Bitcoin's Block size limit

[ekoice]

Hi, recently i read an article which says that bitcoin block size could be increased from its initial size of 1 MB to 4 MB.Even then,it could support only 27 transactions per second.If the block size is tried to increase more than that,then bitcoin's decentralized model would be compromised.When Visa processes between one and three thousand transactions per second and is capable of processing 56,000 transactions,how far could bitcoin be an efficient payment system in the future.Recently,block size has been increased to 2 MB.So,after two to three years,will we encounter similar transaction problems due to which we suffered recently?

[hatshepsut93]

Basically, every full node of Bitcoin network is doing the same work as any other payment processor like Visa or Mastercard - validating and keeping record of transactions. The difference is that those companies have powerful servers, while Bitcoin users have their home computers. Satoshi thought that computer technology and demand for Bitcoin's capacity will be growing hand-to-hand, so when more people will want to send bitcoins, Bitcoin users will have more powerful computers to process new transactions. He was clearly wrong, because even now it would be very burdensome to process higher amounts of transaction on your home computer. Also, he didn't take into account the fact that demand for transactions will be also growing, as more people are joining global economy, and as people move away from cash.

[Variogam]

Hi, recently i read an article which says that bitcoin block size could be increased from its initial size of 1 MB to 4 MB.Even then,it could support only 27 transactions per second.

Just a correction from real data, 1MB allows about 250.000 daily transactions, which is about 3 transactions per second, so with 4MB onchain scaling you should expect 12 transactions per second. So I dont buying their claim anything above 4MB would suddenly break decentralization, it seems more geared toward advocating currently activated SegWit2x which really delivers about 4MB blocks in November.

[BillyBobZorton]

Hi, recently i read an article which says that bitcoin block size could be increased from its initial size of 1 MB to 4 MB.Even then,it could support only 27 transactions per second.If the block size is tried to increase more than that,then bitcoin's decentralized model would be compromised.When Visa processes between one and three thousand transactions per second and is capable of processing 56,000 transactions,how far could bitcoin be an efficient payment system in the future.Recently,block size has been increased to 2 MB.So,after two to three years,will we encounter similar transaction problems due to which we suffered recently?

The blocksize cannot be increased because it would lead to centralization of the network via bigger nodes, and not only that, but the latency involved plays also a major role. IT would be exponentially messy for the network.

BTC must remain as it is and then build on top of it with second layers if you want to scale. BTC could have a blocksize increase EVENTUALLY, not rushed by gov agent Jeff Garzik in 2 months.

[~Bitcoin~]

After segwit2x activation on coming november block size will be increased to 2mb from current 1mb , not 4mb. After segwit2x we will have lightening network activated that will be capable of handling thousands of off chain transactions at a time making bitcoin cheaper and faster than any other existing payment methods.

[BillyBobZorton]

After segwit2x activation on coming november block size will be increased to 2mb from current 1mb , not 4mb. After segwit2x we will have lightening network activated that will be capable of handling thousands of off chain transactions at a time making bitcoin cheaper and faster than any other existing payment methods.

Segwit2x will be a disaster, it is developed only by one person which works tightly with anti-privacy blockchain company (probably funded by US Government and whatnot).
He is also reckless, doesn't want to add replay attack while attempting to perform the hardfork. Even BCash hardforkers were decent enough to take care of that.

Not even BCash users want Segwit2x. This is amateur hour again, it just looks less amateur to noobs because they bribed a bunch of hashrate. We'll see that hashrate isn't everything soon.

[Grrizz]

After segwit2x activation on coming november block size will be increased to 2mb from current 1mb , not 4mb. After segwit2x we will have lightening network activated that will be capable of handling thousands of off chain transactions at a time making bitcoin cheaper and faster than any other existing payment methods.

I think hes talking about the effective/extended 4MB blocksize of segwit2x, 2MB blocks with roughly double the Tx capacity segwit brings. I do agree that sidechains currently seem to be the most realistic method of increasing capacity to the levels that will be required in the comming years, keeping the main chain as their backbone.

[bryant.coleman]

Hi, recently i read an article which says that bitcoin block size could be increased from its initial size of 1 MB to 4 MB.Even then,it could support only 27 transactions per second.

Just a correction from real data, 1MB allows about 250.000 daily transactions, which is about 3 transactions per second, so with 4MB onchain scaling you should expect 12 transactions per second. So I dont buying their claim anything above 4MB would suddenly break decentralization, it seems more geared toward advocating currently activated SegWit2x which really delivers about 4MB blocks in November.

I don't think that 4 MB block size is a threat to decentralization. Technology is advancing so fast, and cheaper and more powerful mining rigs are available everywhere. Anyway Bitcoin Cash has implemented 8 MB block size, with a smaller number of miners. Let's see how it goes. IMO, by 2020, technology will be capable of supporting 16MB or 32MB block size limit.

