2MB Pros and Cons

[jellon]

Sorry I need to understand something here... as a noob

2mb blocks at current difficulty... takes twice as long to process = more energy, more cost, angry miners... wouldnt the bitcoin network adjust the difficulty accordingly. i.e 1mb with 160 difficulty(didnt feel like typing the rest of the numbers) would be the same as 2mb with 80...

Resource usage would stay the same in terms of electricity. transaction fees stay the same per transaction yet miners would get a little more... i.e you not charging the client more just the same...but the batch done at a time is more so hence you get more.

Now about the nodes... someone using dial up connection as a node is already obsolete... and yes usually they in the bum fuck of no where
BUT the guys in the bum fuck of nowhere use cell phones usually with 3G... and if its really remote gsm.... but then again how many transaction are happening in gsm only areas???.... realistically speaking.

Maybe cell phones can be adopted as node (just a thought)....

no need to fork.. fork for what... just because you have increased demand for a product or service you dont go start a whole new company... you increase production capacity... plain stupid idea to run two seperate entities for the same thing and compete against one another???...

Will groups be left behind.. YES... it happens in business... we see it happen with miners... the main worry is with nodes.. and the reasn that would happen is simple... nodes arent getting paid... if there was remuneration for nodes I think you would get a spike in just nodes another thought...

just my useless 5c

sweet

[1715012695]

1715012695

[1715012695]

1715012695

[shorena]

Sorry I need to understand something here... as a noob

2mb blocks at current difficulty... takes twice as long to process

No, finding a hash that meets the difficulty has nothing to do with the size of the block.

Maybe cell phones can be adopted as node (just a thought)....

Sure, if you have a >200GiB/month data plan and >70GB free disk space. Not sure about the battery, but it would probably only last a few hours.

[Lauda]

Well if we have more room in blocks won't fees be lower? Lower minimum fees means spam attacks are cheaper no?

Well technically yes, but still no. If the fees drop by half, and the amount of empty block space is 50% then such attacks would be as expensive as they are now. There are just a lot of variables and factors to consider.

But that means a 2 MB fork should happen sooner rather than later if they are thinking about difficulty adjustment, the fork should happen before it becomes even more dangerous to fork.

Segwit comes first though. I'd say a 2 MB block size limit would be easier to deploy after IBLT and Weak blocks.

Sure, if you have a >200GiB/month data plan and >70GB free disk space. Not sure about the battery, but it would probably only last a few hours.

You could use a big microSD card and keep it charging constantly, however I don't see why one would want to do this.

[adamstgBit]

I added a fun little poll, make sure you read the pros and cons before voting.

I will now try to catch up on the discussion and add some pros, cons, and comments to OP.

[adamstgBit]

Pro: Not bumping limit to 2MB could cause a fork.

it's no secret poeple want 2MB, we've seen open letters signed by many many top bitcoin businesses stating they want bigger blocks, we've also see the same thing coming from the a huge % of hashrate, it's not unreasonable to assume, inaction on this issue will cause a fork.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Pro: Not bumping limit to 2MB could cause a fork.

it's no secret poeple want 2MB, we've seen open letters signed by many many top bitcoin businesses stating they want bigger blocks, we've also see the same thing coming from the a huge % of hashrate, it's not unreasonable to assume, inaction on this issue will cause a fork.

I kind of doubt it.

What is happening is certain people want to take over development. The TX capacity of Bitcoin is what they saw as a way to socially engineer the public into believing there is a problem the core developers are not addressing.

It's an easy target for that. For most people, doubling the block size means doubling the TX rate. That makes sense. Reality is it is *one* way to increase the TX rate.

The core developers have to look at other ways, and determine which method has the least negative side effects.

While the core developers do this, it gives opportunity for those who wish to take over to point a finger and cry that core devs aren't acting on this problem. That however is deception, core is addressing the issue.

[sega01]

You could also just start using Classic.

http://nodecounter.com/

[Lauda]

You could also just start using Classic.

http://nodecounter.com/

The thread was solely designed to not mentioned any implementation. It seems that the 'forkers' are unable to follow simple rules. Why am I not surprised?

