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

[Xialla]

my favorite link related to this topic, from higher perspective with all proc/cons and for dummies:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36085/what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-the-increase-of-the-block-size-limit

if you ask me, I'm for the raise..

[smith coins]

We can't have a global currency of the future that can only handle up to 7 transactions per second.  1 MB block size limit forever is unsustainable.

[kokojie]

I can never understand why increase the block size, instead of keeping the 1MB block size and increasing blocks per hour from 6 to 120. You get the same result, but better user experience.

[Lauda]

I can never understand why increase the block size, instead of keeping the 1MB block size and increasing blocks per hour from 6 to 120. You get the same result, but better user experience.

You're late as this was already suggested. People have suggested faster blocks, implementing things from altcoins and whatnot. Each solution is more flawed than the other.
The main problem is that we can not really agree to what solution would be best. Sure, there are some decent proposals but each have cons as well (including the block size increase).

Faster blocks have been suggested here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1057423.0

Orphans, wasted hashrate and centralization are the main cons to this proposal.

[pereira4]

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.

The point that some are making is, with LN and Sidechains on, we would still need an eventual blocksize increase... so what does it really solve? It would only mean more time between forks if anything.

[Beliathon]

Neither. I recognize that I do not have the requisite technical background necessary to have an opinion on this technical matter. 

[kokojie]

I can never understand why increase the block size, instead of keeping the 1MB block size and increasing blocks per hour from 6 to 120. You get the same result, but better user experience.

You're late as this was already suggested. People have suggested faster blocks, implementing things from altcoins and whatnot. Each solution is more flawed than the other.
The main problem is that we can not really agree to what solution would be best. Sure, there are some decent proposals but each have cons as well (including the block size increase).

Faster blocks have been suggested here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1057423.0

Orphans, wasted hashrate and centralization are the main cons to this proposal.

Hashrate can not really be "wasted", since the entire thing is actually one gigantic waste of electricity anyway. So if all miners "waste" the same amount, it end up still being fair.

Orphans are the same, if everyone gets them, then it's end up being fair.

Centralization, I don't really see how having more blocks per hour leads to centralization. If anything, it leads to LESS centralization, since it's much easier for small time miners to solo mine a block if we have 120 blocks per hour.

[funkenstein]

Hashrate can not really be "wasted", since the entire thing is actually one gigantic waste of electricity anyway.

You mean, all of bitcoin is a gigantic total waste of time?

Like, because we're going to die anyway or something? 

I don't follow. 

 

[achow101]

Bitcoin is virtual gold - a great store of value, but you would never use gold as a currency, because it's hard to purchase a bag of chips with a piece of gold (unless you want a whole bunch of chips or you have a tiny spec of gold)

I beg to differ. Bitcoin is much easier to divide than gold is. Gold was also used as currency for thousands of years. Many countries and civilizations used gold coins as their currency. Bitcoin can be used just like gold was as a currency in the past.

[MicroGuy]

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.

The fork will give the blockchain a "capacity" for 20MB blocks. It will be years and years before they are actually that large.

[kokojie]

Hashrate can not really be "wasted", since the entire thing is actually one gigantic waste of electricity anyway.

You mean, all of bitcoin is a gigantic total waste of time?

Like, because we're going to die anyway or something? 

I don't follow. 

 

No Bitcoin is great, Bitcoin PoW mining however, is one gigantic waste of electricity. The Hashrate can not be "wasted", because ALL of it is being wasted already, doing no useful work.

[mallard]

Maybe instead of going directly up to 20MB, it could rise slowly every month/year.

[achow101]

Maybe instead of going directly up to 20MB, it could rise slowly every month/year.

That would require multiple hard forks of the blockchain and multiple software upgrades. The logistics of doing this would be too great, so it is much more effective to increase it by larger amounts. Right now, instead of 20 MB, the proposed size is 8 MB with the limit rising every couple years if necessary.

[bitnanigans]

Personally, I think the block size limit should be removed, and the block size should be allowed to grow organically.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Personally, I think the block size limit should be removed, and the block size should be allowed to grow organically.

Bitcoin is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks and/or DOS. Also see bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/37292/whats-the-purpose-of-a-maximum-block-size.

[n2004al]

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

I have to many amounts about the size of the Block but never an argumentation about why must be chosen one of those. Could please anyone explain why must be one or another size and are the plus and the minus of every size proposed? In this way we can understand well the question and can discuss with arguments about this.

[LiteCoinGuy]

And that's really the debate, how and when, not if.

[TransaDox]

And that's really the debate, how and when, not if.

And I find that sad. I believe the debate should be about a way of giving back the ability for any client to add transactions to the block chain, getting rid of blocks altogether (or viewed another way, block size=1 transaction) and load balancing the distribution of blocks. Mining and including transactions in the block chain need to be separate, IMO.

[clipman77]

Do not increase it directly to 20mb, since any great difficulties like miners and users.

[LiteCoinGuy]

And that's really the debate, how and when, not if.

And I find that sad. I believe the debate should be about a way of giving back the ability for any client to add transactions to the block chain, getting rid of blocks altogether (or viewed another way, block size=1 transaction) and load balancing the distribution of blocks. Mining and including transactions in the block chain need to be separate, IMO.

 


 then you should design your own coin