Core developers: we want bigger blocks

[meono]

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

Blocksize limit is just a limit, it does not mean the block must be filled completely.

But we need head room for growth. Being proactive is what ensures a smooth experience for new wave of users.

[1714888643]

1714888643

[1714888643]

1714888643

[1714888643]

1714888643

[1714888643]

1714888643

[Dissonance]

If by next year if we are filling 8mb blocks the miners will be very profitable because it would mean a lot more people using bitcoin and higher prices.  There is really no reason not to do it unless someone has a better way of increasing t/s.

[Dissonance]

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

They are trying to get ahead of the problem of scaling up bitcoin.  Next time there is bubble the transactions will spike and we will start hiting a wall.  Its better to deal with it now then wait for a crisis to hit.

[dothebeats]

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

Blocksize limit is just a limit, it does not mean the block must be filled completely.

But we need head room for growth. Being proactive is what ensures a smooth experience for new wave of users.

Yes, but why 8x of the current block? Are they (Gavin and Hearn) expecting for a massive influx of bitcoin users in the coming years? The "room for growth" is not on par and realistic with what's happening in bitcoin right now.

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

They are trying to get ahead of the problem of scaling up bitcoin.  Next time there is bubble the transactions will spike and we will start hiting a wall.  Its better to deal with it now then wait for a crisis to hit.

Scaling? Increase by 8x is too much, I think.

[meono]

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

Blocksize limit is just a limit, it does not mean the block must be filled completely.

But we need head room for growth. Being proactive is what ensures a smooth experience for new wave of users.

Yes, but why 8x of the current block? Are they (Gavin and Hearn) expecting for a massive influx of bitcoin users in the coming years? The "room for growth" is not on par and realistic with what's happening in bitcoin right now.

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

They are trying to get ahead of the problem of scaling up bitcoin.  Next time there is bubble the transactions will spike and we will start hiting a wall.  Its better to deal with it now then wait for a crisis to hit.

Scaling? Increase by 8x is too much, I think.

Look at the history chart of bitcoin transaction volume and avg blocksize.

So you think its too much but you havent given any downside.

[Amph]

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

Blocksize limit is just a limit, it does not mean the block must be filled completely.

But we need head room for growth. Being proactive is what ensures a smooth experience for new wave of users.

Yes, but why 8x of the current block? Are they (Gavin and Hearn) expecting for a massive influx of bitcoin users in the coming years? The "room for growth" is not on par and realistic with what's happening in bitcoin right now.

one reason is because they do not want to fork bitcoin every year in the case they want to do it more thrifty and choose, for example 2MB only

realistically speaking bitcoin has the potential to grow huge, in a short amount of time, you never know, when the fully adoption, will begin seriously 8mb would be a low value also but at least it will offer a bigger room

[meono]

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

Blocksize limit is just a limit, it does not mean the block must be filled completely.

But we need head room for growth. Being proactive is what ensures a smooth experience for new wave of users.

Yes, but why 8x of the current block? Are they (Gavin and Hearn) expecting for a massive influx of bitcoin users in the coming years? The "room for growth" is not on par and realistic with what's happening in bitcoin right now.

one reason is because they do not want to fork bitcoin every year in the case they want to do it more thrifty and choose, for example 2MB only

realistically speaking bitcoin has the potential to grow huge, in a short amount of time, you never know, when the fully adoption, will begin seriously 8mb would be a low value also but at least it will offer a bigger room

Not to mention we're not pushing the limit of the infrastructure. We currently have the technology (storage & bandwidth) to support this.

 

[dothebeats]

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

Blocksize limit is just a limit, it does not mean the block must be filled completely.

But we need head room for growth. Being proactive is what ensures a smooth experience for new wave of users.

Yes, but why 8x of the current block? Are they (Gavin and Hearn) expecting for a massive influx of bitcoin users in the coming years? The "room for growth" is not on par and realistic with what's happening in bitcoin right now.

one reason is because they do not want to fork bitcoin every year in the case they want to do it more thrifty and choose, for example 2MB only

realistically speaking bitcoin has the potential to grow huge, in a short amount of time, you never know, when the fully adoption, will begin seriously 8mb would be a low value also but at least it will offer a bigger room

To avoid forks from happening often, I see. But why create fake nodes? (see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155836.0) Not to hurt those XT supporters, but are you really going to fake stats just to show there are some support on your side?

[meono]

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

Blocksize limit is just a limit, it does not mean the block must be filled completely.

But we need head room for growth. Being proactive is what ensures a smooth experience for new wave of users.

