1MB block size forever is just silly

[pooya87]

Should have been at least 2-4MB some time ago.

i disagree.
we need to increase the block size but things are not that bad if we only see legit transactions in the pool. right now we have a massive scale spam attack which is increasing the number of unconfirmed transactions.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776143.0

the thing about blockchain and bitcoin is that you can spam but you can't hide.

Eh... spam attack or not, blocks are full... and fees are (too) high. Wasn't "cheap and fast" transactions one of the major advantages of bitcoin? Bitcoin is neither at the moment... The only thing it currently still has is decentralization, well sort of atleast... Increasing the block size isn't a permanent scaling solution IMO but it is the temporary one we NEED right now until LN arrives. People are running away from bitcoin and going into altcoins atm because they're cheaper and faster right now...

blocks are full because of spam attack. before the spam attack blocks were bare full and number of unconfirmed transactions were about 2K (normal).
fast yes, and it is still fast to send but slow to confirm
cheap, i don't remember ever reading cheap transactions in the bitcoin paper

- i am not arguing that we don't need block size to go up, i am saying we need it but lets not be fooled by why blocks are full and mempool is this big

people running away? don't make me laugh. who in his right mind is giving up bitcoin to go to a manipulated altcoin with 80% pre-mine and developer holding all the coins in existance?

[BigBoom3599]

Should have been at least 2-4MB some time ago.

i disagree.
we need to increase the block size but things are not that bad if we only see legit transactions in the pool. right now we have a massive scale spam attack which is increasing the number of unconfirmed transactions.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776143.0

the thing about blockchain and bitcoin is that you can spam but you can't hide.

Eh... spam attack or not, blocks are full... and fees are (too) high. Wasn't "cheap and fast" transactions one of the major advantages of bitcoin? Bitcoin is neither at the moment... The only thing it currently still has is decentralization, well sort of atleast... Increasing the block size isn't a permanent scaling solution IMO but it is the temporary one we NEED right now until LN arrives. People are running away from bitcoin and going into altcoins atm because they're cheaper and faster right now...

blocks are full because of spam attack. before the spam attack blocks were bare full and number of unconfirmed transactions were about 2K (normal).
fast yes, and it is still fast to send but slow to confirm
cheap, i don't remember ever reading cheap transactions in the bitcoin paper

- i am not arguing that we don't need block size to go up, i am saying we need it but lets not be fooled by why blocks are full and mempool is this big

people running away? don't make me laugh. who in his right mind is giving up bitcoin to go to a manipulated altcoin with 80% pre-mine and developer holding all the coins in existance?

Cheap wasn't in the bitcoin paper, I'm not denying that but it is what the community said, just google: "bitcoin advantages" and look at how basically all of them include "low transaction cost".
Blocks aren't full because of spam attacks, without spam attacks the blocks would be full aswell, the spam attack just makes the waiting queue even longer.
Can you name an altcoin with a market cap higher than $50 million that's manipulated, 80% pre-mined and where the developer is holding all the coins? LOL

[pooya87]

Should have been at least 2-4MB some time ago.

i disagree.
we need to increase the block size but things are not that bad if we only see legit transactions in the pool. right now we have a massive scale spam attack which is increasing the number of unconfirmed transactions.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776143.0

the thing about blockchain and bitcoin is that you can spam but you can't hide.

Eh... spam attack or not, blocks are full... and fees are (too) high. Wasn't "cheap and fast" transactions one of the major advantages of bitcoin? Bitcoin is neither at the moment... The only thing it currently still has is decentralization, well sort of atleast... Increasing the block size isn't a permanent scaling solution IMO but it is the temporary one we NEED right now until LN arrives. People are running away from bitcoin and going into altcoins atm because they're cheaper and faster right now...

blocks are full because of spam attack. before the spam attack blocks were bare full and number of unconfirmed transactions were about 2K (normal).
fast yes, and it is still fast to send but slow to confirm
cheap, i don't remember ever reading cheap transactions in the bitcoin paper

- i am not arguing that we don't need block size to go up, i am saying we need it but lets not be fooled by why blocks are full and mempool is this big

people running away? don't make me laugh. who in his right mind is giving up bitcoin to go to a manipulated altcoin with 80% pre-mine and developer holding all the coins in existance?

