Block size – In Blockchain, Mining, Bitcoin, 1Mb, 2Mb
Block size – In Blockchain, Mining, Bitcoin, 1Mb, 2Mb
Maximum transaction rate - Bitcoin Wiki
What Is the Bitcoin Block Size Limit? – Bitcoin Magazine
Implementation of BIP 101 : maximum block size increase by
What Happens to Bitcoin After All 21 Million Are Mined?
Bean Cash cryptocurrency
Bean Cash is the first digital currency to implement a 20MB maximum block size. Bean Cash has a target block time of 60 seconds, with a confirmation time more than 10 times faster than Bitcoin. Bean Cash uses the energy efficient Proof of Stake method of consensus.
Bitcoin's path forward, and why the block size increase issue is not so bad
A capacity-constrained Bitcoin cannot long remain the highest market-cap crypto-currency in the competitive marketplace of various forms of alternates which bear no such constraint. This is because a fee market exists sustainably only so long as that fee is competitive with alt-coin payment systems, so Bitcoin's inertia might cause some short term fee pressure due to capacity constraints, but unless that fee is competitive with alternatives, it cannot increase sustainably. So if fees cannot sustainably rise, and if block size is limited, then use is limited, and since use is what drives market-cap, we can conclude that either: (a) Bitcoin remains the highest market-cap crypto-currency, which would require raising the block size (b) some other crypto-currency with higher capacity takes over Of these, it is unlikely that (b) should occur, as if value in Bitcoin is destroyed due to inability to change protocol, the same destruction in value would be expected to ultimately occur for the alternate coin for some different governance issue, such as perhaps: changes in encryption or proof of work due to discovered weaknesses, increased divisibility requirements due to increased use -- which is eerily similar to the block size issue, or any number of other possibilities. Therefore, we should expect (a) to occur, and Bitcoin maximum block size to be raised, either through: (i) Core committers agreeing to raise it (ii) Andresen unilaterally raises it in Bitcoin Core by kicking out the dissenters (iii) Miners vote to raise it by running software other than Bitcoin Core Weighing each of these, it seems: Option (i) cons: difficult to resolve developer dissent pros: continued smooth development in core and increased adoption for bitcoin Option (ii) cons: bad for bitcoin to have Andresen acting as a central point of failure decision maker pros: relatively smooth sailing / continued growth short-term Option (iii) cons: rough conflict during the transition pros: no central decision maker, good to establish competing implementations, and a good test of Satoshi's design, where miners achieve consensus in a "vote with their CPUs" and "any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism" Of these, it is pretty clear that option (iii) is strongly most likely to happen. And that's not so bad, as of the three, it is probably ultimately best for Bitcoin if miners do actually vote with their CPUs, as Satoshi intended. This will end the need for any group of core maintainers, and means that miners continually ensure Bitcoin remains competitive by choosing the best implementation to run. In fact this whole block-size issue seems to be not more than a growing pain, and while it may negatively affect price and adoption in the short-term, it will lead to a more robust and mature governance model, and ultimately a stronger bitcoin going forward. If miners don't figure it out and vote to raise block size before blocks get full (and I'm not expecting them to) then they will certainly figure it out once it is apparent that their pay is being impacted by Bitcoin's failure to grow. The only question here is how much pain they will be willing to tolerate before they drop core and go with option (iii), or perhaps - but probably unlikely: how much pain core developers are willing to tolerate before they agree on option (i). As a side-thought: It is interesting how simple the economics of an increased block size are, but yet despite that so many developers don't get it. And yet the businesses / exchanges seem to be quick to understand these economics and are calling for an increase, but are powerless to do anything. The miners who do have the power have been quietest of all. It would be great to start hearing from miners -- what are they thinking?
05-06 17:53 - 'Deliberately strangling the network results in less adoption, less market share, and thus less miners. Proof: [link] / Also, the actual strain on the network has little to do with the maximum block size. The block s...' by /u/VotesRNotAnArgument removed from /r/Bitcoin within 10-20min
05-14 20:42 - '* Where I said I don't want SegWit? * Where did I say I don't want Lightning? * Where did I say I want unlimited block sizes? / I was just stating that since u/metalzip is already running at maximum capacity, with SegWit he...' by /u/DianaQWERTY removed from /r/Bitcoin within 25-35min
Where I said I don't want SegWit?
Where did I say I don't want Lightning?
Where did I say I want unlimited block sizes?
I was just stating that since metalzip is already running at maximum capacity, with SegWit he will have to shut down his full node. With or without the 2MB fork he will have to shut down the node or buy more storage. You're imagining things, wrote a bunch of shit which I never even touched, and insulted me. ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: DianaQWERTY
No issue in the history of cryptocurrencies has been debated as passionately, as often, or as forcefully as the bitcoin block size. Blocks size in blockchain is limited to 1MB. Miners can mine blocks up to the 1MB fixed limit, but any block larger than 1MB is invalid. Moved block size fork params/methods to consensus/params.h; Regarding your comment on how peers that send over-maximum-blocks are handled: That is a behavior change, but only if you send blocks between 1 and 2 megabytes before the fork switchover. Before: Send a block message > 2 MB: you get immediately disconnected (but not banned). Bitcoin Block Size, Explained. 2019-07-24 09:03:32 by Bitcoin central News. Bitcoin Block Size, Explained. 3. Over the years, Bitcoin has seen numerous proposals advocating that an increase is needed in order to reduce fees, process more transactions per second and allow Bitcoin to scale to compete with mainstream payments technologies. 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. Initially supporting a block size of 128 MB, Bitcoin SV’s Quasar upgrade further lifted the maximum block size to 2 gigabytes in July 2019. What is SegWit? Segregated Witness, or SegWit, is a process by which the data capacity of a block is increased by removing signature data from a Bitcoin transaction.
Big Blocks Can Scale But Will It Centralize Bitcoin?
Bitcoin Q&A: Scaling and the block size debate - Duration: 4:46. aantonop 13,705 views. 4:46. How to Repair a DEAD Computer - Duration: 37:05. CareyHolzman Recommended for you. a wild suggestion to reduce block sizes, mt gox news, and more! Sign up with coinbase. buy or sell 100 dollars in crypto currency and get 10 dollars of bitcoin for free with this link to coinbase ... Size of block chain can be 6-7GB. After installing miner gets account number. In this passbook all the transactions related with bitcoins all around workd gets recorded. 1 bitcoin can be divided... The BTC block limit is a parameter in the Bitcoin protocol that limits the size of blocks, and therefore The number of transactions that receive confirmation on the network every 10 minutes. 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 ...