Block size limit controversy - Revision history

Calliptamus: /* Entities positions */

2025-05-17T09:51:48Z

Entities positions

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:51, 17 May 2025
Line 138:		Line 138:
	\|		\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| BX.in.th		\| [[BX.in.th]]
	\| {{Yes\|Yes: "<nowiki>http://BX.in.th</nowiki> will support the 20MB block size"}}<ref>https://twitter.com/BitcoinThai/status/605022509101023232</ref>		\| {{Yes\|Yes: "<nowiki>http://BX.in.th</nowiki> will support the 20MB block size"}}<ref>https://twitter.com/BitcoinThai/status/605022509101023232</ref>
	\|		\|

Luke-jr: /* Entities positions */ Remove altcoin promotion

2019-04-24T00:44:37Z

Entities positions: Remove altcoin promotion

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:44, 24 April 2019
Line 95:		Line 95:
	\| {{No\|No: "<nowiki>[allow]</nowiki> a sane transaction fee market to emerge, by letting the blocks actually fill-up."}} - CTO David Francois<ref>http://fr.anco.is/2015/gavineries/</ref>		\| {{No\|No: "<nowiki>[allow]</nowiki> a sane transaction fee market to emerge, by letting the blocks actually fill-up."}} - CTO David Francois<ref>http://fr.anco.is/2015/gavineries/</ref>
	\|		\|
	\|-
	~~\| Ethereum<br />~~
	\| {{Neutral\|Neutral: "If <nowiki>[the niche of digital gold]</nowiki> is what Bitcoin users want, then they should keep the limit, and perhaps even decrease it. But if Bitcoin users want to be a payment system, then up it must go."}} - Vitalik Buterin (founder)<ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/380q61/i_know_this_may_not_directly_be_ethereum_related/crrofl6</ref>
	\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| [[F2Pool]]		\| [[F2Pool]]

JonathanCross: Linking hardfork

2019-03-03T21:36:40Z

Linking hardfork

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 3 March 2019
Line 5:		Line 5:

	In 2013 March, the original lock limit was discovered by accident (Bitcoin Core v0.8.0 failed to enforce it, leading to upgraded nodes splitting off the network).		In 2013 March, the original lock limit was discovered by accident (Bitcoin Core v0.8.0 failed to enforce it, leading to upgraded nodes splitting off the network).
	After resolving the crisis, it was determined that since nobody knew of the limit, it was safe to assume there was consensus to remove it, and a hardfork removing the limit was scheduled and cleanly activated in 2013 May. From this point forward, the 1 MB limit became the effective limiting factor of the block size for the first time.		After resolving the crisis, it was determined that since nobody knew of the limit, it was safe to assume there was consensus to remove it, and a [[hardfork]] removing the limit was scheduled and cleanly activated in 2013 May. From this point forward, the 1 MB limit became the effective limiting factor of the block size for the first time.

	The limit was not changed again before 2017 and was believed to require a very invasive hard fork to change. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all [[Full node#Economic_strength\|economically active]] full nodes.		The limit was not changed again before 2017 and was believed to require a very invasive hard fork to change. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all [[Full node#Economic_strength\|economically active]] full nodes.

Luke-jr: /* Segregated Witness */

2018-05-05T05:55:20Z

Segregated Witness

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:55, 5 May 2018
Line 63:		Line 63:
	===Segregated Witness===		===Segregated Witness===
	[[File:segwit.png\|thumb\|128px\|SegWit logo]]{{main\|Segregated Witness}}		[[File:segwit.png\|thumb\|128px\|SegWit logo]]{{main\|Segregated Witness}}
	~~Move signature data out of the 1 MB block and into a separate witness structure via a softfork~~, ~~effectively raising~~ the block ~~capacity~~ to 1.4 MB ~~of transactions~~.		The final solution deployed was Segwit, increasing the block size limit to 2-4 MB without a hardfork.

