Will Bitcoin EVER have a bigger blocksize? Is there hope?

[Dabs]

See, Doge has more supply, more liquidity, more market pairs, in more exchanges. It also has faster block times. BCash is probably the joke here, not Doge. To be fair, the BCash and BSV are good testing grounds for their large blocks, storing all sorts of junk in them. If someone uploads wikipedia to the blockchain, maybe they will stop asking for donations. And it will be there forever.

[1715014802]

1715014802

[1715014802]

1715014802

[1715014802]

1715014802

[1715014802]

1715014802

[1715014802]

1715014802

[BrewMaster]

To be fair, the BCash and BSV are good testing grounds for their large blocks, storing all sorts of junk in them.

it could have been a good testing ground if there were some constant actual usage in their blockchain that could generate some traffic for at least a month.
otherwise so far we have seen some short periods where they artificially spammed their network to spike up the tx count that couldn't prove anything.
the funny thing is even though bitcoin has technically "smaller max block size", its blockchain is currently 109 GB bigger than BCH blockchain

[gmaxwell]

it could have been a good testing ground if there were some constant actual usage in their blockchain that could generate some traffic for at least a month.
otherwise so far we have seen some short periods where they artificially spammed their network to spike up the tx count that couldn't prove anything.
the funny thing is even though bitcoin has technically "smaller max block size", its blockchain is currently 109 GB bigger than BCH blockchain

Likewise for scammer-version, in spite of all their crowing about hundreds of megabyte blocks, constant spamming with weather data transactions, and bcashers crying about services that had to shut down because the cost of a bsv node was too great, their chain is a about 30% smaller than Bitcoin's.

[Wind_FURY]

it could have been a good testing ground if there were some constant actual usage in their blockchain that could generate some traffic for at least a month.
otherwise so far we have seen some short periods where they artificially spammed their network to spike up the tx count that couldn't prove anything.
the funny thing is even though bitcoin has technically "smaller max block size", its blockchain is currently 109 GB bigger than BCH blockchain

Likewise for scammer-version, in spite of all their crowing about hundreds of megabyte blocks, constant spamming with weather data transactions, and bcashers crying about services that had to shut down because the cost of a bsv node was too great, their chain is a about 30% smaller than Bitcoin's.

I believe Dogecoin has more real actual transactions from real actual users per month than Bitcoin Cash and the SV version.

[pooya87]

I believe Dogecoin has more real actual transactions from real actual users per month than Bitcoin Cash and the SV version.

Dogecoin has a much stabler price with a lot lower fee and is accepted in almost every exchange. not to mention that it is decentralized and immutable unlike BCH and BSV that easily roll back and do whatever they want since they fully control these altcoins.

[gildarts456]

People still don't know bitcoin increased block size?

Size: 2.2 MB https://www.smartbit.com.au/block/540107

Now sitting at record high averages near ~1.2 MB https://bitcoinvisuals.com/chain-block-size

Limiting blocksize/time is a security feature above all else to address bandwidth and validation costs, with additional benefit that space scarcity drives fees that are meant to replace block reward eventually.

Block time change, by the way, would be a soft fork too (depends on definition).

Many exchanges finally batching as well which allows more throughput for others.

The next Schnorr, MAST, Taproot soft fork will reduce tx size as well allowing more throughput.

Various other current proposed BIP that can help deal with higher throughput:

e.g.
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY ( https://utxos.org/uses/scaling/ https://utxos.org/uses/batch-channels/ )
http://www.drivechain.info/ (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0300.mediawiki, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0301.mediawiki)

Regardless, on-chain methods increase scaling linearly while off-chain offer orders of magnitude bigger scaling w/o compromising security of base layer. Even trust minimized solutions like rollups could technically be used as well, if not for bitcoin, then for token layers on embedded consensus and take them off chain.

[Abiky]

It's impressive only if you see Dogecoin as a joke coin and BCash as something so great.

Dogecoin is old. Since it's so cheap it can be used for learning or tests. Very important: it's accepted in most exchanges (most probably in more exchanges as BCash). Some still use Dogecoin move their funds out of small exchanges where they've sold coins you may have never heard of (I've done that too when where trying out mining on certain new coins). Also most probably an exchange will have very low withdrawal fee for Dogecoin. So yes, Dogecoin has its use cases.

