I am sorry to say, Mike Hearn was right.

[DGulari]

Two years ago he threw a bitch fit and said if we don't increase blocksize, the network will die.  Now, Circle is taking their $138 million and leaving along with many, many others.  The congestion has jammed up the network and it is no longer useful.  While we still have our pure values of decentralization, we also have a dysfunctional system that no longer serves many of the original intents. 

We should go to 8MB today.  Keep building LN so we don't have to one day go to 16MB.  That way, all involved in making blockchain projects will stay with Bitcoin instead of running away to other FinTech like Jeremy Allaire. 

We CAN have it both ways!  8MB is the new 'small block'.

[OmegaStarScream]

Or maybe we could wait and see how things with SegWit goes (even If it doesn't look so good so far) : https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit and then decide whether he was right or wrong and I'm sure developers will come up with another plan If it fails.

[OgNasty]

Two years ago he threw a bitch fit...Now, Circle is taking their $138 million and leaving.

Yet, we're at the highest price point since then.  It's almost like Bitcoin doesn't care about Mike or Circle and is quite happy to see them chase profits elsewhere while we build the future of finance.

[franky1]

Two years ago he threw a bitch fit and said if we don't increase blocksize, the network will die.  Now, Circle is taking their $138 million and leaving along with many, many others.  The congestion has jammed up the network and it is no longer useful.  While we still have our pure values of decentralization, we also have a dysfunctional system that no longer serves many of the original intents.  

We should go to 8MB today.  Keep building LN so we don't have to one day go to 16MB.  That way, all involved in making blockchain projects will stay with Bitcoin instead of running away to other FinTech like Jeremy Allaire.  

We CAN have it both ways!  8MB is the new 'small block'.

no

dynamic blocks are the only way. that way we are not getting spoonfed by devs every few years with new limits but instead letting the network naturally decide.

as for circle and hearn.. they along with blockstream are happy with hyperledger income and we have blockstream devs delaying scalability and just giving us spoonfuls of expectations
(remember 2009-2013 the ~4500tx 7tx/s hype... guess what 1mb base segwit only offers ~4500tx(if 100% of users use segwit)) thus not really growth. but instead going back to OLD expectations. pushing the same stone down the road

all thats left is for blockstream to give up the ruse and say 'thanks for the fish' before they publicise their hyperledger involvement

[Lauda]

Now, Circle is taking their $138 million and leaving along with many, many others.  

Obvious lie. Who are these "many many others"? How about you cut the FUD nonsense? Circle is a useless company that is on a road to failure.

The congestion has jammed up the network and it is no longer useful.  

Any experienced user should have no problems transacting. Don't blame the network for your non existing knowledge.

We should go to 8MB today.

Stating something absurd as this, tells us a lot about you. Precisely, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Interesting fact regarding Hearn: Guess who split up R3.

(remember 2009-2013 the ~4500tx 7tx/s hype... guess what 1mb base segwit only offers ~4500tx(if 100% of users use segwit)) thus not really growth.

No. If you're going to talk about theoretical limits such as the ~4500 TX @ 7 TPS, then Segwit offers ~14 TPS.

[Jet Cash]

Increasing the block size may not increase the block content. I keep saying it, but halving the block generation interval is more likely to increase transaction throughput, and reduce confirmation times.

[thejaytiesto]

Wrong. Everyone with a functional brain is against raising the blocksize until we have segwit activated. The ones that are blocking segwit are the ones responsible of stagnating bitcoin's growth as a currency. If segwit doesn't activate, then bitcoin will remain as the best safe haven we have (better than gold) so it's still a very undervalued asset (marketcap could be on the trillion dollars potentially if it gets used as a better gold widespread).

So you are wrong and this thread is FUD.

[franky1]

(remember 2009-2013 the ~4500tx 7tx/s hype... guess what 1mb base segwit only offers ~4500tx(if 100% of users use segwit)) thus not really growth.

No. If you're going to talk about theoretical limits such as the ~4500 TX @ 7 TPS, then Segwit offers ~14 TPS.

nope segwit does not.
stick to reality.

EG old expection of 100% lean tx is ~4500 TX @ 7 TPS
new expectation of 100% segwit usage using REALISTIC transactions is ~4500 TX @ 7 TPS

expectations and reality wont be ~4500 TX @ 7 TPS

[Lauda]

nope segwit does not.
stick to reality.

EG old expection of 100% lean tx is ~4500 TX @ 7 TPS
new expectation of 100% segwit usage using REALISTIC transactions is ~4500 TX @ 7 TPS

expectations and reality wont be ~4500 TX @ 7 TPS

You're the one outside of reality. There's is at least 1 known Segwit block on testnet that has >8000 TX. According to your invalid knowledge, it was created by magic since the limit is 4500TX.
Magic 14.8 TPS: https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/block/0000000000000896420b918a83d05d028ad7d61aaab6d782f580f2d98984a392

[RealBitcoin]

****TROLLS INCOMING****


I really like when something minor bad happens with bitcoin and then an army of trolls come here to lecture us about what is the "correct way", and then they dont realize that that will create and actual massive problem.


