Block size max cap should be raised to 2mb with block halving in July 2016 -Y/N?

[Sark]

Yes.

Otherwise growth in Bitcoin is essentially capped and will move to other currencies. Speculators will also move on and the price will dip temporarily. This could possibly cause some spiraling issues... lower growth, lower price, higher fees, halved block reward. Bitcoin could lose their first mover and networking effect advantages in that type of situation.

and what is the problem to have many healthy with value blockchain systems? Why you think that one coin will rule them all in this new fintech era?

Nothing per say, but it lowers the value of BTC itself (or limits its potential value due to reduced velocity).

[Kprawn]

My gut feeling is, this halving is going to be the breakout point... We will see a significant increase in the price, hence more interest from more people and then the tx's will increase. In my opinion this

block size increase should be before this time, to iron out any problems before the halving. We do not want to have a bottleneck, if this breaks out. I think we have delayed this for much too long now,

and Segwit can go out with this.  

[Amph]

Yes.

Otherwise growth in Bitcoin is essentially capped and will move to other currencies. Speculators will also move on and the price will dip temporarily. This could possibly cause some spiraling issues... lower growth, lower price, higher fees, halved block reward. Bitcoin could lose their first mover and networking effect advantages in that type of situation.

A 2 MB block size limit does not solve anything. Please don't post nonsense.

it buy us enough time to find another solution, which is maybe better than blockstream and the sidechain thing, like we have found the segwit solution

so no, it can solve the problem

Yes.

Otherwise growth in Bitcoin is essentially capped and will move to other currencies. Speculators will also move on and the price will dip temporarily. This could possibly cause some spiraling issues... lower growth, lower price, higher fees, halved block reward. Bitcoin could lose their first mover and networking effect advantages in that type of situation.

and what is the problem to have many healthy with value blockchain systems? Why you think that one coin will rule them all in this new fintech era?

Nothing per say, but it lowers the value of BTC itself (or limits its potential value due to reduced velocity).

not to mention many of those crapcoin, are pure scam with huge premine, i can't see anything good in having many coins, which dilute the market

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Im no techie expert but using my limited knowledge & what I've researched I like the sound of SegWit being implemented in approx April 2016 & then push out the hardfork summer 2017. I think this is the best way to go.

[Denker]

I say no!
Segwit first, then HF later.

[topiOleg]

I say no!
Segwit first, then HF later.

Nothing personal, but it seems to me like comming right from trained monkey.

If Segwit comes in April, then HF can come few months later which July is. I dont see any contradiction in this.

[Windpower]

Im no techie expert but using my limited knowledge & what I've researched I like the sound of SegWit being implemented in approx April 2016 & then push out the hardfork summer 2017. I think this is the best way to go.

I agree. I don't really know about the block sizes, but this seems like the logical way to solve this problem.

[steeev]

it's like whole threads full of 2MB zombies have shuffled over from r/btc to here lately

a Bitcoin/George Romero movie mashup...

it's total overshill - is anyone taking all these ( how many now ? ) full blox!!! FUD threads seriously ?

[SebastianJu]

Is there no link anymore to see the results without voting?

I think it would have to be decided then. But preparations could be done anyway just in case of emergency.

Personally I would want to wait for segwit since there is a broad acceptance for it and I learned it is a good thing. Though I'm unsure how far and how fast SegWit can change the problems.

Surely, when bitcoin became unuseable at that time then a hard fork with winning is inevitable because users would be so pissed that a change would be enforced.

[Lauda]

it buy us enough time to find another solution, which is maybe better than blockstream and the sidechain thing, like we have found the segwit solution
so no, it can solve the problem

You don't know the definition of 'solving' in technology. What this is doing is postponing the problem (for a very short time period), ergo not a solution. Don't post further nonsense.

it's total overshill - is anyone taking all these ( how many now ? ) full blox!!! FUD threads seriously ?

The campaign seems very well funded.

Though I'm unsure how far and how fast SegWit can change the problems.

Segwit is necessary for things such as LN. Segwit can only add somewhat more capacity and is not the solution to this "problem". Actually there is no way to directly (on-chain) solve this "problem" without sacrificing decentralization.

Im no techie expert but using my limited knowledge & what I've researched I like the sound of SegWit being implemented in approx April 2016 & then push out the hardfork summer 2017. I think this is the best way to go.

Keep in mind the it will take a while to activate Segwit (depends on the miners). Even if it gets implemented early April, it will take additional time until it gets activated.

[WestHarrison]

I say no!
Segwit first, then HF later.

The correct answer.

[Cconvert2G36]

I say no!
Segwit first, then HF later.

The correct answer.

Jesus loves me, this I know. Because the bible tells me so.

 

[franky1]

Keep in mind the it will take a while to activate Segwit (depends on the miners). Even if it gets implemented early April, it will take additional time until it gets activated.

then put the 2mb code in aprils version too. that way they get activated together

[sgbett]

So lets imagine a hypothetical scenario where I wanted to vote. I copy and paste one of the statements, and sign the message to get this:

Code:

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I believe that block size max cap should be raised to 2mb with block halving in July 2016
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
Version: MultiBit HD (0.2.0)
Comment: https://multibit.org
Address: <the address: that contains all 573 of my satoshis>

<the signature: some 88 char long alphanumeric ends with =>
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----

When I then paste that in the site, why would I get:

"Invalid signature! Please use bitcoin software to sign the message."

