Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[Crypto9er]

I voted pro because I am for increasing max block size. But IMO it's too early to jump to 20MB. Maybe less?

It's actually about 16.8 MB, and it's very unlikely the block size will grow to anywhere near 16 MB immediately. Consider that it took 6 years for Bitcoin to go from 0 to 0.5 MB, despite the fact that the block size limit has allowed 1 MB blocks for the entire time.

Exactly! Blocks will not reach 20MB the day we hard-fork. It will take a lot of time and transactions to get there.

I totally understand. It will take very long time, that's why I personally think changing it to 20 MB now is way too early. Depending of adoption growth in the next year/few years, We can increase more later?

[1714056568]

1714056568

[1714056568]

1714056568

[1714056568]

1714056568

[1714056568]

1714056568

[1714056568]

1714056568

[CoinCidental]

I voted pro because I am for increasing max block size. But IMO it's too early to jump to 20MB. Maybe less?

It's actually about 16.8 MB, and it's very unlikely the block size will grow to anywhere near 16 MB immediately. Consider that it took 6 years for Bitcoin to go from 0 to 0.5 MB, despite the fact that the block size limit has allowed 1 MB blocks for the entire time.

Exactly! Blocks will not reach 20MB the day we hard-fork. It will take a lot of time and transactions to get there.

I totally understand. It will take very long time, that's why I personally think changing it to 20 MB now is way too early. Depending of adoption growth in the next year/few years, We can increase more later?

as stated earlier ,why not set a date now for the upgrade in around 2017?
that should give most people plenty of adequate warning

[Lauda]

What happened to your GAW/paycoin signature? Did it became too shameful to wear?

I have no idea what is going on with GAW. I don't even know what paycoin is. I only removed it because it stopped paying me.
It was extra income. Having a signature doesn't mean that you're supporting something (since it's paid advertisement). Nice thinking troll,maybe you will grow up one day.
Anyhow that post was completely off topic.

microtransactions can happen offchain. Why would they need to be on chain? What percentage of txs are micro? I guess most.

Gavins' approach is:
-alienating
-wasteful with recouces (storage)
-inefficient
-lowers security
-brings in more centralisation
-causes trouble because it's very controversal

i have no idea how anyone in their right minds can vote for this without even demanding alternative proposals

It's not your storage but the storage of the people on their systems. Maybe that's why you like to waste it?

So we shouldn't introduce 4K and 8K videos either because it wasted resources. Nice argument.
Inefficient? Seems to be part of the upper statement.
No it does not.
Possibly, not necessarily.
Everything causes trouble because of, well, people.


So many posts, yet no single valid argument against the fork..

[altcoin hitler]

[Buffer Overflow]

You are crazy, you want to tear the community apart because Satoshi-said-so many moons ago, I have no words.

It's not a question of what Satoshi wanted.

Listen, when I started using bitcoin back in 2012 I automatically signed up and agreed with a few things.
The main points were (but not limited to):

*) Coins would be generated at a predetermined controlled rate.
*) Blocks would be found on average every 10 minutes.
*) Block size would be temporarily capped, with the plan of increasing it in the future.

By using bitcoin I agreed with these points. As did every other person that has used bitcoin.

If I didn't agree with them, I wouldn't of started using bitcoin at the time. I wouldn't continue using bitcoin for years and then start moaning when it's time to start doing what I signed up for.

[altcoin hitler]

is coming more. We make extra thread as these pile up

[altcoin hitler]

[balu2]

i've got one too

[altcoin hitler]

[waaat?]

abandon topic! lol

[Quantus]

Not too sure but I think the reason we can't just do 2mb instead of 1 is because we would need to fork again
Throwing it at 20mb should resolve the issue for quite some time.

What I support most strongly is that we do substantially-delayed hard forks with conservative values. Then doing hard forks regularly isn't such a big issue.

For example, Bitcoin Core can be immediately modified to increase the max block size to 2 MB on a specific date 2 years from now. I think that pretty much everyone would be basically OK with this max block size (and even higher values might be widely acceptable). By the time the change actually takes effect in 2 years, everyone will already have upgraded because very few people use 2-year-old software. Businesses and users won't have to go out of their way to choose one fork over another, and so there will be less room for messiness.

Then if a really nice academic study convincingly arguing that 5 MB blocks are safe is published 1 week after the 2-year-delayed change is added, another 2-year-delayed change can be added right away with very little extra cost. After ~2 years, the max block size will increase to 2 MB, and then a week later change to 5 MB.

Yes, 2 years is a long time. But I'm confident that Bitcoin will survive that long with 1 MB blocks.

This, I'm with this guy.

[inBitweTrust]

Not too sure but I think the reason we can't just do 2mb instead of 1 is because we would need to fork again
Throwing it at 20mb should resolve the issue for quite some time.

What I support most strongly is that we do substantially-delayed hard forks with conservative values. Then doing hard forks regularly isn't such a big issue.

For example, Bitcoin Core can be immediately modified to increase the max block size to 2 MB on a specific date 2 years from now. I think that pretty much everyone would be basically OK with this max block size (and even higher values might be widely acceptable). By the time the change actually takes effect in 2 years, everyone will already have upgraded because very few people use 2-year-old software. Businesses and users won't have to go out of their way to choose one fork over another, and so there will be less room for messiness.

