Poll: What will the MAXBLOCKSIZE be in June, 2016?

[Lauda]

This is not extreme, let assume continuously 2x more transactions are sent every 10 minutes than can ever be included in the blockchain, it means half of the sent transactions can never confirm. There will be such fee outbiding to ever be included to the blockchain, the fees will continuously rise until those who do not want to pay high fees simply give up on Bitcoin as it will become too expensive and uncovient for them to use Bitcoin anymore.

It is extremist unless you have a research paper to back up these (extreme) assumptions. Something like this would take a long time; the fees would not rise to insane levels over a single night/day/few days/weeks. , It is also worth mentioning that the fees in their current state are worthless.

Lets face it, it is centralisation because only high fee transaction can be used on Bitcoin in this scenario, the funny part those advocating very small blocks to allow fee market to develop want keep Bitcoin nodes decentralized, yet they centralize the use of Bitcoin only for high fee transactions (probably only high value transactions).

The point is continuosly keep increasing block sizes for this scenario never happen, this way you dont centralize Bitcoin use to only the elite paying high fees.

So you're telling me that because some people would be unable to pay the transaction fee that we should give up decentralization (one of the fundamental points of Bitcoin)? Once we lose that decentralization, we might as well abandon Bitcoin as it will be much weaker than it was before. You can not keep increasing the block size to suit the volume just because there is a need for it (I'm not saying that there is, now). This would effectively either damage or kill Bitcoin in the process. There is only so much that the network sustain at a certain time.

[ATguy]

This is not extreme, let assume continuously 2x more transactions are sent every 10 minutes than can ever be included in the blockchain, it means half of the sent transactions can never confirm. There will be such fee outbiding to ever be included to the blockchain, the fees will continuously rise until those who do not want to pay high fees simply give up on Bitcoin as it will become too expensive and uncovient for them to use Bitcoin anymore.

It is extremist unless you have a research paper to back up your assumptions. For this to happen, it would take a long time. The fees would not rise to insane levels over a night, day, few days/weeks. The fees in their current state are worthless.

Obviously over the months the market will find equilubrum on the fees people want to pay, but if there is ongoing adoption, the richest/institutions will be able to use Bitcoins only, while most others simply find out cheaper ways. Probably comparable maximum fee to international bank wire transfer fees, unless richest/institutions will find Bitcoins more interesting to make fees even higher. I talk about next decade Bitcoin might have fees like international bank wire transfer fees, not next year.

Lets face it, it is centralisation because only high fee transaction can be used on Bitcoin in this scenario, the funny part those advocating very small blocks to allow fee market to develop want keep Bitcoin nodes decentralized, yet they centralize the use of Bitcoin only for high fee transactions (probably only high value transactions).

The point is continuosly keep increasing block sizes for this scenario never happen, this way you dont centralize Bitcoin use to only the elite paying high fees.

So you're telling me that because some people would be unable to pay the transaction fee that we should give up decentralization (one of the fundamental points of Bitcoin)? Once we lose that decentralization, we might as well abandon Bitcoin as it will be much weaker than it was before. You can not keep increasing the block size to suit the volume just because there is a need for it (I'm not saying that there is, now). This would effectively either damage or kill Bitcoin in the process. There is only so much that the network sustain at a certain time.

If you do not keep increasing the block size to suit the volume, you loose decentralization because only some will be allowed to use Bitcoins while making Bitcoin expensive for the others. We already have mining centralization and even Satoshi envisioned there will be node centralization in future, but Satoshi and many current Bitcoiners never wanted to make Bitcoins useable only to the elite.

[Lauda]

If you do not keep increasing the block size to suit the volume, you loose decentralization because only some will be allowed to use Bitcoins while making Bitcoin expensive for the others. We already have mining centralization and even Satoshi envisioned there will be node centralization in future, but Satoshi and many current Bitcoiners never wanted to make Bitcoins useable only to the elite.

The fees will never be so high that it becomes a system for elitists else traditional methods would be better than Bitcoin thus defeating the purpose of Bitcoin (thus this being extremist view). What Satoshi said is worthless. Stop appealing to authority. The day that I'm unable to run my own full node at reasonable costs is the day that I quit Bitcoin for good.
You are forgetting what I've just said. Infinitely adding more payload to a plane is going to eventually crash it (there is only so much that it can carry).

[ATguy]

If you do not keep increasing the block size to suit the volume, you loose decentralization because only some will be allowed to use Bitcoins while making Bitcoin expensive for the others. We already have mining centralization and even Satoshi envisioned there will be node centralization in future, but Satoshi and many current Bitcoiners never wanted to make Bitcoins useable only to the elite.

