<p>There is and has been huge consensus since the <a href="http://scalingbitcoin.org" rel="nofollow">scalingbitcoin.org</a> conference in Hong Kong in December 2015 in favor of going with the Segregated Witness solution. SW had been implemented half a year earlier in a side chain but in Hong Kong <a href="https://youtu.be/fst1IK_mrng" rel="nofollow">Peter Wuille</a> (starts around 35 minutes or later repeated here: <a href="https://youtu.be/NOYNZB5BCHM" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/NOYNZB5BCHM</a> ) announced that a way to smoothly incorporate it into existing Bitcoin (via a Soft Fork) had been found.</p>

<p>The main goal of SW was to eradicate transaction malleability but it has <a href="https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/" rel="nofollow">many other advantages</a>, as well as the nice side effect of making the effective block size larger. To around 1.8MB, although the exact amount depends on the type of transactions people do, it could be more.</p>

<p>The finishing touches are being applied to SW in a test network right now, while wallet software is also being updated to make use of SW transactions so their users will enjoy its benefits. Last I heard SW is scheduled to be rolled out in April 2016.</p>

<p>Pretty much everyone agrees, including on the opposing team, that SW is a great solution. Unfortunately for political reasons, the classic team have decided to keep spreading untruths and FUD about SW and the Core team. For example that SW is more complex than a straight up doubling of the block size through a Hard Fork or that such a Hard Fork could be rolled out faster. As well as unfounded conspiracy theories about ulterior evil motives of members of the Core team.</p>

<p>Fortunately classic is an irrelevantly small group of people who for the most part clearly don't know anything about Bitcoin.</p>

<p>Core has almost unanimous <a href="https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/" rel="nofollow">miner and community support</a> and is streaming ahead with improvements, SW and many others.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-09T04:46:35.400Z
2016-03-09T04:46:35.400Z
Jannes
<p>Many news from one week ago are reporting that transactions take longer to be processed because we are reaching the 1MB limit of the blocksize. Which causes transaction to be buffered, and prioritized depending on fees. 
The news article report that there are tensions between two groups of developper, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Core. One team wishing to augment the block size while the other would rather keep the soft unchanged. </p>

<p>By looking on <a href="https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/" rel="nofollow">https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/</a> it seems that the blocks produced are still under 1MB but the mempool currently reports size of 4.53MB</p>

<p>Has consensus yet been reached regarding the block size ?
Are we still experiencing trouble ?
What has been decided ? Where can I get more info ?</p>

<blocksize><mempool>
Has consensus been reached regarding the block size?
darkblue
# Has consensus been reached regarding the block size?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-03-08)

Many news from one week ago are reporting that transactions take longer to be processed because we are reaching the 1MB limit of the blocksize. Which causes transaction to be buffered, and prioritized depending on fees.
The news article report that there are tensions between two groups of developper, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Core. One team wishing to augment the block size while the other would rather keep the soft unchanged.

By looking on <https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/> it seems that the blocks produced are still under 1MB but the mempool currently reports size of 4.53MB

Has consensus yet been reached regarding the block size ?
Are we still experiencing trouble ?
What has been decided ? Where can I get more info ?

**Tags:** blocksize, mempool


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-03-09. Score: 0 | Accepted answer

There is and has been huge consensus since the [scalingbitcoin.org](http://scalingbitcoin.org) conference in Hong Kong in December 2015 in favor of going with the Segregated Witness solution. SW had been implemented half a year earlier in a side chain but in Hong Kong [Peter Wuille](https://youtu.be/fst1IK_mrng) (starts around 35 minutes or later repeated here: <https://youtu.be/NOYNZB5BCHM> ) announced that a way to smoothly incorporate it into existing Bitcoin (via a Soft Fork) had been found.

The main goal of SW was to eradicate transaction malleability but it has [many other advantages](https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/), as well as the nice side effect of making the effective block size larger. To around 1.8MB, although the exact amount depends on the type of transactions people do, it could be more.

The finishing touches are being applied to SW in a test network right now, while wallet software is also being updated to make use of SW transactions so their users will enjoy its benefits. Last I heard SW is scheduled to be rolled out in April 2016.

Pretty much everyone agrees, including on the opposing team, that SW is a great solution. Unfortunately for political reasons, the classic team have decided to keep spreading untruths and FUD about SW and the Core team. For example that SW is more complex than a straight up doubling of the block size through a Hard Fork or that such a Hard Fork could be rolled out faster. As well as unfounded conspiracy theories about ulterior evil motives of members of the Core team.

Fortunately classic is an irrelevantly small group of people who for the most part clearly don't know anything about Bitcoin.

Core has almost unanimous [miner and community support](https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/) and is streaming ahead with improvements, SW and many others.


---

