Block size increase - when?

[BTCBinary]

The bitcoin network is becoming overloaded and the fees are getting higher and higher, thus normal transactions with normal fees are getting slower and slower.
I heard a lot of fuss about the blocksize increase, but when is this supposed to happen?

[Preclus]

According to this:

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-capacity-nightmare-fees-reality/

The recommended transaction fee from "21.co" for an "expedient transaction" is about $1

"For more expedient transaction times, 21's service recommends a fee of 0.0023 BTC, or about 97 cents, a 2,200% increase from the default fee."

[danielW]

Its scheduled to be initially deployed next month. Next increase is planned in about a year. First will be increase via segwit that will give continuous blocksize growth up to almost 2mb, then the second is a planned hard-fork which will give immediate increase to 4mb.

Also be wary of trolls using semantics to mislead people into thinking there will be no block or capacity growth with segwit.

Segwit changes the data structure organization of blocks so its actually comparing apples and oranges, but its irrelevant semantics. The relevant facts are: transaction capacity is increased, the block of data holding transactions, that gets passed around to nodes is also increased.

[aarons6]

The bitcoin network is becoming overloaded and the fees are getting higher and higher, thus normal transactions with normal fees are getting slower and slower.
I heard a lot of fuss about the blocksize increase, but when is this supposed to happen?

what is a "normal" fee..

bitcoin is working just as intended.. if you want faster transactions, you pay more..

instead of a blocksize increase, we need to make sure all the pools fill the blocks up..

http://bitblk.com/bitcoin/pool/AntPool/

there is your backlog problem.

[eternalgloom]

I seem to be missing most of the problems with slow transactions apparently, I've been using a 0.0002 btc fee and transactions just take the regular 15 - 30 minutes or so to confirm.
I could just be lucky though..

[Amph]

i just saw from few people who posted here about few weeks ago the block size increase will be realized in 2017
https://news.bitcoin.com/80-bitcoin-miners-agree-july-2017-hard-fork/

i remember it was from july 2016 to july 2017, now they chnaged their mind, hopefully segwit will buy us aìenough time for it, otherwise i think the network would not sustain the well the current situation until 2017

a major skyrocketing with a great adoption can happen in this year, so it can rise some concerns about the speed of transaction

[Kakmakr]

Its scheduled to be initially deployed next month. Next increase is planned in about a year. First will be increase via segwit that will give continuous blocksize growth up to almost 2mb, then the second is a planned hard-fork which will give immediate increase to 4mb.

Also be wary of trolls using semantics to mislead people into thinking there will be no block or capacity growth with segwit.

Segwit changes the data structure organization of blocks so its actually comparing apples and oranges, but its irrelevant semantics. The relevant facts are: transaction capacity is increased, the block of data holding transactions, that gets passed around to nodes is also increased.

From what I understand the first bump in the block size, will be more or less 2.5MB with SegWit, not 2MB <even though you said almost 2MB> or was that now 1.5MB? I am not sure myself now. All this fuss about
block size increases is getting a bit out of hand. We all know it is going to happen within the next month, so be patient. The higher fees is just a temporary solution for the stress tests people are doing on the
Blockchain at the moment, while the block size allows for it now. You can say, it is a last ditch effort from the desperate people out there to harm Bitcoiin, whilst they can still slow it down. Soon this will be a more difficult and expensive to do this.  

[aarons6]

I seem to be missing most of the problems with slow transactions apparently, I've been using a 0.0002 btc fee and transactions just take the regular 15 - 30 minutes or so to confirm.
I could just be lucky though..

if you were a miner with alot of smaller inputs you would have to increase your fee or it could fail.

normal transactions with 1 input and 2 outputs should be ok with .0002 to .00025

[Laviathon]

I looked into converting to classic from normal core.  Pretty much every pool that is willing to put up classic (2meg block instead of 1meg) gets dDos'ed into oblivion until they go back to traditional core.  At this point I think the core developers will finally have to make the decision to make the jump, we are just now to the point that they will have to.  I think the stability of the chain will eventually force there hand.  Doubling the block size does not seem that extreme to me, however I know that there are a lot of people out there smarter than I am.

[Lauda]

According to this:
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-capacity-nightmare-fees-reality/

The recommended transaction fee from "21.co" for an "expedient transaction" is about $1
"For more expedient transaction times, 21's service recommends a fee of 0.0023 BTC, or about 97 cents, a 2,200% increase from the default fee."

This is completely false and was not even the case when the spam attack was going on. Currently:

The bitcoin network is becoming overloaded and the fees are getting higher and higher, thus normal transactions with normal fees are getting slower and slower.

No. Currently there are ~1.5k unconfirmed transactions on Blockchain.info.

The network is operating as it should.

[n0ne]

Everyone needs to be considered. Now if the block size is increased.It will hardly affect the low range miners. So to make everything good without some problem good decisions on block size need to be made at he earliest.

[Preclus]

According to this:
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-capacity-nightmare-fees-reality/

The recommended transaction fee from "21.co" for an "expedient transaction" is about $1
"For more expedient transaction times, 21's service recommends a fee of 0.0023 BTC, or about 97 cents, a 2,200% increase from the default fee."

This is completely false and was not even the case when the spam attack was going on.

The statement I made, "According to this.. the recommenced transaction fee", is not false. The quote is a direct quote from the article, you can search for it in the coindesk link provided. If you are saying that you believe the article written by coindesk is false or that the data presented by 21.co is false, you should say that instead.

