Bitcoin Block Size Chart - BitInfoCharts

Chris Pacia: "You need to remember how the "store of value" meme came to be in Bitcoin to begin with. Parts of the community refused to make a trivial change to the block size which would have preserved utility and had zero negative effects. This rendered the system largely useless. Hence SOV."

Chris Pacia: submitted by Egon_1 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]

05-25 12:36 - '[Satoshi literally posted on the early bitcoin forums that the block size could be changed later on and gave an example in code] / [quote] [quote] Satoshi literally just didn't consider that there would be people dumb enough to bu...' by /u/Smarag removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-7min

'''
[Satoshi literally posted on the early bitcoin forums that the block size could be changed later on and gave an example in code]1
In response to Satoshi’s comment that the limit could always be removed if necessary to support higher transaction capacity, Jeff Garzik pointed out:
“IMO it's a marketing thing. It's tough to get people to buy into a system, if the network is technically incapable of supporting high transaction rates.”
Satoshi literally just didn't consider that there would be people dumb enough to buy into the idea that you "need to keep the code pure"
Satoshi's proposed change:
“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.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.”
This is the internet, we have first hand original sources for all of this.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Smarag
1: coi*tel*grap*.c*m/new*/sato*his-*e*t-kept-se*re*-*hy-*s-t**re-a-1-m*-limi**to-*i*co****lock-siz*
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Here is Gavin Anderson's commit to try to increase the block size back in 2015. In the end you can see that Gavin closed the branch he was working on because constant changes to Bitcoin Core kept breaking his commit.

Here is Gavin Anderson's commit to try to increase the block size back in 2015. In the end you can see that Gavin closed the branch he was working on because constant changes to Bitcoin Core kept breaking his commit. submitted by plazman30 to btc [link] [comments]

So BU wants to change inflation rate, block size, block size consensus mechanism, & install a President. How is this bitcoin?

So BU wants to change inflation rate, block size, block size consensus mechanism, & install a President. How is this bitcoin? submitted by davs28 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

So discussing block size increase is too controversial for /r/bitcoin but suggesting algorithm change is not? • /r/Bitcoin

So discussing block size increase is too controversial for /bitcoin but suggesting algorithm change is not? • /Bitcoin submitted by Egon_1 to btc [link] [comments]

BitPay CEO Stephen Pair: “If Bitcoin did not change one bit — even kept the one-megabyte block size limit forever — we’ve got enough tools at our disposal that we can completely reshape the global payments system...”

BitPay CEO Stephen Pair: “If Bitcoin did not change one bit — even kept the one-megabyte block size limit forever — we’ve got enough tools at our disposal that we can completely reshape the global payments system...” submitted by pokertravis 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 Christmas_Pirate to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

My response to Gregory Maxwell's statement that "maintaining Bitcoin without a block size limit starts with an initial assumption that the system is changed to become endlessly inflationary and that miners will not centralize."

Greg says: "The limit itself is instrumental in the system's incentives to move the chain forward as the subsidy goes away. All arguments that I've seen formally tendered about maintaining Bitcoin without a block size limit start with an initial assumption that the system is changed to become endlessly inflationary and that miners will not centralize. Both are assumptions which must be false if we want Bitcoin to preserve its value long term." (link to original comment)
In laymens terms: Greg is claiming that by removing the block size cap, this means fees will approach zero (since there would be no artificially constrained supply of space to force fees to go higher in competition for the block space, as it is currently).
As you are aware, Bitcoin's rewards halve every 4 years. They approach zero eventually (in over 100 years). This is what Greg is trying to use as his argument.
He is saying the only way we could remove the blocksize limit is to continue to provide block rewards indefinitely. (This is the lie)
By continuing to issue a block reward for each newly mined block indefinintely, the total coin supply would never plateau at 21M as it was originally designed (because of the reward halvings). And instead, the total coin supply would keep climbing higher, forever. This is what he is referring to as "endlessly inflationary".
The reason it is a lie is because transactions fees themselves can replace the block reward in a market-driven fee model, where the market determines the equilibrium and balance between fee price, transaction time and block space. Greg conveniently "forgets this" solution because Blockstream (the company he is a part of) doesn't profit off of free market solutions.
Unlike most other businesses out there, Blockstream doesn't want to make a good product and simply have it stand on its own two legs. Instead, they want to create a problem so they can provide the solution. This is the real reason a fixed block supply is "required" (in their eyes).
Greg is using this pretense of "inflationary danger!" (FUD) as the reason to stifle block size, when really there are other reasons he wants to keep Bitcoin's block space insufficient. He is playing upon people's fears of inflation to force the small blocksize. But as we have discussed, Bitcoin can operate with no block rewards and on fees alone. He is lying about the reason why he wants the blocksize small.
TL/DR: Basically if you want to boil it down, Greg's simply pushing FUD of "inflation threat" as a reason to keep blocks small. But he lying because that isn't really the reason he wants blocks small, and because there is another solution he isn't even talking about (mentioned above).
By the way, I've seen this line of thought pushed by several Blockstream employees. Another example was Blockstream's Johnny during the debate with Roger Ver.
submitted by BitcoinIsTehFuture to btc [link] [comments]