Cheap wasn't in the bitcoin paper, I'm not denying that but it is what the community said, just google: "bitcoin advantages" and look at how basically all of them include "low transaction cost".
Blocks aren't full because of spam attacks, without spam attacks the blocks would be full aswell, the spam attack just makes the waiting queue even longer.
Can you name an altcoin with a market cap higher than $50 million that's manipulated, 80% pre-mined and where the developer is holding all the coins? LOL

google "bitcoin advantages" and you see things like "get rich quick" and "to da moon" and also you will see lots of "bitcoin is dead" "going to zero" etc. it doesn't mean they are correct. random people say random things.
before spam attack they were barely full.
yes: ethereum. the dev dumped 1 million dollar worth of it last year when its price was at its peak, the foundation also holds a very large portion of the supply and they do pump and dumps regularly.

[sportis]

I don't really know where else to go from that..   1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough.  What do..

 

What are you talking about? With segwit we get 2-4 mb   if I'm not wrong.

Yes with segwit you can raise the size up to 4mb but the effective cost limit so the blocks will remain balanced is about 1.6-2 mb https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/. Besides that, I am not sure if the last days is only a spam attack in the network and not increased real transactions too but 160s/byte for fast confirmation is unacceptable. Thus, the only people in bitcoin world who have sure and big profit are only the miners. Aren't they?

[Carlton Banks]

It is clear that the investment community will be obliged to diversify.  

Then why are you here talking about it, giving the rest of the "investment community" an informational heads-up about where the crypto market is going? Smart investors do not reveal their strategies, David

it appears SegWit is not gaining the support it needs to go through but who knows it may still make it;

I'm not holding out much hope for those wishing to invest wisely using your advice.

without SegWit can Lightning be made to work?

Still not hopeful, lol



David. You need information to be an investor. The information has to be well researched and veracious. You need facts. If you would like any more investing basics, be sure to let us know.

[ralle14]

I don't really know where else to go from that..   1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough.  What do..

 

What are you talking about? With segwit we get 2-4 mb   if I'm not wrong.

4mb? no way, at best it's 2MB, actually a bit less, but miners do not agree in the activation, it will never happen

May we know the reason why increasing the blocksize will never happen? Does increasing the blocksize will cause more problem than to solve our problems?

[Carlton Banks]

What are you talking about? With segwit we get 2-4 mb   if I'm not wrong.

4mb? no way, at best it's 2MB, actually a bit less, but miners do not agree in the activation, it will never happen

May we know the reason why increasing the blocksize will never happen? Does increasing the blocksize will cause more problem than to solve our problems?

It probably will happen, as Segwit probably will activate. Yes, blocksize increases do carry risks, so doing the fork the right way is very important. Not everyone agrees on how the fork should be done, lol

[kiklo]

I don't really know where else to go from that..   1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough.  What do..

 

What are you talking about? With segwit we get 2-4 mb   if I'm not wrong.

4mb? no way, at best it's 2MB, actually a bit less, but miners do not agree in the activation, it will never happen

It is clear that the investment community will be obliged to diversify.  Bitcoin can go a long way on 1MB blocks and big (relatively) transaction fees; it appears SegWit is not gaining the support it needs to go through but who knows it may still make it; without SegWit can Lightning be made to work?  Which other altcoin is going to become the darling of scalability?  Or perhaps there will be many.  Or is there indeed some fatal flaw that always draws any of them into centralization?

All PoW coins will Centralize , the laws of economics guarantee it.

Fewer Miners, higher prices (due to manipulation), and higher fees (eventually to become unsustainable)


 

well pos coin is even more centralized, with the bad distribution and the scheme of rich become even richer, you can't have fully decentralization

the only way was to change the algo every so years to prevent asic and keep the gpu mining, maybe it will be done in the future, if 51% become a reality

PoS will only Centralized if it has extremely high interest rates, where the holder never has to sell anything but their interest to Profit.

A POS coin with extremely low interest rates will not centralized, as whenever the holder sells any , he is selling from his principle amount and not just interest gained.  

Chinese already have ~68% combined, they are not letting anyone change the algo , BTC core can't even activate segwit because the Chinese don't want it.


 

[mezzomix]

At the point where nearly all non-miners want to enable a feature but a few miners are blocking this change, it makes sense for the users to not relay new blocks that prevent the change. It makes no sense to allow a few miners to keep the Bitcoin system as a hostage.

[kiklo]

At the point where nearly all non-miners want to enable a feature but a few miners are blocking this change, it makes sense for the users to not relay new blocks that prevent the change.

Chinese Miners already agreed to a blocksize increase up to 8 Megabyte.
BTC core is the one refusing to update the blocksize and
are instead trying to force everyone to accept segwit & LN, an OFFCHAIN version (which is no better than using a bank.)


