Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[Grinder]

Gavin perfectly understand the economics of the block fee. You do not seem to understand that a block size of 1MB hinders and blocks services from running on top of blockchain. I have already pointed out that project Lighthouse is having issue because of the 1MB block size limit. Nobody seems to talk about the subject and I don't understand why. Are you happy that the Lighthouse project is hindered? I'm definitely not!

There is currently room for up to 500 KB, which is enough for most kind of contracts. As long as the current usage does not even fill the blocks it's unlikely that increasing the available space by 20x is going to increase the use by more than 20x. This has not been Gavin's argument for increasing the size either.

Increasing the size may be a good idea some time in the future but, until the usage actually increases, it's a bad idea.

[homo homini lupus]

I'm for increase of block size, even if I believe Bitcoin to be a store of value that you won't use so often to transact directly.

But ~5 transactions per second is not enough.

We mustn't try to include worldwide transactions in the blockchain, but 5 ts seams really to low for me, and as it was explained before, if we don't do this, we will loose ability to transact directly.

The worst part of it all is that the current limit doesn't even support 5 TPS. According to D&T it is even lower.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

Pretty much wins against all those 'anti' arguments. He pretty much explained almost all aspects relevant to the fork.

Yet 1 more time:
Increasing the block size limit by a factor of 20 does not increase the size of the blockchain by the same factor! The chain will grow gradually over time.

Plus I don't think the fear of loosing fees is really relevent, because it's the miners at the end that set the fees.

buzzword: cartel

[RoadStress]

Even if it takes time: the blockchain is already very big - if you make it bigger normal people will need to upgrade their hardware to use it and people won't do that.
Right now there isn't even an immediate need to fork so the proposale doesn't make sense at this point in time.
As noted before: reaching the blocklimit will at first result in microtransactions being pushed off the chain and that won't be an issue for most users.
Fork to a bigger chain isn't rational at this point in time. Period.
Do you know how many viable blockchains are out there with almost only empty blocks and very small chanis (below 1bg storage)? Dozens!
Blockchains aren't scarce. So why would i use one blockchain that requires hundreds of GB storage when i can use one almost as secure  with much less HD-use? I personally will leave btc behind for good with a larger chain (just refuse using Gavincoin - it isn't even 'bitcoin' - it is really 'gavincoin') or stick to the old fork in case it can survive.

Microtransactions aren't the only thing that will get pushed off the chain. I already mentioned about the Lighthouse project being hindered by a 1MB block limit. Why not discuss that? Stop with the microtransactions already. Those will be free and not relevant. What is relevant is to allow services to run on the blockchain!

Gavin perfectly understand the economics of the block fee. You do not seem to understand that a block size of 1MB hinders and blocks services from running on top of blockchain. I have already pointed out that project Lighthouse is having issue because of the 1MB block size limit. Nobody seems to talk about the subject and I don't understand why. Are you happy that the Lighthouse project is hindered? I'm definitely not!

There is currently room for up to 500 KB, which is enough for most kind of contracts. As long as the current usage does not even fill the blocks it's unlikely that increasing the available space by 20x is going to increase the use by more than 20x. This has not been Gavin's argument for increasing the size either.

Increasing the size may be a good idea some time in the future but, until the usage actually increases, it's a bad idea.

I read everywhere that Bitcoin is programmable money. 500KB doesn't seem to leave a lot of space for complex scripts. Thanks to the great analysis posted by D&T we can see that a 15-of-15 P2SH transaction needs 1.5KB which means that only ~300 transactions of this type has room in one single block without without counting the rest of the transactions.

Code:

        P2PkH:   131 bytes per script round trip (25 byte scriptPubKey +   106 byte scriptSig)
  2-of-3 P2SH:   253 bytes per script round trip (22 byte scriptPubKey +   231 byte scriptSig)  
  3-of-5 P2SH:   383 bytes per script round trip (22 byte scriptPubKey +   361 byte scriptSig) 
15-of-15 P2SH: 1,481 bytes per script round trip (22 byte scriptPubKey + 1,459 byte scriptSig) 

If you have 300 corporations willing to do a 15-of-15 P2SH transaction then you have already filled all the blocks leaving no space for the free transactions.

