What about the Block Size Limit?

[Enjorlas]

I haven't been hearing anything on the block size debate. Recently we have been having daily transaction volumes in the 150,000-160,000 range. Shouldn't we be looking at raising the block size limit soon?

[1713557596]

1713557596

[1713557596]

1713557596

[1713557596]

1713557596

[1713557596]

1713557596

[RussianRaibow]

Devs are meeting at Scaling Bitcoin HongKong soon to discuss about this...

https://scalingbitcoin.org/hongkong2015/

[owm123]

I haven't been hearing anything on the block size debate. Recently we have been having daily transaction volumes in the 150,000-160,000 range. Shouldn't we be looking at raising the block size limit soon?

Wasnt the block limit raised already to 8MB in BitcoinXT?

[e1ghtSpace]

I haven't been hearing anything on the block size debate. Recently we have been having daily transaction volumes in the 150,000-160,000 range. Shouldn't we be looking at raising the block size limit soon?

Wasnt the block limit raised already to 8MB in BitcoinXT?

Something like that. But Bitcoin is not bitcoinXT, bitcoinXT is an altcoin, a fork of Bitcoin.
I would never use it and I recommend you don't. That is, unless everyone starts using it over the normal protocol.

[shorena]

I haven't been hearing anything on the block size debate. Recently we have been having daily transaction volumes in the 150,000-160,000 range. Shouldn't we be looking at raising the block size limit soon?

Wasnt the block limit raised already to 8MB in BitcoinXT?

Something like that. But Bitcoin is not bitcoinXT, bitcoinXT is an altcoin, a fork of Bitcoin.
I would never use it and I recommend you don't. That is, unless everyone starts using it over the normal protocol.

It was also not actually raised, because they lack the needed support from miners.

[Blue_Tiger73]

I haven't been hearing anything on the block size debate. Recently we have been having daily transaction volumes in the 150,000-160,000 range. Shouldn't we be looking at raising the block size limit soon?

Wasnt the block limit raised already to 8MB in BitcoinXT?

Something like that. But Bitcoin is not bitcoinXT, bitcoinXT is an altcoin, a fork of Bitcoin.
I would never use it and I recommend you don't. That is, unless everyone starts using it over the normal protocol.

It was also not actually raised, because they lack the needed support from miners.

Yeah, I don't think they raised the block limit. I am pretty sure it is still 1MB, but there was a huge debate over this topic. At the start of Bitcoin, the limit was 36MB and then in 2013 they lowered it because of the potential threat of spam and service attacks on the network. You can read about it here

[NorrisK]

I haven't been hearing anything on the block size debate. Recently we have been having daily transaction volumes in the 150,000-160,000 range. Shouldn't we be looking at raising the block size limit soon?

Wasnt the block limit raised already to 8MB in BitcoinXT?

Something like that. But Bitcoin is not bitcoinXT, bitcoinXT is an altcoin, a fork of Bitcoin.
I would never use it and I recommend you don't. That is, unless everyone starts using it over the normal protocol.

It was also not actually raised, because they lack the needed support from miners.

Yeah, I don't think they raised the block limit. I am pretty sure it is still 1MB, but there was a huge debate over this topic. At the start of Bitcoin, the limit was 36MB and then in 2013 they lowered it because of the potential threat of spam and service attacks on the network. You can read about it here

Too bad they made that decision.. The spam problem basically solved itself by being too expensive at current prices to perform for long periods of time.

Short term spam may be annoying but can be handled.

[Amph]

nothing is done yet, it seems that they are waiting for the limit to be broken and then increase it, there was a time limit for increasing it around january-march 2016, maybe by that time...

you will do something that you think it's not necessary, only when it's too late already

[NorrisK]

nothing is done yet, it seems that they are waiting for the limit to be broken and then increase it, there was a time limit for increasing it around january-march 2016, maybe by that time...

you will do something that you think it's not necessary, only when it's too late already

Too bad they are waiting on something that they know will become a problem to actually be a problem before handling it...

Although, the code has probably been written already, so not that bad.

[brg444]

nothing is done yet, it seems that they are waiting for the limit to be broken and then increase it, there was a time limit for increasing it around january-march 2016, maybe by that time...

you will do something that you think it's not necessary, only when it's too late already

Too bad they are waiting on something that they know will become a problem to actually be a problem before handling it...

Although, the code has probably been written already, so not that bad.

Blocks filling up is not a problem.

