We could have had 4mb blocks by now, with 8mb on the way. What happened?

[25hashcoin]

Who disrupted this idea: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/636410827969421312

[Cryptolator]

Who disrupted this idea: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/636410827969421312

We need a concensus in order to make that happen, and right now, we are far from a concensus. There is only 20 major mining pool, and we would need 95% of them to accept the modifiaction in order to proceed. Miner are happy right now with the high fees and high profit, so we are somewhat screwed. (That is my understanding of the situation)

[Xester]

Who disrupted this idea: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/636410827969421312

If Satoshi Nakamoto did not disappear as a developer then we could have that huge blocksize by now. The people who have disrupted that idea were the same developers who have taken over the place of Satoshi Nakamoto sa a core developer. Thus since new developers are working they have shifted from the original plan. I am not very technical as to explain what are the things they encounter why did not shift immediately to 4 mb blocksize but let us hope that on August we can already have a consensus and we can have an increased blocksize.

[bryant.coleman]

I am disappointed with all this. Look at the recent crash in the exchange rates. I am a big fan of Satoshi Nakamoto, but this idea of 95% consensus is ridiculous. How is it even possible to reach that much approval? He should have capped it at 51%. Now only the currency is suffering due to the infighting between the miners and the developers.

[mademerich]

The problem with bigger block sizes is that it increases centralization as it makes it harder for ordinary people to have their own full nodes. Additionally there is no limit to the requirements the network will need on block sizes because as you increase them and transactions increase you will keep needing to increase them and there is a limit to how far you can go.

A long term solution would be based on offchain transactions and other things to reduce the clutter that is why people propose segwit and lightning network. Personally I think we are at the point where 2 mb hardfork is a necessary compromise since certain people dont want to signal segwit (even though it almost doubles the block size all by itself), but segwit is a must because we cant keep increasing block sizes indefinitely.

[aso118]

The problem with bigger block sizes is that it increases centralization as it makes it harder for ordinary people to have their own full nodes. Additionally there is no limit to the requirements the network will need on block sizes because as you increase them and transactions increase you will keep needing to increase them and there is a limit to how far you can go.

That is a misleading argument. Hardware development and drop in prices have meant that ordinary people can run full nodes, even if the blocksize is increased to 2 or 4 mb. Centralization is not going to increase just because the blocksize is increased.

[The One]

The problem with bigger block sizes is that it increases centralization as it makes it harder for ordinary people to have their own full nodes. Additionally there is no limit to the requirements the network will need on block sizes because as you increase them and transactions increase you will keep needing to increase them and there is a limit to how far you can go.

A long term solution would be based on offchain transactions and other things to reduce the clutter that is why people propose segwit and lightning network. Personally I think we are at the point where 2 mb hardfork is a necessary compromise since certain people dont want to signal segwit (even though it almost doubles the block size all by itself), but segwit is a must because we cant keep increasing block sizes indefinitely.

Nonsense. You are thinking that txs will suddenly jump from 300,000 per day to 10,000,000 per day. It is perfectly safe to increase blocksize. It's the Core dev that got ideas of their own and sod the rest of us.