Bitcoin should have bigger blocks!

[hexwin 4931]

I think Bitcoin BTC is the real Bitcoin, but block size is to small 1MB

We are now in almost 2020 and we need bigger blocks to solve some issues.

I don't want to use Bcash... I want BTC to increase block size.

What do you think about this? 

[cryptokram 102]

we can't have the block that you share saying bro, remember that we will have this halving again.

 I think we should just be thankful and precious this but if you are a miner then i will understand you then!

[hexwin 4931]

28 minutes ago, cryptokram said:

we can't have the block that you share saying bro, remember that we will have this halving again.

 I think we should just be thankful and precious this but if you are a miner then i will understand you then!

I mean about Bitcoin Block size.
Today size is 1 MB same as it was at start when satoshi created it,
but blocks get filled fast and we see stuck transactions and slower speed.

Bcash increased size, but if Bitcoin do the same...there would be no reason for Bcash to exist

Segwit solved only some issues, but not all of them.

Edited October 29, 2019 by hexwin

[Caporetto 327]

These miners are too prideful to all agree on something they will most likely start another hash war and fork , id say dont, we need some quiet times in crypto especially with halving coming.

[hexwin 4931]

2 minutes ago, Caporetto said:

These miners are too prideful to all agree on something they will most likely start another hash war and fork , id say dont, we need some quiet times in crypto especially with halving coming.

Maybe, but how long are we going to keep this 1MB block size?  Forever maybe?
I don't know the real reason as Satoshi himself wanted to change block size in future also.

[lucky80 1046]

So you suggest another hard fork or you have a solution?  

1 hour ago, hexwin said:

I don't know the real reason as Satoshi himself wanted to change block size in future also.

Where do you find if Satoshi wants to enlarge this 1 MB block? 

Edited October 29, 2019 by lucky80

[hexwin 4931]

3 minutes ago, lucky80 said:

So you suggest another hard fork or you have a solution?  

Where do you find if Satoshi wants to enlarge this 1 MB block? 

How about here:

source1: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#msg1596879
source2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

You can find other places where he talked about that..
and it is not hard to imagine that nobody wanted to keep 1mb size forever
 

[lucky80 1046]

8 minutes ago, hexwin said:

and it is not hard to imagine that nobody wanted to keep 1mb size forever

If it's true everyone doesn't want it, why do you think the original client still adopted 1MB block?

[hexwin 4931]

9 hours ago, lucky80 said:

If it's true everyone doesn't want it, why do you think the original client still adopted 1MB block?

I answered you before, but someone deleted my comment before...
I don't why would anyone delete my comments for no reason...
1MB block is there because they had to add some Limit for blocksize, and you can't expect  them to add large size for empty blocks. Now blocks are getting full very easy, so I see no reason to keep it 1mb.

5 hours ago, Hashimi said:

This is not a simple as it looked like, If you increase the blocksize then you will decrease fees, thus making it easier for Veriblock and Coinbase to spam the network and never bother to optimise their platforms. When VeriBlock temporarily paused their system, confirmed on-chain transactions dropped. That should give you a sense as to just how much spam is being caused by low fees.

There are other ways to prevent this.
I am no expert, but I also don't think that 1mb size is sustainable for future.

Edited October 30, 2019 by hexwin

[IrinaLavrinova 365]

There is one serious problem associated with an increase in block size, large blocks can reduce network security. Large blocks require nodes to allocate more resources and provide more bandwidth, which makes node operation expensive.

[hexwin 4931]

4 minutes ago, Ratash said:

Maybe its better to get bigger blocks but you have to know that bitcoin users are all around the world and some countries have problems in the internet the connexions are slow so maybe bigger blocks could have more problems for them

That has nothing to do with internet connection....
Almost nobody downloads have complete bitcoin blockchain downloaded, and it is not needed,
and some not very smart people are not even keeping bitcoin on their own wallets.
Bigger blocks would make transactions faster, not slower

11 minutes ago, IrinaLavrinova said:

There is one serious problem associated with an increase in block size, large blocks can reduce network security. Large blocks require nodes to allocate more resources and provide more bandwidth, which makes node operation expensive.

Sending Bitcoin in stuck network needs higher fees, and that is also more expensive,
and it needs much more waiting time

Edited October 30, 2019 by hexwin

[williamz902 696]

15 hours ago, hexwin said:

I think Bitcoin BTC is the real Bitcoin, but block size is to small 1MB

We are now in almost 2020 and we need bigger blocks to solve some issues.

