How long have people been discussing increasing the block size limit?

[DannyHamilton]

Sometimes it seems like this discussion about block size limit has been going on forever.  Other times it seems like it has just flared up, and taken over all conversation, recently.

I'm curious.  In your opinion, about how long ago do you think this discussion started?

Also, perhaps consider leaving a comment in this thread indicating what event or situation started people talking about it, and if you like take your best guess at who you think the first individuals to participate in that discussion probably were.

I don't want to influence the poll too much, so I'll add a comment here later (in a day or two) with my thoughts on the matter.

[DannyHamilton]

(This reply space reserved for future use)

[Mickeyb]

Well if my memory serves me well, the first talks about it started about 2 years ago. The discussion intensified about 3 months ago and the real drama has started about 2 weeks ago with the XT rollout.

You feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[NorrisK]

Well if my memory serves me well, the first talks about it started about 2 years ago. The discussion intensified about 3 months ago and the real drama has started about 2 weeks ago with the XT rollout.

You feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

This sounds about right..

To me it feels like it has gone on forever now since most threads are about this. I just hope it will be resolved soon.

[achow101]

This has definitely been discussed for a very long time. It started when Satoshi was still around so I'm gonna guess this started up sometime in 2010 when the 1MB limit was first introduced.

[pedrog]

This one is from June 2011: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20147.0

[ArticMine]

This is the earliest I have found. A proposed patch to fix the problem. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0;all and the following response:

Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.

+1 theymos.  Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

[madjules007]

I've seen threads discussing the block limit issue (and other solutions to hitting the tx volume capacity wall, such as decreasing the time between blocks) going back to 2011. However, the release of the XT client in.... June? .... obviously forced the debate to the forefront, and due to the partisan tactics employed, the general atmosphere among bitcoiners over the past two months is that the apocalypse is coming if we don't do something immediately.

[countryfree]

It seems I've always seen topics on that subject since I've joined this board. I didn't pay much attention to them. It was only last month when there was a peak in transactions that I learned the problem was real. Early July, I had one transaction which took more than 12 hours to get confirmed. So I've been following the debate much more closely since then. I guess the people who talked about it much earlier had a better understanding of BTC than me.

[PolarPoint]

I noticed members here have been talking about increasing the blocksize limit since late last year. The discussion became more intense a few months past and became the focal point a few weeks ago.

I have said this on another thread, I think the voting is a breakthrough in the debate. It's the first time I feel that we are moving towards a resolution.

[GermanGiant]

Someone could foresee this problem in 2010, when Satoshi fixed the limit...

Only recently I learned about this block size limit.

I understand not putting any limit might allow flooding. On the other hand, the smaller your block, the faster it will propagate to network (I suppose.. or is there "I've got a block!" sort of message sent before the entire content of the block?), so miners do have an interest on not producing large blocks.

I'm very uncomfortable with this block size limit rule. This is a "protocol-rule" (not a "client-rule"), what makes it almost impossible to change once you have enough different softwares running the protocol. Take SMTP as an example... it's unchangeable.

I think we should schedule a large increase in the block size limit right now while the protocol rules are easier to change. Maybe even schedule an infinite series of increases, as we can't really predict how many transactions there will be 50 years from now.

Honestly, I'd like to get rid of such rule. I find it dangerous. But I can't think of an easy way to stop flooding without it, though.