The comparison with Bcash doesn't have a chance. BCash is a new altcoin coming into an area many other altcoins do this job wonderfully. When I have transfers to make quick and for some reasons I have troubles with the fees (usually the withdrawal fees from exchanges), the top options are Ripple (!), Doge, Litecoin, ...

This could give a better image on the reasons why transaction activity is not as you'd expect.
And this could be a reason why Bitcoin Devs don't think that bigger block size need attention and that the bigger blocks would bring without coming with other problems all the benefits some are boasting.

Well, Bitcoin Cash may have a bigger block size than Bitcoin, but it's heavily centralized today. No one would want to transact using Bitcoin Cash over Bitcoin or even Dogecoin, because of this reason. Dogecoin, although being an old cryptocurrency, has managed to gain acceptance within the mainstream world because it retains decentralization while providing cheaper fees and faster transaction confirmation times. What once started as a "joke", ended as a serious cryptocurrency for traders and investors alike. Bitcoin Cash still has a block time of 10 minutes, which is makes it terrible for micropayments. Of course, with a bigger block size, fees will be able to remain low. But transaction speed is the same as Bitcoin with a 10 minute delay per block. If Bitcoin Cash wants to obtain greater usage than Dogecoin, it needs to lower its block time and become a decentralized cryptocurrency for people to use massively within the mainstream world. Otherwise, I don't see any future for it.

In the case of Bitcoin, a block size increase is not necessary right now. With the adoption of SegWit, Bitcoin changed its block size (now block weight) from 1 MB to 4 MB. This, alongside the Lightning Network, would be everything Bitcoin needs to scale for the mainstream world. In case Bitcoin's Layer-2 solution (LN) becomes bloated, a quick increase from 4 MB to 8 MB will do the trick. It's important to increase the block size (or in this case, block weight) in smaller increments to maintain the decentralization of Bitcoin as much as possible. Extremely huge block sizes like it's the case with Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV, would greatly undermine the purpose Blockchain technology was created for (which is the decentralization of money).

Time will tell us what Bitcoin's developers will do in order to maintain Bitcoin scalable for the world. As long as everything is done with decentralization in mind, Bitcoin will succeed for a long time. Otherwise, you could expect its demise within the mainstream world. Just my opinion

[pooya87]

Of course, with a bigger block size, fees will be able to remain low.

i wouldn't be so sure about that. only unlimited block size can keep the fees low. anything that has a cap will end up with a fee market eventually.
besides with BCH there are other problems too. for example what people sometimes forget is that BCH is the exact copy of bitcoin and the clients are the exact copy of bitcoin core and due to the incompetency of BCH developers they haven't been able to really create a client that works for that kind of block size. you would think that empty blocks and having such a huge cap wouldn't lead to fee competitions but you would be wrong. not to mention that miners don't even support the big block size after 2 years! and they will continue mining 1 MB blocks even if there were more transactions in the mempool. it is not noticeable because BCH block sizes currently are about 0.05-0.2 MB.

here is an interesting observation i had a while ago where a short term (1 hour) spam attack of transactions with 1 s/b fee forces users to start paying 2 s/b:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776143.msg52337255#msg52337255

[mda]

Bitcoin Cash still has a block time of 10 minutes, which is makes it terrible for micropayments.

To be fair, any cryptocurrency is terrible for micropayment unless it has very fast block time (e.g. 10 seconds). People and cashier don't want to wait 10 minutes (or even 30 seconds) to wait a transaction confirmed.

With 2-of-2 multisig address where both merchant and customer park the same amount fast block time isn't necessary, even 24 hours blocks will work just fine.

[gildarts456]

To be fair, any cryptocurrency is terrible for micropayment unless it has very fast block time (e.g. 10 seconds).

faster blocks just means they are easier to revert, and likely there will be competing blocks doing it accidentally given a small window to propagate the new block.

no matter the block time, what counts is accumulated work on top of the block for the cost backing its finality

[HannaWho]

I think a 1mb block size is the best we can have now.

Large enough to handle over half a million transactions every day.
Even a million or more with some batching and optimization.

But yet small enough to be able to fully sync the blockchain in 1-3 days.
And fast enough to run over Tor, which might be needed if governments start to crack down on it.

