BTC blocksize

[Anonymous No.16214304]

What are the odds we'll see 2mb blocks by 2024?

[Anonymous No.16214314]

>>16214304
They are already talking about reducing it to 300kb. If you want bitcoin without constraints you are looking at the wrong coin

[Anonymous No.16214374]

>>16214304
Zero. They want to die on this hill no matter the costs.

[Anonymous No.16214388]

We need to reduce BTC blocksize not raise it. This way people can run nodes om phones to verify all 50 or so transactions that can fit in the shrunken blocks
Also it would drive fees to the tens of thousands of dollars to transact on chain. This is perfect because it will force people to use lightning

[Anonymous No.16214390]

>>16214314
Cool. Got a link?

[Anonymous No.16214393]

Maybe they could increase it by 100kb every 2 years, would Raspberry Pis be able to handle that?

[Anonymous No.16214401]

>>16214374
>They want to die on this hill no matter the costs.
btc up 100% on year
you guys literally cant see the reality in front of you. no matter your feelings on the tech issues at some point you need to put those feelings aside and make prudent investments.

[Anonymous No.16214408]

>>16214390
>Cool. Got a link?
'And then the Vishnu leaned down towards me, his radiance bathing me in light and warmth. And then I heard the magic word he whispered in my ear, and it echoed through my soul for a thousand lifetimes and an instant - DYOR'

[Anonymous No.16214414]

>>16214304
Zero. There simply is no need for block space that will get filled with spam than there is for flags so Rajneesh can obscure his Jeeting

[Anonymous No.16214417]

The truth of the matter is, the overall majority of people here got into crypto when BTC fees were already high enough (2017 and beyond)

[Anonymous No.16214421]

[Anonymous No.16214422]

>>16214401
character building

[Anonymous No.16214449]

We don't need larger blocks yet. The mempool is emptying out regularly.

We only had a congestion problem in 2017-2018 because the fucking scumbag miners in China were spamming transactions to drive up fees and try to force everyone to switch over to BCash. Jihan Wu wanted to control the entire system so that he could keep extracting cash forever.

He failed, he gave up, and now things are back to normal.

Next, the developers will implement Schnorr signatures, further reducing the amount of space each transaction takes up. Lightning Network can take up most of the smaller day-to-day transactions like buying coffee. Permissioned sidechains can offload as much transaction space as people want to move off.

Eventually, on-chain transactions will only need to happen for major exchanges shuffling around millions of dollars in value at a time.

Andreas Antonopoulos made this point in one of his videos, I think at a conference in London. Someone asked which solutions would be used, and his response was that ALL of the solutions will be used -- with increasing the block size happening as the last resort.

And the reason for that is that bigger blocks are the worst of all possible capacity-increasing plans. If you've followed BSV, you know that those poor deluded retards got hit with a block that was somewhere over two hundred megabytes in size -- which meant that most nodes couldn't even handle it, took hours to validate it, and would not be able to continue functioning in the future unless owners upgraded their hardware to fucking high end gamer PC type servers. That means massive centralization and, eventually, only institutional players.

If that's what you want, well, go BSV yourself. Don't try to fuck up Bitcoin just because you got memed into thinking it was necessary by a bunch of Chinese ant people trying to seize control of the entire network.

[Anonymous No.16214470]

>>16214449
So here's the real crypto bluepill:

Craig Wright is unironically not Satoshi, the real Satoshi Nakamoto always wanted small blocks and segwit, "Peer to peer electronic cash" was simply a purposeful mistranslation of the Japanese. Blockstream - funded by Bilderberg group - saved Bitcoin by refusing to raise the 1mb block cap, preventing the blockchain from becoming cripplingly large. If they had not done this the blockchain could be as large as 500gb today meaning that Bitcoin node operators would have to upgrade from 500gb hard drives and pay for more storage space, ultimately leading to financial ruin and the death of the network.

Bitcoin as a store of value was just the first step, Blockstream is releasing the full version of the Lightning Network in 18 months, this will lead to a revolution in digital gold and decentralisation by routing all payments through Lightning banking nodes off-chain, this is why Blockstream is so intent to lower the block size to 300kb to incentivise adoption.

Back to hash power, as the price and adoption of BTC increases the blocksize will be gradually reduced to 0kb, closing off the blockchain completely, this will move all transactions onto Layer 2 (Layer 3 and 4 are also in development). With all transactions off-chain the greedy miners will have all their power removed and we will never see another hardfork ever again like the hard forking of 'Bitcoin Cash' and later 'Bitcoin SV' by the fraud Craig Wright (they have their own competing blockchain in the works), this will render the BTC protocol completely free from big blocker influence under the tight but decentralised fist of Blockstream.