Now that the attack is over, the transaction cost has returned to normal. However, during the attack that appears to have been the accurate cost of processing a "expedient transaction" on the network. If one would have accepted a 13 hour delay for a reasonable number of confirmations, one could have used a standard fee, as stated in the article.

[Lauda]

The statement I made, "According to this.. the recommenced transaction fee", is not false. The quote is a direct quote from the article, you can search for it in the coindesk link provided. If you are saying that you believe the article written by coindesk is false or that the data presented by 21.co is false, you should say that instead.

That's what I was referring to obviously. During the attack the recommended fee was around 60 satoshis/byte (the highest); additionally I saw ~120 satohis/byte the day after (IIRC). How they came up with 2200% (22x) is the question.

Everyone needs to be considered. Now if the block size is increased.It will hardly affect the low range miners. So to make everything good without some problem good decisions on block size need to be made at he earliest.

There are many factors in play here that you do not seem to be aware of. I suggest doing further research on the matter. It also seems like a part of the community does not know that Segwit (planned for April) is supposed to increase the transaction capacity.

[Denker]

The bitcoin network is becoming overloaded and the fees are getting higher and higher, thus normal transactions with normal fees are getting slower and slower.
I heard a lot of fuss about the blocksize increase, but when is this supposed to happen?

The network is working as it should. I can not see it becoming overloaded except by the spam attacks which are a tool to cause panic and shall push for a hasty HF. Fees went down again and furthermore I don't get why it is so difficult to pay the advised fee if you want to get confirmed your transaction in the next block.

[franky1]

This is completely false and was not even the case when the spam attack was going on. Currently:

The bitcoin network is becoming overloaded and the fees are getting higher and higher, thus normal transactions with normal fees are getting slower and slower.

No. Currently there are ~1.5k unconfirmed transactions on Blockchain.info.

The network is operating as it should.

you failed on multiple attempts(yet again)... ill number them for you
1. average transaction size it nearing 500bytes. not under 250bytes. it might be worth you quoting sources next time.
for instance if you check the blocks that are full (over 900k) thats under 2000 transactions. NOT 4000 transactions.. its simple maths.
you can even check the blocks that are only half full with 500k and see there are less than 1000 transactions NOT 2000 transactions. again simple maths
dont try using the most amount of transactions per block in
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
and then find the lowest blocksize of
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

it doesnt work by picking and choosing. instead find the average of march 6th of both(same day).
EG 1,100 transaction with 0.6mb block = 545bytes per tx
DO not pick the average blocksize of march 3rd and compare it to transactions of march 6th because they are not related.

2. the reasons transactions are down is because the stress test has just ended and people have not yet got back to trading like they normally have because they have given up trading during the stress test out of frustration.. now there is a lull, a bit of limbo time between when the stress testing ends and the normal transaction trades start to realise they can trade again without the headache.
so dont treat this limbo period as "normal bitcoin life". this lull period should be seen as a public holiday where the majority of people are not trading, but enjoying real life stuff. just wait until people start trading again before making presumptions without context

3. the funny part is if you think the network is working as it should then why are you all set and advertising that doing transactions off chain is needed??
if there is nothing wrong with the bitcoin network. then there is no need for any upgrades....
wait..
wait for it..
and now you realise and are thinking to yourself that upgrades take care of the buffer to allow growth and reduce stress..
well done you get a gold star, welcome to the real debate

[DooMAD]

Its scheduled to be initially deployed next month. Next increase is planned in about a year. First will be increase via segwit that will give continuous blocksize growth up to almost 2mb, then the second is a planned hard-fork which will give immediate increase to 4mb.

Also be wary of trolls using semantics to mislead people into thinking there will be no block or capacity growth with segwit.

Segwit changes the data structure organization of blocks so its actually comparing apples and oranges, but its irrelevant semantics. The relevant facts are: transaction capacity is increased, the block of data holding transactions, that gets passed around to nodes is also increased.

From what I understand the first bump in the block size, will be more or less 2.5MB with SegWit, not 2MB <even though you said almost 2MB> or was that now 1.5MB? I am not sure myself now. All this fuss about
block size increases is getting a bit out of hand. We all know it is going to happen within the next month, so be patient. The higher fees is just a temporary solution for the stress tests people are doing on the
Blockchain at the moment, while the block size allows for it now. You can say, it is a last ditch effort from the desperate people out there to harm Bitcoiin, whilst they can still slow it down. Soon this will be a more difficult and expensive to do this.  

The gains realised from Segwit will largely depend on how many people are actively using it.  If it's done as a soft fork, a large proportion of the network could still run older code and not use it.  That's why no one can put a definite figure on it.

[BTCBinary]

According to this:

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-capacity-nightmare-fees-reality/

The recommended transaction fee from "21.co" for an "expedient transaction" is about $1

"For more expedient transaction times, 21's service recommends a fee of 0.0023 BTC, or about 97 cents, a 2,200% increase from the default fee."

That would be insane. If we ever come to that bitcoin is doomed. With those kinds of fees everyone would begin to turn their back on bitcoin and start using any other crypto.
Take it for florincoin for instance. Its extremelly fast, a lot more than Bitcoin and also cheaper to use. And florincoin is just one example. There are dozens of cryptos out there that would do the same trick!