Nobody said that increasing the available space by 20x will increase the use by more than 20x, but at least we have the possibility of increasing the usage compared to being blocked. I have no idea what services are the smart minds preparing for the blockchain, but increasing the block limit allows development!

Also don't forget about the Lighthouse project! I don't understand why is everyone ignoring it.

[hdbuck]

I'm for increase of block size, even if I believe Bitcoin to be a store of value that you won't use so often to transact directly.

But ~5 transactions per second is not enough.

We mustn't try to include worldwide transactions in the blockchain, but 5 ts seams really to low for me, and as it was explained before, if we don't do this, we will loose ability to transact directly.

The worst part of it all is that the current limit doesn't even support 5 TPS. According to D&T it is even lower.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

Pretty much wins against all those 'anti' arguments. He pretty much explained almost all aspects relevant to the fork.

Yet 1 more time:
Increasing the block size limit by a factor of 20 does not increase the size of the blockchain by the same factor! The chain will grow gradually over time.

Plus I don't think the fear of loosing fees is really relevent, because it's the miners at the end that set the fees.

buzzword: cartel

i guess you just cant avoid it when it comes to monay.

[homo homini lupus]

Microtransactions aren't the only thing that will get pushed off the chain. I already mentioned about the Lighthouse project being hindered by a 1MB block limit. Why not discuss that? Stop with the microtransactions already. Those will be free and not relevant. What is relevant is to allow services to run on the blockchain!

Are we discussing lighthouse or the viability of gavincoin?

i guess you just cant avoid it when it comes to monay.

Then let's hand it all over right now.

[Grinder]

Microtransactions aren't the only thing that will get pushed off the chain. I already mentioned about the Lighthouse project being hindered by a 1MB block limit. Why not discuss that? Stop with the microtransactions already. Those will be free and not relevant. What is relevant is to allow services to run on the blockchain!

Using the block chain can't be free if Bitcoin is to survive in the long run. Lighthouse does not even use the space that is currently available so it's not what's stopping it.

[hdbuck]

i guess you just cant avoid it when it comes to monay.

Then let's hand it all over right now.

its just either case, bitcoin is not going to change anything about human nature.

[R2D221]

We mustn't try to include worldwide transactions in the blockchain

Why not? I think that's the ultimate goal (even if a little unrealistic at this point).

Because Bitcoin cannot scale at this size as far as I know. We would end with a blockchain hosted by google 

So let's have a robust main chain, and use other technology for smaller amounts (but even for this chain, 1MB is not enough)

When people propose other chains for “small transactions”, I still have the doubt, what IS a small transaction? Who decides that?

[homo homini lupus]

i guess you just cant avoid it when it comes to monay.

Then let's hand it all over right now.

its just either case, bitcoin is not going to change anything about human nature.

so bitcoin fails because humans do?

[RoadStress]

Are we discussing lighthouse or the viability of gavincoin?

We are discussing the availability of the blockchain to support services/projects.

Using the block chain can't be free if Bitcoin is to survive in the long run. Lighthouse does not even use the space that is currently available so it's not what's stopping it.

Why do people always want to have it their way? Who are you to decide that using the blockchain can't be free?

I think that the blockchain should be free for regular users and shouldn't be free for the ones that are using the blockchain for running a service/project/business/etc. We can have them both (free and paid), but we need to be open and not be horse-sighted.

[homo homini lupus]

When people propose other chains for “small transactions”, I still have the doubt, what IS a small transaction? Who decides that?

the free market decides that

[amincd]

Gavin perfectly understand the economics of the block fee. You do not seem to understand that a block size of 1MB hinders and blocks services from running on top of blockchain. I have already pointed out that project Lighthouse is having issue because of the 1MB block size limit. Nobody seems to talk about the subject and I don't understand why. Are you happy that the Lighthouse project is hindered? I'm definitely not!

