Yay or Nay to Increasing Block Size to 20mb?

[R2D221]

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

Because that will cause more frequent orphan blocks. It has been said in this kind of threads before.

[1715501652]

1715501652

[Joe_Bauers]

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

Because that will cause more frequent orphan blocks. It has been said in this kind of threads before.

I'd like to see an estimated % of increased orphan blocks at 2 minutes. Then weigh that against the inconveniences that will arise from 20 Mb blocks. Pretty sure a "slightly" higher increase in orphans would be preferable. Still, I'm sure Gavin and co have their reasons.

[Buffer Overflow]

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.

[Hexadecibel]

I think the majority of people who are against increasing the block size do not run full nodes. What an incredible amount of fake outrage.

[gogxmagog]

I think the majority of people who are against increasing the block size do not run full nodes. What an incredible amount of fake outrage.

yes! and they haven't read any of what the devs have written either. You don't have to look very deeply to see that increasing the block size is absolutely necessary right now.
I'm not even clear on what argument there is against it? Trying to make life easier for the miners? That is ridiculous. Things should be HARDER for the miners, I'm sorry but mining is almost entirely run by huge commercial concerns, bitcoin network is already starting to look like the big banks (a few centralized controllers)

aside from all that, block size matters. Imagine if transactions took an average of an hour? Most users here cant handle it if a tx takes longer than 10 minutes!

the problem with free speech and democracy is - every fool thinks they are entitled to an opinion, and that their opinion actually matters. The devs know what they are doing. Conspiracy theorists simply have too much time on their hands (diametric opposite of devs)

[DooMAD]

I think the majority of people who are against increasing the block size do not run full nodes. What an incredible amount of fake outrage.

yes! and they haven't read any of what the devs have written either. You don't have to look very deeply to see that increasing the block size is absolutely necessary right now.
I'm not even clear on what argument there is against it?

If there's any confusion over what the argument was, it's because the 1mb supporters weren't being honest about their motives.  They claimed it was about centralization, bandwidth, security and who knows what other straws they were desperately clutching at to try and win support.  But ultimately it boils down to some greedy early adopters and whales not wanting to share the network with the masses if Bitcoin does ever hit the mainstream.  They want a two-tier system where they get all the benefit.  Bitcoin for the privileged few.  If they can force the masses off-chain by imposing an arbitrary limit, they get all the protection and security of the blockchain for themselves and everyone else gets to rely on a third party and introduce risk to their transactions.  All the other arguments they came up with were merely a distraction from that.

[ebliever]

I've supported the 20 MB increase, but Gavin himself just acknowledged a potential major issue - see http://gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh

[Q7]

Here we go again. If we know the fundamental of the system will not be able to support future growth , then by all means we need to consider working on that and remove the caps. If we need to do it anyway so why not now? The problem is there we just can't turn away from the reality

[lahm-44]

ofcourse yes . we cannot adjust the bitcoin mining difficulty with owr efforts nor we can control the network like we want everything is atomatically adjusted so we don't have any choice just to wait for new powerfull equiments for mining

[Kprawn]

Hard drive space is a non-issue. The portion of the size of the space you use, in relation to what is currently out there, is not worth a discussion.

So far, we have had a nice smooth ride {Secure protocol with average confirmation time}

What do we want to sacrifice, when "Mass adoption" enter the Bitcoin scene and we did not make provision for scalability?

Technology has to adapt to the needs of the people. {We want faster, more reliable and easy to use things in our life} Will no change bring that?

[frontdenplastic]

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

Because that will cause more frequent orphan blocks. It has been said in this kind of threads before.

I'd like to see an estimated % of increased orphan blocks at 2 minutes. Then weigh that against the inconveniences that will arise from 20 Mb blocks. Pretty sure a "slightly" higher increase in orphans would be preferable. Still, I'm sure Gavin and co have their reasons.

Why don't you try running p2pool with their 30 second blocks? P2pool blocks (or shares) are essentially lower difficulty Bitcoin blocks used to measure your mining contribution. If you have a slightly slower connection than the other p2pool miners it is not uncommon for 50% of your blocks to get orphaned. Now 2 minutes is not as bad as 30 seconds, but you should not assume that the number of orphans would be insignificant.

[Amph]

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

Because that will cause more frequent orphan blocks. It has been said in this kind of threads before.

what about dynamic block size increase or lightining network? they seems a better proposal(they aren't the same thign right?), but i'm not an expert here

[jacktheking]

The 99th vote goes to.. Undecided. Well, it is perfectly fine for me to increase or decrease. Bitcoin will still work for me and there wont be any big difference.

[R2D221]

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

Because that will cause more frequent orphan blocks. It has been said in this kind of threads before.

what about dynamic block size increase or lightining network? they seems a better proposal(they aren't the same thign right?), but i'm not an expert here

I haven't heard about the lightning network before. The dynamic block size seems vulnerable to manipulation, just as if there was no limit at all.

[Lauda]

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.

[shulio]

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

[Quantus]

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.

[boopy265420]

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.

[Joe_Bauers]

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.

[fox19891989]

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.