Yay or Nay to Increasing Block Size to 20mb?

[Amph]

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

[LiteCoinGuy]

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

[BillyBobZorton]

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.

[MRKLYE]

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.

[Lauda]

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.

[DooMAD]

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.

[coinft]

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

[Alty]

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.

[Lauda]

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).

[nachoig]

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.

[e1ghtSpace]

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.

[Lauda]

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.

[JeromeL]

Nay.

Bitcoin is too important to make quick & dirty changes.

[Lauda]

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.