Quote from: homo homini lupus on February 05, 2015, 07:10:18 AM

Quote from: RoadStress on February 05, 2015, 07:08:51 AM

Quote from: homo homini lupus on February 05, 2015, 07:05:11 AM

the point is: the chain is already pretty big. If it becomes 20 fold as big i will be forced to stop using bitcoin because i don't want a lite-client or rely on 3rd parties with my coins but on the other hand can't afford upgrading harddrive all the time (especially not with these bad btc prices).

If you raise blocklimit 20-fold it will become unaffordable for normal people to store the blockchain on their computers and because of that people loose access.

No need to post the same thing in 2 separate threads. Here is my answer:

Quote from: RoadStress on February 05, 2015, 07:07:08 AM

Quote from: homo homini lupus on February 05, 2015, 06:49:27 AM

my point is: the chain is already pretty big. If it becomes 20 fold as big i will be forced to stop using bitcoin because i don't want a lite-client or rely on 3rd parties with my coins but on the other hand can't afford upgrading harddrive all the time (especially not with these bad btc prices).

If you raise blocklimit 20-fold it will become unaffordable for normal people to store the blockchain on their computers and because of that people loose access.

Why does everyone believe that raising the block limit will instantly raise the blockchain too? It will not. It will take time until that will happen!

Even if it takes time: the blockchain is already very big - if you make it bigger normal people will need to upgrade their hardware to use it and people won't do that.

Right now there isn't even an immediate need to fork so the proposale doesn't make sense at this point in time.

As noted before: reaching the blocklimit will at first result in microtransactions being pushed off the chain and that won't be an issue for most users.

Fork to a bigger chain isn't rational at this point in time. Period.

Do you know how many viable blockchains are out there with almost only empty blocks and very small chanis (below 1bg storage)? Dozens!

Blockchains aren't scarce. So why would i use one blockchain that requires hundreds of GB storage when i can use one almost as secure with much less HD-use? ~~I personally will leave btc behind for good with a larger chain~~ (just refuse using Gavincoin - it isn't even 'bitcoin' - it is really 'gavincoin') or stick to the old fork in case it can survive.

I guess you were referring to this one.

even though we never reached over 50% of the maximum blocksize yet, the block sizes vary wildly per block, and grow pretty much exponentially.

Also, we are at about 30% consistently right now.

If it keeps growing at the same rate as it has now, it may very well take a little over a year before we really need the upgrade, but what if it doesn't? What if we get another rally next month, or in two months? Another rally will surely come with an increase in transactions, a massive increase, as can be seen from the charts. And since we are already using about 30% another rally will likely need more than 1MB.

It will not need 20MB, but while we are at it we may as well give ourselves some room.

If we keep the 1MB limit, the next rally will kill bitcoin, because the transactions will be too limited, the network will clog, and people will blame the blockchain technology for it.

And we may very well never get a second chance to do it right.

and all those other blockchains are so small because NO ONE USES THEM

growth is a GOOD thing, more size means more transactions means more users means more value.