It is time to raise the blockchain size.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Bitcoin was never designed to limit transactions to 3 tps. The 1 MB hard limit was only intended as a temporary stopgap while typical bitcoin blocks were many orders of magnitudes smaller.

Bitcoin was designed to handle transactions without a financial intermediary. It is intended for all transactions to take place on chain, not off-chain using a centralized service. It is time to raise the blockchain size.

[Alley]

Isnt this already planned for 2016 by gavin?

[vm_mpn]

And isn't it closer to 7 transactions per second?

[ticoti]

Isnt this already planned for 2016 by gavin?

Yes it is,it was planned a hard fork for 2016

[BIT-Sharon]

Isnt this already planned for 2016 by gavin?

Yes it is,it was planned a hard fork for 2016

Let's wait and see the good news coming.

[knight22]

I like the Idea of increasing the blockrate. It decrease the need for mining pools at the same time.

[Amph]

Isnt this already planned for 2016 by gavin?

it was planned for this year but then they raised that problem about the need of more MB of ram, and they changed their mind

[franky1]

right now 1mb has a yearly potential of 52gb.. its been long enough now and we are at no where near 52gb for the total of 6 years. so i see very little reason to increase the blocksize right now.. if anything we should be coaxing the pools to stop delaying adding transactions and to actually start filling all blocks with tx's as they happen..

[Kyraishi]

right now 1mb has a yearly potential of 52gb.. its been long enough now and we are at no where near 52gb for the total of 6 years. so i see very little reason to increase the blocksize right now.. if anything we should be coaxing the pools to stop delaying adding transactions and to actually start filling all blocks with tx's as they happen..

Why would they do that?
What would they gain?

I have heard of "selfish mining" where a pool has solved a block but did not publish in order to get a head start for the next block(s).

Anything similar to the above?

[nicole7852]

right now 1mb has a yearly potential of 52gb.. its been long enough now and we are at no where near 52gb for the total of 6 years. so i see very little reason to increase the blocksize right now.. if anything we should be coaxing the pools to stop delaying adding transactions and to actually start filling all blocks with tx's as they happen..

Raising blocksize causes another problem that is near 52gb blockchain data. Downloanding the whole chunk of blockchain takes a lot time and and hard disk space. No many ppl are patient and persistent enough to use the bitcoin qt.   

[neoneros]

right now 1mb has a yearly potential of 52gb.. its been long enough now and we are at no where near 52gb for the total of 6 years. so i see very little reason to increase the blocksize right now.. if anything we should be coaxing the pools to stop delaying adding transactions and to actually start filling all blocks with tx's as they happen..

Raising blocksize causes another problem that is near 52gb blockchain data. Downloanding the whole chunk of blockchain takes a lot time and and hard disk space. No many ppl are patient and persistent enough to use the bitcoin qt.   

But then there are those who see the need and do provide the full nodes, it will all even out. Most day to day users of bitcoin do not want to use a full node, updating and having a 52gb chunk of data on their device, but having a dedicated machine, to support the blockchain is not that weird, or maybe it is, but most of the early adopters are a bit weird and nerdy

[countryfree]

One small correction. This isn't about increasing the size of the blockchain, which is already quite big, but the block size. There are many other topics regarding this issue already, this problem is well known.

[Jeremycoin]

What will happen if the Blockchain size increasing, 1 week downloading for Bitcoin Core.

[Agestorzrxx]

Is the any other way to increase the transactions per second? And why is 20M not more, Do we need increase the block size again after this time?
So many question should be figure out before we increase it.

[Amph]

What will happen if the Blockchain size increasing, 1 week downloading for Bitcoin Core.

not really, with a 850 pro it easy to download any synching process, you also need a good cpu, i realize that not everyone has those, but a ssd(a cheap one like evo is more than good for synching) is basically mandatory nowadays

[EternalWingsofGod]

What will happen if the Blockchain size increasing, 1 week downloading for Bitcoin Core.

not really, with a 850 pro it easy to download any synching process, you also need a good cpu, i realize that not everyone has those, but a ssd(a cheap one like evo is more than good for synching) is basically mandatory nowadays

It still does pose a problem in the sense that the geographic distribution is impacted, with full nodes being relatively concentrated in areas where there is a stable internet connection and a computer which can download the full chain, while other geographic regions have less full nodes to access in the area.

What I worry about is the disk space cost as it is preferable to have users utilzing a Full node than a light weight alternative but the benefits to running one make it a less attractive option. That said since a hardfork is scheduled hopefully they put in a few more features/ways to alleviate data requirements.
https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/

https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#secure-your-wallet

Minimum Requirements

Bitcoin Core full nodes have certain requirements. If you try running a node on weak hardware, it may work—but you’ll likely spend more time dealing with issues. If you can meet the following requirements, you’ll have an easy-to-use node.

•Desktop or laptop hardware running recent versions of Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux.

•50 gigabytes of free disk space

•2 gigabytes of memory (RAM)

•A broadband Internet connection with upload speeds of at least 400 kilobits (50 kilobytes) per second

[franky1]

Raising blocksize causes another problem that is near 52gb blockchain data. Downloanding the whole chunk of blockchain takes a lot time and and hard disk space. No many ppl are patient and persistent enough to use the bitcoin qt.    

i know thousands of people that download movies, download games.. EG GTA5 is 75gb and loads of people dont see that as a problem, and as for expansion, in the future there is a thing called fibre optics... oh wait its already here, so i guess that solves that problem.

then we come to the point that in the gold industry:
not everyone owns a plot of goldrich land
not everyone owns a gold smelting plant
not everyone owns a gold shop
not everyone is a huge gold investor on the markets

but im pretty sure everyone has something in their house that contains gold.. and thats all that matters.

not everyone needs to get fully set up with bitcoin. just the ones with large amounts invested.. for instance if you have under 1btc, i see no point going full bitcoin-core..

But then there are those who see the need and do provide the full nodes, it will all even out. Most day to day users of bitcoin do not want to use a full node, updating and having a 52gb chunk of data on their device, but having a dedicated machine, to support the blockchain is not that weird, or maybe it is, but most of the early adopters are a bit weird and nerdy

i agree the whole "it will take up too much space..." is such a crap excuse. especially with 2 terrabyte harddrives being cheap these days, more than enough for 2 years storage and then cloning the drive onto the next level of cheap drives in 2018 (many terrabytes) wont be a problem.

its the kinda weak excuse of 2000 when it was said that online gaming wont take off because most users are on dialup.. the next year ADSL came about

[franky1]

Why would they do that?
What would they gain?

by only allowing a select few tx's in does2 things:
1. reduces the data they have to handle when mining
2. choose the tx's that have fee's added and ignore the rest

I have heard of "selfish mining" where a pool has solved a block but did not publish in order to get a head start for the next block(s).

Anything similar to the above?

not really. but yea.
not only are pools pre-selecting profitable tx's, but they can (try atleast) to mess with other things like trying to process the next block before other pools to always remain ahead. amungst other selfish tactics thats not really beneficial to the general community.

[cellard]

right now 1mb has a yearly potential of 52gb.. its been long enough now and we are at no where near 52gb for the total of 6 years. so i see very little reason to increase the blocksize right now.. if anything we should be coaxing the pools to stop delaying adding transactions and to actually start filling all blocks with tx's as they happen..

Maybe not exactly right now, but in the future we will need it. So ask yourself, what's better, to fork now while Bitcoin is still somewhat underground, or to fork when BTC is huge and all over the mainstream media on a daily basis? exactly.

[onewiseguy]

Wont this hurt bitcoin?


more vulnerable to hacks? 
unless what every one else is talking about is not consistent.