I don't want to use Bcash... I want BTC to increase block size.

What do you think about this? 

During the Bitcoin / Bitcoin Cash hard fork, there was massive debate - hence the hard fork. In order for a change to be effected on the Bitcoin network, absolutely everyone has to agree to the change. During the fork, many people were divided - some wanted bigger blocks, others didn't, so the team split up and a hard fork happened. That's why we have Bitcoin Cash. Bigger blocks will also take up more space for full nodes. You can't just say you want bigger blocks, you have to consider all the implications.

[IrinaLavrinova 365]

4 minutes ago, hexwin said:

Sending Bitcoin in stuck network needs higher fees, and that is also more expensive,
and it needs much more waiting time

Yes, I understand that large blocks mean faster transactions and less network congestion, but at the same time, the requirements for storage and bandwidth increase. In any case, as I think, one day this problem will be solved.

[hexwin 4931]

2 minutes ago, williamz902 said:

During the Bitcoin / Bitcoin Cash hard fork, there was massive debate - hence the hard fork. In order for a change to be effected on the Bitcoin network, absolutely everyone has to agree to the change. During the fork, many people were divided - some wanted bigger blocks, others didn't, so the team split up and a hard fork happened. That's why we have Bitcoin Cash. Bigger blocks will also take up more space for full nodes. You can't just say you want bigger blocks, you have to consider all the implications.

Tell me something...do you run full node and how many people run full node?
Anyone today have very large hard disks, that are cheap and price is going down.
 

3 minutes ago, IrinaLavrinova said:

Yes, I understand that large blocks mean faster transactions and less network congestion, but at the same time, the requirements for storage and bandwidth increase. In any case, as I think, one day this problem will be solved.

Storage is not a problem as 90% of people are not running full nodes,
and hard drives are so cheap and have TB of space now

[IrinaLavrinova 365]

9 minutes ago, hexwin said:

 

Storage is not a problem as 90% of people are not running full nodes,
and hard drives are so cheap and have TB of space now

As new scaling methods become available, disputes over large blocks can completely subside. There is a possibility that an alternative can be found that meets all the needs. I found information that back in August 2017, the bitcoin community decided to increase the block size to 2 MB. Now most standard transactions can not exceed 2 MB. Is that not so?

[hexwin 4931]

6 minutes ago, IrinaLavrinova said:

As new scaling methods become available, disputes over large blocks can completely subside. There is a possibility that an alternative can be found that meets all the needs. I found information that back in August 2017, the bitcoin community decided to increase the block size to 2 MB. Now most standard transactions can not exceed 2 MB. Is that not so?

You can check how Bitcoin network is doing and see that 1mb is often exceeded, then segwit kicks in,
but you can often see full blocks and higher fees.
Only miners profit are preventing bigger blocks and nothing more.
Only miners want higher fees.

Edited October 30, 2019 by hexwin

[williamz902 696]

2 hours ago, hexwin said:

Tell me something...do you run full node and how many people run full node?
Anyone today have very large hard disks, that are cheap and price is going down.

I did run a full node a few years ago. The amount of space it used was incredible. I think it took me 2 weeks to download the block chain. I might be mistaken, but it was something like 250GB - and I think I only had a 500GB hard drive at that stage. I eventually had to delete it from my computer (I backed up up my keys and moved funds out of that wallet.)

[hexwin 4931]

2 minutes ago, williamz902 said:

I did run a full node a few years ago. The amount of space it used was incredible. I think it took me 2 weeks to download the block chain. I might be mistaken, but it was something like 250GB - and I think I only had a 500GB hard drive at that stage. I eventually had to delete it from my computer (I backed up up my keys and moved funds out of that wallet.)

It can go up to 400 GB and more soon, but hard disks are so cheap now and they have multiple TB of space.
I don't see any problem for that, and there are even SD cards with 400gb or more that can be used on laptops.

[hexwin 4931]

10 minutes ago, kylepresz said:

It's definitely not sustainable for the future, but trying to change it now is complicated. Many people voted against this in the Segwit hardfork which resulted in Bitcoin Cash. You should also remember that back then, when bitcoin was created, 1 MB was a decent size.