There is currently room for up to 500 KB, which is enough for most kind of contracts. As long as the current usage does not even fill the blocks it's unlikely that increasing the available space by 20x is going to increase the use by more than 20x. This has not been Gavin's argument for increasing the size either.

Increasing the size may be a good idea some time in the future but, until the usage actually increases, it's a bad idea.

The longer we wait to do a hard fork, the more politically risky it gets. Getting consensus is harder, and gets harder as a community gets larger.

We should do the hard fork as soon as possible, and get it over with. The 1 MB restriction, and how to remove it, hangs over the Bitcoin economy.

[homo homini lupus]

Are we discussing lighthouse or the viability of gavincoin?

We are discussing the availability of the blockchain to support services/projects.

No, we are not. That's a different topic.
Does the availability of the blockchain to support services have priority over the viability of the chain?

[hdbuck]

i guess you just cant avoid it when it comes to monay.

Then let's hand it all over right now.

its just either case, bitcoin is not going to change anything about human nature.

so bitcoin fails because humans do?

depends what you consider a success/failure regarding bitcoin.
anyhow, too much subjectivity here.

[Lauda]

Gavin perfectly understand the economics of the block fee. You do not seem to understand that a block size of 1MB hinders and blocks services from running on top of blockchain. I have already pointed out that project Lighthouse is having issue because of the 1MB block size limit. Nobody seems to talk about the subject and I don't understand why. Are you happy that the Lighthouse project is hindered? I'm definitely not!

There is currently room for up to 500 KB, which is enough for most kind of contracts. As long as the current usage does not even fill the blocks it's unlikely that increasing the available space by 20x is going to increase the use by more than 20x. This has not been Gavin's argument for increasing the size either.

Increasing the size may be a good idea some time in the future but, until the usage actually increases, it's a bad idea.

Have you even read about the Lighthouse project? One of the main points for the fork is that with the current cap we are not only limiting the amount of transactions but the development of possible services.

Actually you're wrong. Increasing it in the future will be very hard to do, if not impossible. The more people are on board the harder it will be to fork.

The worst part of it all is that the current limit doesn't even support 5 TPS. According to D&T it is even lower.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

Yeah, at best 2 to 4 tps using 1MB. That's even worse than I thought.

For some reason people are stuck at the present. They don't realize that doing a hardfork in a few years will almost be impossible.

[R2D221]

When people propose other chains for “small transactions”, I still have the doubt, what IS a small transaction? Who decides that?

the free market decides that

OK, so even if we have two chains, I can still decide to make my microtransactions in the Bitcoin chain.

[R2D221]

so bitcoin fails because humans do?

Obviously. Without humans, none of the technology we're developing makes sense, and thus it would have failed. Note that this is not exclusive to Bitcoin.

[homo homini lupus]

When people propose other chains for “small transactions”, I still have the doubt, what IS a small transaction? Who decides that?

the free market decides that

OK, so even if we have two chains, I can still decide to make my microtransactions in the Bitcoin chain.

sure, if you pay the fee.

[RoadStress]

Are we discussing lighthouse or the viability of gavincoin?

We are discussing the availability of the blockchain to support services/projects.

No, we are not. That's a different topic.
Does the availability of the blockchain to support services have priority over the viability of the chain?

That Then you are missing the point from the start because a blockchain that can't support services is a dead blockchain. Bitcoin is a protocol that people must abuse for different kinds of stuff. Just like we abuse the Internet for whatever we want!

[homo homini lupus]

Are we discussing lighthouse or the viability of gavincoin?

We are discussing the availability of the blockchain to support services/projects.

No, we are not. That's a different topic.
Does the availability of the blockchain to support services have priority over the viability of the chain?

That you are missing the point from the start because a blockchain that can't support services is a dead blockchain. Bitcoin is a protocol that people must abuse for different kinds of stuff. Just like we abuse the Internet for whatever we want!

a blockchain that isn't viable is a dead blockchain too - by definition

(we're running in circles here)