Yes, but why 8x of the current block? Are they (Gavin and Hearn) expecting for a massive influx of bitcoin users in the coming years? The "room for growth" is not on par and realistic with what's happening in bitcoin right now.

one reason is because they do not want to fork bitcoin every year in the case they want to do it more thrifty and choose, for example 2MB only

realistically speaking bitcoin has the potential to grow huge, in a short amount of time, you never know, when the fully adoption, will begin seriously 8mb would be a low value also but at least it will offer a bigger room

To avoid forks from happening often, I see. But why create fake nodes? (see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155836.0) Not to hurt those XT supporters, but are you really going to fake stats just to show there are some support on your side?

LOL are you aware the fakeXTnodes campaign are created by the antiXT to discrete the stats?

Seems like you're a clueless victim they're seeking for.

[madjules007]

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

C'mon most of them do. Even Luke-jr (who wanted smaller blocks now) said ok to bigger blocks in 2017 in bip103.
The question is only 'when'.

This, pretty much. Are we really going to conclude that bitcoin just won't scale.....forever? 7 transactions per second, this is what we will limit ourselves to? I don't see the basis for all the opposition to increasing the block size. Take time, do it proper, make the implementation go smoothly...... but I just don't understand the opposition.

[minerbit hill]

Fact is, Satoshi never intended the blocksize limit to stay this way.

[quakefiend420]

Fact is, Satoshi never intended the blocksize limit to stay this way.

I'm for a blocksize increase, but this is not a good reason.  I appreciate his/their creation, but argument from authority is a flimsy pretense.  Bitcoin is way bigger than satoshi now.

[madjules007]

Fact is, Satoshi never intended the blocksize limit to stay this way.

Indeed -- this we know. However, how do we best deal with that? How do we agree on the best way to increase the limit? Are 8MB blocks really necessary at this point? (I think not)..... are blocks larger than 1MB necessary at this point? (I think so)

But as a bitcoiner who is not a developer or a miner, I don't feel I have much say....

[TheMage]

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

You are one of a very select few group of people that do not believe larger block size increases are needed.

We aren't only 'a select few' ... could be easily be a majority.

All of the people who think "don't fix what isn't broken" (which is wisdom) are against an increase at this point in time.

I think the discussion is manipulated by the xt shills who try to appear like a majority when they are a minority that just posts a lot more. Probably some of these xt shills are on some bank or governments payroll.

I hope you arent calling me an XT shill.

Regardless. Increasing the block size limit is something that must be done sooner or later. But not much later. But i don't agree with XT. We need to do it with Bitcoin core.

How?

Seems like 3/5 developers of core dont want to increase block size for their own reasons.

I dont think 3 people should be stopping development on a technology such as bitcoin.

Hence why people can choose what they want (I vote for bigger blocks by using XT).

If the consensus stays with core then that's what the free market decides.

If the opposite is true then great the free market decided. That is the main thing that people have a choice and consensus will win out in this situation one way or the other.

Personally I support BIP100 for now to see how things goes.

But there is no implementation of BIP100 for now, is there?

People should keep in mind, that running a BIP101-full-node or mining BIP101-blocks is just symbolic for now. There won't be any changes happening till January 2016.
That means plenty of time for Bitcoin Core(or even a complete other client) to implement another solution and convince people to switch to them.

As far as I know, no there is not. Most likely because Jeff might not proceed until support to ensure its not time wasted (of course, thats just a baseless assumption on my part).

[AGD]

Funny, how the XTshills always answer in this histrionic way.

[TheMage]

Funny, how the XTshills always answer in this histrionic way.

The same could be said for all sides of this "argument". This type of comment is detrimental to actual discussion and contributes nothing but fan the flames.

[AGD]

Funny, how the XTshills always answer in this histrionic way.

The same could be said for all sides of this "argument". This type of comment is detrimental to actual discussion and contributes nothing but fan the flames.

Right, the truth can be like an accelerant.

[lottery248]

IIRC, the consequences is appearing.
look, if we want a bigger block, you will have to pay lots of money for your hard drive.

[sergio]

there was no consensus for a fork, bitcoin xt took a dictatorial approach.

Bitcoin xt centralizes bitcoin since it makes it very expensive to run a full node, and eliminates miners fees therefore as block halves so does the security.

Also Bitcoin Xt seems to cripple tor nodes, and has a list of banned ip addresses, essentially a from of censorship.
 
In the bitcoin world decentralization is your friend and goes with the spirit of Satoshi.

Lets stay with bitcoin core, the reckless approach taken by bitcoin xt is causing the price to collapse.

[Denker]

Aahh damn. This whole thing is getting really annoying.
Bigger Blocks are inevitable.That is what many think and also want. But most of us don't want a fork the way XT is doing it.
This I can totally accept and agree.
As I said several times keeping the Blocksize limit at 1MB is wrong!
So raise the fucking limit at core to 2MB or 4MB and we should have more time for other as well needed solutions and implementations like sidechains and LN. WE WILL NEED BOTH (bigger blocks and offchain solutions) and maybe more we don't know yet!!

Stop that stupid trench warfare because this is what is affecting ALL OF US!God damn Egos!!