[hatshepsut93]

Hi, recently i read an article which says that bitcoin block size could be increased from its initial size of 1 MB to 4 MB.Even then,it could support only 27 transactions per second.

Just a correction from real data, 1MB allows about 250.000 daily transactions, which is about 3 transactions per second, so with 4MB onchain scaling you should expect 12 transactions per second. So I dont buying their claim anything above 4MB would suddenly break decentralization, it seems more geared toward advocating currently activated SegWit2x which really delivers about 4MB blocks in November.

I don't think that 4 MB block size is a threat to decentralization. Technology is advancing so fast, and cheaper and more powerful mining rigs are available everywhere. Anyway Bitcoin Cash has implemented 8 MB block size, with a smaller number of miners. Let's see how it goes. IMO, by 2020, technology will be capable of supporting 16MB or 32MB block size limit.

When you are trying to determine what amount of transaction can current technology support, you should be looking for the highest amount of resources people can freely donate to the network. Yes, people who upgrade their PC's frequently have 8-16 GB of RAM and 5-10 TB hard drives, but this doesn't mean they are going to run full nodes 24/7. If 8 MB blocks will be slowing their machines down, they will be just turning their clients off when they are about to do some tasks. The situation is much worse for old machines and/or poor connection. This will very negatively affect decentralization, but big blockers ignore this issue. Knows scammer and Bcash supporter Craig Wright even told people to spend $20,000 on a full node or shut up.

[BillyBobZorton]

Hi, recently i read an article which says that bitcoin block size could be increased from its initial size of 1 MB to 4 MB.Even then,it could support only 27 transactions per second.

Just a correction from real data, 1MB allows about 250.000 daily transactions, which is about 3 transactions per second, so with 4MB onchain scaling you should expect 12 transactions per second. So I dont buying their claim anything above 4MB would suddenly break decentralization, it seems more geared toward advocating currently activated SegWit2x which really delivers about 4MB blocks in November.

I don't think that 4 MB block size is a threat to decentralization. Technology is advancing so fast, and cheaper and more powerful mining rigs are available everywhere. Anyway Bitcoin Cash has implemented 8 MB block size, with a smaller number of miners. Let's see how it goes. IMO, by 2020, technology will be capable of supporting 16MB or 32MB block size limit.

When you are trying to determine what amount of transaction can current technology support, you should be looking for the highest amount of resources people can freely donate to the network. Yes, people who upgrade their PC's frequently have 8-16 GB of RAM and 5-10 TB hard drives, but this doesn't mean they are going to run full nodes 24/7. If 8 MB blocks will be slowing their machines down, they will be just turning their clients off when they are about to do some tasks. The situation is much worse for old machines and/or poor connection. This will very negatively affect decentralization, but big blockers ignore this issue. Knows scammer and Bcash supporter Craig Wright even told people to spend $20,000 on a full node or shut up.

Big blockers are known for not admitting the fact that they want to centralize the network into eventual corporations/banks that run the nodes. In fact, Craig Wright said on that infamous speech, that if only banks ran nodes, the network would remain decentralized. The video is still up so you can look it up.

They always live on this constant contradiction where they sell their solution as decentralizing but ignore the fact that nodes would end up centralized and hence the entire network.

[swscowods]

Hi, recently i read an article which says that bitcoin block size could be increased from its initial size of 1 MB to 4 MB.Even then,it could support only 27 transactions per second.If the block size is tried to increase more than that,then bitcoin's decentralized model would be compromised.When Visa processes between one and three thousand transactions per second and is capable of processing 56,000 transactions,how far could bitcoin be an efficient payment system in the future.Recently,block size has been increased to 2 MB.So,after two to three years,will we encounter similar transaction problems due to which we suffered recently?

One of the reasons I think for the slow rate of confirming transactions these days I think is due to the limited block size of transactions, the block size of each transaction is just between 2-3mb and I think this affects transactions a lot?

[aretebit]

Hi, recently i read an article which says that bitcoin block size could be increased from its initial size of 1 MB to 4 MB.Even then,it could support only 27 transactions per second.If the block size is tried to increase more than that,then bitcoin's decentralized model would be compromised.When Visa processes between one and three thousand transactions per second and is capable of processing 56,000 transactions,how far could bitcoin be an efficient payment system in the future.Recently,block size has been increased to 2 MB.So,after two to three years,will we encounter similar transaction problems due to which we suffered recently?

