Bigger blocks coming in release 0.11

[tokeweed]

increase block size may injured bitcoin node ... because of the pollution of trading (high trading).
people that need speed ... must build sidechain (or offchain strategy like bitpay ou coinbase).

i don't agree to increase block size except if it has a limitation ... (like 10MB).

Time to embrace Open Transactions, Ripple, Stellar or whatever for offchain transactions.

Edit:  I say go for it.  Go for the 20mb blocks.  I want to see what happens...  Just hedge your bets.

[pisciolatzu]

increase block size may injured bitcoin node ... because of the pollution of trading (high trading).
people that need speed ... must build sidechain (or offchain strategy like bitpay ou coinbase).

i don't agree to increase block size except if it has a limitation ... (like 10MB).

Time to embrace Open Transactions, Ripple, Stellar or whatever for offchain transactions.

Edit:  I say go for it.  Go for the 20mb blocks.  I want to see what happens...  Just hedge your bets.

I don't think i understand your position.
Trading activity has always passed through offchain transactions..

So, do we really need ripple or stellar to make bitcoin work?
Why?

[BitUsher]

So, do we really need ripple or stellar to make bitcoin work?
Why?

Nope, bitcoin works fine now , but lately we are starting to hit the blocksize limit more often.

This is what Bitcoin needs to make it awesome-

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970822.0

[pedrog]

For what purpose is the bigger block? Why is there a need for a 1 megabyte block, the blockchain works fine like now?
Blocks only get big when there are many transaction in them, so how could a miner create a bigger block without that much transactions

Here's a Q&A with Gavin and Mike, at some point they discuss the bigger block issue if you're interested.

CoinScrum: QA with Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

[hmblm1245]

Finally it was about time!

Agreed. This has been an issue for a while.

[Mikestang]

Finally it was about time!

Agreed. This has been an issue for a while.

I don't know enough/haven't been around long enough to know one way better than the other, but I can say that I'm glad something is happening and all the back and forth can stop.  It works or it doesn't, time to find out.

[Cruxer]

For what purpose is the bigger block? Why is there a need for a 1 megabyte block, the blockchain works fine like now?
Blocks only get big when there are many transaction in them, so how could a miner create a bigger block without that much transactions

http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent
http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks

Very good move , Gavin is strong point of Bitcoin

[kelsey]

one small step for future upscaling one Giant Leap towards complete centralisation 

[Buffer Overflow]

This should be interesting.

[Kprawn]

Correct me if I am wrong... Bill Gates said something like this ..." We WILL NOT need more than 64k of RAM "

He was clearly wrong... Look at where we are now. Satoshi made the same mistake, but the protocol allow for scalability, so it can be corrected.

If we go to mass adoption, we would have more transaction volumes and it's not currently possible with the current block size.

I would rather be pre-emptive than having a situation, where we sit with red faces, when we cannot handle huge transaction volumes and we get forced to do it in the future. 

[Mikestang]

For what purpose is the bigger block? Why is there a need for a 1 megabyte block, the blockchain works fine like now?
Blocks only get big when there are many transaction in them, so how could a miner create a bigger block without that much transactions

http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent
http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks

Very good move , Gavin is strong point of Bitcoin

You second link is the same one I started this thread with.

[Buffer Overflow]

Correct me if I am wrong... Bill Gates said something like this ..." We WILL NOT need more than 64k of RAM "

He was clearly wrong... Look at where we are now. Satoshi made the same mistake, but the protocol allow for scalability, so it can be corrected.

If we go to mass adoption, we would have more transaction volumes and it's not currently possible with the current block size.

I would rather be pre-emptive than having a situation, where we sit with red faces, when we cannot handle huge transaction volumes and we get forced to do it in the future. 

What mistake did Satoshi make?

[Amph]

and why satoshi didn't think about this? he predicted the increase in adoption for sure, because he predicted big farm, he should have created big blocks since the beginning, at least now with don't need any fork

[Foxpup]

Correct me if I am wrong... Bill Gates said something like this ..." We WILL NOT need more than 64k of RAM "

You are wrong. He said nothing like that, and neither did Satoshi. Bitcoin originally had no block size limit; it was added later as an anti-DOS measure with the expectation that it would be increased if necessary.

[medUSA]

Bitcoin originally had no block size limit; it was added later as an anti-DOS measure with the expectation that it would be increased if necessary.

Really? I never knew that! Who wrote the 1M limit into the codes? I have always assumed 1M was hard-coded in from the beginning, and miners/pools have been experimenting with the block size themselves to balance propagation speed and fees.

[dasource]

and why satoshi didn't think about this? i predicted the increase in adoption for sure, because he predicted big farm, he should have created big blocks since the beginning, at least now with don't need any fork

Bitcoin never had a block size limit originally ... it was added for DOS protection and satoshi himself said it would/could/should be upgraded in the future as needed .. (don't ask me for the post but I am sure someone else can pinpoint it)

[jl2012]

Satoshi promised this 5 years ago

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[dasource]

Satoshi promised this 5 years ago

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Thanks that is the one I was thinking off and there is another one where he discussed it IIRC..

[teukon]

As I understand it, Bitcoin blocks were always limited by MAX_SIZE (32 MiB).  It was in 2010 when MAX_BLOCK_SIZE (1MB) was introduced as a temporary anti-DOS measure.

Unfortunately, while many had high hopes that a robust mechanism could be devised to defeat the blocksize problem, no such proposals have survived close scrutiny.  Clever-sounding fee policy discussions (transactions becoming more expensive as blocks grow) were replaced with more general musings about votes (e.g. have full nodes report how long it takes them to download and verify blocks and adjust MAX_BLOCK_SIZE to target a sane duration).  Today, the blocksize limit remains in place and we seem to be left with few, very ugly options.

Disclaimer: I was quite new to Bitcoin at the time and am far from an authority on this topic.

[Lauda]

As I understand it, Bitcoin blocks were always limited by MAX_SIZE (32 MiB).  It was in 2010 when MAX_BLOCK_SIZE (1MB) was introduced as a temporary anti-DOS measure.

Unfortunately, while many had high hopes that a robust mechanism could be devised to defeat the blocksize problem, no such proposals have survived close scrutiny.  Clever-sounding fee policy discussions (transactions becoming more expensive as blocks grow) were replaced with more general musings about votes (e.g. have full nodes report how long it takes them to download and verify blocks and adjust MAX_BLOCK_SIZE to target a sane duration).  Today, the blocksize limit remains in place and we seem to be left with few, very ugly options.

Bitcoin originally had no block size limit; it was added later as an anti-DOS measure with the expectation that it would be increased if necessary.

Really? I never knew that! Who wrote the 1M limit into the codes? I have always assumed 1M was hard-coded in from the beginning, and miners/pools have been experimenting with the block size themselves to balance propagation speed and fees.

Well you're right although I'm not sure if it was 32 MB. Someone older would have to verify if it had a 32MB limit at some point.
No the 1MB limit was not hard-coded from the begging. This is something that the majority seem to think, but it is wrong. We've reached that point in time where the measure, i.e. limit needs an increase.
We need to make enough room for future users and their transactions.