Is the Blocksize Debate Potentially Catastrophic to Bitcoin?

[jeffthebaker]

The blocksize debate isn't talked about too frequently on here, but it is a huge thing over on /r/bitcoin (probably most talked about subject on there). Anyways, regardless of the outcome, many are fearing that the fact that a minority of people can inhibit change that the community wants, as well as how much we can split the community, could potentially harm Bitcoin... or worse. Is the actual debate over blocksize a big issue, or is reddit blowing things out of proportion?

[LiteCoinGuy]

The blocksize debate isn't talked about too frequently on here, but it is a huge thing over on /r/bitcoin (probably most talked about subject on there). Anyways, regardless of the outcome, many are fearing that the fact that a minority of people can inhibit change that the community wants, as well as how much we can split the community, could potentially harm Bitcoin... or worse. Is the actual debate over blocksize a big issue, or is reddit blowing things out of proportion?

are you kidding me ? please use the searchfunction.

people are tired about that topic and there is already broad consensus about 8MB blocks. most people and business will go that way. simple as that. it is Satoshis path.

[Lauda]

The blocksize debate is probably the issue that drew the most attention of members around this very forum. There were a countless many threads, each having a high number of replies. People were literally pulling up every single possible argument to threw into that discussion (be it pro, or anti). Let's not bring this up again.
That debate needs to die as it yielded with no results and in the end it was Gavin going for 20MB, after which the Chinese pools requested 8 MB.

[Amph]

i didn't follow the last news about the TX debate, it is confirmed, it will be 8mb in the end, everyone is ok with that? especially chinese, that are known for changing their mind for stupid reasons...

[unamis76]

Debates are never catastrophic. Debates lead to evolution, to change, and that's what we need in bitcoin. We need to be able to develop the system further, so it will have mainstream adoption...

i didn't follow the last news about the TX debate, it is confirmed, it will be 8mb in the end, everyone is ok with that? especially chinese, that are known for changing their mind for stupid reasons...

There are some solutions on the table but the most consistent one seems like the 8MB blocks... Let's see what do devs decide to include in Bitcoin Core (and in BitcoinXT)

[IIOII]

are you kidding me ? please use the searchfunction.

people are tired about that topic and there is already broad consensus about 8MB blocks. most people and business will go that way. simple as that. it is Satoshis path.

Wrong. There is no broad consensus on Gavin's proposal for 8MB blocks (with subsequent increases). In fact Gavin failed to get sufficient support for his ill-conceived plan. If a Bitcoin-fork occurs, the resulting Hearndresen-coin will be a stillbirth and Gavin and Mike will lose all credibility because of the damage done to Bitcoin.

In future there will be an increases in blocksize for sure, but it will most likely be a smart, sustainable solution (featuring sidechains for microtransactions) that doesn't hurt decentralization.

[Lauda]

Wrong. There is no broad consensus on Gavin's proposal for 8MB blocks (with subsequent increases). In fact Gavin failed to get sufficient support for his ill-conceived plan. If a Bitcoin-fork occurs, the resulting Hearndresen-coin will be a stillbirth and Gavin and Mike will lose all credibility because of the damage done to Bitcoin.

In future there will be an increases in blocksize for sure, but it will most likely be a smart, sustainable solution (featuring sidechains for microtransactions) that doesn't hurt decentralization.

I'm pretty sure that he was solely talking about 8MB blocks, without the increases. If he was, then he is right. There is quite some consensus for that. However, let's not start this discussion again.
Honestly I think that people are just waiting for the developers to propose their plan for the increase. We are already experiencing problems sometimes because of the amount of transactions and not enough space.

[Derrike]

I think the answer is yes,  it can be catastrophic to the bitcoin.
But still searching on it and maybe the companies or pools might find a decent solution for the problem.

[LiteCoinGuy]

I think the answer is yes,  it can be catastrophic to the bitcoin.
But still searching on it and maybe the companies or pools might find a decent solution for the problem.

I think the answer is no because there will never be a fork of BTC until 75% of all nodes agree.
And hopefully they (miners) will follow Satoshis path and make bigger blocks  

[LFC_Bitcoin]

i didn't follow the last news about the TX debate, it is confirmed, it will be 8mb in the end, everyone is ok with that? especially chinese, that are known for changing their mind for stupid reasons...

