question

[colinistheman]

question was answered.

[1713604000]

1713604000

[1713604000]

1713604000

[1713604000]

1713604000

[1713604000]

1713604000

[Ingatqhvq]

We should reject BIP 100, it is weird that a core developer propose this BIP.
The miner should't be given too much power.
Of course the miner would like BIP 100, but we are not.

[eyeknock]

i can't understand why with all those intelligent core guys we cant find a good solution about this problem.

BIP100 or BIP101, bitcoin should never give more power to anybody, at least that is the conclusion reached by thinking from the point of view of Mr SN spirit, i really think we are forgetting that.

[Carlton Banks]

i can't understand why with all those intelligent core guys we cant find a good solution about this problem.

BIP100 or BIP101, bitcoin should never give more power to anybody, at least that is the conclusion reached by thinking from the point of view of Mr SN spirit, i really think we are forgetting that.

Can't understand why all these well-informed bitcointalkers don't know that someone has already come up with one.



Why not have a scheme that puts the software in charge of the blocksize? Instead of the industry, or the miners, anyone else? That is what has been proposed. keep up everybody

[cellard]

I like the adjustable blocksize solution by that less known developer but it seems he's getting ignored because unless you are a famous coder chances are you will go unnoticed. Can someone post the link?

[meono]

i can't understand why with all those intelligent core guys we cant find a good solution about this problem.

BIP100 or BIP101, bitcoin should never give more power to anybody, at least that is the conclusion reached by thinking from the point of view of Mr SN spirit, i really think we are forgetting that.

Can't understand why all these well-informed bitcointalkers don't know that someone has already come up with one.



Why not have a scheme that puts the software in charge of the blocksize? Instead of the industry, or the miners, anyone else? That is what has been proposed. keep up everybody

If you start with personal attacks, you already lose the argument.

Dynamic blocksize limit is nonsense.



If it uses wrong parameters and it cause more harms. Blocksize limit should either go up or remain the same, it should never go down.

[dothebeats]

Why not mix up those ideas and come up with a better solution? Politics or power wasn't the problem here in the first place, it was about the block size. Those problems about who controls, voting power etc. were just brought up because of who proposes what BIP. Each proposal has their own uniqueness and may help bitcoin in any way, so why not mix all of those and come up with a better solution?

[meono]

Why not mix up those ideas and come up with a better solution? Politics or power wasn't the problem here in the first place, it was about the block size. Those problems about who controls, voting power etc. were just brought up because of who proposes what BIP. Each proposal has their own uniqueness and may help bitcoin in any way, so why not mix all of those and come up with a better solution?

To be honest, if you look at the arguments against BitcoinXT. It was simply because the BIP was not implemented by the core devs.

If it was bitcoin0.12 we wouldnt have this debate.

That tells you how much we (this forum /community) care about merits of the BIP.

But anyway, BIP101 gives you just that, blocksize limit increase. You might disagree with Gavin's optimistic about the technology growth. Thats about it.

KISS = keep it simple stupid.

Over complex solution for a simple problem is a no no.

[Snorek]

It is funny how bitcoiners can't find one good solution to our problem, if this situation of will be appearing every time upgrade will be needed I don't know how bitcoin will survive.
First we had XT vs Core debate, much hate, some serious information - no clear consensus, now we have BNIP 100 vs BIP 101 case, power to the people or power to the miners.
I wonder how much time will pass until one solution will prevail.

[eyeknock]

Can't understand why all these well-informed bitcointalkers don't know that someone has already come up with one.

i'm sorry maybe it's my fault or just a language barrier ( from my side ), i know there are some "solutions" ( good for some, bad for others ) out there, but what i want to say is that they did not reach a consensus, that's all, i don't want to start a "drama"

If you start with personal attacks, you already lose the argument.

if this is about me and my phrase "intelligent core guys", im so sorry, was not my intention, i call them "intelligent core guys" because thats what they are, pretty good intelligent guys, dont try to search for hidden intentions please, they have all my respect

[turvarya]

It is funny how bitcoiners can't find one good solution to our problem, if this situation of will be appearing every time upgrade will be needed I don't know how bitcoin will survive.
First we had XT vs Core debate, much hate, some serious information - no clear consensus, now we have BNIP 100 vs BIP 101 case, power to the people or power to the miners.
I wonder how much time will pass until one solution will prevail.

