Let's be prudent I advocate 50MB blocks

[yayayo]

answer: Transaction spam will increase and fill up blocks even faster, because there is no fee pressure.

What makes you think there's no fee pressure? A transaction with no fee will still take forever to validate.

Some fee != fee pressure.

The fees are too low, they encourage transaction spam. I do not think that Bitcoin should process pennies if that means we have to sacrifice on decentralization. Dust transactions can be conveniently handled off-chain or side-chain. They do not require the same level of security as ordinary transactions.

ya.ya.yo!

[1714738749]

1714738749

[1714738749]

1714738749

[1714738749]

1714738749

[1714738749]

1714738749

[bitcreditscc]

Let's make blocksize a maximum of 50 gb then. In the future we can even host movies on the blockchain! Real decentralized p2p file sharing live on the blockchain??

in 10 years , why not. the bandwidth and storage for that would be trivial by then.

[R2D221]

answer: Transaction spam will increase and fill up blocks even faster, because there is no fee pressure.

What makes you think there's no fee pressure? A transaction with no fee will still take forever to validate.

Some fee != fee pressure.

The fees are too low, they encourage transaction spam.

Again, where do you get this? Spending one penny costs more than a penny, so you shouldn't worry about transaction spam.

[MicroGuy]

As the title says, that way we won't ever bother with this question again.

Oh and before you talk shit, just remember that your porn stack is +100GB.  

I vote that we make the blockchain one ginormous block that can never be solved!  

[Lauda]

Let's make blocksize a maximum of 50 gb then. In the future we can even host movies on the blockchain! Real decentralized p2p file sharing live on the blockchain??

in 10 years , why not. the bandwidth and storage for that would be trivial by then.

No. If we can't handle 20 MB blocks now, what makes you think we are going to be able to handle 50 GB blocks in 10 years?
This is wrong. If you look back to 2010 the biggest HDD was 2 TB (according to some sources). There is no way that we will be handle 50 GB blocks in 10 years.
We most likely won't be even able to handle 8 GB blocks as I've described in my previous post.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085476.msg11574987#msg11574987

[tl121]

Let's make blocksize a maximum of 50 gb then. In the future we can even host movies on the blockchain! Real decentralized p2p file sharing live on the blockchain??

in 10 years , why not. the bandwidth and storage for that would be trivial by then.

No. If we can't handle 20 MB blocks now, what makes you think we are going to be able to handle 50 GB blocks in 10 years?
This is wrong. If you look back to 2010 the biggest HDD was 2 TB (according to some sources). There is no way that we will be handle 50 GB blocks in 10 years.
We most likely won't be even able to handle 8 GB blocks as I've described in my previous post.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085476.msg11574987#msg11574987

Only a trivial software change is required to handle 20 MB blocks today, at least from the perspective of storage, which is what your post is discussing.

144 blocks a day,  52596 blocks a year.
At 0.020 GB per block,  1052 GB per year.

I recently bought five 3 TB hard drives for a  12 TB RAID array to store music files. The price was $90 per drive.  With the absurd assumption that every block is full, this amounts to an annual expenditure of $30 to keep up with blockchain storage at the 20 MB block size.

[Lauda]

Only a trivial software change is required to handle 20 MB blocks today, at least from the perspective of storage, which is what your post is discussing.

144 blocks a day,  52596 blocks a year.
At 0.020 GB per block,  1052 GB per year.

I recently bought five 3 TB hard drives for a  12 TB RAID array to store music files. The price was $90 per drive.  With the absurd assumption that every block is full, this amounts to an annual expenditure of $30 to keep up with blockchain storage at the 20 MB block size.

You have to factor in bandwidth and syncing into this. Good luck syncing to a 1TB blockchain on a regular PC. I'm not sure where you got those prices from. Usually on Amazon.de it is between 50 to 60 euros for a 1TB drive.
You also have to consider that this is a lot of money for quite a number of people. Obviously it is cheap for people with good jobs and people who live in 1st world country. What about the rest?

