Block weight – SegWit – BitcoinWiki

Bitcoin max block size must be reduced to 1kB!

Otherwise I cannot verify transactions in real time on my Commodore 64! We need to fight this centralisation, guys!
Look for example on this bloody centralised Dogecoin. With their 10MB blocks, obviously they can be run only by banks and biggest datacenters cooled by liquid nitrogen!
Fuck them! We need more Commodores, Ataris and Texas Instrumets calculators to be free, independent and decentralised! Who's with me?
submitted by waspoza to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Types of internet connections, and what kind of fully validating bitcoin nodes you could run with them. (Basic arithmetic)

I know this will seem obvious to some. But the bandwidth argument is often used against increasing max block size, without people understanding how much bandwidth is required to run a fully validating node. If you want to check the math for yourself, remember that 1Mbps is 1 megabit per second, which is 0.125 megabyte per second, which is 75 megabytes per 10 minutes (average bitcoin block time).
56k modem (uncapped bandwidth) - You can download 4.2MB in 10min. 4MB blocks will be fine with a node run in -blocksonly mode. 1MB blocks are fine to upload 3X the amount of data that you download to contribute to the health of the network.
DSL speed (uncapped bandwidth) - 1Mbps up/down connection. If you are willing to contribute 50% of your upload bandwidth to the health of the network (what else do you use upload bandwidth for? Prioritize skype bandwidth if you want to chat with your girlfriend across the country), you can seed 7 other nodes with block data with 5MB blocks.
Cable internet speed (uncapped bandwidth) - 25Mbps down, 5Mbps up. This is an average 1st world internet connection. It's what I have. I can upload 375MB per 10min period. So, if I dedicated 50% of that to feeding the bitcoin network, I could seed 10MB blocks to 18 other nodes.
Cable internet speed (capped bandwidth) - 10Mbps down, 1Mbps up. 300GB per month data cap. Bandwidth caps don't discriminate between upload and download. If you contribute 10% of your bandwidth cap to running a fully validating node in -blocksonly mode, you can run with 2MB blocks. You cannot run a high capacity seeding node.
That bandwidth caps exist are the entire argument against increasing bitcoin's max block size.
  • Do you think large telecomm monopolies should have an influence over the direction of bitcoin?
  • Do you think that bitcoin should limit its growth potential because monopolies throttle some people's bandwidth?
Bandwidth caps are only a problem for some in the US/Canada and in Australia/NZ (I live in the US and Comcast is my internet provider, I do not have a bandwidth cap). Bandwidth caps are basically unheard of in Europe, South America, and East Asia.
submitted by peoplma to btc [link] [comments]

showerthought: The change Core made from a currency to "digital gold" is FAR more radical than the change Bitcoin Cash made from 1MB(+0.4) blocks to a max size of 32MB, which is really up to the choice of the miners, to stay a currency.

submitted by unitedstatian to btc [link] [comments]

Less than a week until Dogecoin's tx capacity stress test. Have you synced up a node on the testnet yet? This will generate some of the highest transaction per second throughput ever seen in crypto, it would be best to have a representative network of nodes with diverse hardware and bandwidth.

Here is the game plan outlined by rnicoll https://www.reddit.com/dogecoindev/comments/3i4c0b/dogecoin_stress_test_30th_august_details_inside/
And here's a quick guide I made on how to run your core client on the testnet https://www.reddit.com/dogecoin/comments/3hbon4/how_to_run_a_dogecoin_testnet_node_its_easie
The more nodes there are the better! We need a large network of nodes operating with diverse hardware and bandwidth. Please, if you'd like to participate get your testnet node synced up before next Saturday. If you want some testnet coins, comment with your address and I'll send some over.
The results of this test could have consequences in the ongoing bitcoin max block size debate, afaik there haven't been any real world tests to see if the detractors' claims that bigger blocks will require too much bandwidth are true, dogecoin is a great test bed for that claim since we have 1min blocks.
So sync up your testnet node today! Pretty please?
submitted by peoplma to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Testnet stress test today! Get your testnet node ready, son.