The good thing is: We have a debate. My guess is, that this is all Gavin really wanted. (I doubt, he will oppose a good solution. I think, he even already showed support for another BIP).

I disagree, that BIP101 gives power to the people. The balance of power stays the same.

[meono]

It is funny how bitcoiners can't find one good solution to our problem, if this situation of will be appearing every time upgrade will be needed I don't know how bitcoin will survive.
First we had XT vs Core debate, much hate, some serious information - no clear consensus, now we have BNIP 100 vs BIP 101 case, power to the people or power to the miners.
I wonder how much time will pass until one solution will prevail.

The good thing is: We have a debate. My guess is, that this is all Gavin really wanted. (I doubt, he will oppose a good solution. I think, he even already showed support for another BIP).

I disagree, that BIP101 gives power to the people. The balance of power stays the same.

This BIP 101 gives power to  2 dictators is insane. Its so stupid that people even believe that crap.

The funny thing is the best solution should be the simplest one:  a predictable blocksize limit increase. Over complex system with votes will cause more flaws than what it fix.

Blocksize limit isnt like network difficulty. It does not need to be adjusted up or down as technology and infrastructure ( bandwidth , storage..) Always go forward.

[knight22]

It is funny how bitcoiners can't find one good solution to our problem, if this situation of will be appearing every time upgrade will be needed I don't know how bitcoin will survive.
First we had XT vs Core debate, much hate, some serious information - no clear consensus, now we have BNIP 100 vs BIP 101 case, power to the people or power to the miners.
I wonder how much time will pass until one solution will prevail.

The good thing is: We have a debate. My guess is, that this is all Gavin really wanted. (I doubt, he will oppose a good solution. I think, he even already showed support for another BIP).

I disagree, that BIP101 gives power to the people. The balance of power stays the same.

This BIP 101 gives power to  2 dictators is insane. Its so stupid that people even believe that crap.

Mike and Gavin just showed that no devs can impede on bitcoin's development. If they forked it that easily anybody can do it.

Why don't you read this blog post? https://medium.com/@octskyward/an-xt-faq-38e78aa32ff0

[adamstgBit]

a dev should make a BIP that makes block limit increase the same way difficulty increases

[qwk]

It is funny how bitcoiners can't find one good solution to our problem

Funny? Predictable, rather.
The reason why no good solution is found is simply because there will never be a one-size-fits-all solution.
Any approach will have its advantages and disadvantages, its pros and cons, its upsides and downsides.
The one final solution that will make just about everyone happy is a fairy tale.

The bottom line here is, there is more than one good solution.

[maokoto]

But, really is that much power given to miners?

Thinking about it, miners are the most interested in Bitcoin success. If Bitcoin has success, they are earning more value with every Bitcoin mined, so they will likely make decissions that make Bitcoin prosper.

[knight22]

Merchants tend to favor BIP101 and miners tend to favor BIP100.

BIP100 give too much power for miners while BIP101 hide many things from us
But, BIP101 would fail if miners won't support BIP101

Maybe we should think about 8MB proposal from miners

I think you confuse BIP101 and XT. Nonetheless both are open source so can’t really hide anything.

[adamstgBit]

Merchants tend to favor BIP101 and miners tend to favor BIP100.

BIP100 give too much power for miners while BIP101 hide many things from us
But, BIP101 would fail if miners won't support BIP101

Maybe we should think about 8MB proposal from miners

I think you confuse BIP101 and XT. Nonetheless both are open source so can’t really hide anything.

that didnt stop XT from trying. 

[LiteCoinGuy]

maybe 2MB now - 4 MB in 2 years and 8MB in 4 years is not that bad...

[onemorexmr]

Merchants tend to favor BIP101 and miners tend to favor BIP100.

BIP100 give too much power for miners while BIP101 hide many things from us
But, BIP101 would fail if miners won't support BIP101

Maybe we should think about 8MB proposal from miners

I think you confuse BIP101 and XT. Nonetheless both are open source so can’t really hide anything.

that didnt stop XT from trying. 

they must really suck at hiding if they use github and comment their commits and even make websites explaining what they do?

ahh now i understand: YOU are the one hiding your agenda and trying to spread FUD