Poll: What will the MAXBLOCKSIZE be in June, 2016?

[Cubic Earth]

Irrespective of any opinions on what the MAXBLOCKSIZE should or should not be, it is a variable and needs to have a value, or be eliminated from the code entirely.

Something or nothing must be done, so go ahead and place your bets, er, votes.

[Amph]

it will stay at 1 and then they will add the sidechain to help it(but in reality i think that even in this case they will increase it to two at least, becasue sidechain will probably come late) or they will simply increase it when necessary

and as i've already said i can't see anything wrong with many fork in the long term, besides this i believe that june is not so far away for a huge increase in adoption and thus 1MB will suffice

[Mickeyb]

I would say 2Mb. Everyone knows that something needs to be done but everyone will not be able to get together on the solution so in the end they will raise it just temporary or double it from 1Mb.

This will make everyone happy at least for a while!

[Frost]

Seriously, I don't think that there will be a change.

[USB-S]

Seriously, I don't think that there will be a change.

Me neither. I think that the block chain debate will still continue on. Until then I think that if you want your transaction to be on the main chain and get processed fast, you have to pay more fees.

[vincentvincent]

For sure: nothing will change

[Blue_Tiger73]

I don't think that the block size limit is going to change anytime soon. The 1MB block size was put in place to stop spam and for a higher amount of a security. It is not going to change.

[Blue_Tiger73]

Seriously, I don't think that there will be a change.

Me neither. I think that the block chain debate will still continue on. Until then I think that if you want your transaction to be on the main chain and get processed fast, you have to pay more fees.

It is already pretty good as it stands at the moment. So why would they want to change something that is perfectly working.

[LiteCoinGuy]

maybe not in June but at the end of 2016 it will be hopefully 2MB or better 4 MB

[Blue_Tiger73]

maybe not in June but at the end of 2016 it will be hopefully 2MB or better 4 MB

I doubt that they will ever change it in such near future maybe in another 5 or 10 the block size limit will increase. We will be waiting for a long time so I wouldn't hold your breath.

[joinal]

i think 4mb 

[DooMAD]

The more people who succumb to the belief that 1MB should be set in stone forever, the more dangerous the situation becomes.  As long as there are positive signs that it would increase before we hit a wall, then I'm happy.  I'm still not sure I understand the fixation with whole numbers, but I suppose it keeps things simple.

[Lauda]

The more people who succumb to the belief that 1MB should be set in stone forever, the more dangerous the situation becomes.  As long as there are positive signs that it would increase before we hit a wall, then I'm happy.  I'm still not sure I understand the fixation with whole numbers, but I suppose it keeps things simple.

It does seem to appear like so. It seems like people are way too paranoid with the dynamic block sizes or either don't understand them properly. I wonder if they could implement a change so that the next change requires a soft fork, not a hard fork. That would certainly makes things much easier in the future.

[Sir_lagsalot]

I say it should be around 2 mb, but I really don't think the community could agree on a change by June. Maybe this time next year, but not the next.

[croato]

I just hope we will reach any consensus by that time. This debate hurts Bitcoin more than 1mb block limit hurts functionality by now. Voted for 2mb limit cause that would be good compromise and would give us more time to debate and chose best option.

[Zarathustra]

maybe not in June but at the end of 2016 it will be hopefully 2MB or better 4 MB

Spring 12 - Spring 13 (halving between) saw a 10fold txs increase. Now we are in a situation where zero increase is possible.
That's developer stupidity in perfection.

[ATguy]

Seriously, I don't think that there will be a change.

Me neither. I think that the block chain debate will still continue on. Until then I think that if you want your transaction to be on the main chain and get processed fast, you have to pay more fees.

If the fees still increase because you have constantly outbit others because there is much higher transaction demmand than can be put in the block, then the fee increases to levels where it will not make sence for average Joe to use Bitcoin, just the wealthy ones or services/institutions willing to pay the high fees - it is not the p2p cash anymore when only top players can use Bitcoin, aka centralized Bitcoin.

Im sceptical in June will be over 1MB as consensus giving the different interests how Bitcoin should look in future...

[Lauda]

If the fees still increase because you have constantly outbit others because there is much higher transaction demmand than can be put in the block, then the fee increases to levels where it will not make sence for average Joe to use Bitcoin, just the wealthy ones or services/institutions willing to pay the high fees - it is not the p2p cash anymore when only top players can use Bitcoin, aka centralized Bitcoin.

Im sceptical in June will be over 1MB as consensus giving the different interests how Bitcoin should look in future...

Such views are extremist, but it does seem like most of them are becoming extremist anyways. Whatever happens it will not kill Bitcoin. People need to stop overreacting and let the people that have technical skills do the analysis, debate and decide what solutions would be the least harmful. Whether we remain at 1 MB, or we go to medium or big blocks, it will not kill Bitcoin.

I just hope we will reach any consensus by that time. This debate hurts Bitcoin more than 1mb block limit hurts functionality by now. Voted for 2mb limit cause that would be good compromise and would give us more time to debate and chose best option.

Quite hard with the BIP101/XT people, so don't waste your time trying to persuade them.

[thejaytiesto]

Hopefully 1. We don't need it much bigger right now. The fears of a Bitcoin collapse because of massive adoption are overblown, we should have a functional lightning network by then while having the actual blockchain as decentralized as possible. People still Bitcoin is a weird thing, don't get fooled, it will take at least 2 more years before we see average joes getting it.

[ATguy]

If the fees still increase because you have constantly outbit others because there is much higher transaction demmand than can be put in the block, then the fee increases to levels where it will not make sence for average Joe to use Bitcoin, just the wealthy ones or services/institutions willing to pay the high fees - it is not the p2p cash anymore when only top players can use Bitcoin, aka centralized Bitcoin.

Im sceptical in June will be over 1MB as consensus giving the different interests how Bitcoin should look in future...

Such views are extremist, but it does seem like most of them are becoming extremist anyways. Whatever happens it will not kill Bitcoin. People need to stop overreacting and let the people that have technical skills do the analysis, debate and decide what solutions would be the least harmful. Whether we remain at 1 MB, or we go to medium or big blocks, it will not kill Bitcoin.

This is not extreme, let assume continuously 2x more transactions are sent every 10 minutes than can ever be included in the blockchain, it means half of the sent transactions can never confirm. There will be such fee outbiding to ever be included to the blockchain, the fees will continuously rise until those who do not want to pay high fees simply give up on Bitcoin as it will become too expensive and uncovient for them to use Bitcoin anymore.

Lets face it, it is centralisation because only high fee transaction can be used on Bitcoin in this scenario, the funny part those advocating very small blocks to allow fee market to develop want keep Bitcoin nodes decentralized, yet they centralize the use of Bitcoin only for high fee transactions (probably only high value transactions).

The point is continuosly keep increasing block sizes based on blocksize demand for this scenario never happen, this way you dont centralize Bitcoin use to only the elite paying high fees.