What is happening is certain people want to take over development. The TX capacity of Bitcoin is what they saw as a way to socially engineer the public into believing there is a problem the core developers are not addressing.

Exactly. People are obsessed with the 2 MB block size limit.

Pro: Not bumping limit to 2MB could cause a fork.

I really doubt it. People who are really working for the best of Bitcoin would never risk this.

[adamstgBit]

You could also just start using Classic.

http://nodecounter.com/

lol will you look at this http://nodecounter.com/

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

Bitcoin development has been bought out by a private company called "Blockstream".

Blockstream is currently paying off many of the key Bitcoin "Core" software developers.

Blockstream has directed the crippling of Bitcoin in order to provide the solution, for their own future, financial gain.

These Blockstream-paid Bitcoin developers (for the Bitcoin "Core" software) are enforcing a limit on how much information can be transacted in Bitcoin.   This is limiting the number of transactions to just 3 per second, approximately.

Blockstream is concurrently developing a "solution" to this problem, called the "Lightning Network".   This "solution" is to be placed on top of the crippled Bitcoin network to allow it to scale.   Blockstream will monetize the Lightning Network in the form of fees required to use their service.

Additionally, for the past 8 months, Blockstream has been utilizing censored discussion forums for their communication, thus preventing awareness of this issue from being widely known.   All discussion mentioning this has been (and continues to be) deleted and banned.

In short, Blockstream has created a problem so they can provide the solution.   And they are doing everything they can to keep it that way.  (View more info on this on the un-censored forum)

- See more at: http://nodecounter.com/#sthash.EINoICaa.dpuf

i guess this kinda thing is to be expected from nodecounter.com.....

[adamstgBit]

Pro: Not bumping limit to 2MB could cause a fork.

it's no secret poeple want 2MB, we've seen open letters signed by many many top bitcoin businesses stating they want bigger blocks, we've also see the same thing coming from the a huge % of hashrate, it's not unreasonable to assume, inaction on this issue will cause a fork.

I really doubt it. People who are really working for the best of Bitcoin would never risk this.

but.... they are risking it, right now.

gavin left core and created XT and now helping Classic and Unlimited, in an attempt at forking bitcoin.
did you miss the part when like 20 of the top bitcoin businesses sign a document that explained why they wanted bigger blocks?
the bitcoin market has drop several times because this kind of fork was seen as a credible threat.

sure this it's unlikely bitcoin will fork over this in the near future, but should core refuse to comply with >80% of hashing power, that's not only risking it, thats asking for it.

What is happening is certain people want to take over development. The TX capacity of Bitcoin is what they saw as a way to socially engineer the public into believing there is a problem the core developers are not addressing.

Exactly. People are obsessed with the 2 MB block size limit.

Yes poeple are "obsessed", many are willing to fork over this issue.

[adamstgBit]

It's not the idea of 2MB that poeple are obsessed about, it's about cores vision for bitcoin's future. not everyone agrees we should consider the specs of a 60$ raspberry pi when designing the world's financial settlement layer.

[adamstgBit]

You could also just start using Classic.

http://nodecounter.com/

The thread was solely designed to not mentioned any implementation. It seems that the 'forkers' are unable to follow simple rules. Why am I not surprised?

OP has not at made any guidelines regarding this.
I do agree it's a good idea to not mention  "Core or Classic" in OP, but for the purpose of the discussion, i believe its OK to ref. Core or Classic in the explanations.
When you're trying to prove a point like i just did about, it helps to be able to point to real world events surrounding the block limit debate.

[adamstgBit]

I feel the Cons side is a bit thin and has to much red.
I do believe there are more CONS.
I will want to expand on this point "Increased resource usage (capacity, bandwidth, processing power)"

[hv_]

If you manage not to fall into asleep you ll get some pros here after 15 min

http://youtu.be/i93dNBW4NEM

Fee market yet is totally crap guys...

[watashi-kokoto]

1MB Bitcoin + 1MB Ethereum

problem solved

[hv_]

Pro: Not bumping limit to 2MB could cause a fork.

it's no secret poeple want 2MB, we've seen open letters signed by many many top bitcoin businesses stating they want bigger blocks, we've also see the same thing coming from the a huge % of hashrate, it's not unreasonable to assume, inaction on this issue will cause a fork.

