You asked me a few times:


So right now it would be either 4 or 8MB (not vMB)
And before you say something:

Seems like verifying and broadcasting 8 blocks in 20 minutes is not problematic at all, a fact, proven numerous times!
Do you want me to go a bit further in time and give you even more extreme examples? cause you know there are!


You keep bringing it up!


I compared a now 100$ ebay cpu with the 3 year old computer at the time of the first block, same thing, hardly modern or unaffordable.
On what were people running their nodes in 2012? cause...>>>next quote


There was no Raspberry at the time Bitcoin was launched, the first one came in 2012 and was hardly node material itself!
Why not cut the blocks then to 10kb so every nokia 3330 could host a node? That would do a ton for decentralization since there are millions of them and they cost 10-20$, way cheaper than a raspberry pi!

Now that I've done a lot of explaining, let me ask you something, do you have a solution for the math of everyone getting no more than two transactions till 2040? Or do you think that's not a problem for mass adoption or that mass adoption shouldn't even happen because, fuck the rest of the world, it's just about us who already have filled our stashes?

Satoshi should have done that back in 2010, now I think it's a bit too late for a hard fork.

There were even some serious bugs back then that would be detrimental in 2023.

BTC is ossified and there's a lot of money at stake.

Yeah, I know some people hate the hodl/investing aspect, but BTC has become too valuable, for better or worse. Nobody is gonna risk it right before BlackRock's BTC ETF.

These changes are easier when the network is smaller and each BTC costs a few cents at most...

Now you risk splitting the network in half. You need to provide some sort of guarantee that we won't have another altcoin fiasco (BCH/BSV). Who can do that? BTC Core devs? They don't control the network (miners).

It's roughly the same with IPv4: nobody could have envisioned back in the early 80s that we will have more than 4 billion devices connected online, otherwise we would have gone with 128 bits from the get-go or 64 bits at least.

not a accurate vote of community
the "against" are obvious alligned to ass kissery without actually using real data, statistics and reasoning. instead full of narratives that have been debunked but stil repeated.

the 'neither' are just too scared to form an opinion or use real data, logic to decide

the "for" actually use better rationale. but we are still fighting the whole core is god crowd so any discussion will just remain discussion, the best we can hope for is to educate the exaggerators and scripters to realise how their objections are foolish, maybe then as friends to core devs can be the soldiers that plot to get core to act from the inside

---

here is the thing..
the amount of topics promoting subnetworks as solutions is a smaller community of promoters(mostly trolls repeating the same publicity promises and utopia narratives).. but the ample examples of topics about scaling bitcoin shows that more people from a wider variety of mindsets want bitcoin scaling. not sold some 6yo unmet promise

Just voted against blocksize increase , btc community made it's choice in the past to have a fee market on L1 and scale on L2 rather than scale on L1 . I think that this should never change and each user fight by all means anyone that brings any suggestion against that . UASF can be used at any time , every non miner should send those evil miners a message that in btc there's no PoW consensus but proof of most nodes . Their decision to accept more profitable transactions is insane and they should be pay the price . I think that other SHA256 will welcome them (miners/pools) with open arms , but their hashpower is insignificant compared to the number of rapspi's according to the spirit of btc community .

What most defenders of the position that blocksize should not increase is that there is no transaction volume yet to do so . There are thousands of projects other than btc that have tremendous amounts of transactions . These people transact there because it's easier than transacting in LN . Btc maxis don't want bitcoin to work the way it was supposed to . If they open their eyes they will see that millions of people actually use crypto because the most famous doesn't work . If bitcoin scaled back then no other projects would have a reason for existence .

What you have achieved is to provide free profit to pools . Pools love that they don't have to spend a single penny for their infrastructure . Entities that earn tens of millions don't pay a single cent and users pay insane fees . This is the best way to maximise their profits , no one else wins . Of course , there are some users that love validating their transactions ( i wonder how many transactions these users do on L1 ) and they keep the network hostage to their nerdy needs . And these users are the new legendary legion that every newbie admires when entering this space .