In early 2013, it became a common belief that new Bitcoin users should not be recommended Bitcoin-QT, the full node client. Bitcoin.org was changed to no longer exclusively recommend it. Two years later, the block size conservatives are saying the drop in full node count was due to block size

I distinctly remember that the recommending of Bitcoin-QT to new Bitcoin users became a faux pas in early 2013. It was claimed that regular people should download and install an SPV client like Multibit.
Predictably, there was a large drop in the full node count, as the wallet market became dominated by a large number of new, light clients, and the most trafficked Bitcoin website, bitcoin.org, stopped exclusively recommending people to install Bitcoin-QT.
Now, we have important developers like Luke-Jr claiming that this 95% drop in full node count can be mainly attributed to the growing size of the block chain, despite the fact that the drop began right when light clients began being recommended..
EDIT to add some data:
This is the image that GMaxwell and Peter Todd, two individuals who are conservative about the block size (in particular Peter Todd, who's been warning about increasing the 1 MB size limit since 2013), have linked to to make their point about the full node count:
http://i.imgur.com/EL0zHRe.jpg
Up until at least March 18, 2013, the only client recommended to visitors of bitcoin.org was Bitcoin-QT, and an installation link for it was provided right on the landing page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130318211940/http://bitcoin.org/
The WayBack Machine shows that by March 25th, 2013, this had changed, and a 'Choose Your Wallet' button appeared on Bitcoin.org/:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130513214959/http://bitcoin.org/en/
From March 25th 2013 onward, the number of non-full-node wallets recommended by bitcoin.org increased, in response to a general increase in the number of high quality and/or well marketed light and mobile wallets on the market.
Now a days, Bitcoin-QT is one of twelve clients displayed on bitcoin.org's Choose Your Wallet page:
https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet
Other than Bitcoin-QT and Bitcoin Armory, all of them are non-full-node clients.
This shift, from a wallet market where only Bitcoin-QT was available and recommended to one that is increasingly diverse and dominated by light clients, coincides with the point (Spring 2013) where we start seeing a rapid decline in the full node count.
submitted by aminok to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"The block size is an intentionally limited economic resource, just like the 21,000,000-bitcoin limit. Changing that vastly degrades the economics surrounding bitcoin, creating many negative incentives." (Jeff Garzik)

submitted by Drakaryis to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

03-27 13:24 - 'Wtf? Did i change what satoshi wanted and reverse adoption because bitcoin (BTC) couldnt do what it was supposed to do anymore, or Bitcoin Core you seem to defend? / Im talking about an increasing of the block size limi...' by /u/pokeherface2019 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 39-49min

'''
Wtf? Did i change what satoshi wanted and reverse adoption because bitcoin (BTC) couldnt do what it was supposed to do anymore, or Bitcoin Core you seem to defend?
Im talking about an increasing of the block size limit to XMB (see original comment for X).
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: pokeherface2019
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

If Bitcoin Core were to change their mind and upgrade the block size to be equal or greater than Bitcoin Cash, would that kill BCH?