[Amph]

it buy us enough time to find another solution, which is maybe better than blockstream and the sidechain thing, like we have found the segwit solution
so no, it can solve the problem

You don't know the definition of 'solving' in technology. What this is doing is postponing the problem (for a very short time period), ergo not a solution. Don't post further nonsense.

no, only you see no-sense everywhere, how you can be sure that it will only postpone it and not resolve it, only because segwit was temporary?

we can find another better solution if enough time is given

also go read about the possible issue for the possible hashrate dropping caused by the miners, block will be more full, as result of the average increase of the block time

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1383716.msg14073880#msg14073880

[Lauda]

no, only you see no-sense everywhere, how you can be sure that it will only postpone it and not resolve it, only because segwit was temporary?

This is because some analyze and do research while other post because of other reasons. Even if we had a 2 MB block size limit/Segwit, what happened yesterday would have still happened (ergo not a solution) and caused the same/similar effect.

we can find another better solution if enough time is given

Delaying the problem != solution to the problem. The LN is the only known 'solution' so far.

also go read about the possible issue for the possible hashrate dropping caused by the miners, block will be more full, as result of the average increase of the block time
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1383716.msg14073880#msg14073880

Straw man.

I say no!
Segwit first, then HF later.

The correct answer.

People need to understand that neither one of two will solve this problem (if someone attacks the network in a similar fashion again).
Update: Welcome back to the ignore list.

[franky1]

i said it months ago that segwit was not the capacity increase solution. and Lauda shilled for blockstream hard defending segwit..
i said it was just a bait and switch campaign. and guess what. here is lauda moving from the bait... to the switch.. now he is 100% fll retarding LN to distract people away from 2mb increase.

seriously just add the 2mb into aprils release with a 6-9month grace period and stop this endless delay tactic that has been going on since last year

[ATguy]

i said it months ago that segwit was not the capacity increase solution. and Lauda shilled for blockstream hard defending segwit..
i said it was just a bait and switch campaign. and guess what. here is lauda moving from the bait... to the switch.. now he is 100% fll retarding LN to distract people away from 2mb increase.

seriously just add the 2mb into aprils release with a 6-9month grace period and stop this endless delay tactic that has been going on since last year

Obviously SegWit is kicking the can down the road the same way as 2 MB increase. Both are just temporary solutions to the onchain capacity limits which Bitcoin will be facing whenever it gets adopted more. The problem 2MB cannot be added in April code is there is going to be probably other changes which require hard fork, at least that seems to be the plan. And Im not sure 6-9 months grace period is realistical with Core, because of different opinions and vested interests (always follow money) between so many Core developers.

BTW, I have feeling lauda has you on ignore list. Didnt saw a reply to your post from him for a while 

[franky1]

i said it months ago that segwit was not the capacity increase solution. and Lauda shilled for blockstream hard defending segwit..
i said it was just a bait and switch campaign. and guess what. here is lauda moving from the bait... to the switch.. now he is 100% fll retarding LN to distract people away from 2mb increase.

seriously just add the 2mb into aprils release with a 6-9month grace period and stop this endless delay tactic that has been going on since last year

Obviously SegWit is kicking the can down the road the same way as 2 MB increase. Both are just temporary solutions to the onchain capacity limits which Bitcoin will be facing whenever it gets adopted more. The problem 2MB cannot be added in April code is there is going to be probably other changes which require hard fork, at least that seems to be the plan. And Im not sure 6-9 months grace period is realistical with Core, because of different opinions and vested interests (always follow money) between so many Core developers.

BTW, I have feeling lauda has you on ignore list. Didnt saw a reply to your post from him for a while  

i know but one day he will take me off ignore when his sponsors stop paying him.

him putting me on ignore just makes him blind, but wont stop me correcting him or helpthe community see a differing opinion to lauda's rhetoric.
im not sure if his sponsorship funds are running out in regards to segwit. or just ran out of excuses.. but now he seems to be on the LN sponsorship deal

more bait and switches to delay 2mb. because 2mb was first envisioned last year. and by the time its implemented in 2017 4mb will start to be required.
if only they didnt waste the last year on debates that they are starting to admit to as being false arguments. we could already be at 2mb and planning for 4mb for 2017-18 along with the weakblocks and confidential transaction stuff.

[chopstick]

i said it months ago that segwit was not the capacity increase solution. and Lauda shilled for blockstream hard defending segwit..
i said it was just a bait and switch campaign. and guess what. here is lauda moving from the bait... to the switch.. now he is 100% fll retarding LN to distract people away from 2mb increase.

seriously just add the 2mb into aprils release with a 6-9month grace period and stop this endless delay tactic that has been going on since last year

Quoting. For. Truth.

You can't have a dev team that goes against the wishes of like 90% of bitcoiners and also against common sense as a whole. It's insane. We've all gone crazy.