Blocksize needs to be increased now.

[RealBitcoin]

-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.

Well the blocksize will always have to be increased, probably an automatic blocksize increase should be implemented in the protocol, say double every 4 years.

Either way if bitcoin adoption kicks in, a 1 MB size will be unfeasable, and even the current solution to make blocksize more efficient is also kickiing the can down the road.

The same with the lightning network and the other stuff, we all know block size has to be bigger, either by conserving space or raising the limit.

[Cryptology]

Well the blocksize will always have to be increased, probably an automatic blocksize increase should be implemented in the protocol, say double every 4 years.

Either way if bitcoin adoption kicks in, a 1 MB size will be unfeasable, and even the current solution to make blocksize more efficient is also kickiing the can down the road.

The same with the lightning network and the other stuff, we all know block size has to be bigger, either by conserving space or raising the limit.

That makes a lot of sense sense. There must be a hard limit in the amount of efficiency you can achieve particularly when it gets to packing information into the blockchain.
The best solution  probably is to chase both bigger space and efficiency. In other words moderately and gently increase block size to allow all network nodes to adapts while looking for protocol improvements like segregated witness to achieve better information storing and transmission efficiency.

[RealBitcoin]

Well the blocksize will always have to be increased, probably an automatic blocksize increase should be implemented in the protocol, say double every 4 years.

Either way if bitcoin adoption kicks in, a 1 MB size will be unfeasable, and even the current solution to make blocksize more efficient is also kickiing the can down the road.

The same with the lightning network and the other stuff, we all know block size has to be bigger, either by conserving space or raising the limit.

That makes a lot of sense sense. There must be a hard limit in the amount of efficiency you can achieve particularly when it gets to packing information into the blockchain.
The best solution  probably is to chase both bigger space and efficiency. In other words moderately and gently increase block size to allow all network nodes to adapts while looking for protocol improvements like segregated witness to achieve better information storing and transmission efficiency.

Well the hard limit is the average internet bandwidth around the world *10 minutes.

Which is alot. Even if you have a shitty 1 mb/s modem you can carry 600 mb /10 min.

Now maybe that info needs to propagate through the network so give it like 9 min to do so. Even then you can easily put 60 mb under current internet.

And in the future you will see an increase in internet. Cable internet is not needed anymore, so even from africa with good wifi you can use bitcoin.

I have 100mb/s internet, so for me the 1 mb/s block seems ridiculous

[BTC LOVER]

it looks like the Bitcoin is rising in every chart I dont think this will do so far pressure on the  BTC

regards
BTC LOVER

[shorena]

-snip-
Well the hard limit is the average internet bandwidth around the world *10 minutes.

Which is alot. Even if you have a shitty 1 mb/s modem you can carry 600 mb /10 min.

Now maybe that info needs to propagate through the network so give it like 9 min to do so. Even then you can easily put 60 mb under current internet.

And in the future you will see an increase in internet. Cable internet is not needed anymore, so even from africa with good wifi you can use bitcoin.

I have 100mb/s internet, so for me the 1 mb/s block seems ridiculous

Your connection is not actually average. As shown by the picture, its not even average for your area. Also keep in mind that if you estimate 1mb/s you can not look at only blocks. I had days with ~23GiB traffic per day on my node, thats (23*1024)/144 ~ 163 MiB per 10 minutes. You are not part of the network if you only receive blocks you also have to relay transactions as well as blocks.

I still agree that we need bigger blocks or more efficient ways to store transactions. Im just against rushing to hard fork solution. As it currently looks segwit could increase size in blocks without a hard fork, by introducing a new transaction/address type. This can be done by soft fork, which is a known process and does not require everyone on the planet to update at the same time.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

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.

Because raising the blocksize to 8MB out of nowhere is way more risky than staying with 1 while we search for ways to scale Bitcoin properly (raising the blocksize will never properly scale Bitcoin, not without something like LN). We don't want datacenters running nodes, we want to be able to run nodes on a single computer, what's so hard to get about this? That's the real sabotage, centralized nodes.

[Was]

We need more nodes, and larger blocks. But not one without the other.

[RealBitcoin]

Because raising the blocksize to 8MB out of nowhere is way more risky than staying with 1 while we search for ways to scale Bitcoin properly (raising the blocksize will never properly scale Bitcoin, not without something like LN). We don't want datacenters running nodes, we want to be able to run nodes on a single computer, what's so hard to get about this? That's the real sabotage, centralized nodes.

