Will the price stagnate or drop because of this issue?

[phelix]

I mean we only have the potential for growth of 10 times the current price then.

what would be the problem if all blocks were packed? tx fees would rise. only important tx would be done. price could still go to the moon.

edit: it would sound pretty bad though: "only limited number of tx possible"  hmm


I wonder why people panic about satoshidice but do not even think about a real attack from banksters/government or even hackers that go short and try to stall/spam the network.


My solution to satoshidice spam: minoutput >! txfee * 10

[1715018420]

1715018420

[1715018420]

1715018420

[1715018420]

1715018420

[1715018420]

1715018420

[matauc12]

they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it...

Two problems with that:

• Miners in countries where internet access is poor (or bitcoin is outlawed so they have to use Tor) become unable to mine, because they'll never download the big block in time (= 100% stale).
• If the block size limit is so large as to be effectively limitless, a big part of the design for the 0-reward endgame gets ruined (since no scarcity of slots for transaction inclusion in block = no incentive to outbid other transactions' fees).

Countries with scarce internet access have much bigger problems than bitcoin.

And also, let's not start fixing a "problem" (its not) with the target people being non-users....

[johnyj]

Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again

Of course from economy point of view this is not necessary bad, it will reduce the bitcoin value so that it won't rise so quickly. But from technical point of view, it is a disaster, since now there are two or more blockchain and users have to manage which coin is spent on which chain, this might destroy the credit of bitcoin alltogether

[grue]

Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again

are you retarded?

[johnyj]

Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again

are you retarded?

Have you done your homework? 

[Peter Lambert]

Satoshidice should operate within itself and not hit the blockchaine for every single bet....
user sends funds to s.dice wallet, user doubles loses his bitcoin, user never cashes out.
that way the tx fees of 1cent dont matter anymore.

but wtv.

Fixed it for you

[Akka]

Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again

are you retarded?

Have you done your homework?  

Have you done your homework?

[notme]

they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it...

Right, 1GB every 10 minutes is totally fine

[notme]

Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again

are you retarded?

He means there will be a fork, so double the coins. I don't know why he thinks both chains will survive...

What will stop the old chain if people still believe in a 1 MB limit?

[notme]

Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again

are you retarded?

He means there will be a fork, so double the coins. I don't know why he thinks both chains will survive...

What will stop the old chain if people still believe in a 1 MB limit?

Nothing. I fully support people using the chain they feel is superior.

I simply think that in this example, the superior chain will be the more usable chain. Should a fork occur, if there is doubt as to which chain is superior, it will be settled in the market. I don't think both will survive.

Sure, only will survive under the "Bitcoin" banner, but even those who support the new chain have an interest in the old chain since their prefork coins can be spent one time on each chain.

[notme]

Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again

are you retarded?

He means there will be a fork, so double the coins. I don't know why he thinks both chains will survive...

What will stop the old chain if people still believe in a 1 MB limit?

Nothing. I fully support people using the chain they feel is superior.

I simply think that in this example, the superior chain will be the more usable chain. Should a fork occur, if there is doubt as to which chain is superior, it will be settled in the market. I don't think both will survive.

Sure, only will survive under the "Bitcoin" banner, but even those who support the new chain have an interest in the old chain since their prefork coins can be spent one time on each chain.

As I said, the market will decide. I would sell all my coins on one chain in order to purchase more on the other chain. If this happens in an overwhelming fashion, one chain will crash into oblivion. If both have enough supporters, it will reach an equilibrium and both will survive.

What I'm speculating is that in the case of changing a small detail in order to make the coin more usable, the more usable chain will be the only survivor. I'm just making a guess that is different from johnyj since he seems to think there will be double the usable coins resulting in a halving of the exchange rate.

There will be double the usable coins.  Half will be exactly as usable as before, and half will be, in your opinion, "more usable" because the blockchain allows more transactions per time period.  I don't see anywhere where johnyj mentioned the exchange rate.  You seem to have jumped to that conclusion on your own.

