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

[Rupert Murdoch]

You may now vote by signing with your coins on Bitcoinocracy. Let us see, which side holders are on...

http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/block-size-max-cap-should-be-raised-to-2mb-with-block-halving-in-july-2016

[Amph]

they have an estimate for that already for july, with an extended time frame of one year if there is enough suport

for me it's  yes, segwit should be added on top of it, to have even more room

[GermanGiant]

I'm also interested to know holder's opinion. I think, along with miners, holders are also a pillar of the bitcoin economy. Especially, this type of poll offers a chance to almost anyone in the bitcoin economy to participate.

[Lauda]

No. This doesn't leave us with enough time (grace period) in addition to there being uncertainty around the halving. This is not good. The HF should not happen near the halving(s).

I think, along with miners, holders are also a pillar of the bitcoin economy.

Everyone is important.

[pedrog]

Your opinions are irrelevant, people in charge already decided and there's no hard fork and no block size increase.

You can stop with this useless posts.

[GermanGiant]

I think, along with miners, holders are also a pillar of the bitcoin economy.

Everyone is important.

Yes, but not equally. Opinion of the person, who has collected 0.001 BTC from faucets for over six month, is not equally important to the person, who is holding 100 BTC for over six month. The later has more vested interest for the success of bitcoin, just like larger holder of hash power.

Your opinions are irrelevant, people in charge already decided and there's no hard fork and no block size increase.

There is no one in charge. I heard, it is decentralized.

[pedrog]

Your opinions are irrelevant, people in charge already decided and there's no hard fork and no block size increase.

There is no one in charge. I heard, it is decentralized.

LOL, right...

[chek2fire]

The problem is not solve because we will increase temporarily the block size. Again we will se mining pool to create empty ro 60% empty blocks and again we will have spam attacks. The only good solution will be segwit patch but and this is not enough.
Bitcoin because the most popular cryptocrurrency is and the first that need to solve this capacity and spam attack problem

[GermanGiant]

The problem is not solve because we will increase temporarily the block size. Again we will se mining pool to create empty ro 60% empty blocks and again we will have spam attacks. The only good solution will be segwit patch but and this is not enough.

Nopes. If one pool mines half filled blocks, while there are enough Tx in the mempool, then another pool will take away those. It is all about money. Pure competition.

Bitcoin because the most popular cryptocrurrency is and the first that need to solve this capacity and spam attack problem

Satoshi solved it long ago. BlockStream is blocking it now to forcefully raise the Tx fee...

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[chek2fire]

The problem is not solve because we will increase temporarily the block size. Again we will se mining pool to create empty ro 60% empty blocks and again we will have spam attacks. The only good solution will be segwit patch but and this is not enough.

Nopes. If one pool mines half filled blocks, while there are enough Tx in the mempool, then another pool will take away those. It is all about money. Pure competition.

Bitcoin because the most popular cryptocrurrency is and the first that need to solve this capacity and spam attack problem

Satoshi solved it long ago. BlockStream is blocking it now to forcefully raise the Tx fee...

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

I like to ask how this increase solve the problem when pools will continue create the same block size and with maybe less because they will  have less fees? Blocks create every 10 min and this is not a Blockstream evil decision.

[ATguy]

I'm also interested to know holder's opinion. I think, along with miners, holders are also a pillar of the bitcoin economy. Especially, this type of poll offers a chance to almost anyone in the bitcoin economy to participate.

True holders have Bitcoin in cold storage and will not take the risk asociated with this. At least not me.

The problem is not solve because we will increase temporarily the block size. Again we will se mining pool to create empty ro 60% empty blocks and again we will have spam attacks. The only good solution will be segwit patch but and this is not enough.
Bitcoin because the most popular cryptocrurrency is and the first that need to solve this capacity and spam attack problem

I like to ask how this increase solve the problem when pools will continue create the same block size and with maybe less because they will  have less fees? Blocks create every 10 min and this is not a Blockstream evil decision.

Give miners ability to create unlimited blocks and no one will complain they just creating 1-5 MB blocks because the fees might be not enought for the risks for the increased orphan rate and losing the base 25 BTC. Increase the fees and they might mine ever slighly bigger blocks if it makes economic sence. True free market at work, you wont find more economically effecient method with artifical limits, central plannig is never more effecient over free market, economy 101.

[GermanGiant]

I like to ask how this increase solve the problem when pools will continue create the same block size and with maybe less because they will  have less fees? Blocks create every 10 min and this is not a Blockstream evil decision.

I already answered your question, but did not understand that u read only the end and not the middle...