This is just something I've been wondering. The main difference between the 2 chains is the blocksize, so if Core fixed this one aspect of their block chain, what would be the value of BCH?
Thanks!
submitted by AnarchoCicero to btc [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik [2X dev]: "The block size is an intentionally limited economic resource, just like the 21,000,000-bitcoin limit. Changing that vastly degrades the economics surrounding bitcoin, creating many negative incentives." - Beware Segwit2X, It's most likely a trap.

submitted by mushner 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 jtoomim to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

3.2 GB Block Sizes: Developers Bash Bitcoin Climate Change Study as 'Fake News' ⋆ Tech Talk

3.2 GB Block Sizes: Developers Bash Bitcoin Climate Change Study as 'Fake News' ⋆ Tech Talk submitted by asmajda to CryptoStock [link] [comments]

3.2 GB Block Sizes: Developers Bash Bitcoin Climate Change Study as ‘Fake News’

3.2 GB Block Sizes: Developers Bash Bitcoin Climate Change Study as ‘Fake News’ submitted by Ranzware to BitNewsLive [link] [comments]

3.2 GB Block Sizes: Developers Bash Bitcoin Climate Change Study as ‘Fake News’

3.2 GB Block Sizes: Developers Bash Bitcoin Climate Change Study as ‘Fake News’ submitted by cryptoanalyticabot to blockchainanalytics [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 'Too Slow' for Cannabis Industry Until Block Size Changes

Bitcoin 'Too Slow' for Cannabis Industry Until Block Size Changes submitted by Bitcohen to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin network is going to face new changes in future, we shouldn’t forget about SegWit2x. Will doubling the Block size be the end of the world?

Bitcoin network is going to face new changes in future, we shouldn’t forget about SegWit2x. Will doubling the Block size be the end of the world? submitted by bitmicky to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

3.2 GB Block Sizes: Developers Bash Bitcoin Climate Change Study as ‘Fake News’

3.2 GB Block Sizes: Developers Bash Bitcoin Climate Change Study as ‘Fake News’ submitted by cryptoallbot1 to cryptoall [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]

Factors that Determine the Price of Bitcoin? Bitcoin Block Size: Larger or smaller blocks? Tim Draper: How Blockchain Will Change the World Bitcoin Q&A: Lightning Network scaling Walton Coin (WTC) - How RFID And The Blockchain Will Change The World

Change block size limit based on miner votes, but don't leave the range (1MB, 32MB) without a softfork or hardfork respectively. Bitcoin XT . Bitcoin XT logo. Main article: Bitcoin XT. Bitcoin XT was an alternative client that became notorious when it adopted BIP 101, which would direct an increase to 8 MB after both January 11, 2016 has passed and 75% of miners are in support, followed by ... Bitcoin Cash is a Bitcoin hard fork that raises the Bitcoin (Cash) block size to 32MB, allowing the BCH network to process around 65 transactions per second. The Bitcoin Cash hard fork took place in August 2017, just before the conclusion of the SegWit and SegWit2x debacle. In many ways, the Bitcoin Cash movement and hard fork was a result of the lack of direction by the latter project. The storage size of the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) blockchain is increasing with every additional block, at a rate of: (size of the last block) / (time to mine the last block) Tools. Link to Chart. Markdown / Reddit Link. Embed Chart. Download Data Download CSV File BCH BTC ... Bitcoin Average block size Chart. Transactions Block Size Sent from addresses Difficulty Hashrate Price in USD Mining Profitability Sent in USD Avg. Transaction Fee Median Transaction Fee Block Time Market Capitalization Avg. Transaction Value Median Transaction Value Tweets GTrends Active Addresses Top100ToTotal Fee in Reward Block size of Bitcoin mining []. No issue in the history of cryptocurrencies has been debated as passionately, as often, or as forcefully as the bitcoin block size. To an outsider, it must be quite comical to witness folks debating a consensus parameter within the bitcoin network — no joke — as if it were a matter of life or death.

[index] [41903] [44651] [29761] [34563] [852] [9235] [29711] [21575] [32247] [19333]

Factors that Determine the Price of Bitcoin?

How the blockchain is changing money and business Don Tapscott - Duration: 18:50. TED 2,335,541 views. 18:50. Tim Draper's Fireside Chat with Gary Gensler BEF SF 2018 - Duration: 45:39. ... How the blockchain is changing money and business Don Tapscott - Duration: 18:50. TED 2,420,281 views. 18:50 . Optimizing Layer 2 - Duration: 2:12:17. Mike Pichette Recommended for you. 2:12:17 ... 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 ... ** Edureka Blockchain Training (Use Code: YOUTUBE20) : https://www.edureka.co/blockchain-training ** This Edureka Blockchain Full Course Tutorial video will ... PyDX 2016: Python Blockchain and Byte-Size Change PyDX Conf. Loading... Unsubscribe from PyDX Conf? ... How to change your "Email Address (Primary Email)" in Facebook 2015 - Duration: 5:55. Skill ...

#