Yay or Nay to Increasing Block Size to 20mb?

[Aquent]

Obviously this is hardly a scientific poll or in any way indicative, but just curious of the result even if it is gamed.

And, please don't game it   This is an important issue and everyone has the right to their opinion. We all would benefit by seeing what most people think and the benefits from gaming it would be very much 0.

[AaronPaul]

Smarter people than me should answer this.

Is 20 megs just for DDOS protection?  Would DDOS'ing consist of real transactions? 

From a layman's point of view, a more elegant solution is to remove the cap completely and look closer at what the problems really are with the system that this is a problem.

[Lauda]

Here we go again..
I'm going to assume that you haven't taken part of the main thread that was used to discuss this a few months back? It had over 100 pages of nonsense.

Smarter people than me should answer this.

Is 20 megs just for DDOS protection?  Would DDOS'ing consist of real transactions? 
From a layman's point of view, a more elegant solution is to remove the cap completely and look closer at what the problems really are with the system that this is a problem.

Removing the cap is not an elegant solution but rather a mistake. It would be open to abuse.

[louise123]

I am neither, for or against.
I wouldn't know what the difference would be, so I suppose I couldn't care less. 

[Amph]

Smarter people than me should answer this.

Is 20 megs just for DDOS protection?  Would DDOS'ing consist of real transactions?  

From a layman's point of view, a more elegant solution is to remove the cap completely and look closer at what the problems really are with the system that this is a problem.

it was without limit at the beginning, then satoshi has set a 1mb limit for anti ddos, so 20mb should increase the possibility of ddosing it, not lower it

said this, i'm favor of it, ddosing should not play a major factor

[louise123]

Smarter people than me should answer this.

Is 20 megs just for DDOS protection?  Would DDOS'ing consist of real transactions?  

From a layman's point of view, a more elegant solution is to remove the cap completely and look closer at what the problems really are with the system that this is a problem.

it was without limit at the beginning, then satoshi has set a 1mb limit for anti ddos, so 20mb should increase the possibility of ddosing it, not lower it

said this, i'm favor of it, ddosing should not play a major factor

I didn't know that.

Another thing that I don't know is:
How can Bitcoin be DDoSed?

Nodes are worldwide and it's not just one central location.
I am confused.

[fryarminer]

This is really a stupid thing to fight over. It's necessary. Satoshi envisioned it. It is natural growth.

[Snail2]

Ask the whales and the big mining farms. If they accept it then its fine, let's go. If they are not happy with this change then back to the drawing board, and let's find something what is acceptable for all. This isn't nice but I think this is the reality.  

[gustav]

Creating lots of issues with 20MB blocks.
-Bad syncing
-more centralisation
-vulnerable to dos
-potentially huge blockchain, too large to store for most people. So newcomers will less likely bother
-no more use over TOR
-Possible fork into 2 chains

and so on and so forth. Just bloating the chain is hardly genius.

[JeromeL]

This is really a stupid thing to fight over. It's necessary. Satoshi envisioned it. It is natural growth.

No. It's a extremely important subject. If the answer was so obvious, there would be a consensus in the core dev team.

[ebliever]

One thing I haven't seen much of is an alternative to the 20 MB proposal by opponents. What do nay-sayers plan to do when the network maxes out the 1 MB blocks more and more consistently and then transactions start queuing up and getting delayed because of the bottleneck?

In a way it's a self-correcting system if we do nothing: Bitcoin will hit the choke point, and then people will get frustrated with it and begin migrating away to altcoins or back to fiat, until the transaction volume drops again and the bottleneck is no longer an issue. But this means bitcoin remains forever a minor niche curiousity rather than a mainstream product.

There are a lot of things that need to happen as BTC becomes more mainstream, and the 20 MB change or something functionally equivalent is going to be one of them.

[tyz]

Nay, as long as there is no solution to prune or shrink the blockchain in an efficient way.

But if the blockchain should used as a data storage one day, the increase to 20mb block size is just a question of time.

[Lauda]

Nay, as long as there is no solution to prune or shrink the blockchain in an efficient way.

But if the blockchain should used as a data storage one day, the increase to 20mb block size is just a question of time.

What are you talking about?
Check out the github page: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f9ec3f0fadb11ee9889af977e16915f5d6e01944
We are getting there.

[numismatist]

Yes, and also No, are the wrong answer. Block Size should be able to adapt like Difficulty. More transactions, larger Blocks.

[JeromeL]

One thing I haven't seen much of is an alternative to the 20 MB proposal by opponents. What do nay-sayers plan to do when the network maxes out the 1 MB blocks more and more consistently and then transactions start queuing up and getting delayed because of the bottleneck

There are really interesting alternatives like Peter Todd's replace by fee (version 2), coupled with a conservative dynamic maxblocksize increase (+1MB /year).

This way we enable the blockchain to grow safely and slowly enough to preserve decentralization and to incentive offchain solutions. Replace by fee(version 2) enables users to change their fee if their transaction gets stuck because blocks are full.

[unamis76]

There is already a thread on this... But I guess it doesn't have a poll I voted yes. I'm all for changing it. If we're eventually going to need to change it, why not get over with it already? If we want to evolve and make Bitcoin even bigger, we've got to adapt this change.

[Amph]

Smarter people than me should answer this.

Is 20 megs just for DDOS protection?  Would DDOS'ing consist of real transactions?  

From a layman's point of view, a more elegant solution is to remove the cap completely and look closer at what the problems really are with the system that this is a problem.

it was without limit at the beginning, then satoshi has set a 1mb limit for anti ddos, so 20mb should increase the possibility of ddosing it, not lower it

said this, i'm favor of it, ddosing should not play a major factor

I didn't know that.

Another thing that I don't know is:
How can Bitcoin be DDoSed?

Nodes are worldwide and it's not just one central location.
I am confused.

well i think they can always ddos single node, or those nodes that are more important, but in the way that i understood it, i think that in this case if the number of transactions are simply too much the network could reject them

[Nagle]

It's not up to the "core devs". It's up to the big miners. They control block size.

[ebliever]

One thing I haven't seen much of is an alternative to the 20 MB proposal by opponents. What do nay-sayers plan to do when the network maxes out the 1 MB blocks more and more consistently and then transactions start queuing up and getting delayed because of the bottleneck

There are really interesting alternatives like Peter Todd's replace by fee (version 2), coupled with a conservative dynamic maxblocksize increase (+1MB /year).

This way we enable the blockchain to grow safely and slowly enough to preserve decentralization and to incentive offchain solutions. Replace by fee(version 2) enables users to change their fee if their transaction gets stuck because blocks are full.

Who is going to want to fiddle with fees after they send a transaction? That's like the postal service getting bogged down around Christmas and letting people know that they can send in extra postage if they want their packages by Christmas. It would be a hassle and universally annoy people.

The dynamic blocksize increase only makes sense if you can securely project the rate of increase in block size needed. If you guess wrong then the trajectory is off and you end up needing to hardfork again anyway at some point.

[manselr]

Obviously this is hardly a scientific poll or in any way indicative, but just curious of the result even if it is gamed.

And, please don't game it   This is an important issue and everyone has the right to their opinion. We all would benefit by seeing what most people think and the benefits from gaming it would be very much 0.

But isn't this made officially already? i heard its happening in 0.11.
From the emails by satoshi it seems he predicted he would be ok with 1 MB only, but it's pretty risky to keep it at 1 MB only, 20 seems like the reasonable thing to do.