Yay or Nay to Increasing Block Size to 20mb?

[JeromeL]

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

Nope it's not only up to big miners. It's also up to every full validating nodes. That's why it's a hardfork.

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.

You only need to fiddle with fee if you are greedy by taking the risk to pay the very least fee.

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.

No, you didn't get the point. The goal is not to project anything. it's to make sure Bitcoin doesn't become centralized and it's to incentive offchain solutions. if you don't care about decentralization, why don't you just use ripple? Ripple scales great. Lol.

[spazzdla]

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

[Klestin]

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

It already does. The block size is exactly as large as is necessary to include the transactions in the block.  What's increasing is the cap on the block size.  It will increase incrementally over time.

[Klestin]

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

Clearly.  And we know this because hard drive space could never grow exponentially. Never.

[Meuh6879]

Yes ... but only if pruning is activate at the same time (or before to check the result like in the begin of 2016).

[Lauda]

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

Clearly.  And we know this because hard drive space could never grow exponentially. Never.

No it won't. You obviously don't realize that 200 GB is equal to 2 movies in 4K resolution.
Besides I've already linked to the pruning that is probably going to be available soon. What's the problem there?
10 years ago the current Blockchain wouldn't have fit on quite a number of systems actually (depending on where you live).

[spazzdla]

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

Clearly.  And we know this because hard drive space could never grow exponentially. Never.

x ^ 2 ^ 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X ^ 2

To break it down nice and simple for you

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

allowing a super whopper block in the chain is not really DDOS , but its problematic for the network in a similar fashion.

[spazzdla]

Yes ... but only if pruning is activate at the same time (or before to check the result like in the begin of 2016).

This, we very desperately need to do something about the size of the blockchain.

The size of the blockchain is increasing faster than the size of a harddrive this is a big problem which will only be made worse with increasing the block size.  However 7 transactions per second is also a large problem.

[Klestin]

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

Clearly.  And we know this because hard drive space could never grow exponentially. Never.

No it won't. You obviously don't realize that 200 GB is equal to 2 movies in 4K resolution.
Besides I've already linked to the pruning that is probably going to be available soon. What's the problem there?
10 years ago the current Blockchain wouldn't have fit on quite a number of systems actually (depending on where you live).

I can only guess you meant to quote spazzdla and not me?  That, or you're not very good at detecting sarcasm.

[fitbobcat]

What I want to know is what we're going to do when the blockchains download size reaches 60+ gb?

[Jammalan the Prophet]

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

Clearly.  And we know this because hard drive space could never grow exponentially. Never.

Could you please draw that line  to 2015 , it seems i'm missing my 100TB HDD.

[Klestin]

x ^ 2 ^ 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X ^ 2
To break it down nice and simple for you

Is there relevance between this statement and the current discussion?  The block chain is not growing at a rate exponentially higher than the rate of hard drive size increase.

At its current rate of increase, in five years the total size of the block chain will cross the 1 TB threshold.  Wow! Sounds terrible!  Except it isn't.  Based on current trends, 1 TB of hard drive will cost $6 in five years.

Increasing the maximum block size is not a permanent panacea.  It is a necessary stop gap solution.  If other development hasn't obviated the block size increase within five years, the very last thing we'll have to worry about is hard drive space.

[Klestin]

Once the Blockchain reaches around 200 gigs I have a feeling bitcoin will die.

Clearly.  And we know this because hard drive space could never grow exponentially. Never.

Could you please draw that line  to 2015 , it seems i'm missing my 100TB HDD.

It's not my graph.  The long term growth of hard drives has been 40% per year.  So, if in 2010 it was 1 TB, it should now be 5.4 TB.  Hmm... eerily accurate. http://www.amazon.com/Red-6TB-NAS-Hard-Drive/dp/B00LO3KR96

[Jammalan the Prophet]

x ^ 2 ^ 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X ^ 2
To break it down nice and simple for you

At its current rate of increase, in five years the total size of the block chain will cross the 1 TB threshold.  Wow! Sounds terrible!  Except it isn't.  Based on current trends, 1 TB of hard drive will cost $23 in five years.

But i have to pay 13$ for my flying car that was promised in 1980 =))).

It took 5 year to increase the maximum hdd from 500gb to 4tb  (8x times).
It took another 5 to increase it again just 2x to 8gb.

It's demand that is driving the space storage development. But that might quickly hit a flat spot.

[Klestin]

It took 5 year to increase the maximum hdd from 500gb to 4tb  (8x times).
It took another 5 to increase it again just 2x to 8gb.

It's demand that is driving the space storage development. But that might quickly hit a flat spot.

The world's first 4tb drive came out April 3, 2012.  The world's first 8tb drive came out August 26, 2014.  That's not five years, it's 2.4 years.  And, it corresponds fairly closely to the "40% per year" that we've been experiencing.

While we're at it, the world's first 500 GB drive came out March 29, 2005.  That's seven years before the 2TB drive.

[Jammalan the Prophet]

It took 5 year to increase the maximum hdd from 500gb to 4tb  (8x times).
It took another 5 to increase it again just 2x to 8gb.

It's demand that is driving the space storage development. But that might quickly hit a flat spot.

The world's first 4tb drive came out April 3, 2012.  The world's first 8tb drive came out August 26, 2014.  That's not five years, it's 2.4 years.  And, it corresponds fairly closely to the "40% per year" that we've been experiencing.

While we're at it, the world's first 500 GB drive came out March 29, 2005.  That's seven years before the 2TB drive.

2011 – First 4.0 terabyte hard drive[26] (Seagate)

[Klestin]

2011 – First 4.0 terabyte hard drive[26] (Seagate)

I was comparing internal drives to internal drives.  However, if you include external drives you can move the dates a bit.  Even going with the Seagate, it was September 2011.  That means 3 years.  Still not 5.

[DooMAD]

It has to be done as a short term fix.  People just won't tolerate the delays in confirmations if blocks ever get full on even a semi-regular basis.  We get the odd thread now complaining about a block that to 30 minutes, but there would be dozens of angry posts per day if lots of people were waiting for the next available block.  Hopefully more a more elegant fix comes along in future, like side chains/treechains/etc.  But those still feel like a long way off.

[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.