China would definitely have problems if we had 20 MB blocks today.

[pereira4]

Only a trivial software change is required to handle 20 MB blocks today, at least from the perspective of storage, which is what your post is discussing.

144 blocks a day,  52596 blocks a year.
At 0.020 GB per block,  1052 GB per year.

I recently bought five 3 TB hard drives for a  12 TB RAID array to store music files. The price was $90 per drive.  With the absurd assumption that every block is full, this amounts to an annual expenditure of $30 to keep up with blockchain storage at the 20 MB block size.

You have to factor in bandwidth and syncing into this. Good luck syncing to a 1TB blockchain on a regular PC. I'm not sure where you got those prices from. Usually on Amazon.de it is between 50 to 60 euros for a 1TB drive.
You also have to consider that this is a lot of money for quite a number of people. Obviously it is cheap for people with good jobs and people who live in 1st world country. What about the rest?

China would definitely have problems if we had 20 MB blocks today.

Yeah, 20MB is ridiculous and only viable in the future where 1TB is as cheap as 1GB, otherwise nodes will be limited to a small minority of people that can afford it, this weakens the overall network.

[blablaace]

50mb blocks not necessary for a loong time

[yayayo]

answer: Transaction spam will increase and fill up blocks even faster, because there is no fee pressure.

What makes you think there's no fee pressure? A transaction with no fee will still take forever to validate.

Some fee != fee pressure.

The fees are too low, they encourage transaction spam.

Again, where do you get this? Spending one penny costs more than a penny, so you shouldn't worry about transaction spam.

A penny's worth is much too small.

Until network capacity has grown significantly, Bitcoin should be limited to transactions > 1 USD worth by higher fee pressure. All other use cases should find an alternative solution (off-chain, side-chain).

It's simply wrong to cut back on decentralization just to make extremely small transactions viable. If it can be achieved without bloating the blockchain then good.

ya.ya.yo!

[Amph]

50mb blocks not necessary for a loong time

this lead me to a question, it not possible for bitcoin to skyrocket before the halving? nothing say otherwise, what if we assist at an acceleration in adoption, and we are still here stuck with 1MB?

it would be a nightmare for big merchants, since all the tx will cause a long queue chain that at some point will overwhelm the network

it is better to work ahead of time on this subject, to avoid big issues in the future

[LiteCoinGuy]

Let's make blocksize a maximum of 50 gb then. In the future we can even host movies on the blockchain! Real decentralized p2p file sharing live on the blockchain??

in 10 years , why not. the bandwidth and storage for that would be trivial by then.

thought the same 

[daddybios]

The maximum value of the block may be only 32 mb. You can not do more.
 I'm right? Or I do not understand something?

[Eastwind]

My network connection speed is 8Mb/s, or just undern1 MB/s. 20 MB will take more tham 20s to transmit. There will be many orphan blocks.

[tl121]

Only a trivial software change is required to handle 20 MB blocks today, at least from the perspective of storage, which is what your post is discussing.

144 blocks a day,  52596 blocks a year.
At 0.020 GB per block,  1052 GB per year.

I recently bought five 3 TB hard drives for a  12 TB RAID array to store music files. The price was $90 per drive.  With the absurd assumption that every block is full, this amounts to an annual expenditure of $30 to keep up with blockchain storage at the 20 MB block size.

You have to factor in bandwidth and syncing into this. Good luck syncing to a 1TB blockchain on a regular PC. I'm not sure where you got those prices from. Usually on Amazon.de it is between 50 to 60 euros for a 1TB drive.
You also have to consider that this is a lot of money for quite a number of people. Obviously it is cheap for people with good jobs and people who live in 1st world country. What about the rest?

China would definitely have problems if we had 20 MB blocks today.

