Quote from: Kakmakr on January 21, 2016, 06:05:21 AM

Quote from: Blawpaw on January 20, 2016, 03:56:02 PM

If we already know that the solution is a block increase I don't understand why it should be an increase to 2mb. If the increase is to be to 2mb in 2 years or less the community will be facing the same problem again.
So, in this sense, the increase should be to at least 8mb or even more.

I guess the current line of thinking is just to kick the can down the road. You do not implement something before it was thoroughly tested. I agree with this thinking in the sense that developers need to scale Bitcoin without risking the integrity of the whole network.

For example - " In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems. " - quoted from https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#roadmap

You cannot just dump bigger block sizes into the protocol and hope nothing goes wrong, because it is a Billion dollar network. Let's just approach this with caution.

Well nobody feared what will happen when blocks are not 0.1mb filled but 0.2mb. There was nobody screaming around that it is dangerous. And even with 2mb blocks, 2 months ago NOBODY claimed any danger coming from that.

Though what i read, the threat might only be of theoretical nature, similar to a >50% attack. Though i would need to know if it is possible to create such a block even when he not verifies, since then you would not need a miner. If you need a miner then no miner who can creates block would kill the chance for his own block reward. And if this risk can be created with a normal pc then it would be possible to simply flood the network with such blocks even with 1mb blocks. Mass would bring the danger then.

And it seems there is already a fix for that which could be implemented in bitcoin classic and make it safe.