The block limit will be raised. There are just no ifs or buts...

[The Fool]

Whoever runs bitcoin.org runs bitcoin. Unfortunately bitcoin is not decentralized in this regard. At any moment, whoever runs that site can put up Bitcoin 0.9.0, call it an urgent release and dispose of the block limit. Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

I'm sorry. The war is lost. Unless one of you buys out bitcoin.org or defames it to the point that it drops off the front page of Google. There is too much lobbying pressure from Mt.Gox, SatoshiDice and others for the block limit to remain.

I take no sides on this issue.

[notig]

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.

[SimonL]

I prefer well reasoned arguments, empirical evidence, and an impartial and open mind over sensationalistic grandstanding. If the max_block_size is raised/removed/algorithmically managed, it will be because the majority wishes it to be so.

You were obviously not around when BIP16/17 was rolled out....

[phatsphere]

I take no sides on this issue.

instead, you are just spreading FUD.
do you know what mining operators are doing?

[misterbigg]

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask.

No, anyone with insufficient bandwidth would either not upgrade, or revert to the previous version.

There is too much lobbying pressure from Mt.Gox, SatoshiDice and others for the block limit to remain.

Both MtGox and SatoshiDice stand to lose if the block size is increased. MtGox because it will raise their costs (higher transaction fees). SatoshiDice because they could not accept low value bets.

Therefore, you are wrong. One might even say you are The Fool      

[The Fool]

If the max_block_size is raised/removed/algorithmically managed, it will be because the majority wishes it to be so.

The majority could be as low as 60%. That's 40% of the people with hard-earned bitcoins being coerced into a new system they disagree with.

[The Fool]

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask.

No, anyone with insufficient bandwidth would either not upgrade, or revert to the previous version.

As I said:

All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

Those who do not upgrade are left with a fork of bitcoin that will be worth little to nothing. Somebody could rename it to "Bitcoin2" but it wouldn't be fungible with the new bitcoin system.

[The Fool]

I take no sides on this issue.

instead, you are just spreading FUD.
do you know what mining operators are doing?

What are they doing?

[Akka]

Oh come on.

Yes I agree this is an important issue. But do we really need 100 Threads about this?

There are some interesting discussions going on about this topic and with more and more threads it gets impossible to keep track.


Also you are paranoid (again):

Whoever runs bitcoin.org runs bitcoin. Unfortunately bitcoin is not decentralized in this regard. At any moment, whoever runs that site can put up Bitcoin 0.9.0, call it an urgent release and dispose of the block limit.

No in order to raise the Block limit, pools would need to change their version, too.

They tend to not upgrade until a new version is considered save.

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

Yes, put these new nodes would still accept the smaller blocks as well. It will only work, when the longer chain created consist of larger blocks.

I'm sorry. The war is lost. Unless one of you buys out bitcoin.org or defames it to the point that it drops off the front page of Google. There is too much lobbying pressure from Mt.Gox, SatoshiDice and others for the block limit to remain.

Which war? I don't see burning servers and dead Bitcoiners on the streets.

And I have jet to see a single statement about this from SD or GOX.

[The Fool]

...
And I have jet to see a single statement about this from SD or GOX.

Evorhees (the owner of SatoshiDice) wants the block limit raised, last I checked. Now if his users value a limited block size more than SatoshiDice, then maybe SD won't upgrade or fail at it.

[SimonL]

If the max_block_size is raised/removed/algorithmically managed, it will be because the majority wishes it to be so.

The majority could be as low as 60%. That's 40% of the people with hard-earned bitcoins being coerced into a new system they disagree with.

What you are suggesting in reality is two dead chains. No-one, not those that want the block size raised, nor those that want it fixed, would have a viable chain in that situation. A fracture like that is going to completely undermine the confidence in both chains and the Bitcoin economy as we know it. Your fatalistic notions that one side would barrel headlong while a large chunk of the Bitcoin mining community is left straggling is absurd beyond comprehension. No-one wants that, nor would they help perpetuate such an end.

[HorseRider]

Though we have 1M block size limit now, but whether we can change the protocol the raise this limit or not?

[benjamindees]

If you can explain how increasing the block size negatively affects current holders of Bitcoins, I might care about your argument.

[DannyHamilton]

Both MtGox and SatoshiDice stand to lose if the block size is increased. MtGox because it will raise their costs (higher transaction fees). SatoshiDice because they could not accept low value bets.

I think you are mistaken.  The fees go up (making low value bets impossible) if the block size is NOT increased.  Your understanding of this appears to be backwards, and you may wnat to look into it a bit more. (or else I'm completely confused)

[DannyHamilton]

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

Yes, but these new nodes would still accept the smaller blocks as well. It will only work, when the longer chain created consist of larger blocks.

Assuming the chain that accepts larger blocks has at least 49% of the hashing power, the blockchain would most likely split as soon as the first block larger than 1MB was mined (making it immediately the "longer" chain by one block).

[Rampion]

Both MtGox and SatoshiDice stand to lose if the block size is increased. MtGox because it will raise their costs (higher transaction fees). SatoshiDice because they could not accept low value bets.

I think you are mistaken.  The fees go up (making low value bets impossible) if the block size is NOT increased.  Your understanding of this appears to be backwards, and you may wnat to look into it a bit more. (or else I'm completely confused)

You are right, Danny.

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = higher fees to get your transaction on a block.

Quite simple even for non-techies like me

[justusranvier]

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = higher fees to get your transaction on a block.

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = frustrated users = lower adoption  =  possible failure of the currency

[Akka]

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

Yes, but these new nodes would still accept the smaller blocks as well. It will only work, when the longer chain created consist of larger blocks.

Assuming the chain that accepts larger blocks has at least 49% of the hashing power, the blockchain would most likely split as soon as the first block larger than 1MB was mined (making it immediately the "longer" chain by one block).

As long as the "small Block" Chain has more than 50% of the hashing power, wouldn't it eventually end up to be the longer chain again?

As old Nodes wouldn't accept Blocks from "Big Block" Chain the split would occur as soon as this chain has the majority (>50%)?

[markm]

That chain already has the majority.

But, a split *again* would occur when it got *back* to being longest, yes.

-MarkM-

[Rampion]

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = higher fees to get your transaction on a block.

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = frustrated users = lower adoption  =  possible failure of the currency

Exponential growth in block size = impossibility for average users to run a full node = bitcoin becomes a centralized system where mining supercompanies set their own rules, ala "central bank" = FAIL

If you want superfast, near free transaction you have credit cards, or paypal-like services. Or ripple, or systems built on top of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin's value is in its decentralized nature. That's what attracted most of us. It's a secure and decentralized p2p system, and because of this it's an extremely clever store of value.

Kill the decentralized nature and you will kill bitcoin.