I really doubt it. People who are really working for the best of Bitcoin would never risk this.

but.... they are risking it, right now.

gavin left core and created XT and now helping Classic and Unlimited, in an attempt at forking bitcoin.
did you miss the part when like 20 of the top bitcoin businesses sign a document that explained why they wanted bigger blocks?
the bitcoin market has drop several times because this kind of fork was seen as a credible threat.

sure this it's unlikely bitcoin will fork over this in the near future, but should core refuse to comply with >80% of hashing power, that's not only risking it, thats asking for it.

What is happening is certain people want to take over development. The TX capacity of Bitcoin is what they saw as a way to socially engineer the public into believing there is a problem the core developers are not addressing.

Exactly. People are obsessed with the 2 MB block size limit.

Yes poeple are "obsessed", many are willing to fork over this issue.

Hmm, could also be the fork had already happened when blockstream came into the game and we already are on BSC = Blockstreamcoins ....

So its the try to get old BTC back

[adamstgBit]

Pro: Not bumping limit to 2MB could cause a fork.

it's no secret poeple want 2MB, we've seen open letters signed by many many top bitcoin businesses stating they want bigger blocks, we've also see the same thing coming from the a huge % of hashrate, it's not unreasonable to assume, inaction on this issue will cause a fork.

I really doubt it. People who are really working for the best of Bitcoin would never risk this.

but.... they are risking it, right now.

gavin left core and created XT and now helping Classic and Unlimited, in an attempt at forking bitcoin.
did you miss the part when like 20 of the top bitcoin businesses sign a document that explained why they wanted bigger blocks?
the bitcoin market has drop several times because this kind of fork was seen as a credible threat.

sure this it's unlikely bitcoin will fork over this in the near future, but should core refuse to comply with >80% of hashing power, that's not only risking it, thats asking for it.

What is happening is certain people want to take over development. The TX capacity of Bitcoin is what they saw as a way to socially engineer the public into believing there is a problem the core developers are not addressing.

Exactly. People are obsessed with the 2 MB block size limit.

Yes poeple are "obsessed", many are willing to fork over this issue.

Hmm, could also be the fork had already happened when blockstream came into the game and we already are on BSC = Blockstreamcoins ....

So its the try to get old BTC back

you know, it's sad how true this rings.

the project has been lead with a certain vision of how it would scale, that vision had not changed up until they took over the project.

[hv_]

Pro: Not bumping limit to 2MB could cause a fork.

it's no secret poeple want 2MB, we've seen open letters signed by many many top bitcoin businesses stating they want bigger blocks, we've also see the same thing coming from the a huge % of hashrate, it's not unreasonable to assume, inaction on this issue will cause a fork.

I really doubt it. People who are really working for the best of Bitcoin would never risk this.

but.... they are risking it, right now.

gavin left core and created XT and now helping Classic and Unlimited, in an attempt at forking bitcoin.
did you miss the part when like 20 of the top bitcoin businesses sign a document that explained why they wanted bigger blocks?
the bitcoin market has drop several times because this kind of fork was seen as a credible threat.

sure this it's unlikely bitcoin will fork over this in the near future, but should core refuse to comply with >80% of hashing power, that's not only risking it, thats asking for it.

What is happening is certain people want to take over development. The TX capacity of Bitcoin is what they saw as a way to socially engineer the public into believing there is a problem the core developers are not addressing.

Exactly. People are obsessed with the 2 MB block size limit.

Yes poeple are "obsessed", many are willing to fork over this issue.

Hmm, could also be the fork had already happened when blockstream came into the game and we already are on BSC = Blockstreamcoins ....

So its the try to get old BTC back

you know, it's sad how true this rings.

the project has been lead with a certain vision of how it would scale, that vision had not changed up until they took over the project.

I wish that finally the gentlemen get together and formulate a compromise, shake hands and work on true BTC together. It does not seam fully impossible to me!

KINDERGARDEN

[Gyrsur]

voted.

[Vin]

Same