	== Entities positions ==		== Entities positions ==

Luke-jr: Drop out-of-context irrelevant stuff

2018-05-05T05:54:16Z

Drop out-of-context irrelevant stuff

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:54, 5 May 2018
Line 8:		Line 8:

	The limit was not changed again before 2017 and was believed to require a very invasive hard fork to change. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all [[Full node#Economic_strength\|economically active]] full nodes.		The limit was not changed again before 2017 and was believed to require a very invasive hard fork to change. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all [[Full node#Economic_strength\|economically active]] full nodes.

	According to a second-party (theymos,) Satoshi told people who discovered the new 1MB limit to "keep quiet" about it until the change was complete, in order to reduce controversy during the transition.<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3giend/citation_needed_satoshis_reason_for_blocksize/ctygzmi/ theymos explaining his experience with Satoshi keeping the 1MB change quiet]</ref> The only evidence which asserts that the blocksize limit was an anti-DoS measure was a post from user Cryddit (Ray Dillinger) in 2015 which asserted that he was involved in the discussion itself and that the limit was there at launch..<ref>[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.msg10388435#msg10388435 Cryddit in 2015 stating he went over the first cut with Satoshi, and that the 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.]</ref> As per the secret commits, though, the limit was not added until July 14, 2010, which was a full 1.5 years ''after'' its launch.

	== Arguments in favor of increasing the blocksize ==		== Arguments in favor of increasing the blocksize ==

Luke-jr: Fixes

2018-05-05T05:53:04Z

Fixes

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:53, 5 May 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{see also\|Scalability FAQ}}		{{see also\|Scalability FAQ}}
	In 2010, a block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by [[Satoshi Nakamoto]]. He added it hidden in two commits<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/</ref><ref>[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a30b56eb "fix openssl linkage problems"], Sneaky soft-forking UASF commit for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE No. 1.</ref><ref>[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a790fa46f40 "don't count or spend payments until they have 1 confirmation"], Sneaky soft-forking UASF commit for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE No. 2.</ref> in secret. ~~The original~~ limit was ~~equivalent to~~ a ~~soft~~-~~fork, since prior version of~~ the ~~software would accept the smaller blocks without issue—they were all forward-compatible with this change~~.		Originally, Bitcoin's block size was limited by the number of database locks required to process it (at most 10000).
			This limit was effectively around 500-750k in serialized bytes, and was forgotten until 2013 March.
			In 2010, an explicit block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by [[Satoshi Nakamoto]]. He added it hidden in two commits<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/</ref><ref>[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a30b56eb "fix openssl linkage problems"], Sneaky soft-forking UASF commit for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE No. 1.</ref><ref>[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a790fa46f40 "don't count or spend payments until they have 1 confirmation"], Sneaky soft-forking UASF commit for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE No. 2.</ref> in secret. This limit was effectively a no-op due to the aforementioned forgotten limit.

	The limit was not changed again before ~~Nakamoto disappeared~~ and ~~right now is part of bitcoin's consensus rules requiring~~ a very invasive hard fork to change. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all [[Full node#Economic_strength\|economically active]] full nodes.		In 2013 March, the original lock limit was discovered by accident (Bitcoin Core v0.8.0 failed to enforce it, leading to upgraded nodes splitting off the network).
			After resolving the crisis, it was determined that since nobody knew of the limit, it was safe to assume there was consensus to remove it, and a hardfork removing the limit was scheduled and cleanly activated in 2013 May. From this point forward, the 1 MB limit became the effective limiting factor of the block size for the first time.

			The limit was not changed again before 2017 and was believed to require a very invasive hard fork to change. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all [[Full node#Economic_strength\|economically active]] full nodes.