[Anonymous No.16214517]

The block size controversy to a large extent revolves around using cryptocurrencies as community coins for tipping. You may remember that BTC was not the only community coin, there was also Doge (it had a tipping mania on Reddit in 2014 until the famous exit scam), there was Steemit, these were the ones actually used. Coins like BCH and BSV present themselves as community coins suitable for tipping and micropayments, but in the end, it may be not the deciding factor. The market forces decide. If the masses actually craved for community coins, wouldn't community coins rise in price?

[Anonymous No.16214533]

I dont think it will happen

[Anonymous No.16214542]

https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/mempool-size

Show me on the mempool chart why we need bigger blocks.

Protip: you can't. The mempool has been emptying out at least hourly for the last two days, and has emptied regularly all week. See picrelated.

[Anonymous No.16214582]

>>16214542
The mempool fills, then empties, due to a bad UX. A capped blocksize means that growth is capped. Btc will be outpaced

[Anonymous No.16214584]

>>16214542
Here's the one-year chart. You can see that the only time you needed to actually pay to get into the next few blocks was from mid-March to mid-July, when the price was escalating sharply and people were piling in. Even during those periods, if you didn't mind waiting an hour or two, you were fine. Otherwise, the only reason to put a fee in was so that your transaction would be transmitted, because most miners nowadays ignore zero-fee transactions.

[Anonymous No.16214597]

>>16214582
>because 18 wheelers can only carry X amount of gold pallets, that means golds price is limited.
yikes.

[Anonymous No.16214619]

>>16214584
>Here's a chart
>Use it to tell me why miners shouldn't be free to mine as many or few transactions that makes economic sense to them

Why are small blockers stupid like this? Is BSV the only camp with grown ups?

[Anonymous No.16214623]

>>16214619
>literally posts nonsense
then, "why not bsv?"

[Anonymous No.16214635]

>>16214542
>>16214584
And here's the long-term chart, only about three and a half years because that's all the data they bothered to save. Before then, the mempool was basically empty most of the time.

You can see the enormous spikes in May 2017 and late 2017 through early 2018. The May 2017 spike was because Bitcoin took off from about $1500 on the way up to $4000. The late year spike was every head-in-the-sand FOMO retard suddenly hearing about the existence of some thing called "cryptocurrency" and dogpiling in, in conjunction with Jihan/Bitmain trying to fuck everyone over with spam transactions.

Those few months were literally the only times when there was a problem. With SegWit cutting transaction sizes by 60% we can handle 250% of the transactions per block that we could in mid-2017 -- as long as Bitmain isn't mining empty blocks, which they did regularly in that period just to give an even bigger fuck-you to the community. The newer methods should double it again, from what I've read. And that's not even counting LN, which can move most stuff off-chain until it's finalized.

>>16214582
That doesn't even make sense if you're high, man, much less when you're sober. Does it sound better in Hindi? Which shitcoin did you buy in the hope that it would magically take over?

[Anonymous No.16214655]

>>16214623
I mean, they're literally following a guy who doesn't even know how to code. You'd think that would clue them in to the fact that he's a complete fraud.

Picrelated, BSV supporters awaiting the throbbing cock of their living god Craig Wright.

[Anonymous No.16214664]

>>16214655
Where do you buy one of those? Asking for a friend

[Anonymous No.16214682]

>>16214597
Yeah, except here they're carrying empty plastic bags that people pay 10k for. The entire value proposition is that you can send this shit to anyone. 1mb is a meme you brainwashed idiots.

[Anonymous No.16214708]

>>16214682
>we need 1gb blocks
"we should only use super oil tankers to move our decentralized digital gold...even tho those super oil tankers are only made by 2 companies in the world".
good luck with weatherbsv - but its crashing.

[Anonymous No.16214749]

>>16214682
I've sent Edward Snowden a pizza, and I've sent money to someone somewhere on the planet who I don't even know. Not to mention buying electronics from Adafruit. If I had family in Iran or Venezuela, I could send money to them too, and no one could stop me. Works pretty well IMHO.

>>16214664
Sorry, no idea. Most likely Japan, they're into that. I think I saved the image off here, but maybe it was /trv/.

[Anonymous No.16214813]

>>16214470
Satoshis original code didn't even have a block size limit

[Anonymous No.16214874]

>>16214813
Everyone is ignoring the shitcoin shill >>16214470 because his post is completely retarded.