 

[Warg]

Chinese Miners already agreed to a blocksize increase up to 8 Megabyte.

Only minority of miners agreed with blocksize increase. majority stick to segwit

[kiklo]

Chinese Miners already agreed to a blocksize increase up to 8 Megabyte.

Only minority of miners agreed with blocksize increase. majority stick to segwit

The Chinese are ~68% of the miners dum dum.
Hard fork could happen tomorrow with no problems.

 

[Warg]

The Chinese are 68% of the miners dum dum.
Hard fork could happen tomorrow with no problems.

 

not all Chinese support unlim

[mezzomix]

Chinese Miners already agreed to a blocksize increase up to 8 Megabyte.

Only minority of miners agreed with blocksize increase. majority stick to segwit

The Chinese are ~68% of the miners dum dum.
Hard fork could happen tomorrow with no problems.

 

As I already wrote, I see this as the best solution. Those 3-4 miners fork into a new coin. The rest continues with the current Bitcoin system. Win-Win - everybody gets what he wants!

[wavespump]

Your concern is good, Satoshi never thought bitcoin can be so huge on users and market cap, therefore he designed only for 1MB. 1MB is too small since nowadays there are more and more unconfirmed transactions, 2MB or bigger block is imminent to be updated, personally I support SegWit, hope it will be updated asap.

[kiklo]

The Chinese are 68% of the miners dum dum.
Hard fork could happen tomorrow with no problems.

 

not all Chinese support unlim

If BTC core released an update to an 8MB blocksize , all of the Chinese Miners would update, and the rest would have to follow or get left behind.

Unlimited is higher than 8MB, and some of the Chinese miners don't want to go higher than 8mb, because they are concerned the Chinese internet infrastructure can't handle more than 8mb.

8MB could last for a few years before needing to worry about it again.
(When your house is on fire, you don't order a sprinkler system, you get as much water as possible and put out the damn fire.)
(BTC house has been burning for a few months now.)

 

[mezzomix]

8MB could last for a few years before needing to worry about it again.

8MB will "work" until someone wants to enforce a change again and pays for the "stress test".

[kiklo]

8MB could last for a few years before needing to worry about it again.

8MB will "work" until someone wants to enforce a change again and pays for the "stress test".

LTC fixed the spam issue in 2015.
There is nothing stopping BTC from using the same type of fix.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/litecoin-shows-there-is-a-simple-fix-for-spam-attacks-on-bitcoin

CT: Can you explain why Litecoin is ‘immune’ to the spam attack?

CL: The fix implemented in Litecoin is just to charge the sender a fee for each tiny output he creates. For example, in this specific attack, the sender is charged one fee for sending to 34 tiny outputs of 0.00001 BTC. With the fix, that fee would be 34 times as much. So it would cost the attacker a lot more to perform the spam attack. The concept is fairly simple: the sender should pay for each tiny output he/she creates.

 

[Xester]

At the point where nearly all non-miners want to enable a feature but a few miners are blocking this change, it makes sense for the users to not relay new blocks that prevent the change.

Chinese Miners already agreed to a blocksize increase up to 8 Megabyte.
BTC core is the one refusing to update the blocksize and
are instead trying to force everyone to accept segwit & LN, an OFFCHAIN version (which is no better than using a bank.)


 

They just wanted more profits so thats why they declined to the increase of 8 megabytes blockzise. Probably btc core has internal links with segwit, LN and offchain versions. I just dont understand why they wanted to make bitcoins more complicated, if it is possible to just increased the blocksize to  8 mb without resorting to other measures then its the best choice.

[BTCLovingDude]

8MB could last for a few years before needing to worry about it again.

8MB will "work" until someone wants to enforce a change again and pays for the "stress test".

LTC fixed the spam issue in 2015.
There is nothing stopping BTC from using the same type of fix.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/litecoin-shows-there-is-a-simple-fix-for-spam-attacks-on-bitcoin

CT: Can you explain why Litecoin is ‘immune’ to the spam attack?

CL: The fix implemented in Litecoin is just to charge the sender a fee for each tiny output he creates. For example, in this specific attack, the sender is charged one fee for sending to 34 tiny outputs of 0.00001 BTC. With the fix, that fee would be 34 times as much. So it would cost the attacker a lot more to perform the spam attack. The concept is fairly simple: the sender should pay for each tiny output he/she creates.

have you even seen the recent spam attacks sizes?
there was time before when they did all 0.0001BTC with small fee attacks. right now they are doing random sizes with random amounts and high fees virtually undetectable by code. but they have been found.