Starts at 1pm EST. Here is the game plan outlined by rnicoll https://www.reddit.com/dogecoindev/comments/3i4c0b/dogecoin_stress_test_30th_august_details_inside/
And here's a quick guide I made on how to run your core client on the testnet https://www.reddit.com/dogecoin/comments/3hbon4/how_to_run_a_dogecoin_testnet_node_its_easie
The more nodes there are the better! We need a large network of nodes operating with diverse hardware and bandwidth. Please, if you'd like to participate get your testnet node synced up before next Saturday. If you want some testnet coins, comment with your address and I'll send some over. The results of this test could have consequences in the ongoing bitcoin max block size debate, afaik there haven't been any real world tests to see if the detractors' claims that bigger blocks will require too much bandwidth are true, dogecoin is a great test bed for that claim since we have 1min blocks. So sync up your testnet node today!
submitted by peoplma to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Types of internet connections, and what kind of fully validating bitcoin nodes you could run with them. (Basic arithmetic)

I know this will seem obvious to some. But the bandwidth argument is often used against increasing max block size, without people understanding how much bandwidth is required to run a fully validating node. If you want to check the math for yourself, remember that 1Mbps is 1 megabit per second, which is 0.125 megabyte per second, which is 75 megabytes per 10 minutes (average bitcoin block time).
56k modem (uncapped bandwidth) - You can download 4.2MB in 10min. 4MB blocks will be fine with a node run in -blocksonly mode. 1MB blocks are fine to upload 3X the amount of data that you download to contribute to the health of the network.
DSL speed (uncapped bandwidth) - 1Mbps up/down connection. If you are willing to contribute 50% of your upload bandwidth to the health of the network (what else do you use upload bandwidth for? Prioritize skype bandwidth if you want to chat with your girlfriend across the country), you can seed 7 other nodes with block data with 5MB blocks.
Cable internet speed (uncapped bandwidth) - 25Mbps down, 5Mbps up. This is an average 1st world internet connection. It's what I have. I can upload 375MB per 10min period. So, if I dedicated 50% of that to feeding the bitcoin network, I could seed 10MB blocks to 18 other nodes.
Cable internet speed (capped bandwidth) - 10Mbps down, 1Mbps up. 300GB per month data cap. Bandwidth caps don't discriminate between upload and download. If you contribute 10% of your bandwidth cap to running a fully validating node in -blocksonly mode, you can run with 2MB blocks. You cannot run a high capacity seeding node.
That bandwidth caps exist are the entire argument against increasing bitcoin's max block size.
  • Do you think large telecomm monopolies should have an influence over the direction of bitcoin?
  • Do you think that bitcoin should limit its growth potential because monopolies throttle some people's bandwidth?
Bandwidth caps are only a problem for some in the US/Canada and in Australia/NZ (I live in the US and Comcast is my internet provider, I do not have a bandwidth cap). Bandwidth caps are basically unheard of in Europe, South America, and East Asia.
submitted by peoplma to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Categories of misconceptions, for easier locating of logical arguments

outline of bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv7cx/category_1_outline_of_bitcoin/
Max block size https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv7h4/category_2_max_block_size/
decentralization https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv7kn/category_3_decentralization/
4 nodes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv7n6/category_4_nodes/
5 miners https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv7rd/category_5_miners/
6 txs https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv81s/category_6_transactions/
7 core https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv8b6/category_7_the_bitcoincore_software_client/?utm_content=comments&utm_medium=hot&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=Bitcoin_Facts
88 trust and verify https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv8hk/category_8_trust_and_verification/
9 blockstream https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv8lv/category_9_the_business_named_blockstream/
10 segregated witness https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv8px/category_10_segregated_witness/
11 adoption https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv8v0/category_11_adoption/
12 use https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv8yj/category_12_use/
13 security - https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv91o/category_13_security/
14 understanding https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv94f/category_14_understanding/
15 censorship https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv98category_15_censorship/?utm_content=comments&utm_medium=hot&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=Bitcoin_Facts
16 propaganda https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv9dm/category_16_propaganda/
17 price https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv9ge/category_17_price/
18 consensus https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv9q0/category_18_consensus/?utm_content=comments&utm_medium=hot&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=Bitcoin_Facts
19 forks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv9sz/category_19_forks/
20 lightning networks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dv9wh/category_20_lightning_networks/
21 scaling https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dva02/category_21_scaling/
22 unimporatant people https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin_Facts/comments/7dva39/category_22_unimportant_people/
submitted by zcc0nonA to Bitcoin_Facts [link] [comments]

The block size controversy - was it all a test by Satoshi to see if Bitcoin would survive a social experiment?

