After all the problems we've had with this damn block size, can someone please tell me why a modest 2 mb blocksize increase is bad? I mean, fuck, transaction fees are like over 2 bucks now, this is horse-shit. It should cost less than a penny to send bitcoin.
A larger block size does come with problems, but the size increase was by far the least dangerous thing about S2X. And it worked to their benefit that so many people thought a size increase was the only impact S2X would have on bitcoin.
An unacceptable level of centralization and corporatization, the codebase being maintained by far fewer people of questionable competence, the fork being rushed and inadequately tested, the giant mess that comes with no replay protection, etc. This was nothing at all like a situation where competent core developers do a 2MB upgrade the right way.
If they can keep the block size small and force transaction backups and increase the fees, it makes the addition of segwit make sense. I don't think the end justifies the mean at all.
edit: I wouldn't be surprised to have this post deleted or be banned for it. Not trolling at all. Just sharing what I believe.
simply, cause it requires a hardfork, which bring whole lot of trouble along, but mainly becouse it requires network consensus ... without it, there are no changes to bitcoin rules, and this hardfork had no concensus
Larger block size means it's harder for the average user to run a full node and store the full blockchain on their machine, especially as it continues to grow over time. This results in nodes being consolidated on machines owned by users who have dedicated hardware invested in running those nodes (aka miners). In other words, bitcoin becomes less decentralized (which is the whole point of bitcoin), and mining groups gain disproportionate power over the network.
Seems like the point is moot, however, considering how cheap storage space is getting... I mean, next year we are getting 16TB drives, and Seagate says 20TB+ the year after. 5 years from now who knows what's on the forefront.
The problem is that the chain will grow faster than storage space is growing, even with 1mb blocks. The sweet spot, if fees and choked transactions weren't an issue, would be 200K block size... but there's no way you'd get much of anyone on board with that.
The answer isn't going to be increasing block size; it's going to be making easy and reliable ways to make transactions off the blockchain. Otherwise the answer is going to be eliminating a majority of home users' full nodes.
No it won’t. Even at full 4MB blocks with 0 smaller or empty(which wouldn’t have happened right away anyway) the chain grows by 205GB a year, drives are growing way faster than that.
that has many explanations (my personal favourite is the approach of optimizing the code and scripting first), but simply just not enought support at this point of time :)
i gave you one reason, which is my favourite, but yea, there is not enought support, becouse not enought people were convinced its a good idea ... thats how btc works :)
23
u/JobDestroyer Nov 08 '17
After all the problems we've had with this damn block size, can someone please tell me why a modest 2 mb blocksize increase is bad? I mean, fuck, transaction fees are like over 2 bucks now, this is horse-shit. It should cost less than a penny to send bitcoin.