The fees will never be so high that it becomes a system for elitists else traditional methods would be better than Bitcoin thus defeating the purpose of Bitcoin (thus this being extremist view). What Satoshi said is worthless. Stop appealing to authority. The day that I'm unable to run my own full node at reasonable costs is the day that I quit Bitcoin for good.

I pointing to Satoshi because he has similar view on this matter as me, not because he should be undisputed authority...

But your right in the sence the day Bitcoin transactions become expensive to me I quit Bitcoin as well. So my view Im sceptical about consensus giving the different interests how Bitcoin should look in future keeps unchanged:

Im sceptical in June will be over 1MB as consensus giving the different interests how Bitcoin should look in future...

[helloeverybody]

I voted 1mb since this debate has been going on for ages and i dont see any close to it any time soon. (as much as id like it to be sorted)

[Cubic Earth]

Bump!  Poll closes in less than 2 days.

[lottery248]

i would wish for 2 MB so there are better ability for bitcoin assets.

[Zawamiya]

Is it really that hard to increase by need?

[Kprawn]

I just hope they bump it a little, to shut this debate once and for all. It's been hanging in the air for such a long time now, and the debate is getting ridiculous. You can only kick

the can down the road for so long... Just get it over with ffs. Our community fight over nonsense like this, but the biggest problems gets ignored. The competition can and will bring

out their own flavor of the Blockchain with bigger block sizes, by the time we decide about this. 

[dothebeats]

Is it really that hard to increase by need?

It's not that 'hard' actually, the thing is, both camps suggesting which max block size should be followed won't come up to a conclusion or to an agreement whether the block size limit should be raised or not. A flexible block size limit would be a nice approach in my opinion, but I don't know how would that be implemented in the protocol.

[Amph]

Is it really that hard to increase by need?

the trick is the consensus, but i think that for an initial 2mb, there should be not a great issue, they can follow this route for now if they cannot reach an agreement before the time come

then they can decide more safely where the next move should go

[Lauda]

Is it really that hard to increase by need?

Imagine that Bitcoin was a plane. You're talking about putting more payload on that plane, not upgrading it so that it can carry more. If you keep increasing that payload and it goes above the certain amount that it can support, the plane is going to crash. The safety and stability outweigh "the need" for it; so the answer is yes.

[helloeverybody]

Id like them to get this over and done with too, i lost faith in btc for a while dur to no decisions being made but now its just another btc drama.

[topiOleg]

Is it really that hard to increase by need?

Imagine that Bitcoin was a plane. You're talking about putting more payload on that plane, not upgrading it so that it can carry more. If you keep increasing that payload and it goes above the certain amount that it can support, the plane is going to crash. The safety and stability outweigh "the need" for it; so the answer is yes.

Bitcoin plane can take safely 4 MB payload, thanks to Litecoin flight testing. So 4 MB Bitcoin has enought capacity for now, we just waiting for bureaucracy to comfirm the obvious - so typical.

[Quantus]

There can be only one Bitcoin, any fork of Bitcoin that allows the old network to survive in any form will make it nothing more then just another Alt-coin.
The creator/s of Bitcoin unfortunately never found a solution too or perhaps never even predicted the difficulty of/in finding consensus in this regard and we are now paying the price.
There is no correct answer to OP because the question is nonsensical, any size other then 1mb will not be Bitcoin. I would advise anyone wanting to bootstrap a new alt coin with the Bitcoin ledger to start thinking of a good name to call their coin because 'Bitcoin' is taken.  
 

[LFC_Bitcoin]

it will stay at 1 and then they will add the sidechain to help it(but in reality i think that even in this case they will increase it to two at least, becasue sidechain will probably come late) or they will simply increase it when necessary

and as i've already said i can't see anything wrong with many fork in the long term, besides this i believe that june is not so far away for a huge increase in adoption and thus 1MB will suffice

Agree with this pretty much, I have no agenda at all, I just think the date in the poll June 2016 isn't dar away at all & I don't think we will reach consensus or any kind of agreement to increase the block size.

There will be a block size increase in the future but not by June 2016 in my pretty irrelevant opinion.

[Monnt]

Personally, I don't think the community will have swayed enough people to change by next year. Maybe the year after that, we will have 8 mb blocks, as BIP100 is the most preferred, but I really don't think we should have no-limit blocks, as it will cause alot of complications with miners and bitcoin users.

[smoothie]

how long was this poll supposed to run?

a few hours?

not enough information to get a gist of what overall votes would be.

[Cubic Earth]

how long was this poll supposed to run?

a few hours?

not enough information to get a gist of what overall votes would be.

I had it set for two days.  I should have started it earlier, but I wanted the voting to close before the end of the conference.  I'd guess the poll achieved at least some meaningful statistical significance.