FACT CHECK: Bitcoin Blockchain will be 700GB in 4 Years

[coins101]

What are the chances of never increasing the block size beyond 1mb? Is it a case of when, not if? and is the when, more likely to be sooner rather than later?

Will we see a negotiations on increasing the 1mb size cap in order for segwit to see the light of day?

Segwit IS an increase of the blocksize cap, it increases to 4MB.

We're getting 4mb blocks with segwit? really? Don't believe you; i wanna see that in the code  

function max_block_size(block_timestamp):
...
...
size_start = 4000000
...
...
//ok, everyone do the Carlton dance

[1714052672]

1714052672

[1714052672]

1714052672

[1714052672]

1714052672

[1714052672]

1714052672

[coins101]

and is the when, more likely to be sooner rather than later?

November 15th is the signaling start day. So 2 weeks worth of blocks (if everyone is already signaling by then) + 2 weeks worth of blocks (fallout period) after the starting day. This come down to mid December (earliest).

Will we see a negotiations on increasing the 1mb size cap in order for segwit to see the light of day?

It would be really hypocritical to claim that one wants on chain scaling and then stall Segwit.

what's the miner acceptance threshold % or did that get removed?



Actually, the BU hurdle is not so bad.

[Carlton Banks]

What are the chances of never increasing the block size beyond 1mb? Is it a case of when, not if? and is the when, more likely to be sooner rather than later?

Will we see a negotiations on increasing the 1mb size cap in order for segwit to see the light of day?

Segwit IS an increase of the blocksize cap, it increases to 4MB.

We're getting 4mb blocks with segwit? really? Don't believe you; i wanna see that in the code  

function max_block_size(block_timestamp):
...
...
size_start = 4000000
...
...
//ok, everyone do the Carlton dance

It's not as simple as that, but I kept it simple, just for you. Suffice to say: the max size of each block mined will be 4MB.

And I don't have to prove anything to trolls, it's you that has to prove your propaganda nonsense. Everyone who's been follwing Bitcoin develpoment knows the details by now, you're only demonstrating how ignorant (and loud mouthed) you are

[coins101]

What are the chances of never increasing the block size beyond 1mb? Is it a case of when, not if? and is the when, more likely to be sooner rather than later?

Will we see a negotiations on increasing the 1mb size cap in order for segwit to see the light of day?

Segwit IS an increase of the blocksize cap, it increases to 4MB.

We're getting 4mb blocks with segwit? really? Don't believe you; i wanna see that in the code  

function max_block_size(block_timestamp):
...
...
size_start = 4000000
...
...
//ok, everyone do the Carlton dance

It's not as simple as that, but I kept it simple, just for you. Suffice to say: the max size of each block mined will be 4MB.

And I don't have to prove anything to trolls, it's you that has to prove your propaganda nonsense. Everyone who's been follwing Bitcoin develpoment knows the details by now, you're only demonstrating how ignorant (and loud mouthed) you are

hey buddy. chill. you have a bitcoin or two; i have a bitcoin or two. that means we have more in common than the 7bn people who are yet to have a bitcoin or two.

removing some signature data from transactions to reduce file size isn't an increase in block size. not sure how a hard limit of 1mb can become a hard limit of 4mb.

What you probably mean is you can get 4mb worth of transactions using current data structures into 1mb of block space after segwit is deployed and accepted?

[Carlton Banks]

It's 4MB total, whatever way you try to dress it up. Which can't be done now. Hence the fork.

[coins101]

It's 4MB total, whatever way you try to dress it up. Which can't be done now. Hence the fork.

The current max block size of Bitcoin is 1mb.

[Carlton Banks]

Hence the fork.

[coins101]

And it will still be 1mb if the fork reaches activation.

[Carlton Banks]

Don't forget that there will be 3MB extra available too.

[Chronobank]

Definitely with this need to do something right now. Large volume of data can have a negative impact on the decentralization whole bitcoin network, but the other side after 4 years high capacity storage devices for ordinary users will also be available at a lower price.

[lottery248]

bitcoin core to double the size of blockchain in 2017 IIRC, that's why the bitcoin blockchain is gonna be more than ever. how horrible if we cannot expand what our capacity has/have.

at least a micro SD card does a 256GB.

Hardware is not the rate limiting factor. It's just an added expense to get more space.

Bandwidth is the greater issue.

indeed, because synchronization js deciding if your bitcoin core is gonna work, that's why the bandwidth is be very prominent, and you will also need a high capacity storages.

[coins101]

Don't forget that there will be 3MB extra available too.

Lets get this straight.

segwit will allow the segregation of the signing, ie to be separated out of the block size count.

So, the 1mb cap stays allowing more transaction throughput, but the blockchain will see more data overall. I think that's your basic point.

Given the questions in the OP, the blockchain will grow potentially with an exponential curve until it hits max capacity under the segwit model?

[Carlton Banks]

700GB in 4 years? It could be more than that, signatures inclusive.

[Wind_FURY]

Why are you talking about businesses when I'm talking about mining pools? Who's Roger Ver?

There must be some kind of misunderstanding. Why were you talking about mining pools? I was talking about venture capitalists not making back their investments in Bitcoin companies in the post of mine that you quoted.

