Andreas Antonopoulos Argues in Favor of Larger Block Sizes

[QuantumAGI]

https://youtu.be/t_V4q-Vrasc

[LiteCoinGuy]

yes, andreas is pro bigger blocks.
i guess 99% of all people are in favor of a blocksize increase (except LukeJr ). if we wait until all devs say "yes" we are doomed in my view. but iam pretty sure there will be a compromise in the future.
XT owns 10% of all nodes and is an emergengy exit maybe.

and for me :

[btc]

yes, andreas is pro bigger blocks.
i guess 99% of all people are in favor of a blocksize increase (except LukeJr ). if we wait until all devs say "yes" we are doomed in my view. but iam pretty sure there will be a compromise in the future.
XT owns 10% of all nodes and is an emergengy exit maybe.

and for me :

lol oh you!



it's fun to pay sluts to advertise for you!

[LiteCoinGuy]

i didnt pay her....she was convinced that bitcoin needs big blocks.

[cypherblock]

He discusses block size at around https://youtu.be/t_V4q-Vrasc?t=48m51s

TL;DR while some claim that larger block size may lead to increased centralization, there is another side to the argument, that says that miners in other parts of the world may gain an advantage over the already centralized China miners, by using their faster/larger bandwidth. Thus competition globally is increased.

Anyway I didn't hear him specifically support one side of the argument or the other in the segments I saw, but does explain the sides well.

If there are other parts where block size is discussed, please post the link with the "start at" selected in the share link on youtube.

[coinableS]

It appears we are reaching a consensus that larger blocks are needed.
Where the most debate and lack of consensus is held on when and how much.
Personally, larger blocks are not needed yet, but they will be needed soon. How soon, likely during the next run up that many are expecting to occur just before the halving in 2016. So we might as well do it now and be proactive. However if we don't, no big deal it can be patched fairly easily and quickly in an 'emergency situation'.
For these reasons I do not worry about the blocksize debate. It will work itself out, once it becomes a problem there will be consensus.

[Ledge]

For these reasons I do not worry about the blocksize debate. It will work itself out, once it becomes a problem there will be consensus.

Why should we wait until it becomes a problem? It's not going to work if every single thing has to become a problem before a solution is implemented. The regular user shouldn't have to experience hiccups in the network if we can prevent it beforehand.

[coinableS]

For these reasons I do not worry about the blocksize debate. It will work itself out, once it becomes a problem there will be consensus.

Why should we wait until it becomes a problem? It's not going to work if every single thing has to become a problem before a solution is implemented. The regular user shouldn't have to experience hiccups in the network if we can prevent it beforehand.

I stated I think we might as well do it now, but the reason we are not is because we don't have consensus. The consensus will happen and I think it won't happen until the 1MB limit because a real problem. It's not the right way, but that's the way I think it's going to happen

[bitkilo]

i didnt pay her....she was convinced that bitcoin needs big blocks.

In your profile on the old forum you have your gender listed as female, we all know your in favour of larger blocks so that could be your butt!

If so nice ass and great advertising.

[LiteCoinGuy]

i didnt pay her....she was convinced that bitcoin needs big blocks.

In your profile on the old forum you have your gender listed as female, we all know your in favour of larger blocks so that could be your butt!

If so nice ass and great advertising.

could be ...but some girls love girls too