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

[DooMAD]

There is only one thing that massively improves initial sync time.
And that is starting a new Genesis Block by switching to a new chain.
Anyone need to see this , look at diamond coin , they changed code bases every 2 or 3 years and start with a new chain each time.
So their chain is never more than 2 years old, and initial sync fairly fast.
Was this their intention doubtful, but a side effect of switching code bases and chains.

And if that's what people want, they should definitely use that coin.  But it's not what I signed up for, so I won't be doing that.  

So someone would need to take a proper accounting of bitcoin address and amounts and create a new chain starting with a new genesis block

It's always "someone" with you.  Why can't you be grateful for what you have, instead of constantly asking other people to do more for you?  If you want it to happen, how about you do it?  But again, don't just expect people to join in.  They'll either join of their own volition, or they won't.

Here's what you don't seem to grasp.  People discovered Bitcoin, they liked the idea, so they started using it.  Then you come along thinking you can change the idea to something many of those users would deem absolutely abysmal AND you want someone else to make these terrible changes for you!  What planet are you even from if you think that's gonna fly?

[Stedsm]

Really, I don't get this why do you want such ridiculous changes in Bitcoin's protocol? Go get an alt that can simply do the job for you if you are ^not so satisfied^ with what Satoshi has done (and the rest of the developers are doing) to keep the project alive and running. If you want bigger block size in BTC, instead go for XRP, LTC or DOGE to get your transactions confirmed quicker. Why do you need a change in something when the whole consensus is against you? Stop being the "Albert Einstein" of Bitcoin.

Trust me, you shouldn't fight for the block size, but about settling more transactions in the blocks that either go empty or are left with some space.

[Wind_FURY]

Really, I don't get this why do you want such ridiculous changes in Bitcoin's protocol? Go get an alt that can simply do the job for you if you are ^not so satisfied^ with what Satoshi has done (and the rest of the developers are doing) to keep the project alive and running. If you want bigger block size in BTC, instead go for XRP, LTC or DOGE to get your transactions confirmed quicker. Why do you need a change in something when the whole consensus is against you? Stop being the "Albert Einstein" of Bitcoin.

Trust me, you shouldn't fight for the block size, but about settling more transactions in the blocks that either go empty or are left with some space.

Or go fork Bitcoin, call it the real "Bitcoin", and be satisfied in what you achieve from it. But they did it, and day by day, the forked-community are becoming more exposed that their forks are mere troll-jobs.

[hv_]

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".

Always how u view it, from what perspective and what u are willing to pre define.

But we can finally agree that Bitcoin didn't start with a ticker symbol and has kinda separated into different approaches under different tickers and the rest of the world is way bigger than any of the each supporting 'communities'.

So the rest of the world will go eventually and decide what they want for the different use case and this will nothing have to do with tickers or speculation, rather with usability and capacity ( bigger block sizes)  bordlessness, costs / efficiency and compliance.


2020 will be very interesting, happy new year!

[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".

Always how u view it, from what perspective and what u are willing to pre define.

But we can finally agree that Bitcoin didn't start with a ticker symbol and has kinda separated into different approaches under different tickers and the rest of the world is way bigger than any of the each supporting 'communities'.

But technically, one branch, that holds the "BTC" ticker, is the backwards compatible and continues from the original, the other branch, that holds the "BCH" ticker, is not backwards compatible, and split away from the original.

[manualwaterfall]

cost to fully validate and store (for archiving) chain is constant growth. if chain become too big too quick, it will not be as decentralized as it should be, because cost to fully validate and store will be too expensive for average home user. look at what happens to ethereum, they must rely primarily to third parties for node. this is not a decentralized system in my view. bitcoin network thrive due to decentral aspect, capable by many who fully validate and run node

[konfuzius5278]

Simple problem is Bitcoin would need a hardfork.
And thats what I simply learned. Bitcoin will NEVER hardfork. Because they guys control the github will not allow to upload such a code.

And now you can think about decentralisation 

[mindrust]

Simple problem is Bitcoin would need a hardfork.
And thats what I simply learned. Bitcoin will NEVER hardfork. Because they guys control the github will not allow to upload such a code.

And now you can think about decentralisation  

That's not true.

You can hard fork bitcoin right now.

You just cannot make people follow your fork with force.

If there needs to be another upgrade which needs to be implemented by doing a hf, then you might have a point but it is still not impossible.

[Dabs]

How often does one sync from zero anyway? You're talking about new installs or maybe new users. They know this, there is just no way around this.

People regularly download terabyte collections of 4k movies these days (or stream them), so current blockchain is not really a problem after it has already sync'd.

The second question is interesting though = Is there hope? Maybe the actual block size or weight could increase in the future, but right now plenty of 1 sat transactions are confirming so there's not much need yet.

[mindrust]

How often does one sync from zero anyway? You're talking about new installs or maybe new users. They know this, there is just no way around this.

People regularly download terabyte collections of 4k movies these days (or stream them), so current blockchain is not really a problem after it has already sync'd.

The second question is interesting though = Is there hope? Maybe the actual block size or weight could increase in the future, but right now plenty of 1 sat transactions are confirming so there's not much need yet.