3 TB disk purchase came from Amazon.com.
 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005T3GRLY?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

[Blazr]

I advocate removing the block limit altogether. When Satoshi wrote the Bitcoin whitepaper and published the early versions of Bitcoin, there was no such thing as a block limit. Satoshi's vision was that most people would use SPV wallets and not run nodes. It really doesn't make sense to be running Bitcoin nodes from home connections, thats not very cost-effective when we could be running them on cheap fibre-optic datacenter connections. This doesn't make Bitcoin "centralized", the Bitcoin network will still be decentralized as it will still be a network comprised of a large number of independently owned nodes and anyone with the resources can run their own node. Just because it's too expensive to run a node from home doesn't make Bitcoin "centralized".

[Lauda]

3 TB disk purchase came from Amazon.com.
 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005T3GRLY?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

This is pretty much invalid. Anyone outside the US doesn't have access to these prices and that is the point that I was trying to make.

The maximum value of the block may be only 32 mb. You can not do more.
 I'm right? Or I do not understand something?

No, you're not right. Where did you pull this from?
Currently blocks can be 1MB big, but the fork is supposed to increase that limit to 20 MB.

[yayayo]

3 TB disk purchase came from Amazon.com.
 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005T3GRLY?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

This is pretty much invalid. Anyone outside the US doesn't have access to these prices and that is the point that I was trying to make.

Apart from storage costs, network capacity is even more important.

Gavin-supporters (and even Gavin himself in his initial "calculation") tend to be ignorant of the fact that it's upload, not download speed that is the most limiting factor. That said, most countries in the world (e.g. China) have far less residential network capacity available than the US or a few EU-countries.

ya.ya.yo!

[btcrich]

Only a trivial software change is required to handle 20 MB blocks today, at least from the perspective of storage, which is what your post is discussing.

144 blocks a day,  52596 blocks a year.
At 0.020 GB per block,  1052 GB per year.

I recently bought five 3 TB hard drives for a  12 TB RAID array to store music files. The price was $90 per drive.  With the absurd assumption that every block is full, this amounts to an annual expenditure of $30 to keep up with blockchain storage at the 20 MB block size.

You have to factor in bandwidth and syncing into this. Good luck syncing to a 1TB blockchain on a regular PC. I'm not sure where you got those prices from. Usually on Amazon.de it is between 50 to 60 euros for a 1TB drive.
You also have to consider that this is a lot of money for quite a number of people. Obviously it is cheap for people with good jobs and people who live in 1st world country. What about the rest?

China would definitely have problems if we had 20 MB blocks today.

Are you living in China?  Why would anyone in China have problems with that?  Not only are hardware costs here in China far less than you could find almost anywhere else, but I'm sure anyone with the need or will to run a full node in China would not find the cost to be a barrier.

[Amph]

Only a trivial software change is required to handle 20 MB blocks today, at least from the perspective of storage, which is what your post is discussing.

144 blocks a day,  52596 blocks a year.
At 0.020 GB per block,  1052 GB per year.

I recently bought five 3 TB hard drives for a  12 TB RAID array to store music files. The price was $90 per drive.  With the absurd assumption that every block is full, this amounts to an annual expenditure of $30 to keep up with blockchain storage at the 20 MB block size.

You have to factor in bandwidth and syncing into this. Good luck syncing to a 1TB blockchain on a regular PC. I'm not sure where you got those prices from. Usually on Amazon.de it is between 50 to 60 euros for a 1TB drive.
You also have to consider that this is a lot of money for quite a number of people. Obviously it is cheap for people with good jobs and people who live in 1st world country. What about the rest?

China would definitely have problems if we had 20 MB blocks today.

Are you living in China?  Why would anyone in China have problems with that?  Not only are hardware costs here in China far less than you could find almost anywhere else, but I'm sure anyone with the need or will to run a full node in China would not find the cost to be a barrier.

They are only raising excuses, to remain competitive in their sector, they don't want to diminish even a tiny profit from their revenue, they are not even interested in bitcoin tech, but more on the economical aspect of it, basically only for the money, and one chinese confirmed this in another thread(about etherum project)