[NorrisK]

nothing is done yet, it seems that they are waiting for the limit to be broken and then increase it, there was a time limit for increasing it around january-march 2016, maybe by that time...

you will do something that you think it's not necessary, only when it's too late already

Too bad they are waiting on something that they know will become a problem to actually be a problem before handling it...

Although, the code has probably been written already, so not that bad.

Blocks filling up is not a problem.

But full blocks all the time is.

You may argue to just increase the transaction fee, but that would kill the use of bitcoin as micropayment system.

Also, commercial side chains that have a chance by sabotaging normal development is not something I condone, no matter how good the idea.

[Denker]

nothing is done yet, it seems that they are waiting for the limit to be broken and then increase it, there was a time limit for increasing it around january-march 2016, maybe by that time...

you will do something that you think it's not necessary, only when it's too late already

Too bad they are waiting on something that they know will become a problem to actually be a problem before handling it...

Although, the code has probably been written already, so not that bad.

Blocks filling up is not a problem.

But full blocks all the time is.

You may argue to just increase the transaction fee, but that would kill the use of bitcoin as micropayment system.

Also, commercial side chains that have a chance by sabotaging normal development is not something I condone, no matter how good the idea.

Don't worry the blocksize will be increased.It's just a question of how much and when. There's no way to circumvent this issue.
I see this pretty relaxed.

[Mickeyb]

I am sure that we will have more news and even a possible consensus after the second block size increase conference that's taking place in Hong Kong, 6th and 7th December if I am not mistaking.

Current run is also a great way to put more pressure on the devs to deal with this problem since the increase in price will surely increase a total number of transactions in the near future.

[Amph]

nothing is done yet, it seems that they are waiting for the limit to be broken and then increase it, there was a time limit for increasing it around january-march 2016, maybe by that time...

you will do something that you think it's not necessary, only when it's too late already

Too bad they are waiting on something that they know will become a problem to actually be a problem before handling it...

Although, the code has probably been written already, so not that bad.

Blocks filling up is not a problem.

can you also say for how long it will not be a problem? they are waiting to implement side chain instead than rising it, i'm correct, this could be the only reason why they have not done the change yet

[DeathAngel]

Really?

Are there not already enough existing threads on this?

Block size's will be increased as/when they are required to be, at the moment it isn't essential. When they are increased it will be nothing to do with XT & 'Hearn-dresen'

[pereira4]

The miners have said that they will be making a move unless they reach a consensus on the next "Scaling Bitcoin" event which is at around December. So basically if by next month nothing gets done I expect something to happen. I still think it's a bad idea to get the blocksize to be bigger if this means people will have problems running a full node.

[maku]

I haven't been hearing anything on the block size debate. Recently we have been having daily transaction volumes in the 150,000-160,000 range. Shouldn't we be looking at raising the block size limit soon?

Wasnt the block limit raised already to 8MB in BitcoinXT?

Something like that. But Bitcoin is not bitcoinXT, bitcoinXT is an altcoin, a fork of Bitcoin.
I would never use it and I recommend you don't. That is, unless everyone starts using it over the normal protocol.

Nothing in bitcoin is changed so far. But if we will have any changes of that nature we would have to do it through forking bitcoin and separate chains.
There is no other way to increase blocksize that I am aware of.

[SebastianJu]

nothing is done yet, it seems that they are waiting for the limit to be broken and then increase it, there was a time limit for increasing it around january-march 2016, maybe by that time...

you will do something that you think it's not necessary, only when it's too late already

Too bad they are waiting on something that they know will become a problem to actually be a problem before handling it...

Although, the code has probably been written already, so not that bad.

Exactly... though the reason most of the developers doesn't want to raise is that they develop their own altcoin, the lightning network. It will use bitcoin and the worse bitcoin works the more people will use their network. They invested a lot in that network so in order to get their investment back...

[SebastianJu]

nothing is done yet, it seems that they are waiting for the limit to be broken and then increase it, there was a time limit for increasing it around january-march 2016, maybe by that time...

you will do something that you think it's not necessary, only when it's too late already

Too bad they are waiting on something that they know will become a problem to actually be a problem before handling it...

Although, the code has probably been written already, so not that bad.

Blocks filling up is not a problem.

There you are. How can you say such a stupid thing? Let's assume that we have 1MB blocks but constantly legit transactions worth 1.5 MB. That would mean that, regardless of how high of a fee you will pay, always one third of all transactions will never get a confirmation.

Claiming that this will be no problem is simply stupid, sorry.