Dude, the 8 MB limit is not each and ever block. If the cap is 8mb, and the current block size is 0.5 mb , then 0.5 mb blocks will circulate. The 8mb block is only the cap limit, not the default size.


Therefore the block structure won't really be destroyed, it's not like you have to reformat earlier blocks to all have the identical size. Even now block sizes vary so that's not an issue.


But what you are doing here is artificially not letting the block size go up, and when the limit is hit, then people will compete for the empty space, so the TX fee will massively go up, and most people cannot transact and the TX confirm time will go up.

That is the real sabotage.

The blocksize will go up anyway, the question is, will you let it go up naturally, or you plan to make bitcoin a communist centrally planned currency. I hope not.

[mezzomix]

Dude, the 8 MB limit is not each and ever block. If the cap is 8mb, and the current block size is 0.5 mb , then 0.5 mb blocks will circulate. The 8mb block is only the cap limit, not the default size.

There's no problem with 8MB blocks but do you have a way to deal with stress testers? Do you know how make their tests more expensive? Higher dust limit and Higher fees?

Maybe we should go to 2MB first which is a 100% increase.

[RealBitcoin]

Dude, the 8 MB limit is not each and ever block. If the cap is 8mb, and the current block size is 0.5 mb , then 0.5 mb blocks will circulate. The 8mb block is only the cap limit, not the default size.

There's no problem with 8MB blocks but do you have a way to deal with stress testers? Do you know how make their tests more expensive? Higher dust limit and Higher fees?

Maybe we should go to 2MB first which is a 100% increase.

Stress testers?  Disable 0 bitcoin fees. If they want to test, pay for it.

A stress test is the same as regular transaction. Pay and then they can send as many TX they want.

0 bitcoin fee should be disabled at protocol level. Minimum should be at least 1000 satoshi.

[achow101]

Dude, the 8 MB limit is not each and ever block. If the cap is 8mb, and the current block size is 0.5 mb , then 0.5 mb blocks will circulate. The 8mb block is only the cap limit, not the default size.

There's no problem with 8MB blocks but do you have a way to deal with stress testers? Do you know how make their tests more expensive? Higher dust limit and Higher fees?

Maybe we should go to 2MB first which is a 100% increase.

Stress testers?  Disable 0 bitcoin fees. If they want to test, pay for it.

A stress test is the same as regular transaction. Pay and then they can send as many TX they want.

0 bitcoin fee should be disabled at protocol level. Minimum should be at least 1000 satoshi.

There is a minimum, not at protocol level but at the node level which is set by default to 0.00005. Any fee under that is not relayed by the node.

Also, the stress tests do not send transactions with 0 fees. They always send with enough fees.

[cr1776]

Dude, the 8 MB limit is not each and ever block. If the cap is 8mb, and the current block size is 0.5 mb , then 0.5 mb blocks will circulate. The 8mb block is only the cap limit, not the default size.

There's no problem with 8MB blocks but do you have a way to deal with stress testers? Do you know how make their tests more expensive? Higher dust limit and Higher fees?

Maybe we should go to 2MB first which is a 100% increase.

Stress testers?  Disable 0 bitcoin fees. If they want to test, pay for it.

A stress test is the same as regular transaction. Pay and then they can send as many TX they want.

0 bitcoin fee should be disabled at protocol level. Minimum should be at least 1000 satoshi.

There is a minimum, not at protocol level but at the node level which is set by default to 0.00005. Any fee under that is not relayed by the node.

Also, the stress tests do not send transactions with 0 fees. They always send with enough fees.

This is an important point - they are paying fees for the majority of the stress tests.  Eventually they will run out of bitcoins to use for the stress test and will have to buy on the open market.   The so-called stress tests are not costless so can't continue indefinitely without driving up the fiat value of bitcoin.

[RealBitcoin]

There is a minimum, not at protocol level but at the node level which is set by default to 0.00005. Any fee under that is not relayed by the node.

Also, the stress tests do not send transactions with 0 fees. They always send with enough fees.

Well i`m sure one of the previosu stress test were done with 0 fees and have flooded the mempool almost making the bitcoin network crash.

It was a quick fix of it, but it was concerning since the transaction didnt even took place, it was the miners memory that was targeted.

It was more like a DDOS against bitcoin.

[mezzomix]

Eventually they will run out of bitcoins to use for the stress test and will have to buy on the open market. The so-called stress tests are not costless so can't continue indefinitely without driving up the fiat value of bitcoin.

It would be nice to find a measure to make those "tests" more expensive without affecting normal transactions.