	According to a second-party (theymos,) Satoshi told people who discovered the new 1MB limit to "keep quiet" about it until the change was complete, in order to reduce controversy during the transition.<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3giend/citation_needed_satoshis_reason_for_blocksize/ctygzmi/ theymos explaining his experience with Satoshi keeping the 1MB change quiet]</ref> The only evidence which asserts that the blocksize limit was an anti-DoS measure was a post from user Cryddit (Ray Dillinger) in 2015 which asserted that he was involved in the discussion itself and that the limit was there at launch..<ref>[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.msg10388435#msg10388435 Cryddit in 2015 stating he went over the first cut with Satoshi, and that the 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.]</ref> As per the secret commits, though, the limit was not added until July 14, 2010, which was a full 1.5 years ''after'' its launch.		According to a second-party (theymos,) Satoshi told people who discovered the new 1MB limit to "keep quiet" about it until the change was complete, in order to reduce controversy during the transition.<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3giend/citation_needed_satoshis_reason_for_blocksize/ctygzmi/ theymos explaining his experience with Satoshi keeping the 1MB change quiet]</ref> The only evidence which asserts that the blocksize limit was an anti-DoS measure was a post from user Cryddit (Ray Dillinger) in 2015 which asserted that he was involved in the discussion itself and that the limit was there at launch..<ref>[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.msg10388435#msg10388435 Cryddit in 2015 stating he went over the first cut with Satoshi, and that the 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.]</ref> As per the secret commits, though, the limit was not added until July 14, 2010, which was a full 1.5 years ''after'' its launch.

Harding: Formatting fix: remove unused '[' and ']' from around external links

2018-03-19T12:34:07Z

Formatting fix: remove unused '[' and ']' from around external links

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:34, 19 March 2018
Line 4:		Line 4:
	The limit was not changed again before Nakamoto disappeared and right now is part of bitcoin's consensus rules requiring a very invasive hard fork to change. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all [[Full node#Economic_strength\|economically active]] full nodes.		The limit was not changed again before Nakamoto disappeared and right now is part of bitcoin's consensus rules requiring a very invasive hard fork to change. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all [[Full node#Economic_strength\|economically active]] full nodes.

	According to a second-party (theymos,) Satoshi told people who discovered the new 1MB limit to "keep quiet" about it until the change was complete, in order to reduce controversy during the transition.<ref>[[https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3giend/citation_needed_satoshis_reason_for_blocksize/ctygzmi/ theymos explaining his experience with Satoshi keeping the 1MB change quiet]]</ref> The only evidence which asserts that the blocksize limit was an anti-DoS measure was a post from user Cryddit (Ray Dillinger) in 2015 which asserted that he was involved in the discussion itself and that the limit was there at launch..<ref>[[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.msg10388435#msg10388435 Cryddit in 2015 stating he went over the first cut with Satoshi, and that the 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.]]</ref> As per the secret commits, though, the limit was not added until July 14, 2010, which was a full 1.5 years ''after'' its launch.		According to a second-party (theymos,) Satoshi told people who discovered the new 1MB limit to "keep quiet" about it until the change was complete, in order to reduce controversy during the transition.<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3giend/citation_needed_satoshis_reason_for_blocksize/ctygzmi/ theymos explaining his experience with Satoshi keeping the 1MB change quiet]</ref> The only evidence which asserts that the blocksize limit was an anti-DoS measure was a post from user Cryddit (Ray Dillinger) in 2015 which asserted that he was involved in the discussion itself and that the limit was there at launch..<ref>[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.msg10388435#msg10388435 Cryddit in 2015 stating he went over the first cut with Satoshi, and that the 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.]</ref> As per the secret commits, though, the limit was not added until July 14, 2010, which was a full 1.5 years ''after'' its launch.

	== Arguments in favor of increasing the blocksize ==		== Arguments in favor of increasing the blocksize ==
Line 43:		Line 43:

	==History==		==History==
	On October 3, 2010, [[Jeff Garzik]] published a patch that immediately increases the block size to 7MB.<ref>{{cite btct\|id=1347\|title=(PATCH) increase block size limit\|date=2010-10-03}}</ref> The patch had no users, but it was the earliest attempt at increasing the block size through a hardfork. Satoshi and theymos immediately said not to implement it, as it would make the user's node incompatible with the network.<ref name="dontuse">[[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15139#msg15139 "+1 theymos. Don't use this patch"]] Satoshi explains here that ''if'' a change is necessary, a hard fork ''could'' be implemented with a countdown.</ref> This is the oft-cited post which many people claim proves Satoshi intended for the blocksize to increase. English, however, does not work that way. Satoshi spoke conditionally, not intentionally.<ref name="dontuse" />		On October 3, 2010, [[Jeff Garzik]] published a patch that immediately increases the block size to 7MB.<ref>{{cite btct\|id=1347\|title=(PATCH) increase block size limit\|date=2010-10-03}}</ref> The patch had no users, but it was the earliest attempt at increasing the block size through a hardfork. Satoshi and theymos immediately said not to implement it, as it would make the user's node incompatible with the network.<ref name="dontuse">[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15139#msg15139 "+1 theymos. Don't use this patch"] Satoshi explains here that ''if'' a change is necessary, a hard fork ''could'' be implemented with a countdown.</ref> This is the oft-cited post which many people claim proves Satoshi intended for the blocksize to increase. English, however, does not work that way. Satoshi spoke conditionally, not intentionally.<ref name="dontuse" />
	===BIP 100===		===BIP 100===
	Change block size limit based on miner votes, but don't leave the range (1MB, 32MB) without a softfork or hardfork respectively.		Change block size limit based on miner votes, but don't leave the range (1MB, 32MB) without a softfork or hardfork respectively.

