Blocksize needs to be increased now.

[Cryptology]

We are reaching the blocksize limit fast and delays in confirming transactions with standards fees is becoming noticeable. A consensus needs to be found quickly otherwise Bitcoin is going to choke in unconfirmed transactions soon.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&timespan=all&scale=1&address=

[ZephramC]

It does not look so scary in linear scale, does it? 

[Cryptology]

Well I guess that if you look at that graph on a linear scale it looks like there is still some more "free space" below the 1 MB ceiling. But the point I'm trying to make here is that a linear trend in log scale means exponential growth. A solution needs to be found unless we want to see longer confirmation times and higher fees none of which will help in advancing Bitcoin usage.

[OmegaStarScream]

Well I guess that if you look at that graph on a linear scale it looks like there is still some more "free space" below the 1 MB ceiling. But the point I'm trying to make here is that a linear trend in log scale means exponential growth. A solution needs to be found unless we want to see longer confirmation times and higher fees none of which will help in advancing Bitcoin usage.

Well , aren't the developers planning to do a debate about this on December ? or it's already done and decided ? If not .. hopefully they will agree on something this time .

[TheNebula]

If nothing happens all transactions will take much longer which isn't good at all!

[Cryptology]

Well , aren't the developers planning to do a debate about this on December ? or it's already done and decided ? If not .. hopefully they will agree on something this time .

There was a workshop last weekend on this topic but I'm not sure if there was much progress. At least I haven't been able to find any indication that a consensus was found but I really hope I'm wrong.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Well , aren't the developers planning to do a debate about this on December ? or it's already done and decided ? If not .. hopefully they will agree on something this time .

There was a workshop last weekend on this topic but I'm not sure if there was much progress. At least I haven't been able to find any indication that a consensus was found but I really hope I'm wrong.

Dude they presented signature witness and it was pretty huge, look it up it's a pretty cool feature that will give us time to scale it a bit while LN cooks up. I think there is nothing to fear for now. I have no idea when sigwit will be operative tho, but I think it should be rather soon, maybe in 0.12.

[cr1776]

Well , aren't the developers planning to do a debate about this on December ? or it's already done and decided ? If not .. hopefully they will agree on something this time .

There was a workshop last weekend on this topic but I'm not sure if there was much progress. At least I haven't been able to find any indication that a consensus was found but I really hope I'm wrong.

Dude they presented signature witness and it was pretty huge, look it up it's a pretty cool feature that will give us time to scale it a bit while LN cooks up. I think there is nothing to fear for now. I have no idea when sigwit will be operative tho, but I think it should be rather soon, maybe in 0.12.

Segregated witness

[tl121]

If nothing happens all transactions will take much longer which isn't good at all!

It can be worse.  If attempted usage continues to increase, some transactions will never complete at all.

[Cryptology]

Segregated witness

Is there a formal paper regarding "segregated witness"? Sounds like something new. If a new crypto construction is going to be implemented we better make sure it is thoroughly tested and reviewed because we are betting the present and future value of all our bitcoins in that there will be no serious holes.

[cr1776]

Segregated witness

Is there a formal paper regarding "segregated witness"? Sounds like something new. If a new crypto construction is going to be implemented we better make sure it is thoroughly tested and reviewed because we are betting the present and future value of all our bitcoins in that there will be no serious holes.

Some info is here:

http://gavinandresen.ninja/segregated-witness-is-cool
https://news.bitcoin.com/segregated-witness-concept-turning-point-bitcoin/

More links:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1210235.msg13016760#msg13016760

[Was]

Segregated non solution bandaid solution is not solution developer overhead.

[eternalgloom]

We are reaching the blocksize limit fast and delays in confirming transactions with standards fees is becoming noticeable. A consensus needs to be found quickly otherwise Bitcoin is going to choke in unconfirmed transactions soon.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&timespan=all&scale=1&address=

How long would it take for something like that to be implemented and decided upon?
I've recently noticed quite a significant delay in confirmation time, sometimes so bad that it's messing up purchases.

[Cryptology]

Here is the link to the presentation of this idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fst1IK_mrng#t=36m

The basic idea is to make a more efficient use of the blockchain and based on the sponsor himself be able to pack 4X transactions in the same amount of blockchain space. That makes sense as long as security is not weakened. How long will it take to properly test this innovation? From the presentation at 59'55'' "All of what I've been talking about is implemented as a prototype is not quite ready for production right now." When will it be ready?

I would personally feel more comfortable with a small blocksize increase that will buy more time for new ideas to be properly researched and tested. Bitcoin is probably one of the most scrutinized systems for security holes and one major security hole is all it would take to bring down market capitalization to 0.

[Karartma1]

I would personally feel more comfortable with a small blocksize increase that will buy more time for new ideas to be properly researched and tested. Bitcoin is probably one of the most scrutinized systems for security holes and one major security hole is all it would take to bring down market capitalization to 0.

Makes sense.

In either case, searching up and down in the forum about the issue I found a very interesting discussion about blocksize which dates back to 2010. I personally found the blocksize automatic adjustment quite good. I don't know how it will work today though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1865.0

[mezzomix]

I would personally feel more comfortable with a small blocksize increase that will buy more time for new ideas to be properly researched and tested.

Me too. I'm not happy with solutions that try to create limits for the next 20 years and I don't like complicated solutions with miners adapting the limits dynamically. The miners already decide about the soft limit. This is good enough - we don't need to provide more capabilities to those 5-10 miners.

[JeWay]

I would personally feel more comfortable with a small blocksize increase that will buy more time for new ideas to be properly researched and tested. Bitcoin is probably one of the most scrutinized systems for security holes and one major security hole is all it would take to bring down market capitalization to 0.

This is totally right, this kind of change should be research and tested properly.

[franky1]

We are reaching the blocksize limit fast and delays in confirming transactions with standards fees is becoming noticeable. A consensus needs to be found quickly otherwise Bitcoin is going to choke in unconfirmed transactions soon.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&timespan=all&scale=1&address=

try this
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

looks less scary and only averages 62.5% full.. still plenty of room for a little while

[RealBitcoin]

We are reaching the blocksize limit fast and delays in confirming transactions with standards fees is becoming noticeable. A consensus needs to be found quickly otherwise Bitcoin is going to choke in unconfirmed transactions soon.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&timespan=all&scale=1&address=

try this
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

looks less scary and only averages 62.5% full.. still plenty of room for a little while

Are you guys stupid or what?

I saw plenty of arguments that its only half full and bla bla.

But why wait? Why risk bitcoin being sabotaged because of this? When your car is heading towards the edge of the cliff you wait for the last second to press the breaks or you do it 1 hour earlier?

Fuck it guys, blocksize should be at least 8 MB now, you guys are big risk takers that go for last second uppgrade.

Bitcoin should be planned ahead, and if this pace continues we will be at full by January, so there is not time to discuss this, we had already 6 years to prepare for it.

[shorena]

-snip-
Are you guys stupid or what?

I saw plenty of arguments that its only half full and bla bla.

But why wait? Why risk bitcoin being sabotaged because of this? When your car is heading towards the edge of the cliff you wait for the last second to press the breaks or you do it 1 hour earlier?

Fuck it guys, blocksize should be at least 8 MB now, you guys are big risk takers that go for last second uppgrade.

Bitcoin should be planned ahead, and if this pace continues we will be at full by January, so there is not time to discuss this, we had already 6 years to prepare for it.

Are you aware of your contradictions? Just increasing the blocksize is nothing more than kicking down the can. Now that the topic is discussed it makes sense to find a long term solution (if possible) instead of rushing head first in the next best thing.