Block size increase?

[TheBitcoinMiner]

Do you think that it is a good idea to increase the block size???

Should the block size increase to 20MB or stay at 1MB

Option 1: Increase to 20MB

Option 2: Stay at 1MB

PLEASE TELL WHY YOU CHOSE YOUR OPTION.

[oblivi]

Both have risks.
If we stay at 1MB, we don't know what will happen once we hit the limit, which could be anytime next year, it's a risk.
We also don't know how the hardfork to 20MB will go, it should go smoothly, but we don't know. The 20MB is not a definitive solution, but should buy us time to create a true scalable solution so Bitcoin isn't stuck forever with a shitty tps rate.

[Amph]

isn't obvious that we much choose the 20mb fork, how is staying with 1mb, can be good for big merchant like amazon, in your opinion why amazon didn't joined bitcoin already?

it's because of the TX limit(besides others small reason), they will overwhelm the current one and they know it,the same for other big merchants

[DannyHamilton]

Your poll doesn't have enough options.

What about increasing it to 4MB?
What about increasing it to 8MB?
What about increasing it to 30MB?
What about eliminating the limit on blocksize?

[pereira4]

Once you modify the blocksize limit the blockchain has different characteristics, therefore the old transactions are safe and kept, but the future transactions need a new blockchain to keep everything in order.

[Klestin]

Nobody is talking about increasing the block size to 20MB.

[SpanishSoldier]

Your poll doesn't have enough options.

What about increasing it to 4MB?
What about increasing it to 8MB?
What about increasing it to 30MB?
What about eliminating the limit on blocksize?

I propose 21 MB... in the honor of Satoshi nakamoto

[tvbcof]

Your poll doesn't have enough options.

What about increasing it to 4MB?
What about increasing it to 8MB?
What about increasing it to 30MB?
What about eliminating the limit on blocksize?

I propose 21 MB... in the honor of Satoshi nakamoto

We can call it 'Agenda-21'

[TheBitcoinMiner]

Your poll doesn't have enough options.

What about increasing it to 4MB?
What about increasing it to 8MB?
What about increasing it to 30MB?
What about eliminating the limit on blocksize?

The reason I didn't add more was because those are the two that are being discussed.

[Klestin]

Nobody is talking about increasing the block size to 20MB.

Nobody is even talking about increasing the maximum block size to 20MB right away.

Nobody is even talking about increasing the maximum block size AT ALL right away.

ALL that they're proposing is, starting (at the earliest) a year from now, over a months-long period of time, slowly increasing the maximum block size from 1MB to (eventually) 20MB.  

Even when, EVENTUALLY, the maximum block size has reached 20MB, the average block size will NOT be 20MB.  Some blocks will be tiny, just as they are now.

[tvbcof]

Nobody is talking about increasing the block size to 20MB.

Nobody is even talking about increasing the maximum block size to 20MB right away.

Nobody is even talking about increasing the maximum block size AT ALL right away.

ALL that they're proposing is, starting (at the earliest) a year from now, over a months-long period of time, slowly increasing the maximum block size from 1MB to (eventually) 20MB.  

Even when, EVENTUALLY, the maximum block size has reached 20MB, the average block size will NOT be 20MB.  Some blocks will be tiny, just as they are now.

Good point.  It's probably not an accident that all we hear is 20MB (or 8MB after the arithmetically challenged 'chief scientist' gets corrected) while the real discussion is not talked about much.  That would be the exponential growth which plants the seeds of eventual full monopolization by power-players.  That's the kind of 'predictability' which people need in order to invest in the solution (or dis-invest as the case may be.)

Many many people have had the great idea of using the subsidized nature of Bitcoin for their own business model.  Some of them got quite a way down the path before they groked the reality of the 1MB limit.  Years ago Satoshi Dice pushed the block size limit (which was not terminal for the system, BTW) and backed off when they saw the limits.  Many such ideas are gestating and would be delighted at the increased capacity.  I'll predict with some confidence that as soon XT forks blocks will jump right up to being a sizable percentage of the new capacity.  The value of space in the blockchain exceeds the marginal transaction cost that people will pay to buy a trinket and always will, and the demand for some of these services is without realistic bound.  Absent control mechanisms to force blockchain use to a limited set of uses the economics dis-favor most ordinary economic activity and without heavy subsidization by infrastructure providers that will always be the case.

edit: slight

[pissedoff]

Nobody is talking about increasing the block size to 20MB.

Nobody is even talking about increasing the maximum block size to 20MB right away.

Nobody is even talking about increasing the maximum block size AT ALL right away.

ALL that they're proposing is, starting (at the earliest) a year from now, over a months-long period of time, slowly increasing the maximum block size from 1MB to (eventually) 20MB.  

Even when, EVENTUALLY, the maximum block size has reached 20MB, the average block size will NOT be 20MB.  Some blocks will be tiny, just as they are now.

Thats right using a dynamic limit which will rise when and as needed rather than a straigt jump

[DannyHamilton]

Your poll doesn't have enough options.

What about increasing it to 4MB?
What about increasing it to 8MB?
What about increasing it to 30MB?
What about eliminating the limit on blocksize?

The reason I didn't add more was because those are the two that are being discussed.

You are incorrect.

Every one of the limits I've mentioned have been part of the discussion.

[NUFCrichard]

I think we an agree that the blocksize does need to be increased, the question is more how we can go about doing that without having sidechains and massive problems with mining and people not updating.

I would be for increasing to 20mb, might as well largely future proof things.  I don't see the number of transactions increasing more than 2000% anytime soon.

[neurotypical]

I think we an agree that the blocksize does need to be increased, the question is more how we can go about doing that without having sidechains and massive problems with mining and people not updating.

I would be for increasing to 20mb, might as well largely future proof things.  I don't see the number of transactions increasing more than 2000% anytime soon.

If the fork happens when it should (90% of people already using XT) then the problem of people not updating is not actually a problem.

[tvbcof]

I think we an agree that the blocksize does need to be increased, the question is more how we can go about doing that without having sidechains and massive problems with mining and people not updating.

I would be for increasing to 20mb, might as well largely future proof things.  I don't see the number of transactions increasing more than 2000% anytime soon.

If the fork happens when it should (90% of people already using XT) then the problem of people not updating is not actually a problem.

As soon as the fork happens it a whole lot of VC's will be confident that the problems are finally solved and money will come pouring in.

There may be a brief amount of time when there is a price decrease because weak people are naturally cautious.  This may be an outstanding buying opportunity and one might be able to ride the wave into an early retirement filled with hot women and Ferraris and such.  But only for those clever and bold enough to make a power-play on the natural weakness of others. You'll have to move fast, though, since these opportunities don't come up often or last very long

[box0214]

im kinda new to this block size thing. seems like this is a big issue... why cant they just code this to switch to 20mb at different block heights so everyone can gradually upgrade easily?