[prof7bit]

please excuse my ignorance but why does this need a fork at all? "fork" sounds like all users will be forced to make a complicated decision with uncertain consequences, inconveniences, etc and actively migrating from A to B. At least thats what it sounds like. Couldn't it simply be done like that:

Code:

# pseudo-code

def get_limit(block):
  if block.timestamp > SOME_DATE_IN_2014_FAR_AWAY_SUDDENLY_IN_THE_MIDDLE_OF_THE_NIGHT:
    return 2E6
  else:
    return 1E6

and then commit that change to the master branch of the reference implementation like every other upgrade or bug-fix or protocol extension too, document it in the official specifications and be done with it?

[DeathAndTaxes]

please excuse my ignorance but why does this need a fork at all? "fork" sounds like all users will be forced to make a complicated decision with uncertain consequences, inconveniences, etc and actively migrating from A to B. At least thats what it sounds like. Couldn't it simply be done like that:

Code:

# pseudo-code

def get_limit(block):
  if block.timestamp > SOME_DATE_IN_2014_FAR_AWAY_SUDDENLY_IN_THE_MIDDLE_OF_THE_NIGHT:
    return 2E6
  else:
    return 1E6

and then commit that change to the master branch of the reference implementation like every other upgrade or bug-fix or protocol extension too, document it in the official specifications and be done with it?

That is a fork.  People who upgrade will be on a different set of incompatible rules then those who don't upgrade.    Not maybe everyone will decide to upgrade and the current bitcoin fork will die off but it doesn't change the fact that it is an incompatible fork. 

Worse say roughly half the community supports the "larger fork" and half support the "current fork".  Both call themselves Bitcoin, each one is incompatible with the other.

Now I am not saying this a death blow or any kind of FUD like that but people need to start realizing that Bitcoin is what a consensus of users say it is.  Right now it is the protocol EXACTLY as implemented today.  Any deviation from that is a fork and when you introduce a fork there are three possibilities:

a) the fork is not well accepted and dies off <- waste of time
b) the fork is overwhelming accepted and the original dies off <- best case but even here it is still a hard fork
c) both forks are supported and both call themselves "Bitcoin" creates massive confusion and chaos <- what we want to avoid

[justusranvier]

meaning all 1MB blocks full with paid transactions - but it's not happening soon or this year.

I have more faith in BitPay et al. than that.

A hard cap of 1MB means a hard cap on the number of people who can use Bitcoin, no matter how much people are willing to pay in fees, only 7 transactions per second are allowed to happen. An adjustable limit allows the network capacity to grow to meet demand.

[Gabi]

they really should up the limit to 1GB and be done with it...

Right, 1GB every 10 minutes is totally fine

If the world adopt bitcoin we will have 1GB of transactions every 10 minutes...  

[Gabi]

The 100% inflation thing is nonsense, what if i start gabicoin right now? It will be a fork, it will be  100% inflation 

[Qoheleth]

I think everyone's too worried about the potential badness of a hard fork.

Whenever we've had to do it before (e.g. for P2SH), there was a huge sunrise period, with the new rule only coming into place if, by block height X, Y% of the most recent Z blocks indicated in their coinbase that they would support the new rule.

At that point, miners have already agreed, so when the fork arrives, the old behavior's blockchain won't be able to compete. Voila! The new rule has been adopted and the "original behavior" fork dies in obscurity.

We've already done this at least once, when P2SH went in. The behavior will only change if the blockchain shows it'll be a smooth transition.

[Gabi]

Yeah, i don't get why all this trolling about the fork problem.

Just make the new client with an algorithm wich will activate the new blocksize only once like 90% of the clients are upgraded. So before 90% of clients are upgraded we do not change, once we reach the 90%, the change kick in and ta-dah, done without problems.

[justusranvier]

Worth reading:

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/2355445

[johnyj]

Like satoshi suggested, technically the best approach is to phase-in the change, so that after several iterations of nodes upgrade, this change get implemented. But I think he also mentioned that this limit is to prevent transaction flooding, and current situation is more like transaction flooding caused by automatic trading program

At least a small part of the community include some core devs do not think we should lift this limit until definitely necessary