The problem is the bandwidth (and CPU power). Not storage. Bitcoin is the result of sheer software engineering. If you read any book about any kind of engineering, it usually starts like this:

"Engineers always should design their product/project to withstand the worst possible condition there is."

The sentence wasn't always exactly like this probably but you get the idea.

Murphy's law say something similar to this too:

It is found that anything that can go wrong at sea generally does go wrong sooner or later, so it is not to be wondered that owners prefer the safe to the scientific .... Sufficient stress can hardly be laid on the advantages of simplicity. The human factor cannot be safely neglected in planning machinery. If attention is to be obtained, the engine must be such that the engineer will be disposed to attend to it.

Always assume the worst so you'll never fail... and you can still fail regardless. These are the times you realize that you just can't beat your luck. That's when we say "Shit happens."

[squatter]

Simple problem is Bitcoin would need a hardfork.
And thats what I simply learned. Bitcoin will NEVER hardfork.

I have a feeling that any Bitcoin hard fork will result in two distinct networks. I don't think we'll see "clean" hard forks where the original network dies unless it's some sort of existential emergency bug fix.

Upgrading to allow quantum resistant signatures -- or lots of other features and optimizations -- can be done with a soft fork. Backward compatibility (no network split) is a good thing.

I'm curious what more technical folks think about Mark Friedenbach’s "forward blocks" idea, where a future block size increase could be achieved with a soft fork.

[Abiky]

Really, I don't get this why do you want such ridiculous changes in Bitcoin's protocol? Go get an alt that can simply do the job for you if you are ^not so satisfied^ with what Satoshi has done (and the rest of the developers are doing) to keep the project alive and running. If you want bigger block size in BTC, instead go for XRP, LTC or DOGE to get your transactions confirmed quicker. Why do you need a change in something when the whole consensus is against you? Stop being the "Albert Einstein" of Bitcoin.

Trust me, you shouldn't fight for the block size, but about settling more transactions in the blocks that either go empty or are left with some space.

Exactly. Basically, there's no need to increase Bitcoin's block size since there are other cryptocurrencies out there which are already scalable for the world. If you want faster transactions and cheaper fees, just go for other alternatives like the ones mentioned earlier. The fastest and cheapest Blockchains today are XRP and Stellar. They're quite ideal for day-to-day payments within the mainstream world. Since Bitcoin has been designed as a store of value from the start, it cannot be used effectively for quick transfers unlike other cryptocurrencies on the market today. Of course, we already have a second layer in the works (Lightning Network) with the aim of making Bitcoin suitable for micropayments worldwide.

This, coupled up with a block weight of 4 MB (thanks to the adoption of SegWit), should make Bitcoin scalable enough for most people within a couple of years from now. As long as decentralization is put first above all else, there should be nothing to worry about. I believe that Bitcoin forks such as Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV will fail in the long run as they'll become too centralized over time with their immense block sizes. As it's always said, "slow and steady wins the race". Bitcoin is already doing this by slowly implementing scalability solutions without sacrificing decentralization. Its counterparts (BCH and BSV) will be largely dominated by big players in the industry as the average person won't be able to support the blockchain as node costs rise over time.

Nonetheless, Bitcoin still has hope of becoming a widespread cryptocurrency for mainstream use because of its Layer-Two solutions. Even in its current state, it has been quite successful (unlike its competitors). With different scalability solutions being tested on various blockchain networks (BTC, BCH, BSV) we could determine which is the best (and safest) path to take (Block size increase, off-chain transactions, etc) for Bitcoin to be used by anyone in the world. Just my thoughts

[bitmover]

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.

Bch and bsv have nothing to do with bitcoin. Those are altcoins  which were forked from the bitcoin chain and those consensus rules were rejected by the community.

This is what decentralization means. Nobody is forced to follow a fork which changed the rules.

Roger Ver's chain and Faketoshi's chain are not decentralized because they are owned by people who can control their network.  They have a central planner. Community rejected their ideas and they decided to implement them anyway. That is what centralization is about.

[Wind_FURY]

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.

Bch and bsv have nothing to do with bitcoin. Those are altcoins  which were forked from the bitcoin chain and those consensus rules were rejected by the community.

This is what decentralization means. Nobody is forced to follow a fork which changed the rules.

Roger Ver's chain and Faketoshi's chain are not decentralized because they are owned by people who can control their network.  They have a central planner. Community rejected their ideas and they decided to implement them anyway. That is what centralization is about.

Plus to have their cake and eat it too, they declare THEIR altcoin as the "real Bitcoin" because "Satoshi's Vision"/whitepaper.

That simply, doesn't how it works.

[bitmover]

Plus to have their cake and eat it too, they declare THEIR altcoin as the "real Bitcoin" because "Satoshi's Vision"/whitepaper.

That simply, doesn't how it works.

It got real crazy when bsv became the real bitcoin cash lol

It is pitiful to see the state of our ecosystem. Too many scammers , just trying to make quick money from people who are not very informed about the subject.

This whole fork drama is bad for bitcoin. But now both "real bitcoin" and "real bitcoin cash" look dead so we can move on.