Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too

[tadakaluri]

A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time.

[1714806755]

1714806755

[1714806755]

1714806755

[1714806755]

1714806755

[1714806755]

1714806755

[1714806755]

1714806755

[btccashacc]

im vooting for 8mb.. my reason is
if people smart like gavin trust it why i must think again

[hdbuck]

A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time.

no it doesnt. uninformed little twat.

[meono]

A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time.

no it doesnt. uninformed little twat.

no homo in here pls

[hdbuck]

Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization!
 

Because its a false, arbitrary claim.

"Compromising" decentralization can mean whatever you want it to mean.

The fact of the matter is, the blockchain is growing every day and
full nodes are going to get more expensive to run over time, regardless
of whether the limit is raised.  (What's so magical about "1mb"?)

But if you raise it, at least you prevent (at least for a while) bandwidth problems and backlogs.
 
People who are against bigger blocks are mostly A) Blockstream guys
who took $21M in venture capital to build sidechains... or B) people
who are too biased against Mike Hearn to see the situation clearly
and are freaking out.

 

damit that double mind fuck gavin and hearn pulled in (and out) on some brainz here leaves me speechless.

like mike and gavin there is not even a beginning of data, its all about the bitching about blockstream..
cuz obviously they were not smart enough to come up with on the first place.

[TheAnalogKid]

A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time.

no it doesnt. uninformed little twat.

Any change if this magnitude requires a fork.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0

As stated by Satoshi himself in the above thread, any change to the block size will render the client incompatible with the others.  That will require a fork of the code to a new version with the changes, triggered to "on" by a specific set of criteria.  

Although Im not on board with XT's proposed changes, they are correct in the way they need to roll it out, it needs to be forked. If Core comes to a consensus about the block size increase, whenever it happens it will be the same thing.

EDIT:  Also on the "informed" mantra - I also suggest anyone who doesn't think a block size increase is needed, go read the thread I posted above, and others related.  If the original original core group saw that this would be needed way back in 2010, there should be little argument against it now.   One of the core visions was to someday be able to replace a processor like Visa.  There's many threads out there with the actual math behind the number of Tps it would take to do so, and 1MB is simply not enough to handle that.  It was a temporary measure to stop spam.  Guess what?  Those spam attacks we've had (and supposedly will have again soon) are exactly what's capable of hurting us now.

There's also plenty of reading to do on Satoshi's original visions which address his ideas of centralization as Bitcoin grows.  Staying true to the original vision actually supports the idea of consolidation of nodes as Bitcoin grows, along with introduction of what we now have as SPV wallets for those that can't run it. 

[hdbuck]

Put your magnitude right back your ass.

And then Fork off.

[hdbuck]

It aint happening bitches, so you better pack up your frustrated little ass and migrate to some altcoin where you can reddit fork it all the way you want and gangbang it with all the mainstream bullshit you want.


Cunts.

[jonald_fyookball]

A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time.

no it doesnt. uninformed little twat.

actually it does.  are YOU the one misinformed? or just trolling?

[TheAnalogKid]

A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time.

no it doesnt. uninformed little twat.

actually it does.  are YOU the one misinformed? or just trolling?

Just look at his responses.  He's trolling and apparently doesnt even have the cranial capacity to come back with anything beyond schoolyard insults.  I left those behind in third grade and learned to walk properly upright with not dragging my knuckles on the ground, unlike this wonderful specimen.  Another one to the ignore list. 

[zimmah]

This deserves a bump.

Still relevant.

[DooMAD]

This deserves a bump.

Still relevant.

If you're going to bump it, at least throw in some recent developments like the news about the new bitcoin.com mining pool, which just found a block using the BU client:  https://news.bitcoin.com/historic-day-bitcoin-pool-mining/

[Lauda]

This deserves a bump.

Still relevant.

Of course it is relevant, but it should either be renamed to something in the lines of: "Why I don't support bigger blocks right now and neither should you".

If you're going to bump it, at least throw in some recent developments like the news about the new bitcoin.com mining pool..

There's really no reason to link to anything owned by the altcoin pumper. Not to mention that if we moved to BU today (to their block size limit setting which I at a weird number; 16 MB I think?), the network would likely end up useless due to DOS attacks.

[DooMAD]

If you're going to bump it, at least throw in some recent developments like the news about the new bitcoin.com mining pool..

There's really no reason to link to anything owned by the altcoin pumper. Not to mention that if we moved to BU today (to their block size limit setting which I at a weird number; 16 MB I think?), the network would likely end up useless due to DOS attacks.

BU in and of itself doesn't "set" anything.  The users running BU select their preferred size.  Right now, the "altcoin pumper's" pool is set to 1mb blocks, because that's what consensus currently mandates.  If we all moved to BU today, the blocksize would continue to be 1mb if that's what the majority of people set in their configuration.  Technically, the option is there to set 16mb if that's what you wanted, but the network would simply ignore that while everyone else is producing 1mb blocks.  I highly doubt there would be enough people setting it to 16mb to achieve a fork when there's enough difficulty finding support for 2mb at the moment.