If it would be so easy ... Problem is that big blocks requiere much more hardware which can lead to centralization. That's why is developed the solution of side chains, which are a posible scaling solution with the recently segregated witness (SW) soft fork. Side chains are neither an ideal solution because they could be a weak attacking point for an anti-crypto government. And that is why there was about 2 years of civil war in bitcoin, leading to altcoins capitalization explosion because btc seemed stuck in a never ending discussion.
Finally bitcoin achieved the SW and the people who disagreed created their own altcoin hard forking from btc to bch, which is similar to btc but without SW, with bigger blocks and with a new mining tricky adjustment dificulty (which I think is a disaster because it produce too many speed network unestability because miners can stop mining in certain moments in order to be able to mine easily later).

[The One]

Basically, every full node of Bitcoin network is doing the same work as any other payment processor like Visa or Mastercard - validating and keeping record of transactions. The difference is that those companies have powerful servers, while Bitcoin users have their home computers. Satoshi thought that computer technology and demand for Bitcoin's capacity will be growing hand-to-hand, so when more people will want to send bitcoins, Bitcoin users will have more powerful computers to process new transactions. He was clearly wrong, because even now it would be very burdensome to process higher amounts of transaction on your home computer. Also, he didn't take into account the fact that demand for transactions will be also growing, as more people are joining global economy, and as people move away from cash.

You are talking a load of crap. My computer CPU barely use more than 1% of my CPU and spikes to 3% to 5% when a block is received. Computer technology is way way way ahead of bitcoin. Satoshi knew what he was doing.

[The One]

Hi, recently i read an article which says that bitcoin block size could be increased from its initial size of 1 MB to 4 MB.Even then,it could support only 27 transactions per second.

Just a correction from real data, 1MB allows about 250.000 daily transactions, which is about 3 transactions per second, so with 4MB onchain scaling you should expect 12 transactions per second. So I dont buying their claim anything above 4MB would suddenly break decentralization, it seems more geared toward advocating currently activated SegWit2x which really delivers about 4MB blocks in November.

I don't think that 4 MB block size is a threat to decentralization. Technology is advancing so fast, and cheaper and more powerful mining rigs are available everywhere. Anyway Bitcoin Cash has implemented 8 MB block size, with a smaller number of miners. Let's see how it goes. IMO, by 2020, technology will be capable of supporting 16MB or 32MB block size limit.

When you are trying to determine what amount of transaction can current technology support, you should be looking for the highest amount of resources people can freely donate to the network. Yes, people who upgrade their PC's frequently have 8-16 GB of RAM and 5-10 TB hard drives, but this doesn't mean they are going to run full nodes 24/7. If 8 MB blocks will be slowing their machines down, they will be just turning their clients off when they are about to do some tasks. The situation is much worse for old machines and/or poor connection. This will very negatively affect decentralization, but big blockers ignore this issue. Knows scammer and Bcash supporter Craig Wright even told people to spend $20,000 on a full node or shut up.

You are talking crap again.

[aretebit]

Basically, every full node of Bitcoin network is doing the same work as any other payment processor like Visa or Mastercard - validating and keeping record of transactions. The difference is that those companies have powerful servers, while Bitcoin users have their home computers. Satoshi thought that computer technology and demand for Bitcoin's capacity will be growing hand-to-hand, so when more people will want to send bitcoins, Bitcoin users will have more powerful computers to process new transactions. He was clearly wrong, because even now it would be very burdensome to process higher amounts of transaction on your home computer. Also, he didn't take into account the fact that demand for transactions will be also growing, as more people are joining global economy, and as people move away from cash.

You are talking a load of crap. My computer CPU barely use more than 1% of my CPU and spikes to 3% to 5% when a block is received. Computer technology is way way way ahead of bitcoin. Satoshi knew what he was doing.

Is not the cpu, is the bandwidth and disk space.

[The One]

Basically, every full node of Bitcoin network is doing the same work as any other payment processor like Visa or Mastercard - validating and keeping record of transactions. The difference is that those companies have powerful servers, while Bitcoin users have their home computers. Satoshi thought that computer technology and demand for Bitcoin's capacity will be growing hand-to-hand, so when more people will want to send bitcoins, Bitcoin users will have more powerful computers to process new transactions. He was clearly wrong, because even now it would be very burdensome to process higher amounts of transaction on your home computer. Also, he didn't take into account the fact that demand for transactions will be also growing, as more people are joining global economy, and as people move away from cash.

You are talking a load of crap. My computer CPU barely use more than 1% of my CPU and spikes to 3% to 5% when a block is received. Computer technology is way way way ahead of bitcoin. Satoshi knew what he was doing.

Is not the cpu, is the bandwidth and disk space.

Not an issue. Honestly some people here must be stuck on 56k phone line and 100mb hard drive from the early 1990s. Sadly for those, many of us have moved on.