Nopes. If one pool mines half filled blocks, while there are enough Tx in the mempool, then another pool will take away those. It is all about money. Pure competition.

[chek2fire]

I like to ask how this increase solve the problem when pools will continue create the same block size and with maybe less because they will  have less fees? Blocks create every 10 min and this is not a Blockstream evil decision.

I already answered your question, but did not understand that u read only the end and not the middle...

Nopes. If one pool mines half filled blocks, while there are enough Tx in the mempool, then another pool will take away those. It is all about money. Pure competition.

Yes but how a pool will take this tx when even and them dont want to create full block because they will face then slow block propagation ?

The problem is more complex than a simple increase block size

[GermanGiant]

I'm also interested to know holder's opinion. I think, along with miners, holders are also a pillar of the bitcoin economy. Especially, this type of poll offers a chance to almost anyone in the bitcoin economy to participate.

True holders have Bitcoin in cold storage and will not take the risk asociated with this. At least not me.

Date Registered:    September 17, 2015, 11:08:10 PM
Bitcoin address:    16WZ1qpFt4YGwBBatSbrXqEEDcnVQD9mVS (Total Received: 0.05274 BTC)

^^Your currently available details do not qualify you as a true holder, but I assume you have hundreds of BTC in cold storage. In that case also, signing a message offline with your private key does not pose any risk to you. If u think it is, you do not understand cryptography.

[helloeverybody]

Id just rather the blocksize increase sooner rather than later. It seems that bitcoin has been crippled this last while. Certainly doesnt look good to anyone new to bitcoin.

[ATguy]

I'm also interested to know holder's opinion. I think, along with miners, holders are also a pillar of the bitcoin economy. Especially, this type of poll offers a chance to almost anyone in the bitcoin economy to participate.

True holders have Bitcoin in cold storage and will not take the risk asociated with this. At least not me.

Date Registered:    September 17, 2015, 11:08:10 PM
Bitcoin address:    16WZ1qpFt4YGwBBatSbrXqEEDcnVQD9mVS (Total Received: 0.05274 BTC)

^^Your currently available details do not qualify you as a true holder, but I assume you have hundreds of BTC in cold storage. In that case also, signing a message offline with your private key does not pose any risk to you. If u think it is, you do not understand cryptography.

I preffer not to reveal more financial info than I need to, and yes this is just my address where I receive Bitcoin from signature campaign. Not hundreds of Bitcoins though, not everyone can afford that 

Signing a message with my private key pose a risk for me because I use paper wallets and I dont have secure offline signing solution ready because I dont expect using Bitcoins from my paper wallets any time soon, Im long on these Bitcoins, so all I could is sign my hot walet containing much less 

[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.

[Lauda]

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.

1. Id just rather the blocksize increase sooner rather than later.  2. It seems that bitcoin has been crippled this last while.  3. Certainly doesnt look good to anyone new to bitcoin.

1) Your opinion is based on emotion not technical knowledge.
2) Bitcoin is not crippled and is working fine.
3) Stop reading media that tries to spread lies and FUD.

[pedrog]

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.

Nothing can be done and nothing will be done, we will see the following scenario happening, plan accordingly:

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF BITCOIN BLOCKS ARE AT FULL CAPACITY?

If the blocks reach full capacity before there is a functioning transaction
fee market in place, Bitcoin investors will likely see the price drop and may
experience difficulty withdrawing their coins from an exchange. Elsewhere
in the Bitcoin economy, problems could be much graver: casinos that literally
stop functioning, coin mixers screeching to a halt, and coin faucets that
run dry.

Faced with these difficulties, entrepreneurs running these services would
likely set up working alternatives by moving away from the Bitcoin blockchain.
This in turn would make the average block size drop significantly,
thus clearing up space for normal transaction confirmation times in the
network.

The process of gambling and laundering services moving away from the
Bitcoin blockchain could cause a series of rallies in the altcoins (of which
we may already be seeing the start). Shared Coin, for example, includes any
fees within their transactions so that users can get quick access to their
laundered coins. If the block size limit is reached, transaction times will be
slower, and these users may switch from Bitcoin to altcoins.

It’s likely that for gambling and mixing, the most liquid altcoins will be
those highest in demand: Litecoin, actively traded in at least 17 markets,
and Dogecoin, actively traded in at least 7 markets.3 Privacy-oriented coins
such as Dash and Monero could see significant rallies. The short history of
altcoins suggests that when the most liquid coins rally, the rest are lifted
with the tide, resulting in short-lived but strong rallies.

http://adamantresearch.com/reports/sizing_up_the_blocksize_debate.pdf

[chek2fire]

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?