138 million is nothing, the price moves that much in 2 days. What is more worrying is the node count and the fact that many people with shitty internet in 2016 are running full nodes.

People should get a decent 5-10 mb internet, it would not cost more than 5-6$/month and setup proper full nodes.


Then we can talk about big blocks. But until you have 512kb/s mobile internet trolls lecturing us about node count problems we won't go ahead.

It's 2016 for fuck sake, get yourself a decent connection.

[Cereberus]

Who are we to judge who were right and wrong. Mike Hearn is not the god of bitcoin or his creator. On the other hand many people today mentioning Circle as an example to back their claims that bitcoin will fail and lots of bullshit.

If Circle wanna leave, the door is open and there quite an enormous number of exchanges which do a better job , Bitpanda in EU which is also my favorite as an example(just changed 0.25 btc to 190 Euro right now). Circle is nothing. Since it's in the USA it's no big deal as Coinbase does that job pretty nicely there.

So we are rocking as we are now, maybe with increasing the block size we do better but maybe we do a lot more worse so we cannot really know.

[Holliday]

We should go to 8MB today.

You can. What are you waiting for? Go build a block bigger than 1MB. You don't need anyone's permission.

Starting another new thread about it isn't going to change anyone's mind. If the past two years hasn't convinced you of that, then I don't know what to say.

If your argument is so strong, and you believe bigger blocks are far superior, the market will obviously choose the chain with bigger blocks. Just do it.

[DGulari]

Circle is a useless company that is on a road to failure.

That useless company is led by a genius with a good track record and they had $138 to spend on bitcoin compatible project development.  Now they saw how bitcoin is run by Greg Maxwell and they saw a disaster that cannot be used for a profitable enterprise - so they left.  Along with many, many others.

[BitcoinBarrel]

Why does Bitcoin need to be changed. Are you all implying that Satoshi was incompetent?

[Lauda]

That useless company is led by a genius with a good track record and they had $138 to spend on bitcoin compatible project development.  Now they saw how bitcoin is run by Greg Maxwell and they saw a disaster that cannot be used for a profitable enterprise - so they left.  Along with many, many others.

The CEO of Circle, a genius? That is just a bad joke. I have to repeat myself here:

Who are these "many many others"?

[DGulari]

We should go to 8MB today.

You can. What are you waiting for? Go build a block bigger than 1MB. You don't need anyone's permission.

Starting another new thread about it isn't going to change anyone's mind. If the past two years hasn't convinced you of that, then I don't know what to say.

If your argument is so strong, and you believe bigger blocks are far superior, the market will obviously choose the chain with bigger blocks. Just do it.

Can't do it because Greg Maxwell needs to cripple the network so their will be more demand for his Lightning off chain approach.  The thing is, if Greg agrees to go to 8MB today, blocks won't be full again until Lightning is ready.  That way, they can have their off chain scaling approach AND no network congestion for the next 3 - 5 years. 

[DGulari]

That useless company is led by a genius with a good track record and they had $138 to spend on bitcoin compatible project development.  Now they saw how bitcoin is run by Greg Maxwell and they saw a disaster that cannot be used for a profitable enterprise - so they left.  Along with many, many others.

The CEO of Circle, a genius? That is just a bad joke. I have to repeat myself here:

Who are these "many many others"?

Fuck you Lauda - you are so boring.  

Here are some of the many, many others: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1026885.0  There are still further others too.

[Lauda]

Fuck you Lauda - you are so boring.  

I wonder who paid for these posts.

Here are some of the many, many others: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1026885.0  There are still further others too.

None of those have anything to do with the block size limit. Most were hacked/scam/illegal. Try again.

[DGulari]

Why does Bitcoin need to be changed. Are you all implying that Satoshi was incompetent?

No.  Actually Satoshi had it right.  The original Bitcoin had blocks without blocksize limit with full anticipation of on chain scaling.  Let's go back to the way Satoshi wanted it.  Big blocks.  Small blocks was intended as a temporary limit to control spam until an alternative was devised.

[DGulari]

Fuck you Lauda - you are so boring.  

I wonder who paid for these posts.

Here are some of the many, many others: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1026885.0  There are still further others too.

None of those have anything to do with the block size limit. Most were hacked/scam/illegal. Try again.

ChangeTip failed, along with all other microtransaction applications because tx fee went from .0000 US cents to about 20 US cents.  Many, many other application that are not settlement application also failed as a result of Maxwell/core/blockstream intentionally corrupting the system to drive demand for their LN which doesn't even exist today.