Bitcoin Forum

Why it was completely irresponsible not to increase the block size limit before implementing other solutions:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu9ss99XgAEsXyX.jpg

@Oliver Increasing block size is no one's responsibility. Bitcoin XT, Classic, Unlimited etc are readily available in market with the promise to increase block size. But, market chose to stick with Bitcoin Core's 1mb limit.

Exactly you are missing the point of bitcoin if you think there is some majestic leader who is going to come along and be an absolute dictator,  if people want bigger blocks then why have they not moved to a implementation that allows for this on mass ?

Because...

Because the internet (not the network but the internet itself) is just not ready to run 2mb blocks yet. (but maybe in a few years it will be)

The Latency issue (the time delay) of the full nodes and miners to respond to new blocks/transactions would be to great. (Giving large miners even more of a cut/control over what chain is the main chain and more blockchain bloat from all the new orphan chains.  
The Security/reliability issue is also at risk because of the shrinking number of full nodes, as a direct result of the ever growing cost to run full node clients and boot strap them is putting the network at risk from a massive Ddos attack.

And SN greatest mistake and Bitcoins alkalis heel The assumption we could provide low fee micro transactions and prevent spam and blockchain bloat at the same time. (We need fees to pay for network security and prevent spam. And we won't get that unless all blocks are full all the time.)

This is the sad but realistic truth for the foreseeable future. (But maybe one day the internet will be ready for a low fee, low latency, low cost Bitcoin network and on that day Bitcoin will take over.)

People in charge made their choice, the stagnation and congestion of the network have been quite visible we don't need yet another chart to see it.

BTW, we already have a bitcoin with bigger block size, it is called litecoin.

For me the block size debate is all about the power struggle for the control of Bitcoin arena, you need to look at the arguments of each side the for and against.

No matter whatever version we have with higher block size limit people will always try to remain with core and this blocksize debate may not get solved untill actual increase in block size is required. Almost all of the blocks are getting fulled these days which in some respect increasing the fees per byte.

Gregory Maxwell is 100% right when he says:


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/581dg/bitcoin_is_a_revolution_currency_but_a_fairly/

There is no urgency to increase the blocksize. All the doomsday scenarios projected for the beginning of 2016 by the technologically inept and irresponsible bigblock-fanatics have failed to materialize. Instead we are starting to see signs of a working fee market and transaction spam has been greatly reduced (also via optimization at exchanges and payment providers).

Trying to use the blockchain to make direct transactions for every single lolly that guys like Mike Hearn or Roger Ver decide to buy would be the end of decentralization. Bitcoin itself is just not suited for micropayments - it's too inefficient.

Segregated Witness and Lightning Networks will enable micropayments without spamming the blockchain and thereby preserving decentralization. What bigblock fanatics seem to forget is that even micropayments are ultimately settled on the blockchain, yet in a much more efficient way.

ya.ya.yo!

you do realise you need to re-evaluate "bigblock"
blockstream want 4mb this year
community have compromised and happy with 2mb this year.

maybe you should come up with a different term. EG
onchainers vs offchainers
decentralized network vs corporate networks

try using a term that actually has relevance

For me all these other technologies like the LN and SegWit is a way to get pass a hard fork that might be too damaging than what we

would have initially thought it would be. If I was a developer in charge of a Billion dollar network, I would also not have the balls to make

desperate decisions that might be dangerous and risky. It's fine when you gambling with your own money, but not fine if you gamble with

other people's money.  ::)

Exactly! There are so many other options at this point who really cares.

ACK

Yet, nobody gives a fuck about Litecoin and everyone uses Bitcoin (Bitcoin Core software that is).

The market has spoken, no one wants a team of amateurs increasing the blocksize. You can keep crying about it as much as you want.

Bitcoin will lose their position of gold of cryptocurrencys, this is just the beginning of this era, let's wait some decades and see all holders crying. A lot of new alts will appear, hope one can be good.

I would not say irresponsible, I would say that it's delaying what is bound to happen. Block size will need to be increased someday, and I always thought that the sooner the better. Note also that initially, BTC wasn't designed to have a fixed block size forever.

Just because the trend seems to be linear does not mean that it is irresponsible not to increase the blocksize.

It would have been irresponsible if they just changed the size without considering other options or if they would have ignored the potential problems and wouldn't have been working on multiple possible solutions.

I don't think they handled it well, but irresponsible is far from it imo.

I like that argument. But there will also be shortcomings on the Lightning Network. It can also be seen to be a problem on onchain scaling too because the transactions might become heftier if too many payment channels close at the same time and it might cause a bottleneck on how many payment channels can be closed at any given time. So that is one hypothetical situation to look into and hopefully to also find a good solution.

It doesn't matter how many charts are shown it's not going to affect the people that can actually make a 2, 4, 8mb block take effect. Where the hell is that lightning network already?!

The market will choose Hilary Clinton as the next president of the USA, that doesn't mean she is the best thing ever, bad choices are made all the time.