We need to start with this change, and it is better sooner than later.
It will be only harder to do any change in future, and we also need to think about Quantum stuff

[williamz902 696]

On 10/30/2019 at 2:39 PM, hexwin said:

It can go up to 400 GB and more soon, but hard disks are so cheap now and they have multiple TB of space.
I don't see any problem for that, and there are even SD cards with 400gb or more that can be used on laptops.

I haven't checked the space usage by the BTC blockchain for quite a while now, but I can imagine that 400GB by now is correct. Running a full node is also annoying because you literally have to update it everyday. If you don't you will spend hours waiting for the past week or past months transactions to update. And you can't use it until the sync is finished. It really is cumbersome.

[dentolas 551]

Why not use Bitcash?... a coin is a coin and what matters is what serves you best... no use to get attached emotionally 😉 Bitcoin is good for somethings, other coins will be good for others...

For daily payments I can tell you that BCH is way faster and cheaper than BTC

@hexwin Does BCH has many more differences besides the block size?

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by dentolas

[hexwin 4931]

4 minutes ago, dentolas said:

Why not use Bitcash?... a coin is a coin and what matters is what serves you best... no use to get attached emotionally 😉 Bitcoin is good for somethings, other coins will be good for others...

For daily payments I can tell you that BCH is way faster and cheaper than BTC

@hexwin Does BCH has many more differences besides the block size?

 

There are few problems wit Bcash, for example one of them is Roger Veer who still claims that bacash is 'the real bitcoin'  and second is that they now have centralized mining where one miner have more than 50% of hash rate.  Anyone can attack it very easy.  Yes it is faster but bcash blocks are always empty

[dentolas 551]

4 minutes ago, hexwin said:

There are few problems wit Bcash, for example one of them is Roger Veer who still claims that bacash is 'the real bitcoin'  and second is that they now have centralized mining where one miner have more than 50% of hash rate.  Anyone can attack it very easy.  Yes it is faster but bcash blocks are always empty

look, I am not defending one or believing in anything other than useability

I do not know Roger Ver, as well as I do not know Jimmy cowboy hat from BTC, as well as there are developers that we don't even know who they are... for me, this talk about the true BTC is just noise that distract us from the true purpose and give rise to guys like the scammer on BCHSV... I've seen a display from roger and jimmy on blockchain cruise and they behaved like children with big toys... but what matters is the project

So, concerning mining I honnestly do not know about BCH mining centralization, but it seems that mining is generally centralized, for all top coins...

Concerning useability, I have used BCH some times and I can tell you that is very cheap and instant...

For me, they should never have split, as divided they are weaker and it simply makes no sense... in essence BCH is BTC with faster and cheaper transactions due to the block size and other small details, but it just lacks BTC hability to become store of value... a blunt case of people egos getting in front of general interest... or maybe the objective is coexistance

[hexwin 4931]

13 minutes ago, dentolas said:

So, concerning mining I honnestly do not know about BCH mining centralization, but it seems that mining is generally centralized, for all top coins...

Concerning useability, I have used BCH some times and I can tell you that is very cheap and instant...

For me, they should never have split, as divided they are weaker and it simply makes no sense... in essence BCH is BTC with faster and cheaper transactions due to the block size and other small details, but it just lacks BTC hability to become store of value... a blunt case of people egos getting in front of general interest... or maybe the objective is coexistance

No, top coins are not with centralized mining like Bcash, and Bcash is not like BTC more then any other altcoin is. There are coins that are faster and better than BTC, but they all can be attacked from outside, and network can be crashed. That is the real danger. You can't do that for Ethereum and Bitcoin. 

I also have some Bcash, and it is faster, but they can not coexist only because Roger claims that Bcash is the real  Bitcoin non-stop and he is boring other people with that.

https://eng.ambcrypto.com/bitcoin-cash-encounters-problems-with-mining-as-single-miner-controls-50-hashrate/

Edited November 1, 2019 by hexwin

[hexwin 4931]

1 minute ago, Kim K said:

Bitcoin was designed with this smaller blocks for a reason and maybe satoshi never envisage the kind of success bitcoin receive. We need bigger blocks to accommodate faster transactions and to prevent clogging of the bitcoin chain. Lightening network cannot achieve this

Satoshi wanted this to be global payment system, but nobody could predict how it would work in real life situations and with more people using it. He did mentioned idea of changing block size several times.