Another topic for block size and transaction rate

[RoadStress]

Discuss.

[Lauda]

Why should this be discussed again?
There's actually more than enough information here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0
I do not think that Bitcoin should be limited by a little amount of transactions (currently less than 4 tps).

[manselr]

Apparently the main problem is the blockchain will become even bigger so people running nodes will be more prone to run out of hard disk space.

[RoadStress]

Why should this be discussed again?
There's actually more than enough information here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0
I do not think that Bitcoin should be limited by a little amount of transactions (currently less than 4 tps).

I felt like there was no central place to discuss this. The 20MB Fork thread is closed and your quoted thread has a misleading title.

What makes this thread the "official" one instead of any of the others?

Nothing. I feel that this would be easier to find. If people like the others the this one will just die.

Apparently the main problem is the blockchain will become even bigger so people running nodes will be more prone to run out of hard disk space.

But the price of $/TB is shrinking.

[ArticMine]

This is a very serious issue that has been around for a very long time. The simple reality is that if the Bitcoin community does not address this issue soon the very bright potential of Bitcoin will be drastically crippled.

[DooMAD]

What makes this thread the "official" one instead of any of the others?

Nothing. I feel that this would be easier to find. If people like the others the this one will just die.

Ah, ok.

So when you used "Official topic" in the title, what you really meant was: "Yet another topic for block size and transacction rate".

Adding more topics don't make them any easier to find, it just makes all of them (including the new ones) harder to find.  Conversation becomes fragmented and nearly impossible to follow, searches turn up to many threads to skim through, and nobody is sure where to find the most recent or reliable information any longer.

Using the word "official" doesn't make something official.

Every time the discussion leans towards a larger blocksize, the thread gets locked and a new one pops up later.  Keep trying until you get the desired outcome, heh.  On the one hand it seems a little pointless having yet another one.  But on the other, it could be as little as a month to go before we all get to decide, so I guess it is important for everyone to make an informed choice.

I'm on a phone at the moment so it's effort to dig up links to all my

//EDIT:

Gave up on the smartphone since trying to use a forum on those is horrific.  Here's a sample of my previous views on the issue:
 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1052176.msg11325326#msg11325326

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1010569.msg10979798#msg10979798

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10803592#msg10803592

[Shindo1988]

What makes this thread the "official" one instead of any of the others?

Because he said so 

Seriously as if we don't have enough block size threads.
And what's the big deal anyway?
I am sure it was going to happen at some point anyway.

[goosoodude]

I think it is pretty clear that either the target block time needs to decline or the max block size needs to increase. The target block time was a well thought out target that was meant to prevent users of bitcoin from having to wait too long for one confirmation, while also having a large amount of certainty that a transaction confirmed in one block is going to be confirmed in the "final" blockchain; the max block size was set as an arbitrary maximum value to prevent spam and to prevent it from being too expensive to mine and/or run a full node in Bitcoin's early days......this should say enough as to if increasing the max block size is appropiate or not

[Amph]

besides the new memory problem(desktop ram i mean) mentioned by Gavin, there should not be any problem in upgrading the block size to 20mb

still it's not clear how big is the memory problem, would 32mb be sufficient?

[Lauda]

I felt like there was no central place to discuss this. The 20MB Fork thread is closed and your quoted thread has a misleading title.

What makes this thread the "official" one instead of any of the others?

Nothing. I feel that this would be easier to find. If people like the others the this one will just die.

Apparently the main problem is the blockchain will become even bigger so people running nodes will be more prone to run out of hard disk space.

But the price of $/TB is shrinking.

Well it is a bit misleading to the average man I guess. Although this one is misleading too.
You can't make it an official topic.
That's not really a problem. Upgrading to get more memory is actually quite cheap these days. That argument is very weak.

besides the new memory problem(desktop ram i mean) mentioned by Gavin, there should not be any problem in upgrading the block size to 20mb

still it's not clear how big is the memory problem, would 32mb be sufficient?

I missed out on this. Could you post a link?

[RoadStress]

Thread title changed!

[Amph]

besides the new memory problem(desktop ram i mean) mentioned by Gavin, there should not be any problem in upgrading the block size to 20mb

still it's not clear how big is the memory problem, would 32mb be sufficient?

I missed out on this. Could you post a link?

here you go https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054669.0

some users there are reporting, that it isn't a issue that big after all