Do you agree to raise the block size limit to 20 megabytes or not?

[Huobi-USD]

Do you agree to raise the block size limit to 20 megabytes or not?

Chinese Exchanges Reject Gavin Andresen’s 20 MB Block Size Increase

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

inline sig removed

[Amph]

this is old already, they are talking about a much less increase, and help a slow gradual increase instead, like for example, we will jump to 2 then 4 then 8 ecc...

something like this should have a less impact on the network, and should help china to not be against it

[Lauda]

Here we go again, even the ignorant media is posting nonsense.


This information is outdated. We should be talking about 8 MB blocks because that's the right result from Gavin's calculations.

this is old already, they are talking about a much less increase, and help a slow gradual increase instead, like for example, we will jump to 2 then 4 then 8 ecc...

something like this should have a less impact on the network, and should help china to not be against it

Have you pulled this up from the article or has some developer proposed gradual growth? I might have missed it.
As far as I know this was firstly rejected because it would be much more complicated to code.

[Amph]

Here we go again, even the ignorant media is posting nonsense.


This information is outdated. We should be talking about 8 MB blocks because that's the right result from Gavin's calculations.

this is old already, they are talking about a much less increase, and help a slow gradual increase instead, like for example, we will jump to 2 then 4 then 8 ecc...

something like this should have a less impact on the network, and should help china to not be against it

Have you pulled this up from the article or has some developer proposed gradual growth? I might have missed it.
As far as I know this was firstly rejected because it would be much more complicated to code.

no, it was just a suggestion(an example like i said, i would do it in that way), i've just heard about the 8mb increase too, instead of the notorious 20mb

[Gultahin]

i think the size should be increased and the minimum amount transaction should be reduced to clear off dusts that really delays some important transaction.

[R2D221]

Wait, has Gavin himself stated that he actually wants 8 MB blocks, not 20 MB?

[Netnox]

China cares more about mining and trading just to make money so they don't like bigger block size even if it would make bitcoin to reach mainstream, thats what i've gathered from them.

[R2D221]

China cares more about mining and trading just to make money so they don't like bigger block size even if it would make bitcoin to reach mainstream, thats what i've gathered from them.

That's stupid, because bigger blocks = more transaction fees = more money for them.

[Netnox]

China cares more about mining and trading just to make money so they don't like bigger block size even if it would make bitcoin to reach mainstream, thats what i've gathered from them.

That's stupid, because bigger blocks = more transaction fees = more money for them.

Chinese mega farm are pretty cheap and they probably don't want to pay for proper connection since that would hurt their earnings and the farms are located in areas where a good internet connections are gonna cost them, they are just greedy, not to mention the exchanges lack credibility from what we have seen so i don't think they have much to say what happens to the btc core.

[Muhammed Zakir]

China cares more about mining and trading just to make money so they don't like bigger block size even if it would make bitcoin to reach mainstream, thats what i've gathered from them.

That's stupid, because bigger blocks = more transaction fees = more money for them.

Chinese mega farm are pretty cheap and they probably don't want to pay for proper connection since that would hurt their earnings and the farms are located in areas where a good internet connections are gonna cost them, they are just greedy, not to mention the exchanges lack credibility from what we have seen so i don't think they have much to say what happens to the btc core.

I don't there is something called "proper connection" in China.

[Netnox]

China cares more about mining and trading just to make money so they don't like bigger block size even if it would make bitcoin to reach mainstream, thats what i've gathered from them.

That's stupid, because bigger blocks = more transaction fees = more money for them.

Chinese mega farm are pretty cheap and they probably don't want to pay for proper connection since that would hurt their earnings and the farms are located in areas where a good internet connections are gonna cost them, they are just greedy, not to mention the exchanges lack credibility from what we have seen so i don't think they have much to say what happens to the btc core.

I don't there is something called "proper connection" in China.

By that i mean proper fiber optic connection and that would hurt their profit margins.

[chrisvl]

It looks interesting but there will be many objections

[Elwar]

Wait, has Gavin himself stated that he actually wants 8 MB blocks, not 20 MB?

Could the answer be that Gavin keeps posing questions on what is the best solution?

And then it is interpreted by everybody and their cousin that Gavin has proclaimed something.

[BlackMachine]

China cares more about mining and trading just to make money so they don't like bigger block size even if it would make bitcoin to reach mainstream, thats what i've gathered from them.

That's stupid, because bigger blocks = more transaction fees = more money for them.

Chinese mega farm are pretty cheap and they probably don't want to pay for proper connection since that would hurt their earnings and the farms are located in areas where a good internet connections are gonna cost them, they are just greedy, not to mention the exchanges lack credibility from what we have seen so i don't think they have much to say what happens to the btc core.

I don't there is something called "proper connection" in China.

By that i mean proper fiber optic connection and that would hurt their profit margins.

Based on the sheer size of their farms, I'll be quite surprised if they don't even have a half decent farm. I don't believe the bigger blocks would directly affect the miners. The block size doesn't affect the bandwidth used. They can easily connect to a pool or a server at the nearest datacentre with cheap hosting. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

[R2D221]

Wait, has Gavin himself stated that he actually wants 8 MB blocks, not 20 MB?

Could the answer be that Gavin keeps posing questions on what is the best solution?

And then it is interpreted by everybody and their cousin that Gavin has proclaimed something.

Well, he's making a proposal, after all. The problem is people keep twisting the details, and I would like to know the truth.

[manselr]

Where can I read the full history on Gavin's research to change his mind and go from 20 to 8?
Wouldn't this mean that we will need another fork sooner than if we went 20?

[Lauda]

Could the answer be that Gavin keeps posing questions on what is the best solution?

And then it is interpreted by everybody and their cousin that Gavin has proclaimed something.

Well, he's making a proposal, after all. The problem is people keep twisting the details, and I would like to know the truth.

Well I can't do the research every time and try finding links. As time passes so does the information get buried under a lot of posts.
As far as I know someone made a tweet about it; some developer confirmed it on reddit and it is also in the Bitcoin mailing list. There seems to be a lot more consensus to 4 or 8 MB blocks anyway.
However you'd have to do your own research as I do not plan on going through 600 mails to find it for you.
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/

Wouldn't this mean that we will need another fork sooner than if we went 20?

Why would it mean that? We would need a fork if we planned to increase it to 20 after increasing it to X now. However, the plan of this is just to buy time until some other solutions get's ready such as the Lightning network or side chains.


Update: After doing a bit more research I've found the information in this reddit post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34riua/hard_fork_allow_20mb_blocks_after_1_march_2016/

It's also not consistent with the last discussions we had with Gavin over his large block advocacy, where he'd agreed that his 20mb numbers were based on a calculation error.

[LiteCoinGuy]

I AGREE!

[Possum577]

There are several posts about this already on the forum, why are we starting a new one? Are you trying to get answers to different questions?

[alani123]

Chinese pools are also likely to reject a 20Mb block increase due to the bandwidth it would require. But as noted above, if we're going to see any blocksize increase it probably wouldn't be exactly 20Mb.