Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system

[klee]

In case you missed it:

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

[occurcry]

In case you missed it:

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Does this mean that there will be more than 21 million bitcons?

[klee]

In case you missed it:

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Does this mean that there will be more than 21 million bitcons?

Ehmmm...no??

But I am not a very reliable source for answers like this

[occurcry]

In case you missed it:

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Does this mean that there will be more than 21 million bitcons?

Ehmmm...no??

But I am not a very reliable source for answers like this

What does it mean then? On the page there are only some names listed....?

[klee]

In case you missed it:

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Does this mean that there will be more than 21 million bitcons?

Ehmmm...no??

But I am not a very reliable source for answers like this

What does it mean then? On the page there are only some names listed....?

Means they finally found consensus regarding the block size limit, which will be increased.

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1165
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

"TL;DR:  I propose we work immediately towards the segwit 4MB block
soft-fork which increases capacity and scalability, and recent speedups
and incoming relay improvements make segwit a reasonable risk. BIP9
and segwit will also make further improvements easier and faster to
deploy. We’ll continue to set the stage for non-bandwidth-increase-based
scaling, while building additional tools that would make bandwidth
increases safer long term. Further work will prepare Bitcoin for further
increases, which will become possible when justified, while also providing
the groundwork to make them justifiable."

[Meuh6879]

github source is not Bitcoin Core ...

[klee]

github source is not Bitcoin Core ...

I don't know man, it is the link in the Bitcoin Core site. And the names are them.

I don't really care anyway, waiting to see the market reactions...

[Cconvert2G36]

In case you missed it:

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Does this mean that there will be more than 21 million bitcons?

Ehmmm...no??

But I am not a very reliable source for answers like this

What does it mean then? On the page there are only some names listed....?

Means they finally found consensus regarding the block size limit, which will be increased.

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1165
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

"TL;DR:  I propose we work immediately towards the segwit 4MB block
soft-fork which increases capacity and scalability, and recent speedups
and incoming relay improvements make segwit a reasonable risk. BIP9
and segwit will also make further improvements easier and faster to
deploy. We’ll continue to set the stage for non-bandwidth-increase-based
scaling, while building additional tools that would make bandwidth
increases safer long term. Further work will prepare Bitcoin for further
increases, which will become possible when justified, while also providing
the groundwork to make them justifiable."

Just to clarify... segwit would likely result in the tx level equivalent of 1.75-2MB blocks. Only if every transaction was multisig would the 4MB equivalent be reached (translation: it won't).

Precedent that hard forks are "bad and scary" remains firmly in place, to be rolled out again the next time we have this argument.

This is from two weeks ago, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a market reaction.

[klee]

In case you missed it:

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Does this mean that there will be more than 21 million bitcons?

Ehmmm...no??

But I am not a very reliable source for answers like this

What does it mean then? On the page there are only some names listed....?

Means they finally found consensus regarding the block size limit, which will be increased.

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1165
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

"TL;DR:  I propose we work immediately towards the segwit 4MB block
soft-fork which increases capacity and scalability, and recent speedups
and incoming relay improvements make segwit a reasonable risk. BIP9
and segwit will also make further improvements easier and faster to
deploy. We’ll continue to set the stage for non-bandwidth-increase-based
scaling, while building additional tools that would make bandwidth
increases safer long term. Further work will prepare Bitcoin for further
increases, which will become possible when justified, while also providing
the groundwork to make them justifiable."

Just to clarify... segwit would likely result in the tx level equivalent of 1.75-2MB blocks. Only if every transaction was multisig would the 4MB equivalent be reached (translation: it won't).

Precedent that hard forks are "bad and scary" remains firmly in place, to be rolled out again the next time we have this argument.

This is from two weeks ago, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a market reaction.

Damnit!...

 

[uki]

Just to clarify... segwit would likely result in the tx level equivalent of 1.75-2MB blocks. Only if every transaction was multisig would the 4MB equivalent be reached (translation: it won't).

Precedent that hard forks are "bad and scary" remains firmly in place, to be rolled out again the next time we have this argument.

This is from two weeks ago, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a market reaction.

That pretty much sums the whole discussion in here.
There was very little or no market reaction to the last bitcoin workshop meeting after which that news was released.
I expect more of that discussion to repeat in February, as there is the next big event (in San Francisco) coming: https://bitcoin.org/en/events

[BillyBobZorton]

Wow really? I follow Bitcoin news pretty much 24/7 and didn't see this. Extremely bullish as hell now that the blocksize drama is clear and we have reached a consensus. Im happy to finally see progress. I think the option chosen is the best compromise.

[suda123]

Wow really? I follow Bitcoin news pretty much 24/7 and didn't see this. Extremely bullish as hell now that the blocksize drama is clear and we have reached a consensus. Im happy to finally see progress. I think the option chosen is the best compromise.

how much blocksize?

[CoinCidental]

Wow really? I follow Bitcoin news pretty much 24/7 and didn't see this. Extremely bullish as hell now that the blocksize drama is clear and we have reached a consensus. Im happy to finally see progress. I think the option chosen is the best compromise.

how much blocksize?

How much would you like?

[Amph]

this will never be approved, it's against was bitcoin is, and will kill the deflation nature, also our coins will be more worthless if many other will come in play

[uki]

Wow really? I follow Bitcoin news pretty much 24/7 and didn't see this. Extremely bullish as hell now that the blocksize drama is clear and we have reached a consensus. Im happy to finally see progress. I think the option chosen is the best compromise.

Hold on, nothing is definitive yet. I believe this will play out nicely in the first months of 2016.

[amacar2]

Capacity mean blocksize that can be processed ? There is no any clear explanation on source link about it. I think if blocksize get increased than more transaction can be included in it making transactions more faster. Am i wrong or did this can have negative impact on bitcoin network ?