What is a 1000 GigaMeg good for if that means bitcoin will be censored in many places?

[Wind_FURY]

Or what about "will Bitcoin EVER have a smaller block size to improve the initial blockchain download/network latency, and increase the amount of full-archival nodes in the network?"

[pooya87]

Or what about "will Bitcoin EVER have a smaller block size to improve the initial blockchain download/network latency, and increase the amount of full-archival nodes in the network?"

future changes can not change the past. even if block size is reduced to zero you still have to download the entire ~200 GB blockchain history to be considered a "full node".

[Wind_FURY]

Or what about "will Bitcoin EVER have a smaller block size to improve the initial blockchain download/network latency, and increase the amount of full-archival nodes in the network?"

future changes can not change the past. even if block size is reduced to zero you still have to download the entire ~200 GB blockchain history to be considered a "full node".

Mere musing by me. For the longevity of the network, I believe the "issue" might be discussed/considered in Bitcoin's near future.

[hv_]

It is absolute clear that all the arguments against increasing the blocksize are not justified, at least not anymore considering the current miner landscape.

Arguments against block size increase are based on decentralization[1] and alternatives such as Segwit, which will reduce transaction size instead of block size (which will be able to achieve the same result without increasing centralization)

[1] as satoshi said

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306
 The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

If you don't care about decentralization, as you think it does not justify a reduced block size, you have two alternatives:
Use BCH  or Visa. I think Vista is much better lol

Visa can do 24.000 tps, while BCH is centralized and do only 60.

BCH is not more 'centralized' ( what's the exact definition here, and what measures follows from such?)

Original BitCoin can already do a lot more than ripple , u just need to investigate it in its form/implementation of BSV.

[DooMAD]

Original BitCoin

Your views on what Bitcoin "is" or "isn't" are totally irrelevant.  We have a consensus mechanism to do that.  It appears to disagree with you.

[Wind_FURY]

Original BitCoin

Your views on what Bitcoin "is" or "isn't" are totally irrelevant.  We have a consensus mechanism to do that.  It appears to disagree with you.

Give them some space for what their network/protocol should be, or shouldn't be. I believe the Bitcoin community should have no problem with it. BUT they should also stop trolling everyone by calling their coin "the real/original Bitcoin".

[squatter]

Bitcoin Cash still has a block time of 10 minutes, which is makes it terrible for micropayments.

To be fair, any cryptocurrency is terrible for micropayment unless it has very fast block time (e.g. 10 seconds).

Fast block time is usually achieved at the cost of security due to high orphaning risk, so that's no solution either. I wouldn't say that cryptocurrencies are terrible for micropayments, but instead that on-chain transactions are terrible for micropayments.

Or what about "will Bitcoin EVER have a smaller block size to improve the initial blockchain download/network latency, and increase the amount of full-archival nodes in the network?"

future changes can not change the past. even if block size is reduced to zero you still have to download the entire ~200 GB blockchain history to be considered a "full node".

Sure, but reducing block size would still improve initial sync time vs. doing nothing at all. It will mitigate the damage we're currently doing.

[Wind_FURY]

Bitcoin Cash still has a block time of 10 minutes, which is makes it terrible for micropayments.

To be fair, any cryptocurrency is terrible for micropayment unless it has very fast block time (e.g. 10 seconds).

Fast block time is usually achieved at the cost of security due to high orphaning risk, so that's no solution either. I wouldn't say that cryptocurrencies are terrible for micropayments, but instead that on-chain transactions are terrible for micropayments.

Or what about "will Bitcoin EVER have a smaller block size to improve the initial blockchain download/network latency, and increase the amount of full-archival nodes in the network?"

future changes can not change the past. even if block size is reduced to zero you still have to download the entire ~200 GB blockchain history to be considered a "full node".

Sure, but reducing block size would still improve initial sync time vs. doing nothing at all. It will mitigate the damage we're currently doing.

Plus it would protect the longevity of the network by letting it scale out with more full-archival nodes than less. More full-archival nodes, more decentralization. More decentralization, more security.

[Wind_FURY]

The troll is holding on to the narrative that Bitcoin will replace Visa. I believe that it was a mistake done by old Bitcoin evangelists by promoting Bitcoin as a "fast, anonymous, digital cash that you can send peer to peer for free".