Then if a really nice academic study convincingly arguing that 5 MB blocks are safe is published 1 week after the 2-year-delayed change is added, another 2-year-delayed change can be added right away with very little extra cost. After ~2 years, the max block size will increase to 2 MB, and then a week later change to 5 MB.

Yes, 2 years is a long time. But I'm confident that Bitcoin will survive that long with 1 MB blocks.

This, I'm with this guy.

The problem with waiting too long however is that it will stunt decentralized projects like Lighthouse and open bazaar which are limited to 1MB.  

https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse/faq#max-pledges

684 to 1k (with further optimizations) max participants cannot compete with kickstarter or indiegogo and will make many fundraisers unusable in a decentralized fashion.

[waaat?]

The problem with waiting too long however is that it will stunt decentralized projects like Lighthouse and open bazaar which are limited to 1MB. 

[waaat?]

Keep memeing bro, the fork won't stunt decentralization as i have said before because by the time the blocks reach 20mb the storage space on the average computer will scale with it.

see previous memes and your statement is also wrong

"fork won't stunt decentralization" is a bullshit statement. Do us a favour and GTFO.

[davout]

Keep memeing bro, the fork won't stunt decentralization as i have said before because by the time the blocks reach 20mb the storage space on the average computer will scale with it.

Cool story, why does the decision have to be made now though?
Because it'll be harder to achieve consensus later? That would simply mean the fork wasn't really needed in the first place.

If the fork is actually necessary in the future it should follow that at that point consensus will be easier to achieve?

[ujka]

altcoin hitler, go away. Together with your stupid memes, if that's all you have to say. ASAP please. And take waaat? with you.

[balu2]

A consensus will never happen

then what are you trying to achieve here? Why are you even discussing? According to you it's futile anyways...

[hdbuck]

Keep memeing bro, the fork won't stunt decentralization as i have said before because by the time the blocks reach 20mb the storage space on the average computer will scale with it.

Cool story, why does the decision have to be made now though?
Because it'll be harder to achieve consensus later? That would simply mean the fork wasn't really needed in the first place.

If the fork is actually necessary in the future it should follow that at that point consensus will be easier to achieve?

This seems to be quite a fair point actually..

If bitcoin couldnt resist/adapt the increasing number of transactoins, then everybody would agree to raise the limit, or else everybody loose.

This would even give us extra time to investigate further and plan several possibilities so we get this right

[mayax]

Keep memeing bro, the fork won't stunt decentralization as i have said before because by the time the blocks reach 20mb the storage space on the average computer will scale with it.

Cool story, why does the decision have to be made now though?
Because it'll be harder to achieve consensus later? That would simply mean the fork wasn't really needed in the first place.

If the fork is actually necessary in the future it should follow that at that point consensus will be easier to achieve?

This seems to be quite a fair point actually..

If bitcoin couldnt resist/adapt the increasing number of transactoins, then everybody would agree to raise the limit, or else everybody loose.

This would even give us extra time to investigate further and plan several possibilities so we get this right

losing what?

[RoadStress]

microtransactions can happen offchain. Why would they need to be on chain? What percentage of txs are micro? I guess most.

Who are you to chose where microtransaction happen? I thought Bitcoin is all about decentralization and free market. Why are you trying to impose your point?

I'm not choosing where microtransactions happen. They happen where they happen. And who are YOU to try to impose your hardfork on me?

Gawd, this discussion is some toxic bullshit.
I'm out. F*** you all.

No need to get all angry. I wasn't trying to get you pissed. I was only trying to emphasize that nobody should choose where microtransactions happen if it's outside of the blockchain. Gavin explained why all transaction (big or small) should happen only on the blockchain. Because offchain transactions cause friction and more headache than necessary. We can expand into the subject if you want, but getting all pissed and leaving solves nothing.

I totally understand. It will take very long time, that's why I personally think changing it to 20 MB now is way too early. Depending of adoption growth in the next year/few years, We can increase more later?

If you think it will take a long time until the blocks fill then what's the point of not doing it now? Setting a consensus is much easier now than later and we already have 1 service/project that is hindered by the 1MB limit (the Lighthouse project). Maybe there are more services waiting to happen, but they don't because of the limit. I could also mention Factom, but I am not yet sure how much space do they need.

Raising the limit right now is a very good thing to do because there is no pressure in doing it. I don't want to get into a stupid situation where there is a mass adoption happening and we run out of block space in a matter of weeks. Imagine the chaos then trying to explain to the regular Joe why isn't his transaction spreading and why does he needs to pay more and more for his transactions. That's the end of Bitcoin, not a falling exchange rate...

...
is coming more. We make extra thread as these pile up

These are just another technological challenge, nothing impossible. The main idea is still there that everyone should be free to use the blockchain as they wish, not as we wish.

If bitcoin couldnt resist/adapt the increasing number of transactoins, then everybody would agree to raise the limit, or else everybody loose.

This would even give us extra time to investigate further and plan several possibilities so we get this right

Why would someone bad intended with a lot of money agree to let your microtransactions happen? He could fill the blocks easily and he could be against raising the limit by owning/renting a lot of mining hashpower. What will you do then when your transaction will require an absurd transaction fee to get propagated?