Midnightmagic: correcting stupid misinformation. wtf, Taras.

2018-03-13T21:26:55Z

correcting stupid misinformation. wtf, Taras.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:26, 13 March 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{see also\|Scalability FAQ}}		{{see also\|Scalability FAQ}}
	In 2010, a block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by [[Satoshi Nakamoto]]. He added it hidden in two commits<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/</ref> in secret, ~~when challenged publicly he said it is a safety measure to prevent miners from creating large spam~~ blocks. The limit was not changed again before Nakamoto disappeared and right now is part of bitcoin's consensus rules requiring a hard fork to change. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all [[Full node#Economic_strength\|economically active]] full nodes.		In 2010, a block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by [[Satoshi Nakamoto]]. He added it hidden in two commits<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/</ref><ref>[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a30b56eb "fix openssl linkage problems"], Sneaky soft-forking UASF commit for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE No. 1.</ref><ref>[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a790fa46f40 "don't count or spend payments until they have 1 confirmation"], Sneaky soft-forking UASF commit for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE No. 2.</ref> in secret. The original limit was equivalent to a soft-fork, since prior version of the software would accept the smaller blocks without issue—they were all forward-compatible with this change.

			The limit was not changed again before Nakamoto disappeared and right now is part of bitcoin's consensus rules requiring a very invasive hard fork to change. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all [[Full node#Economic_strength\|economically active]] full nodes.

			According to a second-party (theymos,) Satoshi told people who discovered the new 1MB limit to "keep quiet" about it until the change was complete, in order to reduce controversy during the transition.<ref>[[https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3giend/citation_needed_satoshis_reason_for_blocksize/ctygzmi/ theymos explaining his experience with Satoshi keeping the 1MB change quiet]]</ref> The only evidence which asserts that the blocksize limit was an anti-DoS measure was a post from user Cryddit (Ray Dillinger) in 2015 which asserted that he was involved in the discussion itself and that the limit was there at launch..<ref>[[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.msg10388435#msg10388435 Cryddit in 2015 stating he went over the first cut with Satoshi, and that the 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.]]</ref> As per the secret commits, though, the limit was not added until July 14, 2010, which was a full 1.5 years ''after'' its launch.

	== Arguments in favor of increasing the blocksize ==		== Arguments in favor of increasing the blocksize ==
Line 39:		Line 43:

	==History==		==History==
	On October 3, 2010, [[Jeff Garzik]] published a patch that immediately increases the block size to 7MB.<ref>{{cite btct\|id=1347\|title=(PATCH) increase block size limit\|date=2010-10-03}}</ref> The patch had no users, but it was the earliest attempt at increasing the block size through a hardfork.		On October 3, 2010, [[Jeff Garzik]] published a patch that immediately increases the block size to 7MB.<ref>{{cite btct\|id=1347\|title=(PATCH) increase block size limit\|date=2010-10-03}}</ref> The patch had no users, but it was the earliest attempt at increasing the block size through a hardfork. Satoshi and theymos immediately said not to implement it, as it would make the user's node incompatible with the network.<ref name="dontuse">[[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15139#msg15139 "+1 theymos. Don't use this patch"]] Satoshi explains here that ''if'' a change is necessary, a hard fork ''could'' be implemented with a countdown.</ref> This is the oft-cited post which many people claim proves Satoshi intended for the blocksize to increase. English, however, does not work that way. Satoshi spoke conditionally, not intentionally.<ref name="dontuse" />
	===BIP 100===		===BIP 100===
	Change block size limit based on miner votes, but don't leave the range (1MB, 32MB) without a softfork or hardfork respectively.		Change block size limit based on miner votes, but don't leave the range (1MB, 32MB) without a softfork or hardfork respectively.