[johnyj]

8MB would never work:




Even the Fedwire system that responsible for all the large transactions between FED and thousands of member banks do 4tps only. It all depends on how you use the system. I think it is a huge waste of resource to let thousands of expensive nodes to relay transactions of coffee purchase

Bitcoin gaining popularity not because its payment function, and it will never be. There are plenty of statistics showing that people are not interested in using bitcoin to purchase coffee, they are more interested in use bitcoin to hedge against inflation and make money

[RealBitcoin]

8MB would never work:




Even the Fedwire system that responsible for all the large transactions between FED and thousands of member banks do 4tps only. It all depends on how you use the system. I think it is a huge waste of resource to let thousands of expensive nodes to relay transactions of coffee purchase

Bitcoin gaining popularity not because its payment function, and it will never be. There are plenty of statistics showing that people are not interested in using bitcoin to purchase coffee, they are more interested in use bitcoin to hedge against inflation and make money

Well then bitcoin will have a much higher fee, and will lose most of it's appeal in the long run.

I already have problems sending transactions at 0.0001 BTC fee, so now I use 0.00025 BTC/kb as set in electrum.

Soon that will double of triple, and bitcoin will lose its fast & cheap transaction appeals. It will be a huge marketing blowback.

[Sir_lagsalot]

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.

Agreed. There is exponential growth looming in front of us, and if we wait too long, bitcoin will miss it's chance to start booming. If we keep having this 1 MB ceiling, TXs will either take much longer, or the average TX fee will have to rise, as people fight each other for the fastest transaction.

We need this change soon, lest we all drown in slow transactions. We don't want that, do we?

[johnyj]

Bitcoin gaining popularity not because its payment function, and it will never be. There are plenty of statistics showing that people are not interested in using bitcoin to purchase coffee, they are more interested in use bitcoin to hedge against inflation and make money

Well then bitcoin will have a much higher fee, and will lose most of it's appeal in the long run.

I already have problems sending transactions at 0.0001 BTC fee, so now I use 0.00025 BTC/kb as set in electrum.

Soon that will double of triple, and bitcoin will lose its fast & cheap transaction appeals. It will be a huge marketing blowback.

Bitcoin might get a higher fee, but it will never lose its most significant appeal in the long run: Long term saving and international remittance

Let's be honest: Bitcoin will never be able to compete with those fast&cheap mobile/3rd party payment solutions that charges 0 transaction fee and instant confirmation (you even get some bonus when using them), and the possibility of refund

For example, Sweden has already over 50% of population use mobile payment. So all of these users will feel angry when they need to pay a fee  to use bitcoin to spend, besides all the hassles about exchange into and out of bitcoin

So, even if you make bitcoin 0 transaction fee + instant confirmation + refund, people would still not use bitcoin to spend, because they gain nothing from switching from existing mobile payment solutions to bitcoin. People who care about bitcoin mostly attracted by its deflative nature for value storage, and they usually buy large amount of coins, so the fee is the least concern for them (I have seen these people paying 5-10% above market price to get 1-2 bitcoin, do you think they really care about the current level of fee?)

If you consider its major advantage against existing financial system, it is clear that the best marketing for bitcoin is either its exchange rate rises (for long term saving), or more and more exchanges are available in each country (for international remittance)

[bhokor]

I think getting standard fee in 10k is ok, the problem is the ludicrously low 1mb block size each 10 minutes,  if they dont agree to up the size block soon we can see transactions being confirmed in 24 hours in the next months

[Cryptology]

There is exponential growth looming in front of us, and if we wait too long, bitcoin will miss it's chance to start booming.

Average blocksize is already growing exponentially. You can see that quite clearly from the linear trend in this log chart.
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&timespan=all&scale=1&address=

Another important point most people are missing is the fact that the average block size will not peak at 1MB. At least not in the foreseeable future. And the reason for this is quite simple. Miners get almost all of their income from block reward rather than from fees so their main goal is to find a valid block asap. Filling it with transactions is only a secondary goal. If you check the blockchain you'll find many blocks like this one:
https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000a680d0736b971c40243dcab764ba7dc4a591b900e9c5a70
There is only the coinbase transaction. The chances of the mempool being empty when this block was mined are virtually 0. And there are many others.

Miners incentive to include transactions in blocks will grow as block rewards drops significantly but this will happen in the distant future. Average fees per block is around 0.25 BTC while block rewards is 25 BTC. That's x100. 

So even if the block size limit is 1MB we will start to see confirmation delays and fee inflation with average block size well below 1MB.