchain bloating is a serious issue of btc, when i downloaded btc wallet in 2013, it was 20GB blockchain, needed 2 days sync time, but if they still increase the block size, the bloating issue will be very anonying for new users, maybe in the future 100GB blockchain, it's insane to download it for new users.

moreover in the future new ssd are approaching, which will make downloading it less painful, we should get a 1:1 ratio with the hw technology, so no problem there i think

fox19891989

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

LOL, blockchain bloating is a serious issue of btc, when i downloaded btc wallet in 2013, it was 20GB blockchain, needed 2 days sync time, but if they still increase the block size, the bloating issue will be very anonying for new users, maybe in the future 100GB blockchain, it's insane to download it for new users.

Joe_Bauers

hero member

Activity: 802

Merit: 1003

GCVMMWH

Quote from: Lauda on May 09, 2015, 04:36:27 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow link=topic=10521what they 323777#msg11323777 date=1431111287

The block time set to 10 minutes is permanent so changing that would be infinitely harder than changing the 1mb cap which has always been a temporary measure from the start.
Change something permanent and you open Pandora's box to future permanent things changing. Then nothing is permanent, and nobody trusts bitcoin anymore, and becomes worthless.

This. I guess people don't think about this in the proper way. There a specifications that should not be tampered with. Changing them would cause problems in regards to trust.
Bitcoin has decent block times. There is no need for very quick transactions as this system is much faster than what the world already has.
Although if we want to see more transactions over the network we have to provide enough room for them.

I feel that there is little difference in changing a block time vs block size.
They are both hard forks, which are essentially a reboot of Bitcoin from that point. The trust is always in the core BTC team doing what they feel is best for Bitcoin and the community in large either agreeing with those changes and continuing to use Bitcoin, or creating their own fork and going from there.

I suppose speculation in this thread doesn't matter though because Gavin and team already made their decision and 20 Mb is coming.

boopy265420

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1005

Nay,I think in current situation it should be let as it is.It is working quite fine so I don't see any use of doing any modification in block size.In future with more broader adoption and usage of bitcoin any positive change according to the need of time will be useful.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Na
The limit is in place to stop spam, prevent the size of the block chain from growing to large and creating bandwidth requirements to large for the average person thus leading to a further consolidation of the Bitcoin network; and to provide incentives to the miners in the form of higher fees.

No block size limit means bloated block chain, slower confirmations, fewer miners and fewer nodes and a broken system open to attack.

shulio

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1016

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on May 08, 2015, 01:54:47 PM

Quote from: Joe_Bauers on May 08, 2015, 11:59:35 AM

The other option would be to change the block time to 2 minutes.
I'm not sure why that wasn't discussed more.

The block time set to 10 minutes is permanent so changing that would be infinitely harder than changing the 1mb cap which has always been a temporary measure from the start.
Change something permanent and you open Pandora's box to future permanent things changing. Then nothing is permanent, and nobody trusts bitcoin anymore, and becomes worthless.

Changing something permanently doesnt mean that it will become worthless as we still dont know the real effect of what might happen after the change. The change could give a better good for bitcoin to stand up in the future because unchange thing remains to stay at the past and not the futuree

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on May 08, 2015, 01:54:47 PM

The block time set to 10 minutes is permanent so changing that would be infinitely harder than changing the 1mb cap which has always been a temporary measure from the start.
Change something permanent and you open Pandora's box to future permanent things changing. Then nothing is permanent, and nobody trusts bitcoin anymore, and becomes worthless.

This. I guess people don't think about this in the proper way. There a specifications that should not be tampered with. Changing them would cause problems in regards to trust.
Bitcoin has decent block times. There is no need for very quick transactions as this system is much faster than what the world already has.
Although if we want to see more transactions over the network we have to provide enough room for them.

Topic: Yay or Nay to Increasing Block Size to 20mb? (Read 3561 times)