Lauda

Quote from: Lauda on March 02, 2016, 10:09:57 PM

Quote from: chrisvl on March 02, 2016, 10:01:48 PM

Segwit is good idea but an increase would required

Segwit should increase the transaction capacity to ~180-190% (or even more depending on use cases). This is close enough to a 2 MB block size limit (keep in mind that there is no guarantee that miners won't use their soft limits again). An increase is most likely going to happen, the question is just when.

I think SegWit is a good idea. It will have an effect and will bring bitcoin forward even in the future. It will cut down the space needed for transactions for a certain amount. Regardless of the amount of transactions and current blocksize. So even with 50MB blocks, Segwit might still be able to nearly double the amount. This is a good thing.

Though I doubt that Segwit will be able to solve the situation fast enough. You know yourself that even when Segwit gets implemented today, the effect would only slowly rise to an effect bringing down the situation. And in the meanwhile the situation can always grow higher than our heads.

RealBitcoin

Quote from: RealBitcoin on March 02, 2016, 10:34:33 PM

If it will be necessary to raise blocks then it will be, but better raise them later than now because i heard that many vulnerabilities could occur that way, which could endanger the system.

It needs way more testing, and a hard fork is hard to orchestrate and can hurt bitcoin very badly, so its only a last case scenario.

Well, it's always good to check arguments out for yourself. I'm sure many of the arguments, when you check them, doesn't sound like a real problem to you anymore then.

Though yes, a hardfork, especially with a community divided that bad, can become a problem.

Dissonance

Quote from: Dissonance on March 02, 2016, 10:10:05 PM

Quote from: Alley on March 02, 2016, 09:53:45 PM

A larger blocksize will make a spam attack more expensive, no?

Bingo... a 2MB block is significantly more expensive to fill. Lets assume the average block size is about ~.2/3 filled a spammer only has to fill ~1/3MB. If the block is 2MB that requires 4x the money. Does it stop it no...but it makes it alot harder.

Yes. Though not completely right. The fees might be lower then though it would not really matter. The blocks now are not full most of the time so there is no reason to believe that 2MB blocks suddenly will have lower fees. The fees probably will be similar to now. So even when fees might be a little bit lower it would help preventing such spam attacks. It simply would be too costly. And nobody tried to spam or attack the network that way before the blocks were nearly as full as now.

So yes, it would be a good prevention by making them pay a lot.

The spam now only ran for 2 days I believe. 4 Times the transactions to fill the block would have meant that the attack would be over before it really started. I think that sounds effective.

Alley

Quote from: Alley on March 02, 2016, 08:49:13 PM

I generally dismiss people running sig campaigns. They are moslty just posting anything to get the min number of words to earn a few pennies.

In fact I'm annoyed by people making special posts to complain about sig campaigns. Not realizing that they spam threads containing mostly perfectly fine, non spam, posts. So posts like that look way more like topic unrelated spam than anything else in that topic.