Will the price stagnate or drop because of this issue?

[herzmeister]

Will the price stagnate or drop once a critical mass of (new) investors understands the current problems about blocksize limit and scalability?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/19u7s5/soft_block_size_limit_reached_miners_asked_to/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.0

Satoshidice transactions won't even make a drop in the ocean if this thing gets adopted by the world.

True words! And we already got problems.

[adamstgBit]

right now, this "problem" is totally exaggerated

most blocks do not "overflow"

and the answer to this problem is really simple, but bitcoiners are stupid smart-asses  and think its worth debating to no end.

[siulynot]

but bitcoiners are stupid smart-asses  and think its worth debating to no end.

lol

[Technomage]

"We already got problems" is a highly exaggerated statement. Most of the time the blocks _are not_ even hitting the 250KB soft limit constantly, there have been a few times where many blocks in a row hit it, but they are exceptions.

Once it gets hit more, miners can and will fix this simply by modifying their code slightly, leaving us with a 1MB limit. Currently we can handle 10 times more transactions before the 1MB limit is a real problem. The problem at large is _well known_ by the devs and there is still plenty of time to make the change to a higher block size.

This is a real problem, a serious one if not addressed, but as far as I know the main dev, Gavin Andresen, is very much in favor of raising it. It's just a matter of how we raise it, and when, but gladly there is still time to figure that out.

[herzmeister]

Currently we can handle 10 times more transactions before the 1MB limit is a real problem.

Then we only have room for max 10 times the current price, right? 

[phatsphere]

Then we only have room for max 10 times the current price, right? 

no, there is no bitcoin price in the blockchain at all…

[herzmeister]

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

[adamstgBit]

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

no

[ryepdx]

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

You're conflating transaction volume with price. 10 times our current number of transactions per block is not the same thing as 10 times the current price.

[herzmeister]

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

[adamstgBit]

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

[piramida]

The transaction fee will become a viable consideration then, that's all. I will call it a (minor) problem when a feeless bitcoin transfer does not go through in 24 hours - meaning all 1MB blocks full with paid transactions - but it's not happening soon or this year. And it does not have much relation to bitcoin price - we've grown from 5 to 50 while the volume only grown 3x (and then, mostly due to SatoshiDice).

I don't think upping the limit is a good thing, yet. Having a need for transaction fee would kill Satoshidice or make it unfeasible for micro-bets, but there are parallel blockchains for that kinds of feeless spam, it can just go over there or run a specific gamblecoin with 1GB blocks or something. Which would in turn be easily exchangeable into bitcoins.

[Xenland]

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

I think you mean growth of 10 times the current "transaction rate".

[herzmeister]

I think you mean growth of 10 times the current "transaction rate".

...which is a good economic indicator of Bitcoin adoption and use...

we've grown from 5 to 50 while the volume only grown 3x (and then, mostly due to SatoshiDice).

...normalized without the speculative bubbles and panics of course. 

[adamstgBit]

The transaction fee will become a viable consideration then, that's all. I will call it a (minor) problem when a feeless bitcoin transfer does not go through in 24 hours - meaning all 1MB blocks full with paid transactions - but it's not happening soon or this year. And it does not have much relation to bitcoin price - we've grown from 5 to 50 while the volume only grown 3x (and then, mostly due to SatoshiDice).

I don't think upping the limit is a good thing, yet. Having a need for transaction fee would kill Satoshidice or make it unfeasible for micro-bets, but there are parallel blockchains for that kinds of feeless spam, it can just go over there or run a specific gamblecoin with 1GB blocks or something. Which would in turn be easily exchangeable into bitcoins.

Satoshidice should operate within itself and not hit the blockchaine for every single bet....
user sends funds to s.dice wallet, user doubles his bitcoin, user cashes out.
that way the tx fees of 1cent dont matter anymore.

but wtv.

[Qoheleth]

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).

[casascius]

I am glad SatoshiDice is doing what it's doing because it allows us to test the limits and hit them without impacting anything critical. Forcing SatoshiDice to eventually use the block chain more efficiently is something I consider non critical.

[kingcrimson]

right now, this "problem" is totally exaggerated

most blocks do not "overflow"

and the answer to this problem is really simple, but bitcoiners are stupid smart-asses  and think its worth debating to no end.

It's all about perception. With all the new eyes on bitcoin right now, they see a 10 page debate about it where members are spreading FUD. This and mtgox's lag has probably made people realize bitcoin might not be ready for the big show.

[crazy_rabbit]

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

No. The two are not related.

[SkRRJyTC]

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

No thanks, http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html