Satoshi is undoubtedly a visionary. Nobody disputes that. He thought of things in ways that people still don't fully understand, and he was able to be so forward thinking he solved problems that many were never able to solve before in mankind.
I was just thinking, maybe Satoshi wanted to truly put Bitcoin to the test when he left, and wanted to see if Bitcoin would survive such a controversial change, as the change would be more of a social experiment and not confined to "code". It would rely more on humans, and how we deal with it, and if Bitcoin could survive it. Look at the dates:
In Satoshi's mind, was he thinking, that if Bitcoin could not survive such a controversial change, that Bitcoin would fail (in his eyes)? Is this all a test that was elaborately thought out? Of course this is all speculation, but it's niave to think that Satoshi wasn't so brilliant to put Bitcoin to the ultimate test: to see if it would survive humans tearing it apart while he sits far away watching his experiment unfold.
EDIT:
Another cool quote from Satoshi, which is probably where the max_block_size limit being an "anti-DOS" measure is coming from, is from this quote:
He clearly stated that if we hit the threshold (the block size limit in the context of the conversation), it would be due to a [DOS] flood and not actual use [SPAM]. In addition, this clears up the entire debate from the "Satoshi point of view". He does say that the threshold (block size limit) can be changed in the future, when the time comes. The time has come, which even all "core devs" have agreed on. They are just pushing back and forth on how to increase the block size (using SegWit instead of a single line of code and a hard fork).
submitted by Gobitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

"I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees". Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system." Theymos, Jan 2013

submitted by Christmas_Pirate to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Has anyone seen this? This is important. Regarding block size

See this chart: http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc-ltc-doge.html
Bitcoin's max block size is 1mb. After that, transactions have to wait, and I've also heard it mentioned that they could end up on a different fork. This is in regard to Gavin's post #1 on bitcoin reddit yesterday where he proposed a hard fork- he realized how important this is. Discuss. And please don't downvote just because you don't understand this, instead write a comment or question and let others see this post!
submitted by timeisnow77724 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Are the Bitcoin Cash developers fighting over the max block size limit?

While a miner is trying to solve a candidate for the next block, he depends on a parameter M, the (hard) maximum size limit for that block. He will reject any block solved by another miner with size greater than M, for being "too big".
In Satoshi's implementation, M was at some point defined as 1 MB. In the Bitcoin Core branch, since Aug/01, M is still 1 MB but the "size" is measured a bit differently. In the Bitcoin Cash branch, M is often said to be 8 MB.
However, I have been told now that the three implementations of Bitcoin Cash define M differently:
All three implementations can let M be as large as 32 MB, but no larger.
Is this correct?
If it is correct, that is a very unfortunate (to put it mildly) situation.
The only conceivable explanation why Satoshi added an explicit block size limit to the consensus rules was to make sure that all miners would exactly agree on what "too big" meant -- independently of their chosen implementation, release, platform, or hardware.
If some miners think that M = 17 MB for the next block, while other miners assume M = 23 MB, a solved block with intermediate size -- say 21 MB -- could cause a permanent coin split.
The "small-blockian" miners would reject that block, and any branch mined on top of it. They would wait for an alternative block with 17 MB or less, and continue to mine their "small-block" branch on top of that.
The "big-blockian" miners would accept that 21 MB block; if they are a majority, they will continue mining their "big-block" branch on top of it, ignoring the "small-blockian" branch.
Such a "splitter" block could be generated by an innocent miner (e. g., after receiving 18 MB or spam from non-mining clients). Or it could be generated by an evil miner who intends to cause the split. Even if the latter has only 0.1% of the hashpower, he can create a splitter block in about one week of trying.
I would invite the devs to consider a fourth hypothetical implementation:
where n0 is the height of the first BCH block after the split, and n1 is some BCH block height about a month or two from now.
Can anyone describe a scenario where DUMB would be worse, by any criterion, than ABC, XT, or BU?
submitted by jstolfi to btc [link] [comments]

Theymos (2010): "In the future most people will run Bitcoin in a "simple" mode that doesn't require downloading full blocks or transactions. At that point MAX_BLOCK_SIZE can be increased a lot."

Theymos (2010): submitted by Yurorangefr to btc [link] [comments]

