Blocksize

[Amph]

Every single proposal that has been made has issues and every single proposal that is going to be made in the future will have it's own issues as well. Nothing is perfect, and we can't just rush into unexplored territory.

Exactly.

The choice is not to pick the "perfect" solution, it is to pick the best compromise. In practice, that means picking the most tolerable imperfection, as perfection is not an available option. Or, at least not so far.

this can be translated in the fact that what will be the best choice for us, will be the perfect choice that was needed

personally i'm with the dynamic block if it can be implemented well

[Denker]

Increase it! 2MB, 4MB whatever. But decentralisation must be retained! Big blocks and centralization will make us really vulnerable and therefore is strictly to avoid!

[shorena]

What about BIP 103? What about "dont care as long as O(1) propagation + LN is done" and a multitude of other options?

I dont think you can put all possible options in a vote.

[Mickeyb]

Yes, it's been awhile since we had one of these block size increase pools!

I say 8MB and keep it there for a while until we don't see the consequences, etc! Even Chinese miners have said yes to 8MB and they were making the most problems about this increase!

[danielW]

Voted 2mb. Maybe more down the line.

[Wary]

2 Mb. Just because it's politically easier to implement. It'll buy us some time.
Time to implement something different, like lightning.

My favorite one - the solution that was suggested at the conference: introduce the second type of blocks that contain transactions only and issued 60 times more often, every 10 seconds or so. Those blocks are not for determining winner of reward, so they won't cause orphan problems. This solution will give us 60 times more space for transactions and reduce confirmation time 60-fold!  I think it is the perfect solution, even better than lightning, since it's not hub-based.

[Quantus]

1 MB forever

[Carlton Banks]

My favorite one - the solution that was suggested at the conference: introduce the second type of blocks that contain transactions only and issued 60 times more often, every 10 seconds or so. Those blocks are not for determining winner of reward, so they won't cause orphan problems. This solution will give us 60 times more space for transactions and reduce confirmation time 60-fold!  I think it is the perfect solution, even better than lightning, since it's not hub-based.

That's a really good idea, I wonder why that hasn't been attracting more attention? That's the first time I've heard that idea, I kind of like it.

[Sir_lagsalot]

I think it should be dynamic, or even just for a week, we try our am the options, and miners vote on a specific option. That way we'll get the best option possible.

[spazzdla]

2 Mb. Just because it's politically easier to implement. It'll buy us some time.
Time to implement something different, like lightning.

My favorite one - the solution that was suggested at the conference: introduce the second type of blocks that contain transactions only and issued 60 times more often, every 10 seconds or so. Those blocks are not for determining winner of reward, so they won't cause orphan problems. This solution will give us 60 times more space for transactions and reduce confirmation time 60-fold!  I think it is the perfect solution, even better than lightning, since it's not hub-based.

This sounds like a wise plan.

[cohnhead]

is my understanding correct...is the controversy over block larger size...going from 1mb to 2mb or 8mb or even higher... due to the fact that it would be more costly to run full nodes...being that 2mb is more costly to purchase than 1 mb?

[Wary]

My favorite one - the solution that was suggested at the conference: introduce the second type of blocks that contain transactions only and issued 60 times more often, every 10 seconds or so. Those blocks are not for determining winner of reward, so they won't cause orphan problems. This solution will give us 60 times more space for transactions and reduce confirmation time 60-fold!  I think it is the perfect solution, even better than lightning, since it's not hub-based.

That's a really good idea, I wonder why that hasn't been attracting more attention? That's the first time I've heard that idea, I kind of like it.

I wonder myself    Here is the link to the paper. https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/presentations/Day1/8-Ittay-eyal-testbed-for-bitcoin-scaling.pdf
The description is in the second half, it's called Bitcoin-NG.
I've found some articles about it http://hackingdistributed.com/2015/10/14/bitcoin-ng/, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-ng-or-how-cornell-researchers-think-a-radical-redesign-can-solve-bitcoin-s-scaling-issues-1447108649
And here is the discussion or Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3or365/bitcoinng_proposal_for_a_secure_faster_better/

[Carlton Banks]

Thanks Wary, I'm going to take a look at that info.

[krach]

Im in favor of BIP 105 or something similar.

[Soros Shorts]

I did not vote because I feel that any scaling strategy should involve more that one dimension, i.e. the blocksize cannot be determined on its own in isolation of everything else.

It was super annoying to see big block pushers who kept screaming "Blocksize must go up because Bitcoin needs to scale!" whereas six months ago they probably had no experience and no clue as to what scaling a distributed system involves. They seem to have shut up a bit now.

[tss]

It's been awhile since blocksize has been talked about.. curious to everyones opinion.

everyone's opinion is still the same.

bitcoin will fail if we increase blocksize
and
bitcoin will fail if we dont increase blocksize.   

i can't say i am glad to see this post.  blocksize debate is getting tired.

[spazzdla]

It's been awhile since blocksize has been talked about.. curious to everyones opinion.

everyone's opinion is still the same.

bitcoin will fail if we increase blocksize
and
bitcoin will fail if we dont increase blocksize.   

i can't say i am glad to see this post.  blocksize debate is getting tired.

Those non mining blocks for transactions sounds very promising.

[cellard]

It's been awhile since blocksize has been talked about.. curious to everyones opinion.

everyone's opinion is still the same.

bitcoin will fail if we increase blocksize
and
bitcoin will fail if we dont increase blocksize.   

i can't say i am glad to see this post.  blocksize debate is getting tired.

Wrong, Bitcoin will never fail, universe will collapse before it fails. Lightning Network will allow to payments to scale globally, without the need of an insane block size will would surely result in corporations running nodes instead of random people all over the planet. Don't be a pessimist, we are making solid progress.

[Lauda]

everyone's opinion is still the same.

bitcoin will fail if we increase blocksize
and
bitcoin will fail if we dont increase blocksize.   

i can't say i am glad to see this post.  blocksize debate is getting tired.

You're the one who's wrong and who isn't reading anything. If we increase with the right proposal Bitcoin will not fail. If we do not do anything Bitcoin will also not fail. Bitcoin has already succeeded.

[Carlton Banks]

I did not vote because I feel that any scaling strategy should involve more that one dimension, i.e. the blocksize cannot be determined on its own in isolation of everything else.

It was super annoying to see big block pushers who kept screaming "Blocksize must go up because Bitcoin needs to scale!" whereas six months ago they probably had no experience and no clue as to what scaling a distributed system involves. They seem to have shut up a bit now.

That's sounding super well-rounded to me, +1