Are you serious about the 2nd question?

You still haven't answered adequately. Why are you saying that any Bitcoin business, mining or not, is rushing to fork the blockchain, when none are?

I think I got my wording wrong. What I meant to say is that they are supporting, not rushing, the hard fork for bigger blocks. From all the news that goes thru in this forum we know Roger Ver is one of Bitcoin Unlimited's biggest supporters, we also know Brian Armstrong supports bigger blocks and now it appears that Bitmain are also supporting Bitcoin Unlimited, if the rumors are true. Surely there are others among the "Bitcoin elite" who wants the hard fork to happen.

If the nodes follow the whims of the the Bitcoin elite and does switch to Bitcoin Unlimited then that could be a sign that Bitcoin could be controlled by an oligarchy.

[Wind_FURY]

What are the chances of never increasing the block size beyond 1mb? Is it a case of when, not if? and is the when, more likely to be sooner rather than later?

Will we see a negotiations on increasing the 1mb size cap in order for segwit to see the light of day?

Segwit IS an increase of the blocksize cap, it increases to 4MB.

Surely it means that Segwit will free the blocks enough that it would allow, in paper,  4mb worth of transactions? Please explain more if I got it wrong. Because if it really increases the blocks to 4mb each then that would also need a hard fork, right?

Forgive me for the stupid question. My first impression of Segwit was that they would remove data from the blocks to fit in more transactions allowed in each block with no increase in the block size necessary.

[coins101]

What are the chances of never increasing the block size beyond 1mb? Is it a case of when, not if? and is the when, more likely to be sooner rather than later?

Will we see a negotiations on increasing the 1mb size cap in order for segwit to see the light of day?

Segwit IS an increase of the blocksize cap, it increases to 4MB.

Surely it means that Segwit will free the blocks enough that it would allow, in paper,  4mb worth of transactions? Please explain more if I got it wrong. Because if it really increases the blocks to 4mb each then that would also need a hard fork, right?

Forgive me for the stupid question. My first impression of Segwit was that they would remove data from the blocks to fit in more transactions allowed in each block with no increase in the block size necessary.

It's basically an accounting trick.

When you sign a bitcoin transaction you need to use both your public and private key to prove ownership. You can't let the world know your private key. So the signing process hides your private key. This hiding of your private key process creates a lot of data, relative to the other data used when you make a transaction.

Segwit, basically, removes your signing information into another data table once your transaction is signed and accepted into the blockchain as a valid transaction.

Table 1 = data necessary to validate blocks and maintain the integrity of the blockchain. This includes data that gets counted within the 1mb block size.

Table 2 = your removed signature validation data. This does not get included in the data count when looking at the 1mb block size.

So given the main question in the OP, accepting segwit soft fork will basically mean the blockchain now allows more transaction data to be included in the 1mb block cap, but with the 'discarded' signing data now also forming part of the overall blockchain data size.

[Carlton Banks]

Except the signatures won't be discarded by default, or at least I don't believe so.

And it will take time for all 4MB to get filled up: the original 1MB will hold the transaction data only, but the extra 3MB can only be used for signatures. Lightning settlement transactions are the type of transaction that will be balanced to the signature-heavy extreme such that the whole 3MB gets filled up.

With the way we use the blockchain today, Segwit will supposedly fill the whole 1MB in the original transactions block, and 700kB (out of 3MB) in the signatures block. So it'll be the equivalent of having 1.7MB of transactions & signatures in the traditional style of blocks that we're doing today. It'll take a bit more evolution in peoples habits using the software (and development/growth time for 2nd layers like Lightning) to fill up the 4MB total.

[Lauda]

It'll take a bit more evolution in peoples habits using the software (and development/growth time for 2nd layers like Lightning) to fill up the 4MB total.

If you take a look at some testnet blockchain explorers, you will encounter a few different types of blocks. In general, the heavier the multisignature usage is, the closer will the *block size* reach 4 MB. However, a whole different story will be *told* if Bitcoin Core upgrades to Schnorr signatures (where multisignature style transactions would be of similar or equal size to standard transactions).

[Carlton Banks]

It'll take a bit more evolution in peoples habits using the software (and development/growth time for 2nd layers like Lightning) to fill up the 4MB total.

If you take a look at some testnet blockchain explorers, you will encounter a few different types of blocks. In general, the heavier the multisignature usage is, the closer will the *block size* reach 4 MB. However, a whole different story will be *told* if Bitcoin Core upgrades to Schnorr signatures (where multisignature style transactions would be of similar or equal size to standard transactions).

Ah, the ratio between the tx block and the signature block has to reflect the average signature size, hence all the "block weight" language used to describe the signature block structure. So the ratio gets a little tighter if we drop ECDSA for Schnorr sigs. Cool, the transaction data should get prioritised in the ratio if it can be done right (and Schnorr has other benefits over ECDSA also). Is the Schnorr scheme not relatively new though?

[coins101]

Since posting the OP, the blockchain has gone from



~81GB, to ~88GB

So, a little over my monthly growth prediction, but it grew by 5% between end of Sept and end of Oct.