List of Bitcoin services that support/oppose increasing max block size

Now that the topic is again on the surface, I'm reposting my previous analysis. I'm also happy to update it.
Bitcoin companies and their services are an important layer of the Bitcoin ecosystem. They have a great understanding of Bitcoin technology, just like the devs, but their perspective is different. Let's see what they think.
Please inform me of any relevant opinions that I'm missing. I only want clear opinions, not borderline ones. Also, only opinions of companies clearly working with Bitcoin itself. And please only services that are currently operational.
PRO
Coinbase & CEO Brian Armstrong https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/595741967759335426 https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/595453245884997634
Blockchain.info Co-founder Nic Cary & CEO Peter Smith https://twitter.com/niccary/status/595707211994763264 https://twitter.com/OneMorePetestatus/595676380320407553
BitPay CEO Stephen Pair https://twitter.com/spaistatus/595341090317799424
Xapo CEO Wences Casares https://twitter.com/wences/status/595768917907402752
Third Key Solutions CTO Andreas Antonopoulos https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/595601619581964289
Armory CEO Alan Reiner http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34093337/
Bittiraha.fi & CEO Henry Brade https://twitter.com/Bittirahafi/status/596682373028311040 https://twitter.com/Technom4ge/status/596334370803326978
Kryptoradio creator Joel Lehtonen https://twitter.com/koodilehto/status/596675967667568641
BX.in.th https://twitter.com/BitcoinThai/status/605022509101023232
Jameson Lopp, BitGo engineer https://twitter.com/lopp/status/605041173439209472
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34096857/
OKCoin https://twitter.com/okcoinbtc/status/598412795240009728
BTC Guild founder, Eleuthria https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/370rko/21_inc_engineer_everyone_assumes_humans_will_be/crjfnpg?context=3
AGAINST
MPEx http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/
GreenAddress http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/35anax/list_of_bitcoin_services_that_support_increasing/cr2mq84
Bitcoinpaygate http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/37y8wm/list_of_bitcoin_services_that_supportoppose/crqsnqp
Bitrated founder Nadav Ivgi https://twitter.com/shesek/status/605005384026177537
David Francois, CTO of Paymium http://fr.anco.is/2015/gavineries/
submitted by Technom4ge to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees". Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system." Theymos, Jan 2013

submitted by jtoomim to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

What happens when we max out bitcoin-cash block size?

So from my understanding, block size increase is not a long term solution, but a short term. What happens when bitcoin-cash starts being used by many more people for day to day transactions? I imagine its not too difficult to foresee that day in the not too distant future, when even the 8mb block is getting filled and we still have transactions sitting in the tx pool and then higher fees to ensure a tx goes through quickly (at least, i imagine thats what would happen, i dont really have any solid info to go off of /s).
Anyway, i watched this video by andreas antonopolous that brings up good points: https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=668
Basically, if 15 million transactions/mo fill 1mb blocks, 150 million will fill a 10mb block. What then? With the growth bitcoin-cash will see, this is feasible in as little as 2 years. Does one then go to 16mb block size? 100? 1gb?
tl;dr Where/when does scaling block size cease to be a solution? What then?
Just genuinely curious.
submitted by Jan_Itor-md to btc [link] [comments]

/u/theymos 1/31/2013: "I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the 'Bitcoin currency guarantees'. Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system"

Here is theymos, the confused, self-contradicting censor moderator of r\bitcoin, on January 31, 2013:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.msg1492629#msg1492629
https://archive.is/jEV3Q#selection-4031.0-4031.277
I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees". Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system.
IMO Mike Hearn's plan would probably work. The market/community would find a way to pay for the network's security, and it would be easy enough to become a full node that the currency wouldn't be at risk. The max block size would not truly be unlimited, since miners would always need to produce blocks that the vast majority of full nodes and other miners would be able and willing to process in a reasonable amount of time.
However, enforcing a max block size is safer. It's not totally clear that an unlimited max block size would work. So I tend to prefer a max block size for Bitcoin. Some other cryptocurrency can try the other method. I'd like the limit to be set in a more decentralized, free-market way than a fixed constant in the code, though.
Here is Satoshi Nakamoto, inventor of Bitcoin, on October 4, 2010:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3wo9pb/satoshi_nakamoto_october_04_2010_074840_pm_it_can/
Here is theymos 3 months ago, censoring a top-voted post quoting Satoshi:
The moderators of r\bitcoin have now removed a post which was just quotes by Satoshi Nakamoto
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/49l4uh/the_moderators_of_rbitcoin_have_now_removed_a/
Here is theymos censoring again, today:
Wow, Chinese Miners Revolt and Announce Terminator Plan to Hard Fork to 2M, Big Fuck to Core (cross-post)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4qk7et/wow_chinese_miners_revolt_and_announce_terminato
2MB Miner Announcement Thread Removed from /bitcoin for "FUD." We'll see. Feel free to access it here.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4qlx59/2mb_miner_announcement_thread_removed_from/
LOL!
So, first theymos supports bigger blocks.
Then he censors a top-voted post on r\bitcoin discussing a proposal on the Chinese forum 8btc.com supporting bigger blocks (evidently supported by 90% of the commenters on that forum).
Hey theymos, it seems that you owe the Bitcoin community some explanations - not only regarding your censorship - but also regarding your strangely inconsistent opinions:
(1) What is your opinion on bigger blocks now, today?
  • Are you for bigger blocks as decided by the miners/marketplace, as Satoshi specified in 2010, and as you supported in 2013?
  • Or are against bigger blocks, as shown by your repeated (failed) attempts to censor proposals for bigger blocks in recent months, and especially today?
(2) Would you censor yourself (or Satoshi) for proposing bigger blocks?
(3) Why have you been silent on the recent proposal by Roger Ver suggesting that you should transfer the moderator role of r\bitcoin to a neutral party such as eff.org? And why have you been silent on his very persuasive arguments in favor of bigger blocks?
(4) Why are you a "flip-flopper", changing your mind from being pro-bigblocks to anti-bigblocks? What happened to you between 2013 and now?
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