There had to be an agreement, there had to be a middle ground that both sides could agree on & it seems that 8mb will be the answer. Does anybody know when this will happen, when will the block size be officially increased to 8mb?

I'm quoting you Amph because you normally know your stuff.

[turvarya]

I am just glad, this debate is mostly over. It showed again, how bad a debate on the internet could get. The amount of conspiracy theories I read on this forum is ridiculous.
But, that is just the internet, the most stupid people are just the loudest. Doesn't mean, that anything bad is really happening.

[countryfree]

The blocksize debate is only one side of the problem, which BTC's scalability. They've just been highlighted earlier this month with the stress tests which slowed many transactions. I understand it's difficult to find a solution, but a solution needs to be found. The problem will only get worse with time.

[TransaDox]

And hopefully they (miners) will follow Satoshis path and make bigger blocks  

There are two debates going on here. The technical one with devs and miners about block size which no-one outside of geeksville particularly cares about or even understands and the block chain ledger size non techies are complaining about. The two are related but they are different arguments.

Satoshi predicted the latter debate and seems to have seen it as a participation issue.

while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

[aakashsangwan]

I think yes it's catastrophic to Bitcoin.
This debate is dividing the bitcoin community into 2 parts, the miners are saying not to do so and the companies are saying yes to do so.

[galbros]

Debates are never catastrophic. Debates lead to evolution, to change, and that's what we need in bitcoin. We need to be able to develop the system further, so it will have mainstream adoption...

While I wholly agree with this sentiment, if a fork occurs with the highest profile bitcoin spokesperson off on a different fork then I would agree that it is not good.  However, not sure that it rates a catastrophe.

Whichever way it goes I think Bitcoin will go on.  As TransaDox points out, it is an issue that effect adoption and as others have pointed out, it is frequently discussed here as well. 

I just wish Satoshi had provided something of a solution as well...

[Amph]

I think yes it's catastrophic to Bitcoin.
This debate is dividing the bitcoin community into 2 parts, the miners are saying not to do so and the companies are saying yes to do so.

the miner have more power, they control the network and with 60% of the total net, chinese can dictate what they want, otherwise why we are willing to accept their 8mb change vs the initial 20mb?

[aakashsangwan]

I think yes it's catastrophic to Bitcoin.
This debate is dividing the bitcoin community into 2 parts, the miners are saying not to do so and the companies are saying yes to do so.

the miner have more power, they control the network and with 60% of the total net chinese can dictate what they want, otherwise why we are willing to accept their 8mb change vs the initial 20mb?

I think,  higher the block size and higher is the time to mint a new block.
Am I right?

[Amph]

I think yes it's catastrophic to Bitcoin.
This debate is dividing the bitcoin community into 2 parts, the miners are saying not to do so and the companies are saying yes to do so.

the miner have more power, they control the network and with 60% of the total net chinese can dictate what they want, otherwise why we are willing to accept their 8mb change vs the initial 20mb?

I think,  higher the block size and higher is the time to mint a new block.
Am I right?

you mean higher the reward of the block? or the size of the blockchain? which has nothing to do with the difficulty btw the difficulty is correlated to the hash, more hash more diff

[aakashsangwan]

I think yes it's catastrophic to Bitcoin.
This debate is dividing the bitcoin community into 2 parts, the miners are saying not to do so and the companies are saying yes to do so.

the miner have more power, they control the network and with 60% of the total net chinese can dictate what they want, otherwise why we are willing to accept their 8mb change vs the initial 20mb?

I think,  higher the block size and higher is the time to mint a new block.
Am I right?

you mean higher the reward of the block? or the size of the blockchain? which has nothing to do with the difficulty btw the difficulty is correlated to the hash, more hash more diff

So why are miners not agreeing to increase the size of the blocks.

[spazzdla]

I think yes it's catastrophic to Bitcoin.
This debate is dividing the bitcoin community into 2 parts, the miners are saying not to do so and the companies are saying yes to do so.

the miner have more power, they control the network and with 60% of the total net chinese can dictate what they want, otherwise why we are willing to accept their 8mb change vs the initial 20mb?

I think,  higher the block size and higher is the time to mint a new block.
Am I right?

you mean higher the reward of the block? or the size of the blockchain? which has nothing to do with the difficulty btw the difficulty is correlated to the hash, more hash more diff

So why are miners not agreeing to increase the size of the blocks.

Chinese miners don't have the bandwidth to handle it.

After review I am 100% behind gaven's proposal.