The 1MB block limit is harming Bitcoin right now and needs to be addressed ASAP

[kendog77]

One argument I often hear people make against raising the block limit is the fact that we still have extra network capacity because the current average block size is well below the 1MB limit. This could not be further from the truth.

Millions of dollars worth of funding has been invested in Bitcoin companies so far in 2015, and many of these companies are developing what they hope will be the killer app for Bitcoin.

Imagine if a large tech company, like Amazon or Apple, were to put their full weight behind Bitcoin by promoting it and offering customers a discount to use it? I think such a move would almost instantly overwhelm the Bitcoin network, and these large companies know that so they won't do it until the Bitcoin network is ready...

What if NASDAQ or the NYSE wanted to record trades on the block chain? Again, right now that is a non-starter and would overwhelm the network.

The internet of things sounds interesting, but again, if IBM or Intel were to put their full weight behind it they could almost instantly saturate the Bitcoin network.

I don't know if raising the block size limit to 20MB is the right answer, but something needs to be done soon.

The sooner the community reaches consensus and comes up with a solution to the 1MB block limit, the better, because right now future Bitcoin growth is being seriously harmed by this limitation.

[1714934867]

1714934867

[1714934867]

1714934867

[1Referee]

It may be one of the reasons why certain large companies are holding back for the moment, but it's just a matter of time before block sizes get bigger. I certainly hope it gets done within a year.

Beside that, giving Bitcoin the ability to confirm transactions faster will also massively help. But changing this isn't something the majority of the community is waiting for.

[NyeFe]

It may be one of the reasons why certain large companies are holding back for the moment, but it's just a matter of time before block sizes get bigger. I certainly hope it gets done within a year.

Beside that, giving Bitcoin the ability to confirm transactions faster will also massively help. But changing this isn't something the majority of the community is waiting for.

I wish we had a solution, instead of a temporary patch. As you already know the more we increase the block size, the faster full nodes become a centralised part of it. Now how do we maintain a decentralised system, if limited corporate entities are the only ones who can financially afford to store the blockchain & keep Bitcoin nodes running? It really feels like we've started of with a decentralised network, which slowly morphs into a centralised system. Needed correction @dothebeats

[unamis76]

It may be one of the reasons why certain large companies are holding back for the moment, but it's just a matter of time before block sizes get bigger. I certainly hope it gets done within a year.

Beside that, giving Bitcoin the ability to confirm transactions faster will also massively help. But changing this isn't something the majority of the community is waiting for.

I wish we had a solution, instead of a temporary patch. As you already know the more we increase the block size, the faster full nodes become a centralised part of the it. Now how do we maintain a decentralised system, if limited corporate entities are the only ones who can financially afford to store the blockchain & keep Bitcoin nodes running? It really feels like we've started of with a decentralised network, which slowly morphs into a centralised system.

Raising the current limit 20 times might be temporary, but it's a pretty long temporary... Useful until we figure something really amazing out.

Nodes will be affordable for many years to come. Technology grows, disk space an ram get cheaper and we're not going to have full 20mb blocks out of the blue.

[dothebeats]

It may be one of the reasons why certain large companies are holding back for the moment, but it's just a matter of time before block sizes get bigger. I certainly hope it gets done within a year.

Beside that, giving Bitcoin the ability to confirm transactions faster will also massively help. But changing this isn't something the majority of the community is waiting for.

I wish we had a solution, instead of a temporary patch. As you already know the more we increase the block size, the faster full nodes become a centralised part of it. Now how do we maintain a decentralised system, if limited corporate entities are the only ones who can financially afford to store the blockchain & keep Bitcoin nodes running? It really feels like we've started of with a decentralised network, which slowly morphs into a centralised system.

Raising the block sizes isn't a temporary patch, but an experiment that is being planned. Bitcoin itself is also an experiment imo, a test to see how far will we be doing in a decentralized-currency system. Also, even an old computer could run a full node if it is set to, and I don't see a problem if corporate entities also setup their own nodes. Having more nodes in the network is a good thing and will benefit the whole network. The problem is not in the nodes but in the mining power. As big farms are established, the more centralized the mining scene is becoming. That is a major problem, because they could easily write another block chain if they achieve even the slightest 51% of the whole network.

[neurotypical]

I have the same view. The 1MB limit is simply not enough, we are a drop on the sea of electronic transactions. Actually to even be equal to VISA, we would need a blocksize WAY bigger than 20MB. So 20MB is a joke. Forking every X years is a nightmare and guaranteed failure. We need something scalable now.

[Cruxer]

It may be one of the reasons why certain large companies are holding back for the moment, but it's just a matter of time before block sizes get bigger. I certainly hope it gets done within a year.

I hope so too. I hope also this is last needed consensus in bitcoin history, because gaining consensus in such vast group is nearly impossible.