By Default Bitcoin had no Max_Block_Size Cap, no SW and no censored discussion about. Read the White Paper and BitcoinTalk.org.

submitted by SeppDepp2 to btc [link] [comments]

[BIP-Draft] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap (2 function proposals based on sizes, and fees+sizes)

[BIP-Draft] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap (2 function proposals based on sizes, and fees+sizes) submitted by gubatron to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Theymos: "Chain-forks [='hardforks'] are not inherently bad. If the network disagrees about a policy, a split is good. The better policy will win" ... "I disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the 'Bitcoin currency guarantees'. Satoshi said it could be increased."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1865.msg23489#msg23489
Chain forks [aka "hard forks"] are not inherently bad. If the network disagrees about a policy, then a split is good. The better policy will win.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.msg1492629#msg1492629
I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees".
Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.msg1492629#msg1492629
Satoshi definitely intended to increase the hard max block size. See:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0
I tend to prefer a max block size for Bitcoin.
The max block size would not truly be unlimited, since miners would always need to produce blocks that the vast majority of full nodes and other miners would be able and willing to process in a reasonable amount of time.
I'd like the limit to be set in a more decentralized, free-market way than a fixed constant in the code, though.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

"I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees". Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system." Theymos, Jan 2013

submitted by the_alias_of_andrea to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Unlimited source code LOL: "BLOCKSTREAM_CORE_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000"

Bitcoin Unlimited source code LOL: submitted by markkerpeles to btc [link] [comments]

Merge pull request #191 from UpalChakraborty/patch-1 · bitcoin/[email protected] - BIP 106: Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap

Merge pull request #191 from UpalChakraborty/patch-1 · bitcoin/bips@2e0d341 - BIP 106: Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap submitted by litecoin-p2pool to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

EB82 – Mike Hearn - Blocksize Debate At The Breaking Point Bitcoin Has Bitcoin Block Size: Larger or smaller blocks? Bitcoin Fundamentals: Block Size, Bitcoin Scalability, & SegWit Bitcoin Q&A: Scaling and the block size debate - YouTube

The maximum size of a block is nearly equal to the max block weight, so currently 4MB. This is not somehow "made-up" size; the maximum block is really 4MB on-disk and on-wire. However, this maximum can only be reached if the block is full of very weird transactions, so it should not usually be seen. Yes: "We are supporting increasing #Bitcoin max block size to 20MB." "I'm strongly in favor of the block size cap increase to 20MB." - CEO Henry Brade: Yes "And I'm in favor of releasing a version with this change even with opposition." - CEO Henry Brade: Blockchain.info: Yes "It is time to increase the block size. The bitcoin mining process rewards miners with a chunk of bitcoin upon successful verification of a block. This process adapts over time. When bitcoin first launched, the reward was 50 bitcoin. They proposed BIP101-a change in the bitcoin code, increasing the maximum block size in the block chain to 8 megabytes since the beginning of 2016, followed by a doubling every two years – so the block size will be 16 megabytes in 2018, 32 megabytes in 2020 and so on. Perhaps more importantly, it also represented an effective block size limit increase: Bitcoin blocks now have a theoretical maximum size of 4 megabytes and a more realistic maximum size of 2 megabytes.

[index] [32694] [13734] [3125] [3630] [17416] [28018] [18186] [26397] [4522] [5633]

EB82 – Mike Hearn - Blocksize Debate At The Breaking Point

Stephanie, Andreas and Adam speak first with Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist Gavin Andresen about the Bitcoin Block Size debate, where it came from, why it matters and what he thinks we should ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Queue A talk on the Bitcoin block size debate and a discussion of arguments for both larger and smaller block sizes give by Leonhard Weese on 18 November, 2015 at Tuspark's Causeway Bay location in Hong ... Top Bitcoin Core Dev Greg Maxwell DevCore: Must watch talk on mining, block size, and more - Duration: 55:04. The Bitcoin Foundation 19,937 views Whether the block size should be increased to 20MB has created more controversy than any other question in Bitcoin's recent history. For some, it is an urgent and necessary step in Bitcoin's ...

#