No time to write more , i will respond to vjudeu at a later time .

Closing my message i would like to make it an open call to UASF . No more time should be spend .

PS. I don't use btc network for years , but i think i should remind the community what decision took some years back . Prove that you were right all the time and stick to your position .

Any kind of bug in a major implementation like core is harmful but not the way you'd think. In 2010 there was only one implementation running and that had a bug so the whole network went on an invalid chain. Today there are more than one implementation of Bitcoin running and if one had a bug, it would be on the wrong chain and the correct chain can still grow with valid blocks with other clients.
This also highlights necessity of having multiple implementations.

That's a wrong comparison. The bcash fiasco was a minority trying to split off. The problem with those two shitcoins is not even with their bigger blocks, it is all about the fact that they did NOT fork by reaching majority consensus.
The guarantee is as it has always been with any fork: to vote and only lock in after we reach more than 90-95% support.

I believe some of you might start going deeper into the argument for bigger blocks that you might also start to think Roger Ver and Bitcoin Cash made the right decision, and you might also start debating for Satoshi's original vision.

They have their thesis, and the product of that thesis is BCash 32MB Blocks. It's probably a good network to test NFTs in the blockchain, no? Their miners might be very worried because their block rewards will be halved next year.

We can't blame him, he couldn't really keep absolutely everything in mind. Sometimes, you discover new problems as time goes by but you are right, it would be the best solution to increase block size two times as reward splits.

People call BCH and BSV shitcoins because they read someone posted shit on them. Actually, they don't know the real reason why these coins are shitcoins. They have probably never heard about Craig Wright, Roger Ver, Jihan vu and others.

---

I read many posts and to be honest I can't understand how increased block size can make bitcoin less secure. Is 1MB any standard for security?
Also, I want to say that it's not a problem today to store bitcoin blockchain on hard drive. SSDs and HDDs are way cheaper than they were years ago, we have far more speed and capacity today for a cheap price. Please, don't call a problem something that is not a problem. Space and price is not a problem today! Increased block size won't be a problem today! If block size was a problem, someone would come up with an idea to decrease block size in 2015-2016 but no one came up with that idea because that's not true!

But to be honest, after thinking for a while, I think we have another problem besides block size and they are miners. Mining is becoming way centralized, pools are collecting all the transaction fees and people are willing to join pools that don't share transaction fees. These pools are one of the biggest pools who can flood mempool with their resources and gain more profit. They can flood it easily because they confirm the blocks and fees go back to their pockets but increased block size should make it a little bit hard for them to do.

The present average Bitcoin fee at 123 sat/vB, amounting to $6.29, renders it useless for everyday transactions.

The thing is, BCH is alive only because Roger Ver was rich before he created it.
He turned blockchain.com, satoshidice, bitcoin.com and some other ventures of his into hubs for BCH. If these are gone, its questionable if BCH will also survive.
Roger Ver is bitcoin cash's strength due to his support to it, but also its biggest detriment. I think no sane bitcoiner would lend his support to a coin that's so centered around the support of a single person.

The ideal solution would be for the main bitcoin code base to implement a solution that would accommodate on-chain scaling, while keeping all its merits in decentralization, talented devs and community. Bigger blocks might address the issue of scaling but as many have rightly pointed out, it's not the single most important issue for bitcoin, and especially in 2015, it wasn't a good time to split from core over this issue. A more scalable solution for transactions is needed now more than ever. In 2017, when BCH split from core, it failed to demonstrate the need for bigger blocks, and was just seen by a greedy move. Years later and BCH is still Ver's cash cow while he has altogether stopped interacting with the bitcoin community.

So just my two cents, but saying to people that they might as well go support BCH if they want bigger blocks, isn't really something productive.
Increasing block capacity has some merits and these should be examined individually. Goal here is to improve the bitcoin we love, not shoot each other in the foot.