Belcher: reworded the part about satoshi nakamoto's intentions which were unknown, added link to reddit thread

2017-12-15T20:13:38Z

reworded the part about satoshi nakamoto's intentions which were unknown, added link to reddit thread

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:13, 15 December 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{see also\|Scalability FAQ}}		{{see also\|Scalability FAQ}}
	In 2010, a block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by [[Satoshi Nakamoto]]. He added it as a safety measure to prevent miners from creating large spam blocks. ~~However, the~~ limit was not changed again before Nakamoto disappeared. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015~~. However, most proposals involved hard forking changes~~. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all [[Full node#Economic_strength\|economically active]] full nodes.		In 2010, a block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by [[Satoshi Nakamoto]]. He added it hidden in two commits<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/</ref> in secret, when challenged publicly he said it is a safety measure to prevent miners from creating large spam blocks. The limit was not changed again before Nakamoto disappeared and right now is part of bitcoin's consensus rules requiring a hard fork to change. As transaction volume increased with widespread Bitcoin adoption, increasing the limit became subject to heavy debate in 2015. To prevent Bitcoin from temporarily or permanently splitting into separate payment networks ("altcoins"), hard forks require adoption by nearly all [[Full node#Economic_strength\|economically active]] full nodes.

	== Arguments in favor of increasing the blocksize ==		== Arguments in favor of increasing the blocksize ==

Taras at 22:49, 4 December 2017

2017-12-04T22:49:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 4 December 2017
Line 42:		Line 42:
	===BIP 100===		===BIP 100===
	Change block size limit based on miner votes, but don't leave the range (1MB, 32MB) without a softfork or hardfork respectively.		Change block size limit based on miner votes, but don't leave the range (1MB, 32MB) without a softfork or hardfork respectively.
	===~~BIP 101~~===		===Bitcoin XT===
	{{~~seealso~~\|Bitcoin XT}}		[[File:xt.png\|thumb\|128px\|Bitcoin XT logo]]{{main\|Bitcoin XT}}
	~~Increase~~ to 8 MB after both January 11, 2016 has passed and 75% of miners are ~~supporting. Double~~ the limit every two years with the size increasing linearly within those two year intervals.		Bitcoin XT was an alternative client that became notorious when it adopted BIP 101, which would direct an increase to 8 MB after both January 11, 2016 has passed and 75% of miners are in support, followed by doubling of the limit every two years with the size increasing linearly within those two year intervals.

			XT failed to gain enough support to activate the hardfork, leading to Mike Hearn's resignation.
	===BIP 102===		===BIP 102===
	Increase to 2 MB on November 11, 2015.		Increase to 2 MB on November 11, 2015.
	===BIP 103===		===BIP 103===
	Increase by 17.7% annually until 2063.		Increase by 17.7% annually until 2063.
	===~~BIP 109~~===		===Bitcoin Classic===
	{{~~seealso~~\|Bitcoin Classic}}		{{main\|Bitcoin Classic}}
	~~Hard Fork~~ to ~~2MB~~ in 2016. Dynamic max_block_size in 2017.		Adopt BIP 109 and hardfork to 2 MB in 2016. Dynamic max_block_size in 2017.
	===~~BIP 141~~===		===Segregated Witness===
	{{~~seealso~~\|Segregated Witness}}		[[File:segwit.png\|thumb\|128px\|SegWit logo]]{{main\|Segregated Witness}}
	Move signature data out of the 1 MB block and into a separate witness structure via a softfork, effectively raising the block capacity to 1.4 MB of transactions.		Move signature data out of the 1 MB block and into a separate witness structure via a softfork, effectively raising the block capacity to 1.4 MB of transactions.